HC Deb 24 October 1967 vol 751 cc1556-75

Lords Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 26, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fifty".

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White)

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

I think it might be convenient if with this Amendment we take Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 which are in identical terms, in page 5, lines 7 and 14. They all deal with the same point.

Mr. Speaker

Not Amendment No. 8?

Mrs. White

It has been suggested that Amendment No. 8 might come more comfortably with Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 9.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Lady has pro-posed that Nos. 4, 6 and 10 should be taken together. I have no objection if that is the will of the House.

Mr. Graham Page

Like you, Mr. Speaker, I thought that Amendment No. 8 would come with these Amendments rather than with Nos. 5, 7 and 9.

Mrs. White

If I might put the difficulty in which we are placed, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a later point at which I have to move an Amendment to No. 8, which is not at this moment. I consulted the Table about this, and I was told that the Amendment to Amendment No. 8 which brings in the period of 21 years should be moved at a later point.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think we should make heavy weather about this. It is just a matter of convenience. We will take Nos. 4, 6 and 10 together, as the hon. Lady suggests.

Mrs. White

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point on which we ask the House to disagree with their Lordships is that they are attempting to insert a term of 50 years for the main provisions of the Bill instead of the term of 21 years. This is not the first time that this attempt has been made. When we previously discussed the matter in Committee and on Report, it was first of all suggested that the term should be 90 years and then 50 years. We have really rehearsed all the arguments at length. I would find it rather difficult to say anything fresh. I frankly doubt whether other hon. Members will be able to say anything new either, although I know that they may try.

This is one of the basic disagreements between us, but we have been able to ground our propositions firmly on precedent, which we would have supposed would appeal to the Opposition with their regard for tradition. In fact, we can go back to the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920, which has the term of 21 years; the Law of Property Act on which I am told Lord Birkenhead made a powerful speech on this matter; and far more recently and perhaps more cogently because it will be within the direct experience of a number of hon. Members, we have the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act which was the product of the party opposite. I served during the Committee stage of that Measure. The arguments there were all in favour of taking 21 years as the dividing line between a short and a long lease.

We appreciate that hon. Members opposite hold a different view on the question, but we believe that, for practical advantages, we should stick to the division between short and long leases which they themselves adopted in their 1954 Act. I do not imagine that we should gain very much in wisdom if we went again into the arguments which have been generously rehearsed at all stages and in both Houses. I hope, therefore, that the House will disagree with their Lordships in these Amendments.

Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)

The discussions both here and in another place on how long is a long lease recall to my mind a film which I saw many years ago in which a rather improbable schoolmaster by the name of Will Hay was involved with an impossible schoolboy named William Moffat in a never-ending dialogue about how long was a piece of string.

The Government have been at great pains throughout to prove that their piece of string is at least 21 years long. If one compares a 21-year lease with a lease for one year, three years, or even for five or seven years, it can be said that 21 years is a long lease. However, if one compares a 21-year lease with a lease for 99 years, the normal ground rent lease with which the Bill was originally concerned, or a lease for 999 years, it is seen to be by no means long. When one compares it with a freehold, the largest interest which can be owned in land, which lawyers call a fee simple absolute—absolute, that is, in time—one is comparing 21 years with infinity. In these circumstances, how can one say that 21 years is "long", when we are giving, or seeking to give, the owner of that interest the right to acquire an interest which continues in infinity?

The Government have overlooked that, in the apparently absurd conundrum about Will Hay's piece of string, there lies a truth of logic, that "long" is a relative term. Hence, a 21-year lease may be a long lease for some purposes but not for others.

The right hon. Lady has reproduced the argument which we heard in Committee and on Report, and which was heard in another place, that a 21-year lease is termed a long lease by reference to precedent. We have been referred to the 1920 Act and the 1954 Act. But for what purposes was a 21-year lease considered long in that context? Secondly, if it was long in that context, is it necessarily long in the context with which we are here concerned? Following precedent slavishly in this way, without realising that "long" is a relative term, the Government have led themselves into an absurd situation.

