HC Deb 25 April 1963 vol 676 cc560-2

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 8, at end insert: and must specify the period within which the breach is to be remedied".

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

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

If it is agreeable to the House, I suggest that it would be convenient if we were to discuss with this Amendment the other three Amendments to the Clause:

In page 13, line 17, leave out "time" and insert "period".

In page 14, line 4, after "under" insert: the preceding provisions of". In line 11, at end insert: (6) In paragraph (d) of section 24(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 the words 'within a reasonable time or' are hereby repealed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Would that be agreeable to the House?

Mr. Peart

I accept that.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The House will remember that Clause 19 is intended to give effect to a formula agreed between the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union for tidying up the notice to quit procedure under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. When the Bill was in another place we discovered that the Clause as it left this House needed to be improved. The four Amendments, which I hope that the House will accept, are designed to do this. The Amendment in line 8 and the Amendments in page 13, line 17, and page 14, line 11, which are consequential on the first Amendment, will enable us to ensure that under the new procedure the tenant is always told how long he has in which to remedy a breach of the terms of his tenancy. The Amendment in page 14, line 4, simply makes it clear that the Order bringing this Clause into operation, as is the case with the Orders under Clauses 23 and 24, will not be subject to a negative Resolution. I am sure that the House will agree that we ought to ensure that the tenant's position is absolutely crystal clear on this point by making these small Amendments to the Bill. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Morris

I am very glad that the Government have again seen fit to correct these defects that have occurred in this very complicated Clause. We had a long discussion on this Clause in Committee. As I understood then, there had been long consultations between the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union before this Clause was agreed upon and originally drafted. Having regard to those long, involved and detailed consultations over a considerable time, a suitable Clause should have manifested itself and there should not have been any need at this late juncture to have to amend the Clause again. Why is it necessary to add this provision making it necessary to specify the period within which the breach is to be remedied having regard to the words of subsection (1, a), where there is a condition that the notice must be in the prescribed form? I should have thought that the words "in the prescribed form" would have been sufficiently broad to encompass what the Parliamentary Secretary seeks to do now. However, I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that the Amendment is needed and I welcome it, in that this Clause in itself will go a long way to remedy a considerable hardship which has occurred over the years.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one last question in regard to the Amendment which he seeks to make in page 14, line 11. Why was it not discovered earlier that the repeal of the words in Section 24(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, was necessary? Having studied the matter again, it seems obvious now that Section 24(2, d), could not stand. This again is a piece of bad drafting which should have been put right earlier, and having regard to the long and detailed discussions which took place there is no reason why at this late juncture the Government should come to the House and ask leave to amend the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.