HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc938-40

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 45, leave out from "for" to end of line 47 and insert: treating the claim holding as divided into two or more claim holdings and extinguishing any of those holdings or reducing the value thereof.

Commander Galbraith

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

This is also a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill which it is proposed to replace are inadequate as a description of the scope of the Second and Third Schedules, and so they are proposed to be altered to bring in the Second and Third Schedules properly.

Mr. Hector Hughes

This is an important Amendment, which should not be thrown off in that casual way by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It should be more fully explained to the House, because it will seriously affect the purpose of the Bill. It is necessary to consider the Amendment in connection with the purpose and meaning of the Clause that is sought to be amended.

Clause 2 contains two subsections. It deals with claim holdings, their areas and values, and apportionment of values between parts of areas. The meaning and purpose of this is plain, but its working out is complicated, and is made still more complicated by the Amendment. The Clause does three important things. Subsection (1) relates references to a claim holding to the benefit of an established claim. Secondly, it relates reference to the area of a claim holding to the reference to the land which is the claim area. Thirdly, it relates reference to the value of a claim holding to the amount of the established claim constituting that holding. All that is clear enough, but the complications arise on subsection (2).

Subsection (2) attempts to apply the Second and Third Schedules to the aims of subsection (1)—that is, to claim holdings, areas and values and apportionment. Again, up to that point all is clear, but the complications arise on the Amendment. The complications are those which relate to the words which it is sought to leave out and the words which it is sought to insert.

As the Clause stands, it would enact that the operations which I have mentioned would have effect for extinguishing the claim holding, or reducing the value thereof, or for dividing the claim holding and attributing to each part a value and area. That, too, is clear, but the words which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seeks to put into the Bill cause complications.

What is the meaning of the words which the Joint Under-Secretary seeks to put into the Bill, in contradistinction to the words which he seeks to leave out? The Clause was comparatively clear as it stood before leaving the other place, but the words which it is now sought to put in make it completely opaque. It was in the shadows before. It will be in black darkness if these words are inserted. Having regard to these complications, it is the duty of the Lord Advocate—after all, this is a matter of construction—now to take his part in explaining to the House the difference between the words which are sought to be left out and the words which it is sought to put in, and how the Bill will be improved by the words which it is sought to put in.

Is it not desirable, Mr. Speaker, that when a serious argument has been put to the Lord Advocate upon a matter of law that he ought to respect you and the House by making some effort to explain the point of view?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman has put a question to me, and I must answer him in so far as it is a point of order. If no other hon. Member offers to speak, I have to put the Question which has already been proposed.

Commander Galbraith

It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand what the Amendment purports to do. If he would be good enough to look at the Second Schedule he will see that its purpose is to cater for cases in which claims on the £300 million fund have been assigned to the Central Land Board as security for development charge. The Third Schedule makes provision for reducing claim holdings to take account of any payments which may have been made under Section 56 of the 1947 Act, in respect of the interest to which the claim holding relates. The words which we are deleting from the Clause do not properly relate to the two Schedules, and those which we are putting in are a proper interpretation of their scope. That is the reason why the Amendment is being made.

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

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 31, leave out from first "the" to end of line 35 and insert: amount secured by the assignation.

Commander Galbraith

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

This is another drafting Amendment. The object of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is to ensure that any amount due by way of development charge, which was secured by an assignation of a claim, shall be fully covered as a result of any apportionment of the claim. I think that is perfectly clear.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 14, at end insert: (5) References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding are references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Act.

Commander Galbraith

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

This is another drafting Amendment, the object of which is to put beyond doubt for the purposes of Part I of the Bill that the value of a claim holding is its value after the operation of the Second and Third Schedules.