In the 1920 Rent Act, Parliament was concerned to deal with a certain situation and to give security of tenure to occupiers or tenants of residential premises who faced eviction at the termination of their interests in social conditions which made it well nigh impossible for them to acquire other accommodation on equal terms. It was thought necessary to give protection to tenants in that position. But it was felt at that time that tenants of 21-year leases did not require that particular protection, possibly because 21 years was sufficiently long for most residential purposes and for the purpose of keeping a pool of housing available, possibly because leases for 21 years were given normally for the quality and expensive type of property of which there was no shortage, possibly because it was felt in 1920 that in 21 years social conditions might well have changed and emergency legislation—Rent Act legislation is emergency legislation—then being brought in would no longer apply. For these reasons, 21-year leases, then in the Act for the purposes of definition called long leases, were excluded. It was done for those reasons and for no other.

In 1954, the Government of the day felt that leases which were excluded by the earlier Act of 1920 needed some form of protection, and they referred to long leases, going back to the 1920 definition, in saying what was the subject matter of the 1954 Act.

Leases for 21 years or more were called long leases for specific purposes, and these purposes do not apply here. We are considering other matters entirely. We are considering the right of the owner of a limited interest in land to acquire the absolute interest in land. If one looks at the White Paper, the position in which the Government put themselves is seen patently to be even more absurd. The whole basis of this legislation is that the land belongs to the freeholder and the buildings belong to the leaseholder. But how can this be said in regard to a term as short as 21 years? How can the Government say that, when the freeholder and the leaseholder originally entered into the arrangement between them, they thought that the leaseholder would be acquiring the building for the remainder of its useful life? What tenant would have entered into a 21-year lease—this is the kernel of the matter—on the basis that he was paying for the building, paying a premium sufficiently large to justify his acquiring the building, or, still less, entering into a building lease? What tenant would have entered into a lease for 21 years, covenanting to put a building upon the land? Clearly, it cannot be right. If one adopts the Government's premise, that the land belongs to the freeholder and the building belongs to the leaseholder, one cannot apply it to a 21-year lease.

The position becomes even more absurd in relation to the extension Clauses of the Bill. We now say that the owner of a 21-year lease can turn it into a 50-year lease. This is patently absurd, and it has never been within the contemplation of the leasehold reformers through the past decades. Their problem was the lease for 99 years and more. This has been the problem with which all leasehold reformers have been concerned. Yet the Government now make complete nonsense of the situation.

In Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends proposed that the correct definition for a long lease was one of 90 years. I did not agree with that view, but someone has to draw the line somewhere. The definition is to be found in our Income Tax laws. The Income Tax authorities have for many years regarded leases of 50 years or more as long leases.

6.30 p.m.

Where a premium has been paid on the creation of a lease of less than 50 years, Income Tax is not payable on the capital sum because it is regarded as payment of the rent in advance. Precise thought was given to the nature of the arrangement between the landlord and the tenant, to the question of who was paying for the building, and whether the tax should fall on the capital sum—whether it represented a payment for the building or merely an advance payment of rent. The Inland Revenue authorities concluded that from the very nature of the transaction a lease of 50 years or more was a long lease and that with a shorter lease the tenant had no interest whatever in the building.

Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to consider the absurd situation in which the Government are placing themselves by defining a long lease as one of 21 years. On the basis of their own premise for enfranchisement—the question of who owns the building and who owns the land—their position is complete nonsense. It is also nonsense for the other reasons I have given and for those which prompted their noble Lordships to amend the Bill as they did.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I am particularly glad that the new Minister has joined us during this debate, because of his considerable experience in financial matters at the Treasury. I very much hope that he will reply to the debate, because one aspect concerns the Treasury and I hope that he will give the House his advice on it.

The Government have invented the principle that the land belongs to the landlord and the bricks and mortar to the tenant. But if we accept that premise, surely it does not apply to a lease as short as 22 years, as proposed in the Bill? The Lords Amendment seeks to increase the period to 50 years. I particularly draw the attention of the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury to leases granted for a premium, which are not long leases in the ordinary meaning of the word, but fall within the scope of the Bill as it is now drafted.

I have in mind particularly the case where somebody has done nothing more nor less than to pay the ordinary rack rent in advance in a lump sum, which is very often to the advantage of the tenant as well as the landlord. I could give examples where the landlord and tenant have discussed a new lease and the landlord has asked, "Would you rather have a running rent or pay a premium and your rent in advance in a lump sum?" Because he pays less in total by paying in advance, the tenant often chooses to do so. He is then secure in old age and there will be no alteration in the rent with rising costs and so on.

