HC Deb 17 June 1954 vol 528 cc2339-55
The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out subsection (3).

This is the first of no fewer than 17 Amendments to Clauses 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14. The Amendments are designed to introduce, or are consequential upon the introduction of, a revised time-table scheme for Part I. It will probably be for the convenience of the House, and it will assist in understanding this long series of Amendments, if on this Amendment I may be allowed to give the broad outline of the new proposed scheme, and then to move the other Amendments formally or to say just a word or two with regard to them when necessary. If one can take that course, I hope that I shall be able to explain the effect of the changes.

Those who were present in Committee will remember that two points came up for criticism. The first, which arose on Clause 4, was the criticism put forward with considerable force which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) will agree was not listened to at all unsympathetically. The criticism was that it was a defect in the Bill as originally designed that if a tenant did not reply within two months to a notice served upon him by his landlord he would lose the protection of Part I.

The second criticism related to the timing within which the various steps should be taken. Since the Committee stage we have given very careful consideration to the way in which those matters can be dealt with and the criticisms met. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was informed before today, in accordance with the promise given to him, of the suggestions which we were putting forward.

To deal with the first point, the proposal is that we abolish completely the provision that, if the tenant does not reply within two months saying whether he wishes to remain as a statutory tenant, he loses all right to a statutory tenancy. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regard that at least as satisfactory.

The scheme that we propose is, broadly, as follows. The landlord will serve a notice inviting the tenant, but not requiring him, to elect to retain possession. if at the end of two months the tenant has not replied to the notice—that is one condition—and if at that time the tenancy is one to which Clause 1 applies—that is, broadly, that the tenant is living on the premises—the tenant will not lose his right to a statutory tenancy. That is to say, if he is there but has not answered, he is not deprived of his right to the tenancy merely because he has not written a letter within the two months. The next step following upon that will be this. If the landlord's notice was one proposing a statutory tenancy, the landlord will be able to apply to the courts to determine the terms of the statutory tenancy. If the notice was a notice by which the landlord indicated that he wished to resume possession, the landlord will be able to apply to the court for an order for possession on the grounds given in the notice.

If the landlord takes either of those steps, it must mean that notice of those proceedings in the county court will be served upon the tenant, and the tenant will have the opportunity of appearing and of being represented in court. If he fails to appear—surely it would be most unusual at this point for a tenant who wanted to remain in the premises not to have taken some action—the court will, of course, be able to deal with the matter ex parte, but—I am sure that the House will agree with this—it will not be able to deal with the matter without steps being taken to ensure that the tenant has notice of the landlord's application. It will be appreciated that up to that moment the tenant has not been deprived of any right which he might obtain under the Bill. It follows that inaction on the part of the tenant will not deprive him of his rights.

The second point to which I should draw attention is this. Where the tenant does not reply to the notice inviting him to elect, and where the tenancy two months after the service of the landlord's notice is outside the scope of Clause 1, the landlord's notice will operate to terminate the tenancy and no question of a statutory tenancy will ever arise. That second point is a necessary feature of the scheme. Otherwise, there would be no sensible way for a landlord to bring to an end a long tenancy where the tenant was not living in the premises. That is the reason for the provision. If we did not have that provision, the landlord would have to go to the county court where the tenant was not residing in the premises within the two months after the service of the notice and ask the county court to determine the terms of a statutory tenancy for which there was no indication that there was any desire on the part of the tenant.

This scheme constitutes a very considerable improvement upon the proposals originally contained in the Bill. We made it clear at that time that we were not at all happy about the idea that the tenant would lose his rights if he did not write a letter. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite also expressed their concern. On that point, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not only recognise that we have made a genuine effort to meet the difficulty but also say. even if he does not think that we have gone to the fullest extent, that he thinks we have gone a very long way indeed.

