HL Deb 14 November 1989 vol 512 cc1230-1

6 The Commons agreed to the above amendment and proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

Page 99, line 8, at end insert— — '( ) In a case where the application is a landlord's common parts application, each of the dwellings in the building concerned shall be taken into account under paragraph (b) or paragraph (bb) of subsection (2) above so as to determine an aggregate rent for the purposes of that subsection.'.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to Lords Amendment No. 5. I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 8 to Lords Amendment No. 7 and consequential Amendment No. 9.

The purpose of these three amendments is to clarify the operation of the common parts grant. The first is a consequential amendment to Clause 106 which sets out the matters to which a local authority should have regard in assessing the amount of a grant in the case of a landlord's application for common parts grant. It inserts a new subsection which parallels part of an amendment moved at Committee stage in this House dealing with HMO grants and provides for the rental income of each dwelling in a building to be taken into account. Without this amendment there is doubt as to whether the aggregate rental income could be assessed.

The second is a minor amendment to another amendment moved in Committee. It clarifies the persons from whom grant can be recovered in the event of the sale of a building in respect of which a landlord has received a common parts grant.

The third is a consequential amendment to Clause 117 which provides a similar clarification in relation to the voluntary repayment of grant.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to Lords Amendment No. 5. —(Lord Hesketh.)

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, perhaps I may make a point on Amendment No. 9 to which the noble Lord has just spoken. There is a misprint in the third line of the wording. I must ask whether it is within the competence of the draftsman to put this right. Obviously the draftsman cannot make any alteration which alters the sense of a parliamentary provision. However, equally he has full entitlement to do what he wishes about paragraphing and punctuation so long as it does not alter the sense of the wording. But in this case the intended insertion of the words "successor in title" is quite meaningless. I hope therefore that the draftsman can make the correction on his own initiative.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. I believe that I am right when I say that the draftsman can make the correction.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Minister is too modest in his own defence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was reading a version that I have and which was published last Thursday. If the Minister looks at his white copy which was published today he will see that the error has already been corrected.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House and in particular myself are extremely grateful for the accurate observation made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

On Question, Motion agreed to.