It can be seen that there are many advantages to the tenant. This is recognised in the Income Tax Acts, which state that a premium paid on a lease of under 50 years shall be treated as income in the hands of the landlord. If it is so treated in the Income Tax laws, how can it be different under this legislation? If it is nothing but rent in advance, how can one say that the bricks and mortar belong to the tenant? He has not bought them any more than I have bought a house if I rent it for seven or 10 years.

The Minister must recognise that that argument is entirely logical. In our financial debates he has given us clear, concise and logical answers to the many questions put to him and I hope that he will give us his advice now. But I doubt whether he can find ways to defend what was put in the Bill by his colleague, the ex-Minister, who no longer steers it through the House. It is the most extraordinary basis of legislation.

I consulted one of the leading estate agents and valuers in the South of England on the question of whether premium leases are of major importance. He thinks that about 45 per cent. of the leases granted in London and the Home Counties in the past 25 years have been in the form of a premium and rack rent paid in advance. If that is so, we are dealing with a substantial number of people who will be put in a position which they never dreamt of being in when they took the lease and paid the rent in advance for 22 or 30 years. They will suddenly find that they are being made a gift of three-quarters of the value of the property, which they never intended to get and was not a basis of the contract at the start.

This is a matter of grave importance to the House, for a mark of a free society is that people are protected by law from other citizens acquiring their property except on fair and proper terms of compensation. This legislation operates against the sense of decency and fair play. The whole basis of contracts entered into for 25 years will be upset by the legislation, which will enable one private citizen compulsorily to purchase another's property for less than the fair market value.

I represent Basingstoke, which is an expanding town. An immense amount of compulsory purchase of other people's property—not by one citizen, but by the community—is involved in that expansion. There are many places where one desperately would not wish to see the compulsory purchases go through for personal reasons, such as where elderly people are involved. That is bad enough, but why will the Bill enable a private citizen compulsorily to purchase on unfair terms? We had a tragedy in Basingstoke, about which many local people are very worried—the case of an elderly man for whom the terms of compensation were so unfair that he committed suicide.

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, the hon. Member is getting away from the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Mitchell

I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to show that immense personal hardship is created where there are unfair terms of compensation. Unless the Lords Amendment is accepted there is a grave danger of the House enacting that one citizen can compulsorily purchase another's property for unfair compensation, and that is what I believe is so deplorable.

I sincerely hope that we have the benefit of the advice of the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury in this matter. I am sure that he cannot defend applying one law at the Treasury for Income Tax and another for the citizen, in the way that we see in the Bill.

Mr. Costain

The case has been made so well by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) that I shall narrowly restrict my remarks. I wish to emphasise particularly the question of the people concerned with 21-year leases. Many people accept the principle that if a person puts a house on land he has some right to it, but people do not put it on land on a 21-year lease.

How the Government have arrived at the figure of 21 we do not understand. When I learned of the appointment of the new Minister I rejoiced to think that we should get some sense into this legislation. All through the Finance Bill my hon. Friends have made the point about the 50 years. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of another period of 50 years, when we debated the Capital Gains Tax. Does he recall that 50 years was then accepted as a long asset?

Why do we have a different term for a long-term asset and a short-term asset in every Bill which comes before the House? We do not expect much consistency from the present Government on policy, but they ought at least to make it simple from the point of view of administration. Perhaps we may have clearly explained why 21 years has been chosen. It is normally after 21 years that a person becomes of age, but there is no question here of a house becoming of age. Why do not the Government adopt the 50-year period accepted in the Finance Bill?

Mr. Graham Page

If the Lords Amendment is rejected it means that a tenant with a lease for 21 years and one day has a right to acquire the freehold of the house in which he lives, the bricks and mortar, for nothing, and that is ridiculous. It blows up the Government White Paper on leasehold reform and blows up the Government's theories and philosophies about the tenant having built the house, as my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) have so clearly said.

"Long lease" or "short lease" or "ground lease" is not a lawyer's term now. If one asks any layman what he thinks is a ground lease he will say that it is one for 99 years. He would not think that a 21-year lease was a ground lease.

Mr. MacDermot

What about the 1954 Act?

