HL Deb 31 October 1988 vol 501 cc10-1

1 Clause 16, page 10, line 40, after first ("subsection") insert (", subsection (1) of section [Right of succession of spouse] below,").

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—

2 Page 10, line 40, leave out ("or subsection (4) of section 43 below") and insert (", subsection (1) of section [Right of succession of spouse] below or section 3A of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984").

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof. We require to substitute Amendment No. 2 for Amendment No. 1 for purely technical reasons. As your Lordships may recall, following debate in this House, and particularly because of the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the Government agreed to recast Clause 46 and Schedule 6 to the Bill to improve the presentation on the face of the Bill of the new succession rules for regulated tenants.

Unfortunately however we did not take account of the recasting of Clause 46, when on Report in your Lordships' House we introduced Amendment No. 1. Consequently, the reference to subsection (1) of Clause 46 in Clause 16 is incorrect. Amendment No. 2 substitutes the proper cross reference.

I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 5 on the Marshalled List. That is required in order to remove from the repeals schedule an entry which becomes unnecessary because of the recasting of Schedule 6, which I touched upon a moment ago. Amendment No. 5 is also therefore purely of a technical nature. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof. —(The Earl of Dundee.)

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

I do not desire to speak for particularly long on this subject. I have no desire to oppose the Government; but I would say that this amendment, which is being substituted for the amendment that was sent from this House to the Commons, is really a backward step. The Minister himself in another place agreed that the Government's new amendment would mean that a widow of a successor tenant could simply be summarily evicted from her house. To me that seems rather more than a merely technical amendment. I am rather sad that the Government were not willing to accept the original amendment put forward from your Lordships' House. However, I can see that the other amendments are largely technical, and I shall certainly not oppose them.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, is there really a change in meaning here, or is this purely a drafting amendment?

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that this is entirely a drafting amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.