PERMISSION BEFORE RELEVANT DATE: APPLICATIONS BEFORE FIRST APPOINTED DAY (Hansard, 11 November 1975)

§ Mr. Oakes
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 101 and 102.

§ Mr. Oakes
These amendments relate to binding contracts which were discussed in Committee, on Report, and in another place.
When the Bill was originally introduced in this House we had provided only for owners in possession, not for those with binding contracts. An amendment correcting this point was made in Committee. However, in so doing, we retained the qualification in both cases of being entitled to possession of the land". The Opposition argued strongly that a person owning a material interest in the land should not also have to have possession before he could serve a notice of election. It was argued that a landlord whose tenant's lease had nearly expired and who had obtained planning permission with a view to carrying out development on expiry of the lease might well wish to take advantage of the clause to ascertain the intentions of the authorities concerned towards his land. As he may not be "entitled to possession" of the land, the clause as drafted might have precluded him from doing this.
The Government accepted the force of the Opposition's argument and accordingly put forward a further amendment on Report removing the condition as to entitlement to possession in the case of a person with a material interest. That was accepted by the Opposition. The effect, however, was to leave it open to a freeholder whose tenant had a material interest—for example, a year lease—to seek to frustrate his tenant's development by serving a notice of election.
This amendment would prevent that happening, whilst at the same time permitting a freeholder, whose tenant's lease has not long to run and who himself proposes to develop the land when that lease has expired, to serve a notice of election and ascertain the authorities' intentions as to the land. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".]
I am delighted that this amendment has so much vocal support from my hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I do not think that the Under-Secretary believed a word of what he said. Indeed, I did not understand what he said. The hon. Gentleman got it right on Report, but had it altered in the House of Lords. The result is that a person with a material interest, 1420 who has only a short time with someone else in possession, will be unable to exercise the election under the clause.
We urged the right amendment in Committee. I should have thought that the right amendment was achieved on Report. These second thoughts put us back almost to square one.
The hon. Gentleman has not satisfactorily explained the position to the House. I do not see why I should explain it for him. I object to the amendment.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
This is the first time that I have intervened in the debate, and I intend to be brief. I intervene almost automatically in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who, in a previous incarnation, I invariably followed on planning Bills.
I think that the Under-Secretary, whose tribulations I understand, having at times lost my place when dealing with a lot of amendments from the Government Front Bench, would be wise to accept my right hon. Friend's implied offer to explain what the Minister has singularly failed to explain. Indeed, we are fortunate to have my right hon. Friend here, because he understands not only what the Government are trying to do but cannot explain but why it is thoroughly wrong that they should be trying to do it. I suggest to the Minister that he listens to my right hon. Friend explain what the Minister could not.
In the interests of comity, the Minister might have moved a vote of thanks to the learned Clerk at the Table, who helped him through some rough water. He was glad to get out of it into the smooth reaches of his brief, which he read to the best of his ability. Like my right hon. Friend, the learned Clerk has materially assisted the House over the last 10 minutes.

§ Mr. Oakes
Of course I welcome that intervention so late in the debate by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who was my predecessor at this Box. I only wish that his intervention had not been so silly.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said earlier that we had rejected every amendment from another place. [Interruption.] That is what he said in a speech on the last amendment. 1421 He may be suffering from shock because we have accepted the amendment, but I would remind him that we accepted a series before that.
For once—it is very rare—the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The amendment puts the matter right and does not revert to the position before Report. A person having a material interest can serve a notice of election if the person in actual possession does not have a material interest. Now, hopefully, after many attempts, I think that we have got it right with regard to genuine contracts.

§ Mr. Peyton
The Minister deserves some congratulations on at last getting it right, but if he wants to make progress with his Bill, it was hardly sensible to say that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was silly. [Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway resort to that kind of tactic when they hear something they do not like. If they continue to conduct themselves in that way they will tempt us to tax our memories and recall their conduct in Opposition and do our best to emulate their example—although I do not doubt that we shall not be able to get so low.
They must appreciate that we do not at all like this Bill. Considering the vehemence of our opposition, hon. Members would do well to refrain if they do not want to prolong proceedings indefinitely.

§ Mr. Oakes
My hon. Friends and I are not prolonging the proceedings. Some hon. Members opposite are making good and intelligent contributions, for which we are grateful, but others clearly intend to prolong our proceedings. Those of us who served on the Committee, which sat from 10.30 in the morning to one o'clock the following afternoon, twice a week, have experience of this kind of procedure.
I regret that I must say the same thing to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) as I said to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths): it is a matter of regret that he, too, was at my Department before he was on the Benches opposite.

§ Mr. Oakes
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
With this, we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 104 and 113.

§ Mr. Oakes
The Opposition put down amendments in Committee which would have provided for the loss of compulsory purchase powers under all other legislation. These were unacceptable because there could be cases in which an unforeseen requirement for land, for example for a road, a school, or local authority housing, could arise within five years and where it would be reasonable for an authority to use compulsory powers for this purpose. It is, however, reasonable that under the Schedule 7 procedure an authority should effectively be required to make a clear decision on whether to buy the land for private development and it is therefore reasonable that they should lose their Planning Act powers as these are the other powers under which they might buy land for private development.

§ Mr. Rossi
We thank the hon. Gentleman for going part of the way to meeting the case we put in Committee. We felt that where a local authority abandons its powers of compulsory purchase under this Bill because it fails to serve the appropriate notice at the right time in accordance with the procedure laid down, it should not then be allowed to acquire land through the back door of other legislation.
The Government have gone part of the way towards meeting us, but we regret that there are still some small holes through which local authorities will be able to go.