Mr. Page

I will come to the 1954 Act in a moment as the hon. and learned Gentleman has commented on it. We compromised with the Government on this and put forward 50 years instead of 99 years, and this is well supported by Income Tax law and even by the Bill itself. The Bill recognises that the tenant should be given an extended lease of 50 years. The tenant is being given a long lease if he likes instead of his freehold. Why not offer him 21 years and say "There is your long lease."? The Bill has recognised that a long lease is one of 50 years, and we accepted that in the earlier stages, and that was inserted in the Bill in another place.

I challenge the Government to say where in the country there is an unrenewable ground lease for 21 years. I know that leases are granted in South Wales for 21 years, but they are renewable leases. I know of no unrenewable, properly called, ground lease for 21 years. The difficulty is coupled with the definition of low rent in a later Clause, and together with that it will certainly bring within the net some, and perhaps many, houses which were let at a market rent 21 years ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also showed how it will bring within the net premium leases over 21 years. These leases of just over 21 years granted for a premium were transactions properly made to escape the Rent Act. It was perfectly permissible by law—until this Bill becomes law—for that to be done. It was done to escape the premium prohibition for controlled or regulated property. So there will be many cases in which merely because the landlord and the tenant arranged their affairs within the law so that a premium was paid and then a rack rent will now find that it will be turned into a ground lease and the tenant will be entitled to have his bricks and mortar without payment. I cannot see the Government's intention. What is behind it? Do they want to stop avoidance of the Rent Acts? That is not necessary. It is done in a later Clause in the Bill. There seems to be no purpose in this if the Government still hold to the principles set forth in the White Paper.

Just now the Minister interrupted, "What about the 1954 Act?" My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey showed clearly that the 1954 Act was for the purpose of rent restriction and control and that it was repeating the 1920 provisions. The purpose was wholly different. The purpose of the 1954 Act was to let a tenant remain in the property at a rack rent. The purpose of the 1954 Act was not to give him the house for no payment at all. So the position is wholly different.

It seems pure obstinacy on the part of the Government to hold to the period of 21 years when they have put before the House no reason at all within their principles of leasehold enfranchisement why they should define a long lease as being one over 21 years.

6.45 p.m.

Mrs. White

We have had an interesting and pleasant debate, and, particularly an amusing illustration was given by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about the length of a piece of string.

But I do not think that my expectations have been falsified. I said at the outset that I doubted whether we should tonight hear any arguments different in substance from those previously rehearsed. This is a matter on which we are simply at variance.

Various arguments have been put forward, but I do not think that on this occasion we ought to debate the 1920 Act or the 1954 Act. We have enough to do to try to get this Bill through. Therefore, I do not feel disposed to follow the very interesting historical points adduced by the hon. Member for Hornsey.

Nor do I think we ought to re-debate the various Finance Bills dealing with the Income Tax law on this matter. I think that there were good reasons at one time which made the Revenue think that 50 years would be useful from its point of view. That was before the Capital Gains Tax. I do not think that this is the moment to go into all the arguments about Income Tax.

Mr. Graham Page

Why not?

Mrs. White

Because we are discussing something else. I think that we could go on chopping logic and ill logic about this, but I do not feel that we add very much to the store of wisdom by so doing.

I would remind the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), who was eloquent about premium leases, that there are other restrictions in the Bill which very much limit the number of those premium leases which could be brought within the scope of the Bill. For example, the restoration of the rateable value, in the carrying out of which I had some hand at an earlier stage, has a limiting effect for reasons that I gave then which I thought were conclusive.

We appreciate that the Opposition do not agree with us on this. They have their views and we have ours. I do not feel that we should get any clearer point than we did at the beginning if we went into the matter any further.

Mr. David Mitchell

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. White

I do not want to enter into further arguments because I think that we have already shown conclusively that we wish to disagree with the Lords on this point.

Mr. David Mitchell

It is the most extraordinary thing that I have ever heard in the House for the Minister to say, "I do not agree with the hon. Member, but I am not going to tell him why and not give him the basis of my argument because I do not think that this is the time and place to do so. "If this is not the time and place to answer the arguments which have been brought forward, where is the right time and place?

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 96.

