§ Mr. Speaker
It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
§ Mr. Awdry
Clause 4 deals with protection for occupiers by succession and provides that protection shall be extended to a surviving spouse residing with the deceased at the date of death, or one or more persons who are members of his family residing with the occupier at the time of his death and for a period of six months before his death.
We entirely accept that the surviving spouse should be protected. There is no argument about that. It is a fundamental right which must be extended to the surviving spouse if the whole principle of portected occupancies is to become part of the law. But we feel that the extension to members of the family as proposed in the Bill goes too far.
This provision may be appropriate—I think it is—to the general field of the Rent Act law, but we are not dealing with that whole field tonight. We are dealing here with the special case of agriculture and the whole relationship between employer and employee.
One of our difficulties in Committee arose from the fact that the Government have modelled the Bill on the existing Rent Acts. I do not think that they yet understand that that approach will lead to great difficulties for the farming indus- 2142 try. In Committee we tried to limit the protection to a child or children of the original occupier. In another amendment we sought to limit the protection to members of the family who had lived in the house for at least two years. We tried to strike a balance between humanity and agricultural efficiency. That is the principle behind these two amendments.
In Committee the Minister said that our amendments would shift the balance which had proved over the years to be fair. He argued that the existing law should apply to these provisions. He said:I understand that Megarry on the Rent Acts, which is the absolute authority, speaking of succession and family, states:The test to be applied is whether an ordinary man would have regarded the person as a member of the tenant's family … by the application of a broad, commonsense, man-of-the-world view.'The amendments would shift a balance which experience over the years has proved to work well, to be fair, and to he in the interests of those who quite genuinely have been members of a family."—[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 27th May 1976; c. 152.]As the House may know, the expression "members of the family" has been widely interpreted over the years by the courts, and includes relatives who can be very distant relatives of the deceased. Amendment No. 33 is a compromise. Instead of including, as we did before, only a child or children—perhaps, on reflection, that was a little too narrow—we now seek to include a grandchild looking after the original occupier, a child or children and a grandparent. We therefore seek to include all the close family of the farm worker.
After much thought, we feel that this compromise achieves a fair balance between the farm workers family and the farmer. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 33—to produce a fair and equitable balance between the interests of the worker and those of the farmer who needs the cottage.
Amendment No. 34 seeks to provide that only members of the family who have lived in the cottage for at least a year will be included. Last time we tried to make the period two years. Again, this is a compromise. We seek to prevent members of the family of a farm worker who may not be close relations from moving into a house when the occupier's 2143 death is foreseen—there are circumstances in which one must accept that this will happen—to claim protection under the Bill.
I ant not suggesting that this will happen frequently, but at this time of great housing shortage it is not inconceivable that relatives might move in to take advantage of these provisions, to the detriment of the farmer—and, incidentally, jumping the queue.
I do not know whether the House understands how greatly the Bill alters the whole concept of the law regarding agricultural cottages. I have practised in this field for many years as a solicitor and I am certain that farmers in the West Country, or anywhere else, do not realise the immense changes that the Bill will make. They have not had a chance to read the Bill. It has not been much discussed in the House as a whole. We are anxious to make the Bill as practical and as acceptable as possible to farmers, because it has to work. Our approach in this amendment is essentially practical— to try to make it acceptable so that it will not cause unnecessary problems.
If distant relatives such as cousins or nephews can move into cottages and then claim protection, they will cause great resentment and hardship to farmers who may have urgent need of the accommodation for agricultural workers. If, alas, a farm worker becomes seriously ill, perhaps with cancer or something of the kind, of course his wife and the grandchild who looks after him must be protected, as must the grandparents. But is it right that a distant relative, who has nothing to do with the farm, but sees the situation and moves into the cottage, should be able to claim the total protection given by the Bill, thus preventing the farmer from getting the cottage?
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the effects of Amendment No. 33? The wording of Clause 4(3) at present reads:Where—Then protection arises.
- (a) the original occupier was not a person who died leaving a surviving spouse who was residing with him at his death, but
- (b) one or more persons who were members of his family were residing with him at the time of and for the period of six months immediately before his death, …".
2144 If the amendment is carried, the sub section will read:one or more persons who were a grandchild looking after him, a child, or grand-parent",which would leave out, for example a parent, sister or brother, many other close relatives and a common law wife. All these people would be excluded. Can the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) explain the reason for selecting these particular relationships rather than many of the others? I take his point, but I find it very difficult to understand his reason for selecting these particular relationships.
