HC Deb 05 May 1976 vol 910 cc1419-21
Mr. Strang

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 9, at end insert 'where, having regard to the purpose which that item or part is intended to achieve, the arbitrator is satisfied that the last-mentioned method or material would involve undue difficulty or expense, that the first-mentioned method or material would be substantially as effective for that purpose, and that in all the circumstances the substitution is justified.".'

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With it we may also discuss Amendment No. 18, in page 16, line 27, at end insert 'where, having regard to the purpose which that item or part is intended to achieve, the arbiter is satisfied that the last-mentioned method or material would involve undue difficulty or expense, that the first-mentioned method of material would be substantially as effective for that purpose, and that in all the circumstances the substitution is justified.

Mr. Strang

We are introducing this amendment to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) during the debate in Com- mittee on Amendment No. 60 that criteria should be provided for the guidance of the arbitrator when exercising his powers under sub-paragraph (ii). The amendment, which the hon. Member had tabled, was unsuitable for reasons which I explained at the time but, nevertheless, had sympathy with his view that the arbitrators' tasks would be made easier if they knew the parameters within which they have to arbitrate. We have looked at the matter again, in consultation with the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU, and have reached agreement on what we believe to be suitable criteria.

Before substituting a different method, or material, from those set out in the notice to do work the arbitrator will have to be satisfied on each, and all, of three counts. First, that the specified method, or materials, would involve undue difficulty or expense for the tenant. Second, that the method, or material, to be substituted would be substantially as effective for the purpose as the original one and, finally, that in all the circumstances the substitution is justified.

I hope that this formula will be acceptable to hon. Members. It has an added advantage in regard to the difficulties which the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) envisaged would arise if the arbitrator's modification of a notice clashed with planning requirements, in a national park, for example. Apart from limiting the circumstances generally in which the arbitrator's power is to be used, the formula requires the substitution to be justified in all circumstances. I do not consider that a substitution would be justified if it involved either an actual, or a potential, conflict with the planning legislation.

Amendment No. 18 seeks simply to provide for similar provisions in the Scottish legislation.

Mr. Wiggin

I have seen the letter to which the Minister referred and I accept the point which has been made. The matter was well worth raising in the context of the national parks, and I consider that the Government have dealt with the point adequately. It would be ungenerous not to thank the Minister for taking account of this delicate point.

These provisions involve consideration whether Parliament should seek to dictate to an arbitrator. There were some difference of view in Committee about how far we should try in legislation to specify the circumstances of substitute materials. The same point applies to Clause 13 and its relationship to Scotland. To those who are not as in favour of devolution as are others, it might be noted that for the word "arbitrator" has been substituted the word "arbiter". Therefore, it might appear that the two sides of the border have more in common than some people think.

We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted our suggestion, and we only wish that they had taken on board some other matters which are as important as, if not more important than, this proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to