Division No. 491.] AYES [5.22 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Binns, John
Alldritt, Walter Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Bishop, E. S.
Allen, Scholefield Bagier, Gordon A. T. Blackburn, F.
Anderson, Donald Barnett, Joel Boardman, H.
Archer, Peter Beaney, Alan Booth, Albert
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Bidwell, Sydney Boston, Terence
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Hooson, Emlyn Parker, John (Dagenham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Horner, John Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brooks, Edwin Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pavitt, Laurence
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Buchan, Norman Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Howie, W. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Cant, R. B. Hoy, James Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Carter-Jones, Lewis Huckfield, Leslie Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Coe, Denis Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Price, William (Rugby)
Coleman, Donald Hunter, Adam Probert, Arthur
Conlan, Bernard Hynd, John Rankin, John
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard Janner, Sir Barnett Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Jeger, George (Coole) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Ryan, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, Dan (Burnley) Sheldon, Robert
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Leadbitter, Ted Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Ledger, Ron Silverman, Sydney (Neison)
Dempsey, James Lee, John (Reading) Skeffington, Arthur
Dewar, Donald Lestor, Miss Joan Slater, Joseph
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Small, William
Dickens, James Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Snow, Julian
Dobson, Ray Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Doig, Peter Lubbock, Eric Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Dunnett, Jack Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) MacDermot, Niall Swain, Thomas
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Macdonald, A. H. Symonds, J. B.
Edelman, Maurice McGuire, Michael Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Tinn, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackie, John Tornney, Frank
Ellis, John Mackintosh, John P. Urwin, T. W.
Ensor, David Maclennan, Robert Varley, Eric G.
Finch, Harold McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wallace, George
Ford, Ben Manuel, Archie Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fowler, Gerry Mapp, Charles Weitzman, David
Freeson, Reginald Marquand, David Wellbeloved, James
Galpern, Sir Myer Mayhew, Christopher Whitaker, Ben
Gardner, Tony Mendelson, J. J. White, Mrs. Eirene
Garrett, W. E. Miller, Dr. M. S. Wilkins, W. A.
Gourlay, Harry Milne, Edward (Blyth) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gregory, Arnold Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Grey, Charles (Durham) Molloy, William Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Neal, Harold Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Winnick, David
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Malley, Brian Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Orme, Stanley Winterbottom, R. E.
Hamling, William Oswald, Thomas Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Hannan, William Owen, Will (Morpeth) Woof, Robert
Harper, Joseph Padley, Walter Yates, Victor
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Haseldine, Norman Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hilton, W. S. Park, Trevor Mr. Neil McBride and
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.
NOES
Allason, James (Hernel Hempstead) Cordle, John Foster, Sir John
Astor, John Costain, A. P. Gibson-Watt, David
Awdry, Daniel Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Goodhew, Victor
Balniel, Lord Cunningham, Sir Knox Grant-Ferris, R.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Dalkeith, Earl of Gresham Cooke, R.
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Dance, James Grieve, Percy
Blaker, Peter d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Digby, Simon Wingfield Gurden, Harold
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Doughty, Charles Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Eden, Sir John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Bruce-Cardyne, J. Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Harris, Reader (Heston)
Bullus, Sir Eric Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Campbell, Gordon Errington, Sir Eric Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Channon, H. P. G. Farr, John Hawkins, Paul
Cooke, Robert Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hay, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Fortescue, Tim Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Heath, Art. Hn. Edward Maude, Angus Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Heseltine, Michael Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Hiley, Joseph Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Royle, Anthony
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Mills, Peter (Torrington) Russell, Sir Ronald
Holland, Philip Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hordern, Peter Miscampbell, Norman Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)
Hornby, Richard Monro, Hector Smith, John
Howell, David (Guildford) Montgomery, Fergus Stodart, Anthony
Hunt, John More, Jasper Summers, Sir Spencer
Hutchison, Michael Clark Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Tapsell, Peter
Iremonger, T. L. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Murton, Oscar Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Jopling, Michael Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian van Straubenzee, W. R.
Kershaw, Anthony Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Kimball, Marcus Page, Graham (Crosby) Wall, Patrick
Kitson, Timothy Page, John (Harrow, W.) Weatherill, Bernard
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Webster, David
Lane, David Peyton, John Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pink, R. Bonner Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Pounder, Rafton Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Price, David (Eastleigh) Worsley, Marcus
