HC Deb 21 December 1927 vol 212 cc497-500

C. This Part of this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, being a contract made at any time after the thirtieth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:

Provided that if on the hearing of a claim or application under this Part of this Act it appears to the tribunal that such contract as aforesaid, so far as it deprives any person of any right under this Part of this Act, was made for adequate consideration, the tribunal shall in determining the matter give effect thereto.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Amendment divided.

So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out Clause 8, agreed to.

So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to insert new Clause C, considered.

Mr. DALTON

I consulted you, Mr. Speaker, as to the propriety and the method of moving an Amendment to this proposed new Clause, and I think I am in order in raising the matter at this stage in order to give notice that I shall move an Amendment to substitute for the words "thirtieth day of March," the words "first day of January."

Mr. SPEAKER

The Government have handed in an Amendment to this Clause, which will arise later, but I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) is in order in bringing forward his Amendment first.

Mr. DALTON

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the words "thirtieth day of March" and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of January."

In regard to this Clause it is evident that in another place a serious attempt was made to kill the Bill, because if this Clause had been retained in its original form, the Bill would not have been worth the paper on which it is printed. Fortunately, second thoughts prevailed and a place was found for the tenants. We now have a compromise, which is not acceptable to us, although it is very much better than the situation which would have prevailed had those in another place not had second thoughts. The Amendment will put back the limiting date, as between contracts which should be void and those which should not, from 30th March to 1st January, and I move it because notice was given of this Measure by the Government in the King's Speech, and it is very likely that some contracts may have been entered into between the giving of that notice and 30th March.

Mr. TINKER

I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The date which is in the Lords Amendment, with which, subject to an Amendment, I propose to ask the House to agree, is the date of the coming into force of the Bill, and the reason which the hon. Member has given for his Amendment is, therefore, not one which appeals to the Government.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN

I support the Amendment because, personally, I cannot help feeling that it would have been far better to have had it as it is in Clause 8, which refers to any contract "made whether before or after the commencement of this Act." If proper consideration has been given, I cannot see why new legislation should make a contract void.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I hope the Government will give a free vote on this question. They seem to have been favourable to doing that, and I think they could do it here with justice all round. Ever since the Prime Minister's pronouncement at Scarborough in 1926 that it was the Government's intention to introduce such a Bill as this, attempts have been made in draft leases to put in a contracting-out Clause, and since it was announced in the King's Speech that this Bill was going to be part of the Government's programme for this Session, I have seen draft leases submitted to prospective tenants containing a Clause that they would agree to a contracting-out of any legislation such as this. Bearing that in mind, I submit that there is something in the contention that the date should be put back, at any rate, to 1st January. It is true to say that in the case of draft leases submitted there were pencil notes written by the solicitors for the would-be tenant stating that no agreement could be entered into to contract out of any Act of Parliament, but here we are going to have it placed distinctly in the Bill that there will be permission to contract out. I am not a lawyer, but I submit that, so far as I know, there is no Act of Parliament that allows contracting out in this way. At any rate, do not let us do an injustice by saying that those who have been compelled, because they wanted certain premises, to agree to sign a contracting-out Clause, should be held to that obligation.

Mr. RYE

The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has told the House that he has known cases where, at an early date in this year, provision has been made to contract out of a contemplated Act of parliament.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I said I had seen draft leases submitted to would-be tenants in which a Clause actually appeared to the effect that they agreed to contracting out. One lease in particular was from the Sun Insurance Company, which is one of the largest property owners in the country.

Mr. RYE

That is exactly what I said. In my experience I have not seen one of those leases containing any such provision. I have not seen a draft lease or an engrossment of a lease or a, completed lease with such a provision, and I do not think there are many of those cases. I do not think there are many of these Machiavellian solicitors or landlords who make provision in advance for suggested Acts of Parliament. It is possible that there may have been some ingenious person who, on one occa- sion, did make a provision such as has been mentioned, but I should say it was an isolated case. I suggest that 30th March is a reasonable date. This Bill was brought in on that date, and it is reasonable that since that date provision should have been made, and I cannot see why, if a contract was entered into before that date, it should be interfered with.

I hope the Government will not leave this Amendment to a free vote of the House, though I am not very confident as to that, because it seems to me that once again hypnotic influence has been brought to bear on the Government, and free votes are being allowed. Probably the Solicitor-General, if pressed, will agree, on behalf of the Government, that this Amendment should go to a free vote, and I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite, who have been successful in getting their own way, will once more be successful. I do not lay much stress on this point, but I do hope that on this occasion the Government will stiffen their backbone and not give way.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I do not think there can be many contracts that would have been made between 1st January and 30th March, but if the hon. Member opposite and his party think it is reasonable, I am prepared to offer the date of the King's Speech, which is 8th February, when the announcement was made that the Bill will be introduced.

Mr. DALTON

I will accept that offer and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made to Lords Amendment:

In line 3, leave out the words "thirtieth day of March," and insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of February."

In line 7, leave out the words "such contract," and insert instead thereof the words "a contract made after such date."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 15, line 21, agreed to.