The matter to which I wish to refer crops up in a number of sections and, from one point of view, it does not crop up in this section. However, I trust you will give me your permission to deal with it now, Sir, because the word "permission" is involved. Indeed it occurs 19 times throughout the Bill. On four occasions it is not qualified by either the definite or the indefinite article, on four occasions it is qualified by the definite article and on 11 occasions by the indefinite article.
In the first line of section 3 there is reference to "a permission". This struck me as being a use of the word which I had not noticed before — using the word "permission" in this way, qualified by the "a" as if it were a permanent thing. I had the curiosity to look up dictionaries. The Greater Oxford Dictionary makes a habit of quoting examples of use of words, going away back to medieval times. Oddly enough, under the word “permission”. none of the examples they quote includes this type of use; that is, “a permission” does not occur in any of the examples.
I am not suggesting that never in English literature or in Acts of Parliament does this not occur but, oddly enough, the Greater Oxford Dictionary does not refer to any of these, if it does occur. My first thought was that if it would have been preferable in other sections where “a permission” is used to use “a permit” because permission is the act of permitting whereas a permit is a written order giving permission. I realise that, because in section 4 (5), permission may, so to speak, be granted by default. In other words, if an applicant seeks permission and hears nothing during a period of five weeks he may then assume the permission to have been granted.
If the word "permit" were used where "a permission" is used I can see there would have been a difficulty because somebody who did not get a written permit could under the Act claim to have a permission, but he would have nothing to show for it. While I am quibbling about the unusual use of "a permission", I am inclined to agree its use is a very sensible thing because it avoids difficulty over the use of "permit" which is a written instrument whereas "permission" is something which may be got by default. I am wondering how much was intentional and how much purely accidental in this usage. I would have thought it would have been a good idea where "permission" appears without the article to have used "a permission" at all times. In section 2 it looks all right—it does not affect anything else—but in section 3 the use is "a permission" whereas section 4 (1) states:
(1) Where an application is made to a housing authority in accordance with section 3 for permission for the demolition in whole or in part of any habitable house or the use of any such house otherwise than for human habitation, the authority may grant, subject to or without conditions, or refuse the permission.
It is not "for a permission" as in section 3. Even if it is a departure from normal practice, it would have been clearer if "a permission" were used throughout. This would not rule out "the permission" because it is quite clear there is nothing unusual in such use, but because "a permission" is used extensively it would have been better if it were used in section 2.
