Clause 70.—(EFFECT OF CONTROL ORDER ON PERSONS OCCUPYING HOUSE.) (Hansard, 13 April 1964)

§ Mr. Corfield

I beg to move Amendment No. 117, in page 71, line 46, to leave out from "applies" to the end of line 5 on page 72.

Amendment No. 196 conveniently goes with this Amendment—that is, in page 128, line 24, to leave out subparagraph (3).

The first Amendment deletes paragraph (b) of Clause 70(2) which contains the provision that a local authority upon taking possession inherits the obligations of the dispossessed proprietor. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in Committee, it was not the intention that the authority should be at risk of inheriting, for example, liabilities for breach of covenant. What we have in mind is that the authority should inherit the advantages, should it wish to use them, of, for instance, a notice to quit given by the dispossessed proprietor to the tenant at the time of the control order. The hon. Member for Glagow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) pointed out in Committee that the words "or other thing done" might well have very much wider meaning and might 100 cover the possibility of liability for a breach of covenant by the former proprietor.

On examination, we think that he might well be right and that at any rate the position should be made clear. We have therefore decided that the best approach is to delete the paragraph altogether, but I am advised that the opening words of subsection (2) make it clear that the local authority by the ordinary process of law will inherit the ordinary obligations with respect to any notices given or any covenants entered into for the benefit of the tenant.

7.0 p.m.

The second Amendment is, so to speak, the other leg of these provisions, namely the provisions in Schedule 4 which govern what hapepns when the local authority hands property back either to the former proprietor or to his successor in title, where clearly the same general principle should apply, and the Amendment puts that part of the Bill in the same position as the Amendment to Clause 70.