§ Mr. Awdry
We have tried to include in our amendment those who are close members of a family who, we think, are most appropriate to get protection under the Bill. We have included child, children, grandparent and the grandchild who is looking after the occupier. This seems to us to be a reasonable and sensible approach. We are seeking to provide that distant relatives not connected with the family should not be able, by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, to come in and claim protection in the situation I have tried to outline to the House, which would produce great hardship to farmers. We are seeking to strike a fair balance between the needs of efficient agriculture on the one hand and humanity for the dependant of the occupier who has died on the other hand.
These amendments, which are a compromise between the two we moved in Committee, make the point admirably. I hope that there will be a major debate on this issue, because it is one of profound importance. It is intended to make this a good Bill and one which will work in practice. That is the basis of these amendments, and I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will support them.
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I find myself extremely puzzled by the amendment. As I understand it, the position is that if there were two children born in the house back in the 1890s and, the parents having died, the brother and sister have lived in the house all their lives, when the brother finally dies the sister will have no protection whatsoever. She would be out, so to speak, because she was not the spouse and would not be covered by the amendment.
2145 Exactly the same position would arise if two people had been living together throughout their lives but, because one of them had not obtained a divorce, had never been able to marry. Therefore, on the death of the male, the common law wife would have no protection whatever.
Taking the analogy in the amendment, if the occupier were looked after by a grandparent, which does not seem likely, it appears that the grandparent would be protected. But if, by some mischance, the grandfather had died and the parent were looking after the occupier, that parent would not be protected.
The calibres of the amendments drafted by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) are for the most part satisfactory, but it occurs to me that a few lines have been missed out of this amendment. I gave the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) the opportunity to admit that there was a defect in the amendment, but he failed to do so. I regard the amendment as totally ridiculous and I trust that it will not be pressed.
Throughout the Committee proceedings it was accepted that it was undesirable in this context to complicate the Rent Acts, since they are already complicated enough, by having a wholly diffent code in respect of agricultural tenancies. We have accepted certain features in regard to shared accommodation, but now that we come to tenancies by succession, we have provisions under which a tenancy may pass only once.
I take the point that was put by the hon. Member for Chippenham that we do not want a situation in which somebody, in order to obtain a tenancy, moves into an elderly occupier's house and says "I have come to look after you, grandfather", to which grandfather may reply "I would rather look after myself". As the law stands, if a grandparent dies the tenancy passes perhaps to the grandmother, but if there is a daughter living in the house, under the general Rent Acts there may be difficulty. I know one instance that is causing great anxiety. If it should happen that a son-in-law dies having lived in a house for 20 years, the daughter of the original tenant is protected, but if it should happen that the daughter of the original tenant dies first, the son-in-law 2146 —who by then may be aged 60 or thereabouts—will have no security whatever.
In the Bill, by which we have only one possible succession, we have a different situation and in that respect the Bill is different from Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1968. I prefer the Bill to be in accord with Schedule 1 of the Rent Act 1968.
In an agricultural tenancy a situation could arise in which an agricultural tenant could live to a ripe old age of perhaps 80 plus and when he dies his widow would be his first successor. What will happen when she dies within a few months of taking over? The daughter, aged 60, has no protection under the Bill.
It is unsatisfactory that the Bill has not been drafted in accordance with the principles of the Rent Act, which ensures that where there is a need for a second succession, that should take place. The Minister must be aware of examples of the lack of an opportunity for a third succession causing hardship under the Rent Act. The lack of an opportunity for a second succession, where a fairly ageing son or daughter finds that he has no security in the home in which he was born, will cause more hardship. I hope that the Minister will further consider this matter to see whether it is appropriate to introduce amendments in another place.
§ Mr. Charles Morrison
When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) speaking with such force, clarity and common sense I regretted even more his decision not to come back to the House after the next General Election. I should express my sympathy with him, because he will then be sitting in his country solicitor's office grappling to advise farmers and farm workers on the meaning of this appalling legislation. He was right to emphasise that the two amendments represent an attempt to provide a reasonable compromise after discussions in Committee.
The House should not forget that in Committee hon. Members on this side spent most of their time trying to produce a better balance between the varying interests concerned in the Bill. We had no success, however, because the Government did not show any interest in the views of those who knew more about the 2147 subject than did anyone on the Government side.
