HC Deb 21 February 1968 vol 759 cc549-69
Mr. Maclennan

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 19, leave out ' between 26th January 1968 and ' and insert ' before '.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was right to emphasise in Standing Committee that the prime justification for this measure to limit the incontestable right of a landlord to serve notice to quit was that without it, without this restoration of the position, a number of individuals, however few, might suffer immensely. The purpose of the Amendment is to protect a few individuals—one of them is well know to the House as a result of the debate tonight—on whom notice to quit was already served before 26th January, 1968, the date laid down ill the Bill after which it shall be possible to challenge the landlord's notice to quit.

9.30 p.m.

The date chosen is arbitrary in a sense. It is the date on which the Clause was published, and I suppose that in theory notice was then given to landlords and tenants alike that their positions would be affected if the Bill became law. Presumably that is the theory behind the choice of 26th January, but in fact the Government's intentions on the matter were known for some time before. On 4th December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in the House that the Government intended to restore broadly the position that had prevailed before the 1958 Act. He thus gave notice to landlords throughout Scotland that their interests would be affected. From that moment it became possible for a proprietor to serve notice to quit on the tenant. For all I know—and I have no evidence at all on this point—a number of notices were served between 4th December, when the Government's intentions were firmly, stated and 26th January.

One can take the matter back even before 4th December and argue that frequent Answers by Ministers on the subject made it clear that the Government intended to move, and that the operation was being held up only by the consultations under way with the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union, among others.

The choice of 26th January is rather arbitrary, and if one is to restore the position to benefit those few individuals who have suffered—we are all agreed that they are a few—it would be wiser in logic simply to accept the Amendment and provide that where a notice to quit has been served before the Act, but will become operative after its passage, it will be possible to contest it. That is the Amendment's purpose in brief.

I admit that I am asking the House to accept a retrospective principle, and I do so in the full knowledge of what that signifies. It is not capable of argument that the House never passes retrospective legislation. It has been passed on a number of occasions, but the general principle is that so far as possible it is preferable not to do so. It would be wholly repugnant in criminal legislation, but this is an entirely different situation. The views commonly held on retrospective legislation were perhaps most classically enunciated some time ago in the case of Phillips v. Eyre, in which it was said: Retrospective laws areprima facie of questionable policy and contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried out upon the faith of the existing law.

While that is true, it is also true that Acts are frequently passed which affect the private contractual relations between individuals and, indeed, the law takes cognisance of this in the doctrine of supervening impossibility and the consequent frustration of the contract. This is not, therefore, such an abhorrent situation as might be suggested.

I suggest that here we have to weigh very carefully the interests of the individuals who will be affected and that we should not give support to the Amendment or vote against it on the ground that it involves a principle which is itself abhorrent. If we weigh up the interests of those involved, there is no doubt on which side the balance falls.

In the case of the farmer who has been deprived in prospect of a tenancy, there is always the possibility of finding another. But in the case of the man who has perhaps been fanning his land for 15 years, there is a very different situation. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) earlier rightly drew our attention to the wrench involved in being uprooted from one's farm, whatever the reason. I think that he will agree that there can be no comparison between the interest of the individual who is being deprived of his tenancy and the interest of the prospective tenant—the third party to the contract, as it were.

I move this Amendment with the very narrow purpose of assisting those few well-known individuals on whom notices to quit have already been served, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I am pleased to be able to support the Amendment which, if accepted, would have the effect of conferring the same security of tenure for near relatives to which we have agreed in principle on those who at present are under notice to quit. The only argument which could even be laid against this in equity is that it involves some aspect of retrospective legislation.

I have a clear conscience on this matter. [Interruption] I will explain this to members of the Tory Party who pursued their doctrine to the absurdity we saw in the last Division. I had this provision in my election addresses for the General Election and for the by-election before it. I said that, if elected. this was one of the measures I would press for. None of my constituents was in doubt as to the effect of returning me, and that is my position. But I accept that it is only an individual position.

Nevertheless, having had strong representations from tenant farmers in my constituency before the last election on this issue, having talked to farmers about this and having included reference to it in my election addresses, I feel justified in giving support to the Amendment on a personal basis.