Sir F. Soskice

While I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for the obvious trouble that he has taken over this matter and for the explanation which he has given, I must say that I am left in a state of considerable disquiet by his new proposals. They are undoubtedly an advance if they work in the way in which he has set them out, but I should like to ask him a question about them.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt compendiously with 17 Amendments, but none of those Amendments has the effect of changing subsection (1), which at present reads, and even if the Bill is amended in the sense proposed will continue to read: The landlord may terminate a tenancy to which section one of this Act applies by notice given to the tenant in the prescribed form specifying the date at which the tenancy is to come to an end (hereinafter referred to as 'the date of termination'), being either the term date of the tenancy or a later date. … If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the admittedly less convenient course of going in detail into all the Amendments, I might not have had to ask my question. However, I now wish to ask him whether, under his new proposals, it is not still the case that when the landlord serves a notice on the tenant to terminate the tenancy at a particular date specified in the notice, it has the effect, as at present is the case under the unamended Bill, of terminating that tenancy unless the tenant elects to remain. I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to assist me, and perhaps he would do so now by indicating which change puts an end to that state of affairs.

The Solicitor-General

I will gladly seek to do so. Although we were all very familiar with this matter when it was going through Committee. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will share with me the difficulty which is experienced in picking up all the details again.

Subsection (1) is not affected and it is not intended to be, because the notice given by the landlord will terminate the existing tenancy. It is subsection (3), which we are taking out, which affects the statutory tenancy. The effect of subsection (3) as it was—I am sure that it is my fault for not having explained it—was that if the tenant did not reply within the two months he lost his right to the statutory tenancy. Now when the letter is sent to him inviting him to elect, he will not lose his right provided that within two months following the receipt of the letter—it may be the date of dispatch; I cannot for the moment recollect it—the tenancy is one which comes within the scope of the Bill. It is only the right to the statutory tenancy which is affected.

Mr. Hale

Which Amendment says that?

The Solicitor-General

Subsection (3) is deleted by this Amendment, and it is subsection (3) which we are now discussing. Then, we find that we have a new subsection (4), which deals with the requirement of notice.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hale

That does not really cover the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend said that notice could be given which might terminate at the end of the actual lease, and that at that stage the tenant lost all his rights. It merely completed the process, and there was no protection for him. We are now taking out subsection (3) and inserting new provisions about notice. All I am asking is where does it say—I have no doubt it does somewhere—when this action is to be taken?

Sir F. Soskice

Before the learned Solicitor-General answers that question, as I was in possession of the Floor may I continue by saying—and following up what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has just said—that I do not want to distress the House by a parade of legal difficulties which, quite clearly, only a limited number of hon. Members would enjoy as we do. But am I not right in saying that subsection (3) has the effect that, unless the tenant elects the tenancy comes to an end? It says no more than that a notice given under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is in a certain form, and the subsection does not have the effect which the Solicitor-General attributed to it, nor would the removal of that subsection have the result of bringing about the consequence that the tenancy did not come to an end although the tenant did nothing in reply to the notice.

It may be that, tucked away somewhere in these 17 Amendments, there is one which has that effect, and I entirely sympathise with the Solicitor-General if he has not got it at his fingertips, because both he and I have been engaged in some rather troublesome matters in another sphere, which might have put this matter out of his mind for the moment. He will, however, agree with me that it is quite impossible to expect agreement from this side of the House, anxious as we are to safeguard the position of tenants who, through inadvertence or for one reason or another, do not reply, from the consequence of having their tenancy terminated as a result of that inadvertence.

I should be very grateful if the Solicitor-General can point to some particular Amendment which has that effect. If he will tell me that, somewhere in this list of 17 Amendments, there is such an Amendment, although he cannot put his finger on it, it will go some way towards assuaging my own anxiety. Personally, I do not know where it is, and I can find nothing in the Amendments which I have studied which will have the effect of reversing the operation of subsection (1), which, in turn, says that the landlord can, by serving such a notice, bring the tenancy to an end.

The Solicitor-General

I think I can help the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because really the error is on his part. I make no criticism of him, but he has attached importance to subsection (1) and has disregarded subsection (4), and the two run together in this Clause. We have subsection (1) giving the landlord power to terminate the tenancy. Subsection (2) prescribes the time within which notice is to be served. Subsection (3) says it shall not have any effect unless it complies with certain requirements. The Amendment we are now discussing will take out subsection (3), but subsection (4) provides that a notice given under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it contains either proposals for a statutory tenancy or notice that, if the tenant is not willing to give up possession, the landlord proposes to apply to the court for a resumption of possession. So that the notice has to do these two things, and it is only effective if it does them.