I turn now to Amendment No. 34. It is important to lengthen to 12 months the period before a successor to an original occupier can qualify under the clause. Six months is an incredibly short time. The original occupier might suffer from an incurable disease, and a relation might go to live with him or her for a period well in excess of six months and possibly for over 12 months. A period of 12 months would cope better with such a situation. Otherwise, the relation could unwittingly qualify to retain occupation of the House.
§ Mr. Rossi
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on Amendment No. 33. It is selective, and perhaps the error is that we are being over-selective. The Minister will recall that in Committee hon. Members had considerable misgivings about the way in which the Bill was drawn. It provides that if someone dies and a member of his family has lived with him during the previous six months, that relative will have the protection of the Bill. In terms, that means that virtually any blood relative living en famille for six months preceding the death could become a protected or statutory tenant. We discussed in Committee the situation of someone suffering, unhappily, from a terminal illness. It would be quite easy for a distant relative, learning that this was the gateway into local authority accommodation, or even a tied cottage, to be in residence for the short period of six months and immediately have all the rights of a statutory tenancy.
In Committee we sought to cut down the circumstances of possible abuse in that way. We tried to redefine the members of the family as "child or children". That was objected to on the basis that there were other relatives worthy of consideration who would be excluded by simply saying "child or children" instead of the term "members of the family". The Minister suggested various categories of people against whom our amendment would operate unfairly. He spoke of the grandchild looking after the grandparent for a time. That, therefore, found its way into the amendment. "Child" was already there the 2148 Minister mentioned "grandparent", and that found its way in. But I see on reflection that there are others—parents, for example—whom we should include.
On that basis, I shall not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press Amendment No. 33 because I hope that it can be picked up, redrafted and presented in another place. But I invite them to join in voting for Amendment No. 34, which would extend the period of six months to 12, so that someone would have to reside in the house for at least 12 months before the death before obtaining the protection of statutory tenancy.
§ Mr. Armstrong
As the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said, this is a matter of great importance, and we had a very interesting and profitable discussion on it in Committee. After hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and hon. Members opposite, it seems to me that the Government have got the balance about right as between my hon. Friend's views and the views of those who want to be rather more restrictive.
In Committee, the Opposition wished to restrict succession rights under Clause 4(3) to a child or children who had lived with the protected occupier for the two years immediately preceding death. The two amendments now before the House are not quite so restrictive, and I fully admit that, although, curiously enough, as my hon. Friend pointed out, they allow for succession by the protected occupier's grandparents but not by his parents. I share my hon. Friend's view that we want to avoid abuse. At the same time, we do not want to frame legislation with the effect of penalising those who have a genuine right to succession. Therefore, it is a matter of balance.
I should like to make it clear immediately that neither amendment is acceptable to the Government. As I explained in Committee, the succession provisions in the Bill are based, quite properly, despite what the hon. Member for Chippenham said, on the succession provisions in the Rent Act 1968, but with two major differences.
First, under the Bill, the succession rights of the husband or wife of a protected occupier or statutory tenant pay no regard to sex. Under the Rent Acts, on the other hand, the tenant's widow can 2149 succeed to a protected or statutory tenancy if she was residing with him at the time of his death, whereas the tenant's widower must also have been residing with her for the six months immediately preceding her death.
Secondly, under the Bill, there can only be one succession to a protected occupancy or a statutory tenancy, whereas under the Rent Acts there can be two. This difference is in recognition of the special circumstances in which agricultural employers provide accommodation for their workers.
In cases under the Rent Acts it has been held that the succession right conferred on a member of the tenant's family covers children, including step, adopted and illegitimate children, nephews and nieces by blood or marriage, grandchildren, and parents, brothers and sisters of the tenant or his spouse. I believe it right to align the Bill with the Rent Act provisions in this respect and hence attract this humane case law, rather than narrow the succession rights in the way that Amendment No. 33 attempts.
Amendment No. 34 would mean that a member of the protected occupier's family could only succeed to the occupancy if he had lived with the occupier for the 12 months immediately preceding his death. The Government believe that the six-month residence requirement in the Bill, which follows the equivalent requirement in the Rent Acts, first introduced by the National Government in 1933, is the right period. It would be long enough to ensure that
§ members of the occupier's family do not move into the house simply to succeed to the occupancy, and hence only members of his family who have genuinely resided with him will benefit from the succession provisions.
