Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 56:"Page 23, line 21, leave out subsection (6)." The noble Baroness said: My goodness, I am too keen, my Lords. I apologise; I was working from a previous groupings list and that is my fault. In moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57, which is grouped with it. As I said, this is a probing amendment designed to discover whether the Government intend that this retrospective consent will apply only to works that have been commenced or completed by now. As I read it, the wording in the Bill does not make that clear and could be construed as meaning that anyone may, at any time in the future, begin restricted works and then apply for consent. I am sure that that is not what is intended but I am seeking clarification. A cut-off date of 28 June 2005 would mean that anything which had not been commenced by then would have to go down the consent route. It would also mean that there would be no sudden rush of activity to try to avoid having to apply. I am simply seeking clarification. Amendment No. 57 would insert an additional provision intended to prevent application to the court by members of the public in respect of works carried out before the Bill was laid. It seems to us particularly unfair for retrospective effect to be granted at the behest of anyone who is offended. However, the amendment would widen the power of particular authorities to bring proceedings by including all ““relevant authorities”” and not just the local authorities described in Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. I beg to move.