One of the Amendments contains a further requirement as to how the notice under subsection (1) shall be operative. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Amendment in page 5, line 16, he will see that, in one of the consequential Amendments to Clause 6, we are to take out the provision requiring any election on the part of the tenant to retain possession.

I know it is most difficult to follow, through this series of 17 Amendments, the object of these proposals, but it is as I have indicated, and I believe myself that the Amendments are entirely effective to secure what I have said; but, of course, we will listen to any criticism advanced, and I shall do my best to satisfy right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that these Amendments do achieve that object. With great respect, I think it is the fact that subsection (4), taken with subsection (1), vitiates the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking to make.

Sir F. Soskice

I am glad to hear that the learned Solicitor-General does not make any criticism of me, and I hope he will not mind my making one very gentle reflection upon him when I say that it is just a trifle confusing to be told that the relevant subsection is subsection (3), and, when I point out that subsection (3) simply requires the notice to be in a certain form, for the Solicitor-General to tell me that it is not subsection (3), but subsection (4). I would now point out that that subsection only requires the notice to be in a certain form; both subsections (3) and (4) do no more than that. I do not feel any more enlightened by the Solicitor-General's reference to subsection (4) than I did by his reference to subsection (3).

However, we would not wish to seem ungracious. and if the Amendment does achieve the result which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is to achieve, we would be very grateful for that measure of relief, but I think the Solicitor-General will agree that, after studying the Amendments as best we can, we cannot satisfy ourselves that they do achieve that result. We have asked the Solicitor-General to indicate how that result is achieved, but he evidently finds himself in some difficulty about it. Many as are the excuses which he may have, it is a little unusual to take so much on trust even from his very great legal acumen.

I hope the Amendments will do what the Solicitor-General says they will do, and, if so, we would be very glad to welcome them, but it is taking a step rather in the dark to agree to Amendments upon which we cannot be satisfied that they will do what the Solicitor-General wishes them to do and which he no doubt means them to do. That is the first point which I would make in answer to this group of Amendments.

The second point is that, here again, the disagreement on principle between the two sides of the House emerges. The Solicitor-General says that a new system will not be applicable unless, in fact, the tenant is a tenant who is in possession, and he then pointed to the characteristic of his new scheme which he feared would leave us somewhat dissatisfied. I can assure him that it does. From beginning to end of our discussions on this Bill we have emphasised over and over again the fact that here we are dealing with a special kind of property in which the real owners of the houses—morally, at any rate—are those tenants under long leases whose leases are now coming to an end.

Starting from that general standpoint, it follows as a matter of axiomatic logic that from our point of view it is not satisfactory that, if when the notice comes the tenant happens to be away from the house in which effect he owns, he may lose that tenancy which he is entitled to regard as belonging to him and affording him a refuge.

I understand that the Solicitor-General accepts that the Government have gone only half-way towards meeting that point of view, but that they have gone some way I frankly and gratefully recognise. They have also gone some way to meet the case of the elderly lady mentioned during the Committee stage who may inadvertently leave the notice on the mantelpiece and forget about it. The Solicitor-General finds some difficulty in pointing to the words which have that effect.

Speaking for myself, if we are left in that situation by the Solicitor-General, I cannot help feeling, reluctantly, that the only advice I can give to my hon. Friends is that we must by our vote say that we cannot accept the Amendment and the series of Amendments. We cannot take things on trust in that way, especially things which go only halfway to meeting our point of view. This is a half-way measure. As a measure it is valuable, particularly as coming from the stony-hearted Ministers who have listened to our pleas during the discussions on the Bill. Even a half-measure is better than no measure, just as the Bill is only half a Bill. We cannot be satisfied with this half-measure, which may turn out later to be nothing at all.

So, with considerable reluctance, I advise my hon. Friends not to agree to leave out subsection (3) and, by implication, accept the series of Amendments, unless we can be sure that there is much more behind them than we have been given to understand. If the matter is left as it is, I advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.

