§ Mr. Guy BarnettI beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'possible' and insert 'reasonably practicable'.
I shall explain the reasons for this amendment. A working party comprising 620 officials of the Department, local authority associations, and new town corporations has been examining in detail the contents of subsection (6) with a view to producing a model transfer scheme. We would hope to commend this model to new town corporations and district councils, together with other detailed administrative guidance, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The present requirement to indicate on, or by reference to, a map, all rights
in, under or over land which it is possible to indicatecould impose an unreasonable administrative and cartographic burden on the parties to a transfer scheme. This could unnecessarily complicate the transfer process. The amendment is designed to make the situation more flexible.I remind the House that another part of the clause makes it absolutely clear that a transfer scheme will include a clear description of the assets to be transferred, so that they can be readily identified. What we are doing in this amendment is making it possible to exclude matters that would otherwise make the situation virtually incomprehensible.
§ Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch)In contrast to the previous amendment, this one actually represents a further retreat from the original position of having a rather more specific map. Under the amendment we are replacing the word "possible" with "as far as is reasonably practicable". I take it from the Under-Secretary's remarks that he would be kind enough to confirm that the dwellings will be shown quite clearly on the map, so that people may have an immediate visual appreciation of whether or not they are involved. I hope that the map will show open spaces, established units, and other points that we discussed at length in Committee. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the map will show what it can show reasonably and that this will not just be an excuse for not having a map at all.
Individual owners must be able to identify the extent to which their properties are affected, whereas we would not expect the map to show such rights and obligations as second mortgages or ground rents owing on the owner-occupied houses. I take it, however, that the map will be as comprehensive as practicable, and that the amendment will not 621 be used as an excuse for not having a map.
§ 7.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Guy BarnettI can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that all such assets as he has described would be shown on the map, because it would be reasonably practicable to do so. Only certain rights that would complicate the map and make it more difficult to understand would be affected.
§ Amendment agreed to.