HC Deb 26 July 1949 vol 467 cc2387-8

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 8, leave out from "business" to end of line 14.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This and the Amendment in line 23 go together. Hon. Members may remember that this arises from an Opposition Amendment proposed at an earlier stage which my right hon. Friend accepted subject to a slight redrafting. I do not think that I need enter into a discussion of the very small changes which have been made as a matter of drafting. I think that they will meet the wishes of the House. The principal point is that this provision will now include a resident tenant or manager.

There is one further matter of note which I think was not mentioned when we discussed this subject earlier. I refer to the words in the last three lines of the new subsection: … on terms not less favourable than those appropriate to a manager employed in a business such as was carried on in the premises before their acquisition. That is a different phrase from that in page 7, line 12, which is: … under conditions not less favourable than those under which he was a tenant thereof immediately before the premises were so acquired. The purpose of that is to avoid overlapping. If tenant rights are extinguished under compulsory acquisition, compensation must be paid. It seemed unreasonable that the State should not only pay compensation but should then be obliged to continue precisely the conditions for which it has already paid. This alteration is designed to meet that point.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]