Loveys, W. H. Prior, J. M. L. Younger, Hn. George
McMaster, Stanley Pym, Francis
Maddan, Martin Quennell, Miss J. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maginnis, John E. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Mr. David Mitchell and
Mr. Anthony Grant.
Division No. 492.] AYES [6.50 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gourlay, Harry Padley, Walter
Alldritt, Walter Gregory, Arnold Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Allen., Scholefield Grey, Charles (Durham) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Anderson, Donald Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Park, Trevor
Archer, Peter Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Pavitt, Laurence
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Beaney, Alan Hamling, William Pentland, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney Harper, Joseph Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Binns, John Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Blackburn, F. Haseldine, Norman Price, William (Rugby)
Booth, Albert Hilton, W. S. Probert, Arthur
Boston, Terence Hooson, Emlyn Rhodes, Geoffrey
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Horner, John Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brooks, Edwin Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Ryan, John
Buchan, Norman Huckfield, Leslie Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Sheldon, Robert
Cant, R. B. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hughes, Roy (Newport) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Chapman, Donald Hunter, Adam Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Coe, Denis Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Coleman, Donald Janner, Sir Barnett Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Conlan, Bernard Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&st.P'cras, S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Skeffington, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Slater, Joseph
Crawshaw, Richard Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Small, William
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Spriggs, Leslie
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Leadbitter, Ted Swain, Thomas
Dalyell, Tam Lestor, Miss Joan Symonds, J. B.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Lipton, Marcus Tinn, James
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Loughlin, Charles Tomney, Frank
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) McBride, Neil Urwin, T. W.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) MacDermot, Niall Varley, Eric G.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Macdonald, A. H. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) McGuire, Michael Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Dempsey, James Maclennan, Robert Wallace, George
Dewar, Donald McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Dickens, James Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Weitzman, David
Dobson, Ray Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wellbeloved, James
Doig, Peter Manuel, Archie White, Mrs. Eirene
Dunnett, Jack Mapp, Charles Whitlock, William
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Marquand, David Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Edelman, Maurice Mellish, Robert Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Mendelson, J. J. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ellis, John Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Ensor, David Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winterbottom, R. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woof, Robert
Finch, Harold Neal, Harold Yates, Victor
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Norwood, Christopher
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) O'Malley, Brian TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Galpern, Sir Myer Orme, Stanley Mr. W. Howie and
Gardner, Tony Oswald, Thomas Mr. Harold Walker.
Garrett, W. E. Owen, Will (Morpeth)
NOES
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Dance, James Heseltine, Michael
Astor, John Digby, Simon Wingfield Hiley, Joseph
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Doughty, Charles Holland, Philip
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hordern, Peter
Body, Richard Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hornby, Richard
Brinton, Sir Tatton Errington, Sir Eric Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-col.Sir Walter Farr, John Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Jopling, Michael
Bullus, Sir Eric Foster, Sir John Kershaw, Anthony
Channon, H. P. G. Gibson-Watt, David Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Clegg, Walter Grant, Anthony Lane, David
Cooke, Robert Grant-Ferris, R. Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Grieve, Percy Loveys, W. H.
Cordle, John Hall-Davis, A. G. F. McMaster, Stanley
Costain, A. P. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Maddan, Martin
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Maginnis, John E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Hawkins, Paul Maude, Angus
Cunningham, Sir Knox Hay, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Dalkeith, Earl of Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Pink, R. Bonner Summers, Sir Spencer
Montgomery, Fergus Pounder, Rafton Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
More, Jasper Price, David (Eastleigh) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Prior, J. M. L. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Pym, Francis Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Murton, Oscar Quennell, Miss J. M. Ward, Dame Irene
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Weatherill, Bernard
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Webster, David
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Page, Graham (Crosby) Russell, Sir Ronald Worsley, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Younger, Hn. George
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)
Percival, Ian Smith, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Peyton, John Stodart, Anthony Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 5, line 5, leave out from "Where" to "been" in line 6, and insert "a tenancy is or has".