§ Mr. Lee
In aligning this with the Rent Act provisions, the Minister has not explained why there should not be two successions. If it is right that there should be a double right of succession in one case, surely it is right in another. Agricultural workers are entitled to t1.1e protection of the Rent Acts in the same way as other people.
§ Mr. Armstrong
Certainly it is not a case of black and white. There is an argument for having two successions in the Bill, but we came to the conclusion that, because of the special conditions which apply in agriculture and the fact that there is sometimes a need to live on the job, one succession would be a suitable compromise.
I must advise hon. Members to oppose these amendments if hon. Gentlemen opposite press them.
§ Amendnzent, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed: No. 34, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'six' and insert twelve '.—[Mr. Awdry.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 304.2153
|Division No. 270.]||AYES||10.22 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Crowder, F. P.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Bryan, Sir Paul||Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)|
|Alison, Michael||Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Dean, Paul (N Somerset)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Buck, Antony||Dodsworth, Geoffrey|
|Arnold, Tom||Budgen, Nick||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Bulmer, Esmond||Drayson, Burnaby|
|Awdry, Daniel||Burden, F. A.||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Baker, Kenneth||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Dunlop, John|
|Banks, Robert||Carlisle, Mark||Durant, Tony|
|Bell, Ronald||Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Dykes, Hugh|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Channon, Paul||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)||Churchill, W. S.||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Benyon, W.||Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Elliott, Sir William|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Clark, William (Croydon S)||Emery, Peter|
|Biffen, John||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Eyre, Reginald|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Clegg, Walter||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Blaker, Peter||Cockcroft, John||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Body, Richard||Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Farr, John|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Cope, John||Fell, Anthony|
|Bottomley, Peter||Cordle, John H.||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Cormack, Patrick||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)||Costain, A. P.||Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)|
|Brittan, Leon||Critchley, Julian||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Brotherton, Michael||Crouch, David||Forman, Nigel|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Lawson, Nigel||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Fox, Marcus||La Marchant, Spencer||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Fry, Peter||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Lloyd, Ian||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Luce, Richard||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||McCrindle, Robert||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Macfarlane, Neil||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||MacGregor, John||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||McNair-Wilson, M (Newbury)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Goodhew, Victor||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Madel, David||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Gorst, John||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)||Marten, Neil||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Mather, Carol||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Maude, Angus||Shepherd, Colin|
|Gray. Hamish||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Shersby, Michael|
|Griffiths, Eldon||Mawby, Ray||Sims, Roger|
|Grist, Ian||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Grylls, Michael||Mayhew, Patrick||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hall, Sir John||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Hall-Davis. A. G. F.||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Speed, Keith|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mills, Peter||Spence, John|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Miscampbell, Norman||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Hannam, John||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Moate, Roger||Sproat, lain|
|Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Monro, Hector||Stainton, Keith|
|Hastings, Stephen||Montgomery, Fergus||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Moore, John (Croydon C)||Stanley, John|
|Hawkins, Paul||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Morgan, Geraint||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Stokes, John|
|Heseltine, Michael||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Stradling, Thomas J.|
|Hicks, Robert||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Holland, Philip||Mudd, David||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Hordern, Peter||Neave, Airey||Tebbit, Norman|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Nelson, Anthony||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Neuben, Michael||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Newton, Tony||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Hunt, John (Bromley)||Normanton, Tom||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Hurd, Douglas||Nott, John||Trotter, Neville|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Onslow, Cranley||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||van Staubenzee, W. R.|
|James, David||Osborn, John||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Page, John (Harrow, West)||Viggers, Peter|
|Jessel, Toby||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Wakeham, John|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Paisley, Rev Ian||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Percival, Ian||Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)|
|Jopling, Michael||Peyton, Rt Hon John||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Pink, R. Bonner||Wall, Patrick|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch||Walters, Dennis|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Kilfedder, James||Prior, Rt Hon James||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Kimball, Marcus||Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Raison, Timothy||Wiggin, Jerry|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Rathbone, Tim||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Kirk, Sir Peter||Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Younger, Hon George|
|Knox, David||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Lamont. Norman||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Lane, David||Rhys Williams. Sir Brandon||Mr. Cecil Parkinson and|
|Latham, Michael (Melton)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Mr. Fred Silvester|
