In relation to the amendment by the Minister, which is rightly the substitution of a new sub-section, I accept entirely that it is a tighter and better subsection as amended by the Minister, and I accept it in principle. I would like to deal with a few points in relation to it.
Under amendment No. 7 I want to add the words "or housing authority" after the word "person". It may be that this situation is covered under the Interpretation Act. I do not know whether the word "person" would cover a housing authority under that Act. If it does not, I suggest that the power under this subsection should be extended to the housing authority. We have two situations that would have to be faced by the housing authority. The first is that they are being given power under this Bill—in fact they will be obliged in future—when making a transfer order to convey a free-hold title as opposed to a leasehold title, and a possibility might be that they would not have the freehold title. I want to be sure that the housing authority would be in the same situation as a private individual.
The second and more important matter is the sale of serviced sites by housing authorities. Here again, I want to ensure that the housing authority would have the same power as a private individual. The Minister is aware that it is common practice nowadays for a housing authority or local authority to acquire land, lay on services and sell those serviced sites at reasonable cost. This is a very worthy type of development, but there might be complications in relation to the filling of a freehold title by that local authority or housing authority because under the 1967 Act the right to acquire the fee simple does not arise until the property is built on. This may be a groundless fear on my part because the housing authority would probably have certain compulsory powers under other sections, but I raise this matter so that the Minister can have a look into it to ensure that the local authority would first of all be able to give free-hold title on sale to tenants; and secondly, and more importantly, would be able to give freehold title in the sale of serviced sites. That point relates to amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
The only other point on subsection (5) which concerns me is the right given during one year to acquire under the 1967 Act. I am not concerned so much with the right, with which I totally agree, as with defining exactly when that right would expire in effect. If during the term of one year after the passing of the Act the leasehold owner serves a notice of intention to acquire the fee simple as opposed to going through the whole procedure of acquiring fee simple, will he come within the terms of this subsection? It is to clarify that point that I put down this amendment because, as I mentioned when discussing an earlier subsection, the procedure for acquisition under the 1967 Act is cumbersome and slow. If this subsection were interpreted as meaning that all that procedure had to be gone through and the conveyance completed within that year, then this subsection would be worthless. Apart from anything else, these procedures can be slowed up and delayed in many cases. In many cases there are searches for people, notices have to be served, some cases have to go to arbitration, and so on. I would like to be sure that the right given would be fully satisfied if the person took the first step only during the year, that is served the notice of intention to acquire. If that is the case possibly some slight change should be made to cover that point.
Going back to definitions, what would be the situation if the person in question held the property under a fee farm grant? Would this qualify as being a lease of not less than 99 years? It should but I am wondering whether it should be made clearer.
Another question that occurs to me is this. What would happen in the future at the expiry of this year? Suppose somebody has development plans in respect of which he has a leasehold title and he has not got planning permission at this stage. He may have applied for it or he may not apply for it until some time in the future. If he gets his planning permission, would the Minister give some consideration as to how he could be helped? Under the 1967 Act if in the future he got planning permission he would not have the entitlement to acquire until the houses were built. On the other hand, he could not give leases to prospective purchasers because such leases would be void. In addition he could not give the freehold because he would not have it. It is a vicious circle.
This is an aspect that should be considered. As I see it, the danger is that a certain amount of land that might be available for future development could, in a sense, be sterilised, that it could not be sold. Perhaps the Minister would bear those points in mind before the matter is considered on Report Stage.