PERMISSION BEFORE COMMENCEMENT DATE: APPLICATIONS BEFORE FIRST APPOINTED DAY (Hansard, 14 October 1975)

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 131, in page 19, line 29, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With that amendment, we shall take the following Government Amendments: Nos. 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153.
We may also take Amendment No. 396, in page 20, line 22, at end insert: '(7) In this section and in Schedule 6 "the election" means an election to apply to the relevant land the provisions of this section, and "the relevant land" means the land referred to in subsection (2) of this section.'.

§ Mr. Silkin
These amendments result from long discussions which we had in Committee. They relate to a point the Opposition made and which we wanted to consider, which was that where, as is understandable, a number of authorities were interested in the possible development of land, the notice required of the owner of the land should be such that the notice served on one authority would be sufficient instead of his having to notify all the authorities. It is quite arguable that he would know by consulting the LAMS in which the authority was likely to be interested, but we agree that the Opposition has made a fair point here. These amendments are designed to create that situation.

§ Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)
I thank the Minister for his concession on this point. In Committee, the Opposition were concerned about the possibility of an individual landowner being caught out by this technicality. We hope that these amendments will help the small landowner to wend his way through this maze of legislation.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 133, in page 19, line 39, leave out from 'permission' to 'is' in line 41 and insert: 'or (b) has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such an interest and'. The Opposition put forward some strong arguments in Committee to the effect that a person owning a material interest in the land should not also have to take possession before he could serve a notice of election under Clause 21(2). The argument was that a landlord whose tenant's lease had nearly expired and who had obtained planning permission with a view to carrying out development at the end of the lease might well wish to take advantage of the clause to ascertain the intention of the authority concerned towards his land. As he may not be "entitled to possession", the clause as drafted might have precluded him from doing this. The Government accept the force of this argument and have put forward this amendment to meet that point.
1141 In the case of a person under a binding contract to purchase, I do not think that the situation in which the Opposition have expressed considerable interest arises. Where a person has no material interest in the land it is reasonable that he should have to show that he is entitled to possession to be able to serve a notice under the clause. Unless he is so entitled it would not seem necessary to give him the protection which the clause is intended to provide.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 139, in page 20, line 15 leave out "paragraph 1 of Schedule 6" and insert "that paragraph".

§ Mr. Speaker
With that amendment, we may take the Government Amendment No. 169.

§ Mr. Silkin
These amendments are purely drafting. They tidy up the drafting of the Bill in Clause 21(4) and Clause 22(2) where references are made to authorities abandoning their power to purchase the land in the sense given by Schedule 6(1).