The Solicitor-General

With the leave of the House, I would say that the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) is really wrong about this matter, especially when he says that I have sought to confuse the position by referring first to subsection (3) and then to subsection (4). The right hon. and learned Gentleman first referred to subsection (1), and I drew his attention to the scheme to remind him of it. I asked him if he would consider it.

It is clear that the Amendment does what I said. Under subsection (1), there is power to give the notice. Subsection (2) specifies the time, and subsection (3), which is now under consideration, says that the notice has to comply with certain requirements. Subsection (4) says that the notice must contain either proposals for a statutory tenancy or a notice that the landlord wants to resume possession. It is true that only the power to give notice and a statement of what the notice shall contain to be effective are in the subsections, but the Amendment to Clause 6 to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention, in page 5. line 16, effects the operative change.

As the Bill stands it provides—and this is the crux of the matter: Where on the service of a landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy the tenant has elected to retain possession, then as from the termination of the tenancy by the notice the Rent Acts shall apply. 7.15 p.m.

The statutory tenancy under Clause 6 arises upon that election. The Amendment that we hope to make in page 5, line 16, is to take out those words. The effect will be that where a tenancy is terminated by a landlord's notice proposing the statutory tenancy, the statutory tenancy will arise automatically.

It may be my fault, and if it is I willingly accept responsibility for it, for not having emphasised that particular Amendment particularly, but I did draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to it, saying that that Amendment dealt with the matter of the election.

I hope that I have convinced the right hon. and learned Gentleman that these matters of drafting are satisfactory to effect the broad outline of the scheme which I had outlined and which, I gather, the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not regard as wholly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

I listened carefully to what was said by the Solicitor-General, whom I congratulate on his recent honour. I believe that he has done his best, but it is obvious that he is purely a mechanical mouthpiece for some department that has pushed this Amendment on him.

The Solicitor-General is playing a game of shove-ha'penny. He is getting rid of one Clause and pushing another Clause into its place, and although he is getting rid of trouble from one Clause he is creating fresh trouble with the one that he is substituting. It is right that subsection (3) should go, because it constituted an absolute trap for the tenant. I am not surprised, after the trenchant exposure which it got, that the Government have said they will abolish it. I should like to know why the proposed new Clause is necessary, making the landlord go out of his way to use paper, ink, envelope and stamp to write a little epistle to the tenant and send him an invitation. If the Solicitor-General will give me his august attention for one moment, I will tell him that I do not think he is as naive as all that, because on that basis it becomes all nonsense.

Why is there such solicitude for the feelings of the tenant that the landlord must write this letter of invitation to him? Having got rid of subsection (3), the Clause is all right without putting anything else in. All we do by putting something in by way of substitution is to create a situation in which all sorts of complicated legal points and disputes arise which only create difficulty instead of helping the matter.

That brings me to the next point which has to be considered by this House. These matters have to go to the county court if there is any dispute, complication or doubt as between the tenant and landlord. If there is any sinister motive in this kindly invitation to which the Solicitor-General has alluded, it is enshrined in this scheme which the Solicitor-General so kindly offers to the House, for the tenant must go to the county court. There is no legal aid in the county court. As a result a tenant will have to face the risk of fighting the case, which may go from the county court to the Court of Appeal and, if he is unlucky, from there to the House of Lords. That would involve an immense amount of cost, which a tenant would not dare to face. The result is that the tenant is bound to be deprived of justice in this matter. There is nothing else he can do but capitulate. It simply leaves the landlord in possession and able to do anything he wishes.

I ask the Solicitor-General to look at this matter again. There is really nothing in this Clause containing the invitation which adds anything—here is a sinister implication in it. I ask the Solicitor-General to see whether, having dispensed with subsection (3), he cannot now dispense with what he is now—I think foolishly—seeking to put in its place.

Sir F. Soskice

Perhaps I may have permission to address the House quite shortly again. This is, of course, part of a network of most complicated provisions. I have in mind what the Solicitor-General has pointed out with regard to Clause 6. I see the working of it and the machinery, and I am obliged to him for referring to it again.