There is another question. Why should these particular people who are at the moment under notice to quit suffer from what is simply the dilatory nature of Government? There is no doubt that if the Government are correct in restoring a measure of security of tenure to near relatives, it was correct to do so a year or two ago. A couple of years ago I asked a Question about this subject and had a sympathetic reply, indicating that the Government were broadly in favour, but saying that they preferred to wait until there was more comprehensive agricultural legislation. I think that they were mistaken, but that is what they did, and because they delayed bringing in this legislation, a few people in Scotland will not obtain its benefits.

In equity, that is neither just nor fair. If it is right to change the law and to give this measure of security of tenure to near relatives, I do not see why we should not give it as of now and prevent people from suffering from what will have been the old law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's argument will have persuaded the Under-Secretary. I know him to be a reasonable man who is open to persuasion at this time. However, if he does not accept the argument, I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not prove to be a paper tiger, but will press the Amendment to a Division. If he does, he will have our support.

Mr. Dewar

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on moving the Amendment. When the issue was raised in Committee, it met with a very dusty reception. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was certainly sympathetic, but, for reasons which I can understand, did not feel able to be co-operative. From the Conservative benches, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) magisterially rebuked by implication anyone who suggested anything so risky as retrospective legislation. With rather Victorian dignity, he said that the Opposition could not countenance it on any terms.

I believe that the instinctive reaction to any measure which has any taint of retrospection about it is all too hasty and all too stereotyped. We are too anxious to regard it as something which is a sin against the true gospel, against the true constitution. Although I agree that recourse to general retrospective legislation can be extremely dangerous and can lead to a great deal of individual injustice, it should not preclude careful consideration of any individual case, or any individual set of cases.

Tonight in the House, as in Committee, we have had exhaustive debates about measures which will give security of tenure to close relatives of farmers. The House has accepted that this is a valid measure, presumably on the ground that it accepts the case for it in equity and justice. We are now examining the transitional provisions. The very fact that the Government have included transitional provisions shows that they accept that there must be serious borderline cases of people in the twilight area between the bad old days, when they were completely unprotected, and the new and more just days when protection will be adequate and fair.

I accept the view of my hon. Friend that there is an enormous distinction between retrospective legislation for criminal activities and retrospective legislation for civil activities. It would obviously be unfair in the first, but it is not such an open and shut case in the second. Let us consider the provisional arrangements which have the sanction of the Government and of the Opposition. We are to have an arbitrary date of 26th January, which can be justified only because that was the date on which the Clauses appeared. It is possible to argue that this makes a big difference, because it must be assumed that everyone knew about these Clauses from the time they were published. But this is surely taking the doctrine of constructive knowledge to ridiculous lengths.

I call in evidence something which was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) earlier this evening about Clause 14 when he moved an Amendment to meet exactly a similar kind of circumstance in terms of the general principle, an Amendment which the Government accepted. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was not likely to be an object of everyday reading for many farmers in Scotland, and it would he unfair for farmers to be victimised because of sheer, but perfectly natural, ignorance. He went on to quote theScottish Law Timesin his support, asking whether it was negligent not to know. His answer clearly was—and, as his Amendment was accepted by the Government, this must be their answer, too—that it was not negligent not to know.

9.45 p.m.

It is unreasonable to except people to have this constructive knowledge in between the period in which the Bill was put before the House, was printed, and the time that it reaches the Statute Book. If the hon. Member applies that argument in that case and finds it acceptable, I would be interested to hear the distinction drawn as to why it is right to say that we must assume that people know about it between 26th January, when these Clauses were put down, and the time that the Bill actually reached the Statute Book.

If it is accepted that it is unreasonable to assume that people know that, then the arbitrary date disappears completely. It is only fair that one should go for the neat, obvious and just solution, that a notice to quit which has been issued but which has not become effective by the time that the Bill reaches the Statute Book should be covered by the transitional arrangements.

