CONTINUED EXERCISE OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS AFTER DEALING (Hansard, 30 June 1981)

§ Mr. Rifkind
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 6, at end insert 'but does not include a conveyance under section 80 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845; '. This is a drafting amendment to tighten the definition of a dealing so as to exclude conveyances made as the result of a compulsory purchase order.

§ Mr. Dewar
I do not know whether the Minister wants to plunge into the niceties of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 but, as he knows, the transactions to which he refers are known as schedule A transactions in the local government conveyancing world. There are several other ways—under a compulsory purchase order and so on—in which a title can be taken by a local authority. I do not pretend to be skilled in these arcane mysteries, but this is a little more than a drafting amendment. It appears to be saying that an acquisition under section 80 of the 1845 Act is not a dealing under clause 6. I am not clear why it should not be a dealing and why local authorities should be given this special protection whereby they are not affected by the terms of the Bill.
Presumably, if it is not a dealing, an occupancy right would not stand against an acquisition under section 80. If that special protection is to be given to an acquisition by a local authority under section 80 of the 1845 Act, should it not be extended to other forms of local authority acquisition? I am in a bit of a haze here. The Minister will be better briefed than I am, and I look forward to a little expansion.

§ Mr. Rifkind
I am not better briefed than is the hon. Gentleman on the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, but I can deal with the question he raises. The whole point of consent to dealings is when the spouse who owns the house voluntarily tries to dispose of the house in such a way as to defeat the occupancy rights of the other spouse.
The amendment deals with the case of a compulsory purchase order, where it goes without saying that the consent of the seller of the house has not been obtained. Therefore, it is a dealing which is against the wishes of the owner of the house. It would be nonsensical to have an overriding occupancy right when the house was not being disposed of because the owner wished to sell and the disposal was against his wishes.
In these circumstances, as elsewhere in the clause, where the sale takes place against the wishes of the owners of the house through compulsory purchase machinery, it would clearly be inappropriate for the consent of the other party to be necessary. Otherwise, compulsory purchase orders would apply not when the owner gave his consent 785 but only when his wife gave consent. That would be a nonsensical outcome which I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not seek.

§ Mr. Dewar
I see that. If the Minister is prepared to give a blanket undertaking that all forms of compulsory acquisition and all titles taken on that compulsory basis under any enactment are covered by the drafting amendment—which seems to me a little strange—who am Ito stand against the weight of advice of his civil servants? Nevertheless, I should be interested to see how we proceed in the future.

§ Mr. Rifkind
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 9, line 30, after 'dealing', insert 'occurred or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 11.

§ Mr. Rifkind
These are also minor drafting amendments. They are intended to make it clear that the grant of a heritable security completed before the marriage or before the commencement of the Act is not a dealing for the purpose of clause 6.