HC Deb 04 April 1951 vol 486 cc333-4
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert: Provided that nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect the landlord's right to resumption of possession or to damages if on application to the sheriff by the landlord the sheriff has decided that, having regard to the circumstances of the lease and the obligations of good estate management and of neighbourly conduct, it is just and equitable that the landlord should exercise his rights. In this spirit of sweet reasonableness which prevails, we trust that the Lord Advocate will look with favour on this Amendment. If he can indicate that he will look with favour on it, or that he will consider it sympathetically between now and the later stages, I shall be most happy to resume my seat. He casts a frosty eye on me. I do not wish to detain the House, but surely nothing more reasonable than the proposal we are putting forward could be imagined. I am sure that it would be to the advantage of the tenant far more than anyone else. The Lord Advocate indicated during our proceedings in Committee that a remedy was left to the landlord, but it was the sledgehammer method of interdict. The only result it could have would be the ejection of the tenant from the house. This seems to us to be unnecessarily harsh, and therefore we have suggested the most reasonable proposal that if the landlord applies to the sheriff and the sheriff decides that the case is just and reasonable, there might be a case of damages given against the tenant instead of this extreme procedure of throwing him out of the house. That proposal seemed to have a certain amount of sympathy even from Members opposite, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will see his way to meet us.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley)

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the arguments on this topic were fully deployed during the Committee stage. We even went to a Division on this point or a point of similar substance. The reason for resisting the Amendment is that we wish to preserve the right of all the tenants during the two-year interregnum when the Bill operates. The interdict process would not have the result of ejecting the tenant from the house, but would be utilised merely to prevent the tenant from continuing a breach of the conditions of the lease.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I can only speak again by leave of the House and I shall be very short. We might as well conclude this, because there is no use bandying arguments with each other, but I might say that the point was thoroughly disposed of by one of my hon. and learned Friends at an earlier stage. When the Lord Advocate says that the Bill is merely temporary, I would remind him of the French proverb that nothing lasts like the provisional. We have had many examples of the truth of that proverb in the past. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will sympathise with me in the contention that I am making, but I do not believe we shall have seen the end of this matter within the two-year period which is proposed, because rights are being definitely invaded. Perhaps, in another place, it may be that arguments will be deployed still more powerful than those which I have been able to introduce, and with a greater majority to back them. I trust that the Lord Advocate will not be obdurate when the Bill comes back to us from men learned in the law, from the other end of the corridor.

Amendment negatived.