Orders of the Day — Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Bill – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 17 Rhagfyr 1973.
Mr Norman Wylie
, Edinburgh Pentlands
I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 7, leave out line 18 and insert—
Mr Edward Mallalieu
, Brigg
With this we can also discuss Government Amendment No. 22.
Mr Norman Wylie
, Edinburgh Pentlands
These amendments relate to technical matters of court procedure. As drafted, Clause 8(2) might possibly give rise to some doubt. It will be appreciated that this is a Bill of considerable complexity and we are always trying to simplify matters. I am not at all sure that we have finished that process.
What we are trying to do in this Bill, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) will understand, since his Bill in 1970 was complex enough, is to keep it as clear and as simple as possible.
Two doubts could arise on Clause 8(2) as it stands. The first is whether, in a case where the lease is subject to a sublease or a heritable security, an action of removing under Clause 7 could be brought at all if all the persons listed in subsection (2) had not received intimation of the action. For example, this could arise if some of them were untraceable. The second problem is whether intimation of the action was of itself sufficient to give the person receiving the information the right to appear and plead in the action, or whether the intimation was merely intended to afford that person an opportunity to initiate his own arrangements for safeguarding his own position.
The amendments are designed to meet these two possible difficulties. I am not saying that they would necessarily arise, but they could conceivably arise. Amendment No. 19 removes the first doubt by giving the court a clear discretion about the method of intimation to be adopted. This is always a satisfactory course to follow. Where there is doubt about tracing interested parties it is always desirable to give the court discretion as to what should satisfy the requirements of intimation.
Amendment No. 22 deals with the second possible difficulty by stating quite explicitly that a person having any of the interests listed in the subsection has the same pleas open to him as has the defender in the action. This whole clause is highly technical, and I extend once again the invitation which I extended to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in Committee—that if he should wish to discuss these amendments to the clause with me at a later stage, I would be glad to do so.
Mr Ronald Murray
, Edinburgh Leith
I welcome these amendments. I think they are a definite improvement.
Mr Norman Wylie
, Edinburgh Pentlands
I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 34, at end insert 'derived from that lease'.
This amendment stands on its own. Its purpose is clarification. It does not alter the basic meaning of Clause 8(3), the effect of which is to ensure that the defence provided under Clause 7(4)—namely, that residential use of a long lease had been approved by the landlord—is to be available only to persons having the actual right of occupancy of the residential property in question.
This meaning is already sufficiently apparent in the context of Clause 8 taken as a whole, but the difficulty is that if subsection (3) is quoted out of context in the form of notice to terminate residential use—and in Schedule 3 there is reference to the quoting of Clause 8(3)—it might not be quite so apparent. Amendment No. 23, therefore, is really a drafting amendment to make the provision perfectly clear, even though it is only quoted out of context in the context of the schedule to which I have referred.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