Read a second time.

Mr. Allason

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after 'tenancy', to insert: '(not being a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply)'.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

I, too, welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State to the field of land law. I hope that he does not find the transition one from the works of Enid Blyton to the works of Sigmund Freud in one fell swoop.

I should also pay tribute to the dear departed—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). He was the first Minister with whom I crossed swords in the House and was always courteous. At the same time he was, I think, one of the most Socialist of all the Ministers and he met the end that all Socialist Ministers must inevitably meet—the chop.

In another place Lord Hughes moved this Amendment because the original drafting of the subsection was inelegant. I suppose that if a man is to lose his land he might as well lose it elegantly as inelegantly. But there is a point of some seriousness which crops up in this Clause which this Amendment is designed to meet. This arises from the use of the words about "the obligation" of the landlord to renew the lease. It is not only a covenant but an obligation. Does the word "obligation" in this context mean that it could be a statutory obligation? What comes to our minds is that by Statute landlords have to prolong a tenancy not purely by covenant. If one takes the case under the Rent Act the landlord has to extend the tenancy. When the tenant dies the new tenancy has to be extended to a member of the family. We should like some reassurance that this Amendment and the Clause with which it is concerned does not mean that Rent Act properties will be included. That is why we put down the Amendment. It does not seem clear. The word "obligation" is a somewhat unusual word to use in this context and I would ask the Minister, if he can, to give us some reassurance on this and, if he cannot reassure us, to accept the Amendment.

Mrs. White

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) for putting this point. I hope that I can reassure him, because it is not just this Clause that one has to take into account, but the Clause which provides for the low rent. The definitions for this purpose really eliminate the point which seems to be worrying him. As I understand it, if one takes the low rent Clause as well, then by definition a tenancy to which the Rent Act applies must be at a rent exceeding two-thirds of the rate-able value as at 23rd March, 1965. Therefore, by that definition, and in a subsequent Clause, the point which the hon. Member seems to be concerned about is covered. It means that those which come under the Rent Act provisions could not by definition come under this one.

Mr. Graham Page

I do not think that is a satisfactory answer. This Clause provides for a lease, originally perhaps for a short period of a week, a month or a year, being a lease which is renewable by the tenant and has been renewed for a period over 21 years. It then becomes a long lease provided that it is at a low rent and the tenant will have the right to enfranchise. This happens only if there is a covenant or an obligation by the landlord to renew.

Suppose that property within the area of controlled property was let 22 years ago. It may well be that its rent then and perhaps now is less than the two-thirds required to bring it outside the Act. The landlord has been under an obligation throughout the 22 years to renew—not an obligation under the lease or tenancy itself, but an obligation by Statute. That is the word which is used in this Clause: that if there is a covenant or obligation for renewal and the lease has been renewed for a period over 21 years then it is treated as a long lease. It would be ridiculous to think that it is the intention of the Act that a controlled tenant who has been in occupation for 21 years and one day should be entitled to enfranchise under this Act merely because there was a statutory obligation on the landlord to continue that tenancy.

There may be very few tenancies which come under this provision, but, even if there are a few, surely it was not intended to bring them into the net of this Bill, and provision should be made to exclude them. I do not think that they are excluded by any other provision of the Bill. They are included by the use of the word "obligation", and the Amendment which we have suggested merely puts that right. It puts words in after "tenancy" which would exclude the sort of case which I have tried to describe.

Mr. MacDermot

Perhaps I can assist the House on this somewhat technical legal point which has been raised. As I understand it, the purpose of the Amend-

ment is to exclude from these provisions any tenancy to which the Rent Act applies and to see that there would not be enfranchisement in any such case.

As the Minister of State, Welsh Office, pointed out, that problem cannot arise, because, in order for the Rent Act to apply to a tenancy, it must be at a rent exceeding two-thirds of the rateable value at the appropriate date in March, 1965. Any tenancy which complies with that and, therefore, from that point of view, could be within the Rent Act, is excluded from the provisions of this Bill by the requirement in Clause 4 that the rent must be less than two-thirds of the rateable value in order to qualify as a low rent. Therefore, I do not see how the problem can arise.

Mr. Graham Page

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, there is the case, examples of which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) gave when we were discussing the last Amendment, where there might have been a premium lease over 21 years thereby reducing the rack rent to a figure below the two-thirds.

Mr. MacDermot

In that case the Rent Act would not apply.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 169.

