§ Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Graham PageMy complaint about the Clause, which deals with the definition of statutory tenancies, is that it is an unsatisfactory form of consolidation to refer to an Act which is repealed in a Schedule to the Bill. Subsection (2) requires the reader to refer to something described as being
…within the meaning of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920…When one turns to Schedule 17 one finds that that very Act is repealed. This is an unsatisfactory way of consolidating. It means that we can never get rid of the old Acts. Although we repeal them, they are still with us; they never die and they do not even fade away under this Measure. I would have liked to have seen an end to some of these old Statutes.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe Clause, and subsection (2) in particular, preserves the extensive case law surrounding the topic of statutory tenants. That is 639 its object and effect. It must refer to the old law since the case law which is picked up by the subsection is necessarily all founded upon the old law. The concept of a dwelling-house to which the Act of 1920 applied is, it is true, not relevant to a modern statement of the law. It was the 1949 Act which saw the beginning of the switch from the concept of dwelling-house to that of tenancy. But it is relevant to the existing case law. Accordingly, it is essential that the words in subsection (2) which explain the phrase
if and so long as he occupies the dwelling-house as his residenceshould be couched in terms of the law as it is immediately before the consolidation Bill comes into force.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 4 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.