HC Deb 22 December 1927 vol 212 cc601-3

Lords reason for disagreeing to the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed, considered.

That they do disagree with the Amendment made by the Commons to one of the Lords Amendments, page 8, line 1, for the following reason: Because the effect would be to prevent a tenant whose tenancy terminated on notice, from applying for the grant of a new lease until after the termination of the tenancy.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson)

I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to the Lords Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed this small point with the hon. and learned Member opposite, and I think we are agreed that there was a slight error in judgment on this question. Had we allowed this Amendment to stand the result would have been to prevent a tenant whose tenancy is terminated by notice, from applying for the grant of a new lease till after the termination of his tenancy, and that was not our intention.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Might we have the exact effect of this matter from the Government? I did not understand who was the hon. and learned Member opposite to whom reference was made.

Sir V. HENDERSON

The Solicitor-General in the Labour Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

He is a right hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then he ought to be. Now that I have the information from the Under-Secretary I am much obliged, and it reassures me. But what will be the exact effect on the tenants? I understand that it is a question now between February and March. It will be a difference of only about one month.

Sir V. HENDERSON

I think the hon. and gallant Member is discussing another Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I put this question, what the exact effect will be on the tenants. The Government have already made a mistake, and admit it, and I am prepared to let them off; but can we be informed where the tenant stands? I am much more concerned about him than the Government are.

Sir V. HENDERSON

I have already explained that to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

With great respect, I say it has not been explained at all. What will be the exact effect of this on tenants from now onwards, from the passing of this Bill?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)

I apologise for not having been present earlier; I was at a Cabinet meeting. This was not a mistake by the Government. It was a mistake made by the hon. and gallant Member's Front Bench, and I was so trustful that I accepted a statement made by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser)—if there was a mistake at all. Perhaps I am of too trustful a character, and I let this go through. The hon. and learned Member found out immediately afterwards what had happened, and was kind enough to say that he had made a mistake. If this Amendment had been left in the Bill by the Lords no tenant could have put in an application for a new lease until after his tenancy had terminated, and there would have been no continuity. I am satisfied that the position of the tenant is secure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

That is exactly the Amendment I was discussing. I had had an explanation of it from one of the officials of another place and I knew exactly what I was talking about. I only wish the Home Secretary would trust our Front Bench when our Front Bench is right.

Question put, and agreed to.

Forward to