HC Deb 16 February 1949 vol 461 cc1228-49
Mr. Sparks

I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the beginning, to insert: (1) Section five of the Act of 1946 shall be read and have effect as if for the word "three" there were substituted the word "six. I would like to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment standing in my name at the bottom of the page, in line 21, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 26. It is consequential upon this Amendment.

In Section 5 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act of 1946 power is given for tribunals to postpone the operation of notices to quit served on tenants who have made application to a tribunal. The maximum period of postponement is three months. In other words, the tribunal can give three months' security of tenure by postponing any notice to quit for that period. It is proposed in this Bill to extend that power by three-monthly periods thereafter. My Amendment proposes to extend that three-monthly period of security of tenure to six months, in the first instance. The alternatives are not necessarily three months or six months, but it can be up to six months, in the first instance. I propose that from that period, thereafter, there should be power to extend the period for three-monthly intervals.

My second Amendment proposes to delete a paragraph completely. The proviso laid down in the Bill makes it clear that there is to be no extension for successive three-monthly periods if the full period of three months was not given in the first instance. In other words, if the tribunal gave only two months' security of tenure it would have no power to extend such security for a further period. My second Amendment proposes to give the tribunal power for this further extension of security of tenure or, in other words, if instead of giving six months' security of tenure the tribunal decided to give only four months, then the tribunal would have power under my Amendment at the end of that four months to extend the security of tenure by further three-monthly periods.

What the Amendments seek to achieve is, first, to extend the period of security of tenure from a limit of three months to a limit of six months; and secondly, where in the first instance the tribunal decide not to give the maximum but give any period up to the six months, instead of being deprived of the power to give a further extension of security the tribunal should have the power to extend security of tenure by further three-monthly periods.

This is a rather difficult and complicated matter to explain, but I think the Minister will understand my point, the essence of it being that the tribunal should be allowed to grant up to six months' security of tenure instead of the present maximum of three months and that where, in the first instance, a lesser period is granted the tribunal should have power to give a further period of security of tenure if they think it desirable.

The Temporary Chairman

Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in page 9, line 20, at the end. to insert: so however that the said period shall not exceed six months from the date of the reference to the tribunal.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We find it a little difficult to discuss together, Amendments which are diametrically opposite. We have had a little difficulty with that before and, if I may say so, it puts us, and I think it puts the Committee, in rather a difficulty, because there are two arguments going on contrary to each other.

Mr. Bevan

I would like to support the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in that view. The purpose of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is to extend the power of the tribunal and to give more security of tenure. The purpose of the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is to give less power. I think it would cause less confusion if we dealt with the Amendments separately.

The Temporary Chairman

If it is the wish of the Committee we will adopt that procedure.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

In that case, I will deal with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The position is very simple and I do not think we need spend much time on it. When the Act of 1946 was a Bill and was before the House, I was warned by many of my hon. Friends that the security of tenure was not sufficient, that tenants who went to a tribunal would be victimised and that many tenants would be deterred from going to a tribunal for fear of victimisation. I was not unsympathetic to that contention, but I was exceedingly anxious that such security of tenure should not be given to tenants as would make landlords frightened to provide furnished accommodation and, therefore, would limit the amount of accommodation available, especially in London. Nevertheless, it has been obvious that a great deal of vindictiveness has taken place on the part of some landlords and some principal tenants and, therefore, that further protection is required. But I would ask my hon. Friends to keep in mind that although this Bill gives further protection it is still necessary not to give such security of tenure as would frighten people away from providing accommodation. I consider that in the Bill we are doing all that is necessary to satisfy the two purposes.

Turning to his point about the first application, obviously if a tribunal has not given three months' security on the first application then it has already taken into consideration all the factors and there is no reason at all for a second application. It will have decided on the first application that in these circumstances two months' security is enough. We must keep before our minds all the time that when people are sharing accommodation exceedingly bitter personal friction can arise, especially when they are sharing furnished rooms and common accommodation. I need not emphasise, because we all know it so well, that it is difficult enough for men to agree together for long. When women have to share the same kitchen the most frightful circumstances can arise. Indeed, so temperamental are they, that they can change over-night and there can be unpleasantness before three months have passed. If we are to give six months for domestic strife to mature, heaven knows what might happen. I suggest, therefore, that the renewal of security for three months at a time is all that is necessary in the circumstances and I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Sparks

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Janner

I beg to move, in line 17, after the word "served," to insert the words: whether before or after the reference to the tribunal. I move this Amendment more for the purpose of getting an explanation of the position than for the purpose of insisting upon it if it should be contested. This is an extremely important Clause of the Bill. Although my right hon. Friend said that the present extension of the notice proposed under the Bill is sufficient, nevertheless it is highly important that we should give security of such a nature that it is real security. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can help me, but I am not sure whether the Clause as it stands applies to a case where notice has been given before a tribunal is actually called upon to deal with the rent.

