HC Deb 01 November 1965 vol 718 cc699-700

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 9, line 20, after "court" insert "or, in Scotland, the sheriff".

Dr. Dickson Mabon

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

This is a drafting correction for Clause 13 which, hon. Members may recall, was a Clause inserted on Report and on which there was, quite understandably and properly, a great deal of discussion. I am sorry that the Government at that time did no see that there was this drafting omission. Of course, we took the earliest opportunity to set it right. As the House knows, this is the function of determining the successor in a second transmission under the statutory tenancy when this is disputed, and this is already placed on the sheriff in the case of a first transmission. By Section 12(1,g) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, it would be correct if we made this Amendment as a drafting matter.

Mr. Hendry

I appreciate the point of this Amendment. I think that this House was possibly a little careless in passing the Clause in its present form, but it seems to me that possibly the Amendment has an effect which the Government do not quote appreciate. If this Lords Amendment were not made and these words were not here inserted, it seems to me that it would be the sheriff's court which would be the appropriate court to decide a matter of this kind. It is perfectly clear that if an application of this sort were brought before the sheriff he would deal with it in his ordinary court in accordance with the proper procedure for ordinary cases in the sheriff's court, but if we import these words it seems to me there is grave doubt as to the procedure which applies.

6.45 p.m.

I think it is necessary for us to look at Clause 42 of the Bill. It provides a special, quick procedure in certain circumstances. It says: Where an application is made to the sheriff for an order or a determination under this Act it shall be made by way of summary application. … It goes on to describe what that is. It seems to me that a dispute of this kind is either an application for an order nor an application for a determination and it may be that the appropriate procedure under this Clause is not under Clause 42 but the ordinary procedure in the sheriff's court as though the proposed words were not inserted. It seems to me that the insertion of the words may cause difficulty, whereas the omission would make the matter perfectly clear. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to look at that and assure the House that these difficulties will not in fact arise.

Dr. Mabon

With the permission of the House, I will reply. Certainly we have tried to anticipate a number of possibilities which hon. Members might raise. We suspected, perhaps, that it might be thought that we could proceed under the Clause which the hon. Gentleman, to his merit, has mentioned, but to make absolutely sure, the advice is that we should accept this Amendment and insert these words to make it absolutely, perfectly clear that the procedure should be as suggested in the Lords Amendment. Without it, it is open to doubt. With it, the advice given to the Government is that it is clear, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says. We do not think it a good thing to leave it open to proceed under the later Clause, because it may be argued as being uncertain. I do not want to enter upon that. All I would say is that Ministers having got this advice that this makes the matter clear, we feel we should follow it, and I hope that the House will agree that this is a better way of proceeding.

Question put and agreed to.