The other big argument used in Committee—and, no doubt, we shall hear it again later if a Conservative Member designs to come forward to comment on this Clause—was that there may have been sales made before 26th January, when one assumes that everyone suddenly became aware of the possibility of this Clause becoming law, but which had not yet come into effect, and which were based upon giving vacant possession. It was said that the position would be disrupted and there would be unfortunate consequences to the parties to the sale.

If one looks at the law of Scotland, the law of contract, there is plenty of evidence and I have only to refer the House to Gloag and Henderson's tome of the Law of Scotland to demonstrate this. It will be seen on page 103 that it says: If a change in the law renders performance impossible the result is to dissolve the contract.

It goes on to quote a series of cases of which Mackeson v. Boyd and Tay Salmon Fisheries v. Speedie are possibly the best known in circumstances like this, to prove that no damages lie. So the landlord, if there is a case falling into this transitional period, which is justification for refusing to accept this Amendment, cannot be victimised because no damages lie against him. The only person who could be caught is the potential purchaser.

Let us look to see what he can have lost. He has lost only the "looking time" between the period in which he thought that he had concluded a bargain for a farm with vacant possession, and the time that it became clear, presumably 26th January, and absolutely legal fact, the day the Bill reaches the Statute Book, that his contract had dissolved and he had no bargain. It may be that he has suffered some inconvenience and he may have lost two or three months when he might have been looking for another farm, but it is not fair to say that it is anything like the inconvenience that will lie against the tenant farmer in this situation, who will be thrown off his land irretrievably, with no redress because he has not been given the cover supplied by these transitional arrangements.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to look at this matter extremely sympathetically. I know that it is difficult and I know that any Minister will fight shy of anything that looks like retrospective legislation. In Committee the Under-Secretary said, of retrospective legislation: … it can be argued that to make illegal and improper an action which was not illegal or improper when it was undertaken would be a very difficult proposition to sustain in law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 8th February, 1968; c. 652.]

I am absolutely sure that is right. I was glad to note that he said that it would be very difficult; he did not say that it would be impossible. While it may be difficult to sustain it in law, our case is that it is very easy indeed to sustain such a move in terms of justice and fairness, and I hope that he will not be entirely deaf to these particular cases.

Mr. Russell Johnston

The simple fact is that on this matter the Government have delayed for far too long and that if they had not delayed for so long, there would be no need for the Amendment.

Away back in 1965, only six months after I came into the House, I put down a Written Question to the Secretary of State concerning security of tenure. The right hon. Gentleman said: I do not at present have it in mind to make any changes in the existing law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 72] Yet it was not a new controversy. It had gone on for a very long time.

Two years after the Secretary of State replied to my Written Question, however, the following notice to quit was sent—by recorded delivery, naturally—was sent to a farmer, Sandy Matheson, in Elrig in my constituency. You are required to remove from all and Whole the farms and lands of Elrig …and the buildings and other erections thereon at the term of Martinmas (28th November, 1968). It states at the end: The above notice follows upon your intimation dated 8th March, 1967, that by designation dated 8th March, 1967, by the executrix dative of the said late Angus Matheson, you acquired the tenant's interest under said lease, but is without prejudice to the landlord's pleas against the validity of that designation. The tenant will go out in. November this year unless something can be done about it.

I know the argument which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) rehearsed about retrospective legislation. I have been in correspondence with the Minister about it. As he knows, I sought to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule, but I have not proceeded further with it for the simple reason that its purpose has been taken up in these proposals. I had intended, however, that the Bill would not only contain a repeal of the necessary Section of the 1958 Act, but would also have a retrospective element.

The Minister does not like retrospection. In many ways, none of us likes it. Both the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South have touched upon it. In a letter of 11th January, after saying in general that the House did not like retrospective legislation, the Minister said to me: There is also …the more practical difficulty that where a landlord has already given a notice to quit in good faith under the present law he may have entered into contractual commitments with a third party, or himself incurred expenditure on the assumption that he will have vacant possession of the holding in due course. I admit that a certain degree of difficulty could be created and that one would not wish injustice to be done on either side—although certain people seem to be concerned with only one side. I am anxious that there should not be injustice on either side. Leaving aside, however, the more legalistic approach, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is much more fitted to take than I, it should not be altogether out with the wit of man to devise a form of wording which would, perhaps, allow those who are presently under notice to quit to serve a counter-notice and to have their case brought before the Land Court. That should be quite feasible.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not rise or fall by the precise way which is suggested in the Amendment. But we want something done. We want more than the empty promises which have been given for a very long time. Therefore, we want something categoric from the Minister.

