DETERMINATION OF DATE OF COMPLETION (Hansard, 14 October 1975)

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 226, in page 33, line 33, at end insert: '(9) In this section, unless the context other wise requires, references to an office building include references to part of such a building.' This amendment is identical to the Government amendment moved in Committee but the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised a point or two on it and we withdrew it because of uncertainty about its effect. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I go into a little detail so that I may reassure hon. Members.
Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 30 provide that the Secretary of State may acquire an office building—being a building which consists of or comprises office accommodation occupying more than 5,000 sq.m. of floor space—if he is satisfied that at least 75 per cent. of the office accommodation has remained unoccupied for the whole of the period mentioned in subsection (3).
Subsection (3)(a), as amended, and new subsection (5A) provide that this period begins with the date on which, first, where the office building consists only of office accommodation the erection of the building was completed or, secondly, where the office building comprises both office accommodation and other accommodation—this was the point that arose—the erection of the part consisting of office accommodation was completed.
The combined effect of these provisions is to enable the Secretary of State to acquire an office building where the erection of the part of it which consists of office accommodation has been completed and remained 75 per cent. unoccupied for at least two years, but the erection of the part consisting of other accommodation has not been completed. If it were otherwise a developer could escape Part IV simply by leaving the "non-office" part of the building half built. But, as explained, the relevant date to be determined may be the date on which the erection of the part of the building consisting of office accommodation was completed. It is therefore necessary to state that unless the context otherwise requires references in Clause 35 to an office building include references to part of an office building.
1235 When Clause 35, as proposed to be amended, is read with subsections (3)(a) and (5A) of Clause 30 there can be no doubt that the completion date being determined is the date of completion of the erection of the office accommodation—which will also be the date of completion of the building where it consists only of office accommodation, or the date of completion of the office part of the building in the other case.
I have read this because it is right to have it clearly on the record so that those outside the House may be in a position to fully understand this.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which he read with great clarity and skill, because I followed him in the notes that he helpfully supplied to us. I do not know whether he has followed the advice given in those notes because when Clause 35, as proposed to be amended, is read with Clause 30(3)(a) and (5)(a), it says in the notes, there can be no doubt about it. I am not a lawyer but I confess that I was left with a nagging doubt as to why the wording was so.
We have often heard the right hon. Gentleman talk about the amount of consultation he has undertaken. Will he tell us whether, on this point, he has consulted the British Property Federation and, if he has not, whether he will undertake to do so to ensure that there is no doubt on either side about this matter?

§ Mr. John Silkin
I am with the hon. Gentleman on the first point he made, I confess that it was confusing. That was why I wanted to reconsider the matter. On the question whether I consulted the BPF, I point out that it has not raised this matter with me.