Division No. 493.] AYES [7.8 p.m.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Astor, John Hawkins, Paul Percival, Ian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Hay, John Pink, R. Bonner
Body, Richard Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pounder, Rafton
Brinton, Sir Tatton Heseltine, Michael Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hiley, Joseph Prior, J. M. L.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Holland, Philip Pym, Francis
Bullus, Sir Eric Hordern, Peter Quennell, Miss J. M.
Channon, H. P. G. Hutchison, Michael Clark Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Clegg, Walter Jennings, J. c. (Burton) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Cooke, Robert Kitson, Timothy Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Lancaster, Col. C. G. Russell, Sir Ronald
Cordle, John Lane, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Costain, A. P. Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Silvester, Fred (Walthamstow, W.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Loveys, W. H. Smith, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox McMaster, Stanley Stodart, Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of Maddan, Martin Summers, Sir Spencer
Dance, James Maginnis, John E. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Digby, Simon Wingfield Maude, Angus van Straubenzee, W. R.
Doughty, Charles Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Ward, Dame Irene
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Weatherill, Bernard
Errington, Sir Eric Montgomery, Fergus Webster, David
Farr, John More, Jasper Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Younger, Hn. George
Foster, Sir John Murton, Oscar
Gibson-Watt, David Nabarro, Sir Gerald TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant-Ferris, R. Nicholls, Sir Harmar Mr. Anthony Grant and
Grieve, Percy Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, Graham (Crosby)
NOES
Alldritt, Walter Gourlay, Harry Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Allen, Scholefield Gregory, Arnold Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Anderson, Donald Grey, Charles (Durham) Park, Trevor
Archer, Peter Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Pavitt, Laurence
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Pentland, Norman
Beaney, Alan Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Bidwell, Sydney Hamling, William Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Binns, John Harper, Joseph Price, William (Rugby)
Blackburn, F. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Probert, Arthur
Boardman, H. Haseldine, Norman Rhodes, Geoffrey
Booth, Albert Hilton, W. S. Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Boston, Terence Hooson, Emlyn Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur Horner, John Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Ryan, John
Brooks, Edwin Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Huckfield, Leslie Sheldon, Robert
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Cant, R. B. Hughes, Roy (Newport) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hunter, Adam Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Chapman, Donald Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Coe, Denis Janner, Sir Barnett Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Coleman, Donald Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.) Skeffington, Arthur
Conlan, Bernard Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Slater, Joseph
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, Dan (Burnley) Small, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Spriggs, Leslie
Crawshaw, Richard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kerr, Russell (Feitham) Swain, Thomas
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Symonds, J. B.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Ledger, Ron Tinn, James
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lester, Miss Joan Tomney, Frank
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lipton, Marcus Urwin, T. W.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Loughtin, Charles Varley, Eric G.
Davies, Harold (Leek) McBride, Neil Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) MacDermot, Niall Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Macdonald, A. H. Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Dempsey, James McGuire, Michael Wallace, George
Dewar, Donald McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Dickens, James Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Weitzman, David
Dobson, Ray Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wellbeloved, James
Doig, Peter Manuel, Archie White, Mrs. Eirene
Dunnett, Jack Mapp, Charles Whitlock, William
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Marquand, David Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Edelman, Maurice Mellish, Robert Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Mendelson, J. J. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ellis, John Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Ensor, David Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winterbottom, R. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Neal, Harold Woof, Robert
Finch, Harold Norwood, Christopher Yates, Victor
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) O'Malley, Brian
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Orme, Stanley TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Galpern, Sir Myer Oswald, Thomas Mr. W. Howie and
Gardner, Tony Owen, Will (Morpeth) Mr. Harold Walker.
Garrett, W. E. Padley, Walter
Mrs. White

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

It may be for the convenience of the House if with this we also consider Lords Amendments No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9, because, although we have subsequently to deal with Lords Amendment No. 8, this group of Amendments is a group of drafting Amendments. We hope that the House will agree that they improve Clause 3(4) which, because of the various Amendments made at various times, in its present form now greatly distresses the draftsmen, because, as they point out, references to the future are made in the pluperfect tense. These Amendments are therefore primarily grammatical. I shall later move the Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 8 to bring it into line with what has been decided about the period of years.

Mr. Speaker

It is suggested that we should discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 with this in order to solve the problem of the imperfect pluperfect tenses, but that we shall have to consider an Amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 8 when we come to it.

Sir John Foster (Northwich)

I do not need to disclose my interest in the grammatical point, but I do not understand Lords Amendment No. 7. We are asked to substitute "is or has" for "had", which would leave the provision reading: … the tenancy is or has once or more … I do not see how the wording fits. One cannot say that a tenancy is or has once or more renewed.

Mrs. White

The wording would be: is or has been once or more renewed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 7, disagreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 9, agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 10, leave out "that" and insert "as to bring to more than fifty years", read a second time and amended, by leaving out the word "fifty" and inserting the word "twenty-one"—[Mrs. Eirene White],—instead thereof,—and, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 12, agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 14, disagreed to.