We are dealing with individual cases. It is said that hard cases make bad law. I do not believe that they do. We are dealing with cases which are hard cases because the Government have been too slow in doing something about it. Therefore, they have a bounden duty to do something now. The Minister can tell us that when the Bill goes to another place, the Government will seek to do something about it. I would like to hear him say so.

Mr. Buchan

My hon. Friends and a number of hon. Members opposite will know that I discuss this matter with a certain difficulty because I understand, perhaps with even more depth than some hon. Members who are involved here tonight, the case in question. I have met the individual involved together with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). Many people have seen details of the case.

There is a difficulty. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness in not accepting that hard cases necessarily make bad law. The whole of human history consists of good law being created out of unfortunate cases. Frequently, however, the unfortunate cases have not been saved by the good law that came afterwards. I used the word "difficult" in Committee, and I stick to it. I do not say that it is impossible to have retrospective legislation, but that it should operate only in the most abnormal and difficult circumstances.

It may be argued that the case mentioned and similar cases are in this category. I am not sure. For example, I do not follow the argument that this Amendment is analogous to Amendment No. 14. The initial date is specified here, and in some way we have brought in an element of technical retrospection thereby.

Mr. Dewar

Will my hon. Friend accept that we are grateful to him not only because the Clause has been brought in but also for what he has described as an element of retrospection. It may be that Amendment No. 14 is not analogous in terms of content but only in terms of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). Does not my hon. Friend accept that?

Mr. Buchan

I cannot accept responsibility for the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that there is an element of retrospection here. On one or two occasions tonight I felt that it was thought that we were doing nothing. The hon. Member for Inverness might have given us a little more credit for what we have done. The N.F.U. was pleased that we did not eventually stick to the decision to await agricultural holdings legislation, but put the provision into this Bill. I had hoped that this might have been recognised.

I cannot accept the Amendment. I would prefer that my hon. Friend asked leave to withdraw it, for various reasons. It would be a pity if it were to be assumed that there was a division between hon. Members in respect of certain cases. I would prefer my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but if he will not I must ask my hon. Friends to reject it.

The argument has been raised that there is a possibility of third party involvement. I do not agree that the situations postulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) are likely to occur. There are many other possible situations, which I would prefer not to go into.

I remember the trial scene in the "Merchant of Venice", in which Portia, for part of the scene, at any rate, goes most of the way with the arguments of Shylock and says that not even to do a great right should we do a little wrong, because many an error, by the same example, will rush into the state… We must be careful, even with an issue like this which affects people in the way which has been described. We must not go against the principal of no retrospection except in the gravest circumstances.

Having said that, I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that all those who are involved in this situation—whether on the landlord or the tenant side—will take note of the views that have been expressed without question and without opposition in the House this evening in relation to these cases, in order to see whether a more amicable solution may be found privately, in a way that has not been postulated.

Mr. James Davidson

I support the Amendment. I want to convince the Minister that there is not one individual or event one or two individuals involved quite a lot of people are involved. There is a widow in my constituency who has farmed a holding in the parish of Kincardine O'Neil for many years. It is now farmed—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned

Ordered That the Proceedings on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made

Mr. Davidson

The farm is now very efficiently run by her son. There is no question of the property being needed by the landlord, who has given notice to quit which will take effect on 28th May this year. She is sitting under the guillotine wondering what will happen. I have told her in a letter than I hope very much that the legislation will be such as to allow her to remain in possession of the farm. The reason for the landlord wanting it is that he merely wishes to round off his property, which is so large that I should not have thought that he would even have notices that some of the edges were a little ragged. This an example of people who will be particularly disappointed if the Amendment is not accepted.