There is, on the other hand, the other point of principle which I raised. I feel that in this highly technical matter the House might possibly feel that it might pass on with some advantage to other matters of what I may term general application. Possibly it would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides that we should not go on discussing this highly-complicated technique. Nevertheless, I feel quite confident that I am voicing the opinions of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side when I say that they feel that this change which the Government have introduced does not go far enough. It does not cover the kind of case where one has a tenancy which is not within the scope of Clause 2—the Solicitor-General said within the scope of Clause 1 but I think that he meant Clause 2.

In those circumstances, we feel that even the changed system which the Government propose may work considerable injustice in a number of cases. I therefore feel that I shall be voicing the opinions of my hon. and right hon. Friends if I suggest to the Government and to the House generally that we might take a decision on this now, and I think that, if my hon. Friends will agree with my advice, we should not take the removal of subsection (3) on trust.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

May I ask one question of my right hon. and learned Friend, and refer, in a way, to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)? What is the exact effect of this notice in writing to the tenant asking whether he wants protection or not? On that point the House should be apprised, because no one has yet said what is to happen if the invitation is declined. I do not think that in his opening remarks my right hon. and learned Friend explained the first step quite fully enough to make it clear.

The Solicitor-General

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, in outlining the scheme I did deal specifically with the particular stages and the effect of non-compliance by the tenant at each stage. I really feel that I should not take up the time of the House by repeating it. Perhaps my back was turned on my hon. Friend so that he did not hear me, but I did deal with that point in detail. The invitation is expressed to the tenant. If he fails to comply with it he does not lose any of his rights under the Bill. [Interruption.] The object of it is to enable the landlord to find out, in the first place, whether the tenant wants to stay on.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Could not that be done without putting it in an Act of Parliament?

The Solicitor-General

Of course it could.

But following upon that notice, if the tenant does not reply it is open to the landlord to take steps in the county court which will involve service upon the tenant of the notice of those proceedings. That, I should have thought, will enable one to be sure that no tenant will be deprived of his rights under this Bill without notice from his landlord of his intention to secure resumption of possession.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 213.

