HC Deb 27 October 1966 vol 734 cc1402-4
Mr. Rossi

I beg to move Amendment No. 223, in page 73, line 37, at the end to insert 'without reasonable excuse'.

We are now dealing with one of the penalty Clauses of this Bill, and we on this side are anxious that the penalties be kept within reason and be not imposed too drastically or severely on citizens who may wittingly or unwittingly in this particular case find themselves in contravention of the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 76(1) as it stands provides that any person who fails to notify to the Land Commission a dealing with his property that he is obliged under the Bill to notify to the Land Commission, namely, the sale of the freehold of his land, the granting of a lease of seven years or more in length, or who starts any development of his land, who does any of those things and fails to notify the Land Commission that they have been done, then, under Clause 76, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding £50.

We can envisage many circumstances in which the person could forget, neglect, omit to send a notification to the Land Commission. It need not even be his own fault that the omission has taken place, because he may leave these matters, the sale of land, the leasing of property, to professional people to deal with for him, and, of course, most citizens do in transactions of these kinds. A slip can occur in the agent's office, and if that slip occurs in the agent's office, without any fault at all of the landowner who is responsible to give notice, then the landowner is liable to a fine not exceeding £50.

We are seeking to mitigate this liability by adding in the words "without reasonable excuse", so that if he has got a reason which stands up—he genuinely did not know the requirement, he forgot about it, or left it to agents who were negligent—he should not be liable to the penalty.

It is necessary, of course, for him to be able to show that he has a reasonable excuse. As matters stand at the moment, if he is prosecuted he has no defence at all, whatever may be the reason for the failure to give the notice to the Land Commission of the sale or the lease or the starting of the development. There is no defence at all in a court of law to that failure, whatever may be the reason. We suggest he be given a defence, and that the defence be that he has a reasonable excuse for not having done so in the kind of circumstances I have outlined. It is up to him to satisfy the court that that excuse is a genuine one, and he must discharge the burden of proof to the court that it is a proper excuse, and if he has a reasonable excuse, if he satisfies the court, he is not guilty and he is not penalised, but if he cannot satisfy the court, then of course he suffers the penalty as laid down in the Bill, a fine not exceeding £50.

What we think completely wrong is that he is obliged to go to the court without any defence at all, that this is made an absolute offence, even though something can happen without real fault on his part. Therefore we do ask the Minister to accept this Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington

My right hon. Friend is always willing to introduce a modification into a Clause which appears to press unduly on the individual. When I think of all the powerful speeches that I have heard from the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), I do not think I have heard one before in which the logic of his case was in inverse ratio to the enthusiasm with which he made his speech. If he considers the circumstances of this Amendment, I am sure that as an officer of the Supreme Court he will realise that what he is suggesting is not only impracticable but also in some respects would place on the court a burden which it would find difficult to discharge, and in respect of an obligation which is not at all heavy.

The penalty provision of Clause 76(1) for failure to notify in cases A and B is precisely in accord with Section 28(1) of the Finance Act, 1931. It is based on that model because it is the same form which now has to be submitted—I know the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) does not like this—when there is a transfer to land. Therefore, this is not an additional form. It is the same form. In fact, I think it is going to be used for capital gains as well. To suggest that this penalty of £50 is a heavy obligation is putting the matter very high indeed.

The hon. Gentleman said that there should be a reasonable excuse and that it would have to be a reason that stood up. How would it stand up? Suppose that under his proposed Amendment I failed to submit a form and I were to say "I forgot". How could that be tested in a court? I suggest that, on a little analysis, the hon. Member will feel that he is pressing this matter too hard. There is no great bureaucratic burden on the citizen. He merely has to send a form. It may be sent by him, his agent or his solicitor, and it is the sort of form which has been in use during the last 36 years. The hon. Member for Crosby says that it has never been any good. Certainly it will be of some good. There will be this one form. I suggest that this is a routine operation performed by all those devoted members of the Supreme Court who look after the interests of their clients so well, and that to suggest that the penalty for failure is excessive is putting the case too high. My right hon. Friend could not possibly accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.