HC Deb 15 July 1974 vol 877 cc204-5
The Lord Advocate

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 36, at end insert: (7) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent a tenancy from being or becoming a protected or statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, but nothing in that Act restricting the power of a court to make an order for possession of a dwelling-house shall prevent the granting of a decree of removing under section 9(1) of this Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this amendment we are to discuss Government Amendment No. 3.

The Lord Advocate

The object of the amendment is to clarify the general purpose of the Bill. I need not go into a long explanation of how this is achieved. It will be obvious that, when we are dealing with long leases, there is a possible overlap between the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 and the Bill. Clearly it is desirable that the Rent (Scotland) Act should do what it was supposed to do and not be affected adversely by the Bill. It is clear too that this Bill should do what it is supposed to do and not be encroached upon by the 1971 Act.

The Bill as drafted probably ensures that this division of labour is achieved. For the avoidance of doubt, however, and to avoid the possibility of a clash between the two enactments, it is thought desirable to have a subsection making it clear that the Rent (Scotland) Act is to play its part and that the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act, as we hope it will become, is to play its part. The wording of the subsection makes this clear.

I do not think that much elaboration is required, but if hon. Gentlemen have any detailed matters that they wish to raise I shall be glad to deal with them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what "being" means in the second line of Amendment No. 2? In Part II, when we talk about the introduction of leases, we say that they cannot be for primarily residential accommodation. However, subsection (3) provides that it possible to have a commercial development on lease with a small residential part which is incidental to the main purpose of the lease. The amendment provides: Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent a tenancy from being or becoming a protected or statutory tenancy Does "being" cover "remaining"?

Let us suppose that a lease is given for a large commercial block within which there is one little house which is a protected or statutory tenancy. I hope that by making this amendment we shall not change the position of what was or is a protected or statutory tenancy. The impression which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives is that he does not want to change anything. Can he say whether "being" covers "remaining"? In other words, will a protected tenancy within what becomes leasehold property remain a protected tenancy?

The Lord Advocate

The hon. Member has put an important question to me. I can answer it positively. The object of this part of the Bill is to ensure that the Rent Act shall not be superseded by Part II. The word "being" is used in a general sense, and rightly so. It would include "remaining". The object is to ensure that a tenancy of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind would remain a protected tenancy.

Amendment agreed to.

Back to
Forward to