On the question of retrospective legislation, not being a lawyer, luckily I do not have to put legal arguments. That implies no disrespect to the legal profession. Much disrespect for lawyers has been professed during the debates on the Bill. I do not know why; it is a perfectly legitimate profession. I look on the retrospective aspect from the point of view that the notice to quit takes effect. If it has not taken effect, I cannot see, on layman's grounds, why is should be regarded as retrospective. Nobody suggests that it should go back to a date prior to the delivery of the notice to quit.

I ask the Minister to have one more really hard look at this proposal to see whether he can give it his support. He will earn a lot of gratitude if he does. Very few people will suffer hardship if he accepts the Amendment, whereas a great many people will suffer hardship if he opposes it.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson(Montgomery)rose—

Hon. Members:Oh.

Mr. Hooson

Despite the barracking of the Anglo-Saxons, and although I hesitate to take part in Scottish debates, I should like to make a few remarks on the point about retrospective legislation and the use made of the old adage that hard cases make bad law. This adage arises from the fact that it was said by many old judges that if one has regard to the equity of the case one makes the law uncertain, and it was because of the uncertainty of the law, or the potential uncertainty of the law, that this trite saying came into being. There would not be such universal support for it, even among lawyers, as there was in the old days when people insisted on certainty within the law.

On many occasions in this Parliament the House has passed retrospective legislation. It is not unknown, and very often it is justified by the Government saying, "We have to balance these things. We have to have regard to the arguments". Although retrospective legislation is undesirable in itself—and we start with that in the scales against it—we must put in the scales on the other side the question of what hardship will be caused if we do not pass the legislation.

The Government accept that there is hardship which should be put right, namely, that a tenant's son should be able to continue in the tenancy. There is an acknowledgement in the Bill that this matter needs to be put right. The Government have promised this for a long time. None of the notices to quit with which we are concerned under this Amendment has reached maturity. We cannot deal with this quantitatively; we must consider the quality of the act. I should have thought that the injustice done by retrospective legislation was virtually nil. If a landlord has entered into a contract, then if the Amendment is passed that contract will be incapable of performance. So there is no hardship on the landlord. If he has put in certain improvements on his farm he can go to arbitration and get an increase in the rent.

If we balance the two factors together, the retrospective legislation factor, and the hardship which is caused to undoubted worthy successors to the tenancies, the balance is in favour of the Amendment, and I would think that the House should accept it.

Mr. Willisrose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Willis

This is very important to Scotland. I do not know why a bunch of English Members should try to deny the right of Scottish Members to try to say something about it.

Mr. Dewar

It was the Tories.

Mr. Willis

I want to support the arguments which have been made for the Amendment. I enter the debate to make my few remarks as a layman. I am not a lawyer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At the same time I am quite prepared to recognise the importance of trying to avoid retrospection wherever possible, but, as has already been pointed out, I have been in the House a long time and I have seen a lot of retrospect- tive Measures passed. They have always caused a great deal of controversy. Nevertheless, they have been passed, so we are creating no precedent here. My hon. Friend would not be creating a precedent by accepting this Amendment, or looking at it or doing something of that kind. I look at this from the point of view of whether we should follow the precedents which have been created and, if so, on what basis.

It seems to me that the basis on which we ought to consider this is not so much that of retrospection but that of justice. Justice seems to me important; it seems to me to be rather more important than a principle which does not seem to apply Here we are dealing with certain actions which, I assume, will date back about 15 months. I cannot see that they will date back much further than 18 months. What we have to ask ourselves is, what actions have been taken by owners, and what is the effect on the tenants, and who will suffer hardships?

We have had put to us by hon. Members opposite the argument that most of these things are done satisfactorily, that they have not created many problems. That is what has been argued, in which case I cannot see that a great number of owners will suffer great hardship. If the argument by hon. Members opposite is correct, then I cannot see that a great number is involved. There may be, as has been said, certain people who have taken certain steps because they have been able to give tenants 12 months' notice to quit, and they have taken certain steps as a result of that. I ask myself, are they going to suffer any hardship or injustice as a result of not being able to take those steps? As far as I can see, the answer is "No". They will be in exactly the same situation as they were 12 months ago, neither better off nor worse off. In other words, they will not suffer any more injustice or hardship, as I visualise it. They will be in exactly the same position as they were when they issued the notices. Listening to the debate, I have asked myself, will they suffer very great inconvenience or great hardship, sufficient to warrant inflicting undoubted hardship upon other people? I have come to the conclusion that they will not.

