HC Deb 31 January 1951 vol 483 cc1030-3
The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "years," to insert: and not for the time being subject to a tenancy granted for such a term. This Amendment is one of a series, all of which are designed to effect two objects. One is to clarify the provision of Clause 5 and the other is to remedy a defect which exists in the wording of the Clause as it stands. I hope, Major Milner, that you may think it convenient if I discuss and indicate the purpose of those Amendments, and, upon the assumption that you will think it is a convenient course, perhaps I ought to indicate which Amendments they are.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

On a point of order, Major Milner. I should like to ask your guidance as to how we should deal with this Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled and is about to refer to a whole series of Amendments which, as far as I can see, turn this Clause upside down. Whereas the Clause originally referred to superior tenancies and sub-tenancies, it has now become quite different in form and, indeed, it is not very easy to follow. That has been recognised by the Government in publishing as a White Paper the Clause as it would be if all these Amendments were made.

The difficulty which I feel, and on which I should like your guidance, is this. We on this side of the Committee have also tabled Amendments to the Clause in its original form and, as far as I can see, if we are going to deal first with an Amendment to this Clause to bring it into line with the White Paper, and then an Amendment of ours to make certain changes to the Clause in its original form, by the end of the day either the Committee will be in a tangle or the Clause will be in a tangle, and the Government will certainly be in a tangle. What I would suggest—and I ask whether it would be proper or convenient to the Committee—is that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could make a general statement outlining the precise effect of all his Amendments to this Clause, then I think that we should be in a position to determine whether or not we require to move any of our Amendments to the Clause. I do not know if that would be possible or, indeed, if it could be done now in the time at the disposal of the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General

If I may be permitted to say so, I should have thought that that was a convenient course. It was, in fact, that course which I was proposing to follow.

The Chairman

Is the Committee in agreement with that course?

Hon. Members

Agreed.

The Solicitor-General

I was just explaining that the Amendments to which I refer are as follows: page 4, lines 40 and 45; page 5, lines 7, 11, 20, 24, 31. 34, 35 and 42; page 6, lines 26 and 32.

As hon. Members know, the general object of Clause 5 is to deal with the situation that was brought about by the decision in the case of The Knightsbridge Estate Trust Ltd. v. Deeley. As the Clause originally stood, without any of these Amendments, its effect was that it operated only where the sub-tenant was the immediate tenant of the ground lessee. That was what the Clause did as it was originally drafted. In its amended form we want to cope with this situation. It is quite possible that the actual occupier who is in occupation of the premises may be the owner of the last of a chain of sub-tenancies and it may be that the sub-tenant holding immediately above that occupier may himself not be in possession, in occupation, of any part of the property.

As the Clause is at present drafted, the occupier who is the last in the series of tenancies will not be protected. What we want to do, and what we seek to do by amending the Clause, is this—to bring it about that, under the terms of the amended Clause, the last in the chain of tenancies, the lowest sub-tenant of all, if he is in occupation, will be protected notwithstanding that the tenant from whom he immediately holds is not in possession of any part of the premises. That is the sole purpose of the changes which we propose, so far as they change the scheme of the Clause.

We thought, as a matter of fact, that some of the changes in wording would improve the Clause from the point of view of intelligibility. I am quite sure that hon. Members, whether they like the Clause or not, will agree that it is extremely difficult to draft a Clause like that, dealing with a whole chain of tenancies, where there may be an interruption of occupation some way down the chain. It is very difficult to do that without introducing a Clause which will be very difficult to understand, because of necessity it embodies extremely intricate machinery. I sympathise very much, personally, with the complaints of those who find this Clause difficult to understand, but I hope that hon. Members who feel that complaint will equally sympathise with us and with the draftsmen in trying to embody in language such a very complicated and intricate situation. We hope that, as it now stands, the Clause is more intelligible. The only change in substance which it introduces is that it protects that sub-sub-tenant, if I may so call him, when the sub-tenant from whom he holds, is himself not in occupation of any part of the property.

That is the object of this Clause and. having indicated its object, I think it might possibly be for the convenience of the Committee if, before I come to discourse on particular aspects of it, we were to give an opportunity for other hon. Members who propose an alternative system of Amendments to indicate whether they think their alternative system is, in the light of what I have said. still necessary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

This is a long and complicated series of Amendments and we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the clear and cogent explanation that he has given of them. We appreciate the intention behind this Clause and, without expressing a firm opinion upon it now, I must say that it seems to me to go a long way to carry out the intention which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed. Indeed, we do not object to that intention. It is obviously right that the protection given to the sub-tenant of the ground lessee should be given to the sub-tenant, and all the way down the chain, and indeed the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that yesterday, in the course of our debate, we suggested an Amendment to provide for this very thing—the Amendment adding a proviso to Clause 1. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, before we resume the Committee stage of this Bill after tonight, to look once again at the draft of that proviso, because I am not at all sure that in that one short proviso—

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.