|Abse, Leo||Bishop, E. S.||Canavan, Dennis|
|Allaun, Frank||Blenkinsop, Arthur||Cant, R. B.|
|Anderson, Donald||Boardman, H.||Carmichael, Neil|
|Archer, Peter||Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Carter, Ray|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Cartwright, John|
|Ashley, Jack||Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Castle. Rt Hon Barbara|
|Ashton, Joe||Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Clemitson, Ivor|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Bradley, Tom||Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Bray, Dr Jeremy||Cohen, Stanley|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Coleman, Donald|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Colquhoun, Ms Maureen|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Conlan, Bernard|
|Bates, Alf||Buchan, Norman||Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)|
|Bean, R. E||Buchanan, Richard||Corbett, Robin|
|Beith, A. J.||Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Crawshaw, Richard|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Campbell, Ian||Cronin, John|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)||John, Brynmor||Radice, Giles|
|Cryer, Bob||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Judd, Frank||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)||Kaufman, Gerald||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Kelley, Richard||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Kerr, Russell||Rooker, J. W.|
|Deakins, Eric||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Roper, John|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Kinnock, Neil||Rose, Paul B.|
|de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Lambie, David||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Lamborn, Harry||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Dempsey, James||Lamond, James||Rowlands, Ted|
|Doig, Peter||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Dormand, J. D.||Leadbitter, Ted||Selby, Harry|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lee, John||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Dunn, James A.||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)||Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Eadie, Alex||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Edge, Geoff||Lipton, Marcus||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Litterick, Tom||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Lomas, Kenneth||Silverman, Julius|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Loyden, Eddie||Skinner, Dennis|
|English, Michael||Luard, Evan||Small, William|
|Ennals, David||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Snape, Peter|
|Evans, loan (Aberdare)||McCartney, Hugh||Spearing, Nigel|
|Evans, John (Newton)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Stallard, A. W.|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Faulds, Andrew||MacKenzie, Gregor||Stoddart, David|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Mackintosh, John P.||Stott, Roger|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Maclennan, Robert||Strang, Gavin|
|Flannery, Martin||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.|
|Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)||Madden, Max||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Magee, Bryan||Swain, Thomas|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Mahon, Simon||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Ford, Ben||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Forrester, John||Marks, Kenneth||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Marquand, David||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Maynard, Miss Joan||Tierney, Sydney|
|George, Bruce||Meacher, Michael||Tinn, James|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Tomlinson, John|
|Ginsburg, David||Mendelson, John||Tomney, Frank|
|Golding, John||Mikardo, Ian||Torney, Tom|
|Gould, Bryan||Millan, Bruce||Tuck, Raphael|
|Gourlay, Harry||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Graham, Ted||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Moonman, Eric||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|Grocott, Bruce||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Hardy, Peter||Moyle, Roland||Ward, Michael|
|Harper, Joseph||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Watkins, David|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Watkinson, John|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Newens, Stanley||Weetch, Ken|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Noble, Mike||Weitzman, David|
|Hatton, Frank||Oakes, Gordon||Wellbeloved, James|
|Hayman, Mrs Helene||Ogden, Eric||White, James (Pollok)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||O'Halloran, Michael||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Hooley, Frank||Orbach, Maurice||Whitlock, William|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Horam, John||Ovenden, John||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Padley, Walter||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Palmer, Arthur||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Pardoe, John||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|Huckfield, Les||Park, George||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Parker, John||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Parry, Robert||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Pavitt, Laurie||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Peart, Rt Hon Fred||Woodall, Alec|
|Hunter, Adam||Pendry, Tom||Woof, Robert|
|Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Penhaligon, David||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Perry, Ernest||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Phipps, Dr Colin|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Janner, Greville||Prescott, John||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Price, C. (Lewlsham W)||Mr. Frank R. White.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.2157
§ Mr. Armstrong
These amendments deal with a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about which I have written to him They deal with the case of a protected occupier who dies and does not leave a surviving spouse who resides with him at his death, but leaves two or more persons who were numbers of his family and had resided with him for a period of six months immediately preceding his death.
If those persons are in exclusive occupation of the dwelling-house atfer the death under a relevant licence or tenancy, the amendment provides that either they can agree which of them is to be the protected occupier by succession or, if they cannot agree, that the county court shall decide.
Such cases will be very rare because normally on the death of a protected occupier a statutory tenancy will arise. But should such a case arise, the amendment will make the provision in Clause 4(2) the same as the provision in Clause 5(4).
§ Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 36, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'he' and insert
'that person or, as the case may be, such one of the persons in such occupation as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the county court '.—[Mr. Armstrong.]