On the other side of the balance, we know that there will be a certain number of cases of very great hardship; we know very great hardship will be caused. In the view of most people—indeed, in the view of this House now—injustice will be caused. In view of the fact that others will not suffer great hardship, we ought to be prepared to accept an Amendment on these lines. The drafting may be bad, but I ask my hon. Friend to look at it again to see whether it is possible to do something about it in another place. I am sure that that would satsisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), and certainly it would satisfy me if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave us a kind look, rather than a denial of anything.

Mr. Buchan

I have listened with the greatest interest both to the central part and to the closing part of the discussion, and I do not find the position any easier than when I started. It was suggested that the Government would gain great credit if we gave way on this Amendment. It is very easy to give way in order to gain credit, but there is more than one aspect involved. It is not just one case, because there arc other cases pending, and I know the hardship.

We have been told that it is not a matter of law but of justice, and I suggest that, in the long-term, justice is best defended by good law. While I respect the feelings of my hon. Friends and of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as I hope they do mine, I urge them to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Willis

Is my hon. Friend not prepared to look at it?

Mr. Buchan

I have been looking at it for a long time, and I am in no position to look at it if we are forced to vote on it tonight.

Mr. Maclennan

The most remarkable feature of this debate has been the dog that did not bark. Not a word has come from the benches of the official Opposition and, for that reason, perhaps the debate has reached a higher level than usual. Real and important issues have been discussed, and a very difficult balance has been struck.

Hon. Members on the Liberal benches find themselves, as I do, firmly of the view that justice would be done if the Amendment were accepted. But I recognise that a very important principle of law is at stake, and no one has been mare eloquent about it than the present Leader 3f the Liberal Party who, in the debate on the Burmah Oil Company Bill in 1965—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I realise the altitude of this debate, but it must come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Maclennan

I had intended to refer very briefly to the right hon. Gentleman's concluding words—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The attitude of the Leader of the Liberal Party to the Burmah Oil debate has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Maclennan

I do not wish to go into that matter or to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The attitude of the Liberal Party tonight is in marked contrast to the words of its Leader on the principle of retrospective legislation. He said:

Division No. 64.] AYES [10.16 p.m.
Bessell, Peter Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Cromarty) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, w.) Pardoe, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Steel, David (Roxburgh) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Johnston, Russell (Internets) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) Mr. Eric Lubbock and
Mr. Emlyn Hooson.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Carter-Jones, Lewis Faulds, Andrew
Allason, James (Hemel Hempatead) Chapman, Donald Fernyhough, E.
A[...]dritt, Walter Chichester-Clark, R. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Allen, Scholefield Coe, Denis Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Anderson, Donald Coleman, Donald Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Archer, Peter Concannon, J. D. Ford, Ben
Armstrong, Ernest Conlan, Bernard Forrester, John
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Foster, Sir John
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Fowler, Gerry
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Currie, G. B. H. Galpern, Sir Myer
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dalkeith, Earl of Garrett, W. E.
Baker, W. H. K. Dalyell, Tam Gibson-Watt, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Dance, James Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Bence Cyril Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Ginsburg, David
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Bishop, E. S. Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Gower, Raymond
Blackburn, F. de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Grant, Anthony
Blenkinsop, Arthur Delargy, Hugh Grant-Ferris, R.
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Dempsey, James Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Boardman, H. Dickens, James Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Body Richard Dobson, Ray Gregory, Arnold
Bossom, Sir Clive Doig, Peter Grey, Charles (Durham)
Boston, Terence du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Dunn, James A. Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Bradley, Tom Dunnett, Jack Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Brooks, Edwin Eadie, Alex Hannan, William
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Harper, Joseph
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon.Tyne,N.) Harvie Anderson, Miss
Buchan, Norman Ellis, John Hazell, Bert
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Emery, Peter Henig, Stanley
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M) English, Michael Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Burden, F. A. Errington, Sir Eric Hiley, Joseph
Cant, R. B. Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Holland, Philip
Carmichael, Neil Farr, John Hooley, Frank

":The reason why we introduce retrospective legislation in this country is to protect people from the consequence of illegal acts. It is not to take away accrued or existing rights."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 3rd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 1156.]

