HC Deb 01 November 1965 vol 718 cc826-7

Lords Amendment No. 34: In page 29, line 4, at end insert: 'agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948".

Mr. MacColl

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

This Amendment concerns a point originally put by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne). It is simple in form but complicated in background. It refers really to Clause 32, which defines the protected tenancies which are not to have basic protection. All other examples of protected tenancies are linked to a statute but the agricultural equivalents reads … a tenancy of an agricultural holding in England and Wales; The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe thought that this might lead to confusion because people would not know immediately which agricultural tenancies were protected and which were not. There seemed to be weight in that view and therefore, as we did not want the courts to feel that, as there was no reference to a Statute, it must have some other significance, we are taking his advice and propose to link agricultural holdings with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. The effect is that protected tenancies will be those which are protected under that Act.

Question put and agreed to.