Division No. 153.] AYES [7.26 p.m.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hale, Leslie Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Hamilton, W. W. Mort, D. L.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hannan, W. Moyle, A.
Baird, J. Hargreaves, A. Nutley, F. W.
Bartley, P. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Nally, W.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Hastings, S. Oldfield, W. H.
Bence, C. R. Hayman, F. H. Oliver, G. H.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh) Oswald, T.
Benson, G. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Padley, W. E.
Berwick, F. Hobson, C. R. Paget, R. T.
Blackburn, F. Holman, P. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deane Valley)
Blenkinsop, A. Hoy, J. H. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Blyton, W. R. Hubbard, T. F. Pannell, Charles
Boardman, H. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Pargiter, G. A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Parker, J.
Bowden, H. W. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Parkin, B. T
Bowles, F. G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paton, J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Pearson, A.
Brockway, A. F. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Plummer, Sir Leslie.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Janner, B. Popplewell, E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jeger, George (Goole) Porter, G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jeger, Mrs. Lena Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Johnson, James (Rugby) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Burton, Miss F. E. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Proctor, W. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Carmichael, J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Rankin, John
Champion, A. J. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Reeves, J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Keenan, W. Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Clunie, J. Kenyon, C. Rhodes, H.
Coldrick, W. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Collick, P. H. King, Dr. H. M. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Cove, W. G. Lawson, G. M. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Ross, William
Daines, P. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Royle, C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Lewis, Arthur Short, E. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lindgren, G. S. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Logan, D. G. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Deer, G. MacColl, J. E. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Dodds, N. N. McKay, John (Wallsend) Skeffington, A. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) McLeavy, F. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mainwaring, W. H. Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Flenburgh, W. Manuel, A. C. Snow, J. W.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Sorensen, R. W.
Follick, M. Mason, Roy Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Foot, M. M. Mellish, R. J. Sparks, J. A.
Forman, J. C. Messer, Sir F. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Mikardo, Ian Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Gibson, C. W. Mitchison, G. R. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C Monslow, W. Sylvester, G. O
Greenwood, Anthony Moody, A. S Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Grey, C. F. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Morley, R. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wheeldon, W. E. Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Fife) Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Thornton, E. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Willis, E. G.
Viant, S. P. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Wallace, H. W. Wilkins, W. A. Yates, V. F.
Weitzman, D. Willey, F. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham) Williams, David (Neath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wells, William (Walsall) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor
West, D. G. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Aitken, W. T. Graham, Sir Fergus Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Nugent, G. R. H.
Alpert, C. J. M. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Oakshott, H. D.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Hall, John (Wycombe) O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Hare, Hon. J. H. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Arbuthnot, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Harris, Reader (Heston) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Osborne, C.
Baldwin, A. E. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Page, R. G.
Barlow, Sir John Harvie-Watt, Sir George Perkins, Sir Robert
Baxter, Sir Beverley Hay, John Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bell, Philip (Boltom, E.) Health, Edward Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Higgs, J. M. C. Powell, J. Enoch
Birch, Nigel Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Bishop, F. P. Hirst, Geoffrey Profumo, J. D.
Black, C. W. Holland-Martin, C. J. Raikes, Sir Victor
Bossom, Sir A. C. Hope, Lord John Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bowen, E. R. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Remnant, Hon. P.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Renton, D. L. M.
Braine, B. R. Horobin, I. M. Ridsdale, J. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Robson-Brown, W.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Roper, Sir Harold
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Browne, Jack (Govan) Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Iremonger, T. L. Scott, R. Donald
Bullard, D. G. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Shepherd, William
Burden, F. F. A. Kaberry, D. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Kerby, Capt. H. B. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Campbell, Sir David Lambert, Hon. G. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Cary, Sir Robert Lambton, Viscount Snadden, W. McN.
Channon, H. Leather, E. H. C. Soames, Capt. C.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Spearman, A. C. M.
Cole, Norman Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Colegate, W. A. Lindsay, Martin Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Linstead, Sir H. N. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Stoddart,-Scott, Col. M
Cooper-Key, E. M. Low, A. R. W. Storey, S.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Summers, G. S.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Crouch, R. F. McCallum, Major D. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Macdonald, Sir Peter Teeling, W.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Deedes, W. F. McKibbin, A. J. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Dishy, S. Wingfield Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA Maclean, Fitzroy Tilney, John
Doughty, C. J. A. Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.) Touche, Sir Gordon
Drayson, G. B. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Turner, H. F. L.
Drewe, Sir C. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Turton, R. H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Vane, W. M. F.
Duthie, W. S. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald Vesper, D. F.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Markham, Major Sir Frank Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Finlay, Graeme Marlowe, A. A. H. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F Marples, A. E. Wall, Major Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia Maude, Angus Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Fort, R. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C Wellwood, W.
Foster, John Medlicott, Brig. F. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Mellor, Sir John Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Molson, A. H. E. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Galbraith, G. D. (Hillhead) Moore, Sir Thomas Wills, G.
Garner-Evans, E. H. Morrison, John (Salisbury) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glover, D. Nabarro, G. D. N. Wood, Hon. R.
Godber, J. B. Neave, Airey
Gough, C. F. H. Nicholls, Harmer TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Gower, H. R. Nield, Basil (Chester) Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.
The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, after "unless," to insert: it specifies the premises which the landlord believes to be, or to be likely to be, the premises qualifying for protection and. This and the following four Amendments are either consequential or incidental to the scheme which I have already outlined. The only new details to which I need draw the attention of the House are that this and the next Amendment insert two further requirements which the notice must now contain. It is obviously desirable that the notice should specify the premises which the landlord believes to be likely to qualify for protection, and this Amendment deals with that point. The following Amendment deals similarly with further information which the landlord has to give.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 29, leave out from "possession." to "the," in line 30, and insert: at the date of termination of the tenancy, of all the property then comprised in the tenancy.

In line 34, at end, insert: (4) A notice under subsection (1) of this section shall invite the tenant, within two months after the giving of the notice, to notify the landlord in writing whether he is willing to give up possession as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection.

In line 43, leave out: paragraph (a) of subsection (3),

and insert "subsection (4)."

In line 44, leave out: as mentioned in that paragraph."—[The Solicitor-General.]