When I tabled this Amendment, I was aware that I was proposing that the House should interfere with the existing rights of landlords, the rights of tenants, and those of third parties acquired under the law as it stands at present.

Therefore, with full appreciation of the seriousness of the measure, at this point I ask the Under Secretary not to stand on what he has said, but to consider this matter further. In this situation I will seek to withdraw the Amendment [HON. MEMBERS: No."]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 256.

Horner, John Marks, Kenneth Robertson, John (Paisley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Marquand David Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Hoy, James Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie Mayhew, Christoper Rose, Paul
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mendelson, J. J. Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Hunter, Adam Millan, Bruce Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Hynd, John Mills, Peter (Torrington) Russell, Sir Ronald
Irvine, Sir Arthur Milne, Edward (Blyth) Scott-Hopkins, James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Monro, Hector Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) More, Jasper Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N.E.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Janner, Sir Barnett Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Silver-man, Julius (Aston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Silvester, Frederick
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Morris, John (Aberavon) Slater, Joseph
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Small, William
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Smith, John
Jopling, Michael Murton, Oscar Spriggs, Leslie
Kaberry, Sir Donald Neal, Harold Stodart, Anthony
Kelley, Richard Neave, Airey Swain, Thomas
Kenyon, Clifford Newens, Stan Swingler, Stephen
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Nicholls, Sir Harmer Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Kirk, peter Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Kitson, Timothy Norwood, Christopher Thornton, Ernest
Knight, Mrs. Jill Oakes, Gordon Tinn, James
Lawson, George Ogden, Eric Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Leadbitter, Ted O'Malley, Brian Urwin, T. W.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Orbach, Maurice Varley, Eric G.
Lee, John (Reading) Orme, Stanley Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lestor, Miss Joan Osborn, John (Hallam) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Oswald, Thomas Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Wall, Patrick
Lomas, Kenneth Page, Graham (Crosby) Ward, Dame Irene
Loughlin, Charles Paget, R. T. Watkins, David (Consett)
Loveys, W. H. Park, Trevor Webster, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Wilkins, W. A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Pavitt, Laurence Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mac Arthur, Ian Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
McBride, Neil Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
McCann, John Pentland, Norman Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
MacColl, James Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
McGuire, Michael Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Woof, Robert
Mackie, John Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Wright, Esmond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Price, William (Rugby) Yates, Victor
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Probert, Arthur Younger, Hn. George
McNamara, J. Kevin Pym, Francis
MacPherson, Malcolm Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maddan, Martin Rankin, John Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Walter Harrison
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Manuel, Archie Richard, Ivor
Mapp, Charles
Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

On a point of order. In view of what has just happened, may I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, should report our new coalition arrangements to Mr. King?

Mr. Speaker

I am not sure whether I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's remark. I hope that it is not lesémajesté but it is not a matter for me.

Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 29, in page 17, line 32, at end insert:

(a) the matter mentioned in section 18(2)(a) of this Act;

Amendment No. 30, in page 18, line 9, leave out the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)' and insert:

  1. (a)the matter mentioned in paragraph (a), or
  2. (b)the matters mentioned in paragraph (b)(i) to (iii),—[Mr. Ross]

Mr. Ross

I beg to move, Amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 15, leave out and (4) ' and insert to (5) '.

This is a drafting Amendment, to correct a small omission from the new Part 3 which was put into the Bill in Committee, and provides that Clause 18(5) shall apply to cases under Clause 9, and that the penalty provisions of Section 30 of the 1949 Act shall apply to any conditions imposed by the Land Court in respect of a notice to quit for amalgamation purposes, to which they consent.

It is intended that the same penalty provisions should be applicable to any conditions attached to any consent given to a notice to quit served during the transitional period covered by Clause 19. The Amendment is necessary because this was not adequately covered originally.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 32, in page 18, line 17, after ' (4) ', insert '(b)'.—[Mr. Ross]

Forward to