§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber)I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, at the end to insert:
landlord" and "tenant", as respects England and Wales, have the meanings 439 assigned to them by section ninety-four of the Act of 1948, and as respects Scotland have the meanings assigned to them by section ninety-three of the Scottish Act of 1949.This is largely a drafting Amendment. I realise that it will incur the displeasure of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who feels strongly about doing these things by reference. I think he will agree that in this case it is logical that we should have the definition in this form, because the reference to "landlord" and "tenant" can be found in various places in the Bill where it is inevitable that it is by reference to these Acts. I think that it will simplify the position if we stick to the normal form in this way.
§ Mr. GodberI expected some protest from the hon. and learned Gentleman. Most of the reference to both landlord and tenant occurs in paragraphs which will be substituted for existing paragraphs in these Acts. The hon. and learned Member will agree that there is no need to put in the definition in those cases. There are one or two other references which do not occur in those sections. It would be wrong to have two different definitions, and it seems to me to be unnecessary and perhaps unwieldy to rewrite the definitions into the Bill, as some of them have to be by reference to the 1948 and 1949 Acts. I think that the hon. and learned Member's protest is not as strong as in some other cases, because here the position is simplified by using the reference in this way.
§ Mr. PagetHere we have a paragraph of definition. I agree that we cannot repeat the definition whenever it is used, but why is it necessary to refer us to another Act without telling us what the other Act provides by way of definition? All we have to say is that these words
as respects England and Wales, have the meanings assigned to them by section ninety-four of the Act of 1948, which is"—It is a line or two more, but it will save many people a lot of trouble. I wish we could get into the habit of doing it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WilleyI beg to move, in page 10, line 42, at the end to insert:
save that paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the said section shall be repealed.440 This is no more than a drafting Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I, not anticipating the success which we have had on a previous Amendment, thought that if we devised such an Amendment as this we should compel the Government to accept both.
§ Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)I beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. GodberI am obliged to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for the brevity with which he has moved the Amendment, but I am sorry that I must dash his hopes. The position is not quite as simple as he says and the Amendment is not just drafting.
I have a good deal of sympathy with his point of view in that the reference is to supervision orders under Part II, particularly paragraph (c). The paragraph reads:
as to any other matters as to which directions may be given to an occupier of an agricultural unit where a supervision order under Part II of this Act is in force for the supervision of his farming of the unit.The main powers of Section 95, which we agreed in Committee should be retained, are provided in paragraphs (a) and (b), but in (c) there are residual powers to cover any other points not covered by (a) or (b). If we ever have to use the powers in Section 95 it is important that there should be no dispute that we have the full powers. We hope that it will never be necessary to use them, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite hope so, too, but if we do use them we must be quite clear about them.I am advised that the reference to Part II is not invalidated by the fact that Part II is being revoked. It is purely descriptive. Such powers as would be used if the supervision order were still available are such powers as we could use in relation to Section 95. It is descriptive to that extent.
I have looked at the matter very carefully, because when I first saw the Amendment I thought that the hon. Member had seized on a good point. Initially, I intended to congratulate him, but I am sorry that I cannot now accept the Amendment. I am assured that to do so could give rise to difficulties later. It is only for that reason that I cannot accept it.
§ Mr. WilleyI am obliged to the hon. Member for his reply and I am comforted by the fact that he has a more tender regard for Part II than he appeared to have throughout our proceedings on the Bill. The subsection refers to directions which may be given where a supervision order under Part II of the Act is in force. Accepting the purpose of the provision as explained by the hon. Member, it still seems somewhat ambiguous. I will not press the matter further at this stage, but in view of the points which have been raised I am sure that he will concede that ambiguity might be caused. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider clarifying this when the Bill reaches another place.
§ Mr. GodberI looked at the position very carefully and I should gladly have done something to clarify it had I thought it could be done. The important words here are
as to which directions may be given".It is purely descriptive in this case. I do not think that it will lead to misunderstanding. The directions which could have been given under Part II are well known and well defined, and it is probably better to leave the position as it is. I will take note of what the hon. Member said, but I cannot give him an undertaking.
§ Mr. WilleyIn view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.