In any proceedings in which under the provisions of this Act a suspension of execution is ordered, the court shall award costs in favour of the tenant, unless it shall appear unreasonable in the circumstances so to do.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Clause is obvious common sense. It is self-explanatory and I need not argue it. I hope that the Government will accept it.

The Deputy-Chairman:

The Question is—

May we have an answer from the Minister? Why does he propose to accept the Clause? Or perhaps he does not propose to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman:

The Question is—

May I speak to the Clause? The hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), whose sole contribution during the last two or three hours has been to giggle at other Members, has produced this Clause, which relates to costs which he intends to award to one side only—the tenant unless it shall appear unreasonable in the circumstances to do so. Surely when the court awards costs it does so in its discretion, having considered whether it is reasonable to award them to one side or the other. What is the point of putting this in the Statute? It will only prejudice one party or the other. Cannot it be left to the discretion of the court? All through the previous Clause we were told, "Leave it to the discretion of the court". Now the Government are to accept the Clause—

No.

No? I am satisfied that heads are being shaken. So I will sit down.

Question put and negatived.