HC Deb 24 April 1939 vol 346 cc881-5

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Leonard

I beg to move, to leave out lines 35 to 39.

The words which I propose to leave out are the proviso. that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this Section in relation to any designated premises if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the premises were designated premises. I hesitate to suggest that any person could prove ignorance of such a matter in justification of breaking the law. It is hardly likely that any person whose premises were designated would be unaware of the fact. There is, however, the point that the premises designated might change hands and that, later, some other person might plead ignorance of the premises being, so to speak, entailed. 1 am advised that in Scotland such premises as are designated feature in the register of the district, and because of that fact no person could gain possession of such premises without a knowledge of the fact.

8.22 p.m.

Dr. Guest

An Amendment which I have on the Paper relates to line 37 and I was proposing to move to leave out the words: and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting The words in the Clause ought to be altered to give them greater precision, and I should be prepared to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend; but if it is not accepted, I suggest that the words mentioned by me should be left out.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

The Committee will appreciate that we are here creating a new offence, and that is a proceeding to be entered upon with the utmost caution. The chance of anyone being able to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable ground for suspecting that premises were designated is extremely remote. As the Mover of the Amendment has said, such designation will be registered in Scotland as a charge, and in England it is a legal rent charge, and what has happened to the property will be within the knowledge of the parties. It will not be easy for anyone to prove that he had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the premises were designated.

On the other hand, these words are put in out of an abundance of carefulness—perhaps too much—in case future experience in this new ground upon which we are venturing might throw up a case in which injustice would be done. I am not prepared to stretch my imagination to say how that position might arise. I have thought of a number of cases that might occur, but my general conclusion is that it is rather a remote possibility. Nevertheless, in a new realm like this, I would urge upon the Committee the desirability of leaving in these words in case they might be useful to prevent the penalties of the Statute from falling on some quite innocent person.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

If we suppose the case of a landlord and tenant, the landlord having received notice and the tenant being without notice, would not some collusion be possible? If these words remain, the landlord, knowing that the tenant was ignorant, might deliberately withhold notice of designation from the tenant, and the tenant might then proceed to do the things which ought not to be done and neither the landlord nor the tenant would be liable under the Section. If, on the other hand, these words were not there the landlord would be under an obligation to inform the tenant, and, unless there is in some other part of the Bill some provision that the landlord in such circumstances must give information to the tenant, I confess I see a danger of collusion—or perhaps it is not quite correct to call it collusion, but of some action by the landlord in the hope that the tenant would do what he could not do himself and would be free from blame because he would be ignorant of the facts of the case.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Mathers

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that very pertinent question of my right hon. Friend, may I remind him that he made his plea in favour of retaining these words lest some innocent person might be haled before the court and subjected to a penalty if through sheer ignorance he committed the offence. With the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Scottish courts he will agree that they are not unreasonable, and that in such a case the person's ignorance would be taken into account. I am quite certain that no burdensome penalty would be placed upon someone who erred in ignorance. Surely that is a good argument in favour of taking out this part of the Clause and assuming that fair play and reasonable justice would be done to anyone who acted in ignorance.

Sir R. Tasker

It seems to me that the Clause is very far-reaching. I take it that the term "designated premises" means only that portion of the building which has been altered and adapted for the purposes of the Act, but the wording here would mean that, if some portion of the premises had been altered and become designated, any alteration to any other part of the building would thereby be prohibited.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked us to imagine the possible results of some collusive action between a landlord and a tenant by which the former, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, could throw a mantle of judicial ignorance over some act of the latter so that both might claim the benefit of this proviso and escape. As I said before, I think that that is a very remote case. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that not only will the owner and those who manage his affairs be kept informed by the registers both in England and Scotland, but a notice is to be posted by the local authority on the premises themselves, and the chances of a tenant being able to evade responsibility for an alteration of designated premises because he did not know anything about the designation, when there was a notice staring him in the face and when there were all the concomitant goings and comings of the inspectorate to look at the building, must be very small.

As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), I, like him, have full confidence in the justice with which the laws of this country are administered by the court, but, if a Statute lays down a statutory penalty which applies if certain things should happen, it is often not the case that ignorance or unwittingness is any defence at all unless the Statute contains words such as these. The judges have to carry out the Statute as it is, and if they are satisfied on unimpeachable evidence that certain premises are designated, and that they have been altered without any reference to the local authority, then by the plain words of the Statute they are bound to convict unless we in this Committee leave in such saving words as these to enable the courts to exercise precisely that sense of fair play which applies under the ordinary common law. I ask the Committee to accept this view. I say again that the chance of anyone, whether tenant or owner, being able to prove that he had no reasonable means of knowing that the building was designated, is extremely remote, and I cannot easily imagine conditions in which it would happen, but, in order that we may be abundantly sure that no innocent person will be subjected to a penalty, I ask the Committee to leave. in these words. They can do no harm to the Bill, and may in an odd case prevent injustice being done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. Tasker

May I put my question again?

Mr. Morrison

I am sorry I omitted to deal with my hon. Friend's question. The asnwer to it will be found in Sub-section (4) of Clause 2.