A person who is aggrieved about the rent negotiates with his landlord. In the course of those negotiations the landlord serves him with a notice to quit. In present circumstances, as soon as that notice to quit is served the security of the tenant is completely gone, irrespective of the result of the tribunal findings. I think that is the position under the law today. A tenant who gave notice for the reference to the tribunal was covered to the extent of three months, or such period as the tribunal decided; but a tenant who was given notice immediately before the reference was made by him was deprived of any security at all.

Mr. Bevan

I think I can allay my hon. Friend's apprehensions. I have put down an Amendment which seeks to secure that the tenant is secured in his possession until seven days after determination by the tribunal—after determination, so it does not matter when the notice is.

Mr. Janner

This is not merely my case. I do hope my right hon. Friend will make this Clause as clear as he possibly can, because I have been approached by the tribunal in my own constituency about this matter, the chairman of which is a very experienced lawyer, and a man who has had a considerable amount of experience in the conduct of the tribunals. His fear is this. He says, for example, that in Leicester itself they have had several instances in which notices to quit have been served a few hours before the applications were made because the applicants had foolishly informed their landlords of their intention to make the applications. I hope the Committee can see how very important this is. Of course, if my right hon. Friend assures me that his Amendment which he has put down will cover the point, irrespective of when the notice is served, irrespective of whether it is served before or after application, I shall be prepared to accept the position.

Mr. Bevan

I must not be assumed to have accepted that interpretation. We are not concerned with the notice upon the tenant but with the notice to the tribunal. First the tenant must have made application to the tribunal for the rent to be reduced. The purpose of my Amendment is that once that notice has been served on the tribunal to review the rent the person cannot be ejected until at least seven days after the tribunal has adjudicated.

Mr. Janner

I am sorry to persist, but will my right hon. Friend say whether that means that if a notice to quit has been served before the applicant makes his application, what he now says applies. It does not apply today. This is a very important matter. I do not think there is anything between us really, but we ought to know that. It does not apply today.

Mr. Bevan

The answer is that it ought not to. I cannot understand my hon. Friend. This is not a Bill for the purpose of giving security of tenure. It is a Bill for the purpose of fixing reasonable rents for furnished lettings. A landlord may serve a notice upon a tenant, but the tribunal is not clairvoyant. The tribunal comes into operation only when it is invoked. It would obviously be unreasonable for a person who is in occupancy of a furnished letting to frustrate the intention of the landlord, who may properly want to get rid of him. We must not always assume in these circumstances that the persons occupying the furnished lettings are invariably the persons with justice on their side. Remember, we are talking about shared accommodation and about principal tenants—persons who are tenants, not landlords only. As soon as a notice is served on a tenant, according to my hon. Friend's desire he can immediately frustrate that by application to the tribunal for review of the rent.

We have sought to see to it that a notice does not run out and that a tenant is not put upon the street before the tribunal has had an opportunity to arbitrate. What my Amendment proposes, therefore, is that as soon as the notice is served on the tribunal asking for an arbitration the tenant is protected for seven days after the decision.

Mr. Janner

I do not understand why the Minister has adopted that attitude. This trouble has arisen because of the fact that at the present time, if a landlord gives a tenant notice to quit, and the tenant puts in his application to the tribunal to have the rent properly assessed—it does not matter if it is only an hour or two beforehand—the tenant is not protected.

Mr. Bevan

Why?

Mr. Janner

That is precisely what I am trying to argue in my Amendment. This is the whole purpose of my Amendment. I see now the Minister does not intend to concede it. I will explain to the Minister why. If two people are negotiating for the purpose of fixing a rental, and if the landlord chooses to serve a notice upon the tenant, knowing he will most likely go to the tribunal, if he serves a notice only an hour before the tenant puts in his application, the tenant is deprived of the rights which are allowable if the notice is not served. I am talking of a term which is still current. If I can be assured that that notice will not deprive the tenant of his right to go to the tribunal, I shall be satisfied. If not, I think the Committee ought to insist that the matter should be dealt with in a manner that will afford the tenant reasonable and proper protection.

Mr. Sparks

There is something in the point advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). Many people come to me about this sort of thing. If a tenant feels that the rent he is paying for shared accommodation is too high the only way he can get protection for himself is to go straight to the tribunal without saying anything to the landlord. If there is a preliminary discussion between himself and the landlord, as in many cases there is, and the landlord refuses to reduce the rent, and the tenant still thinks it is too much and says, "I think I shall go to the tribunal," the landlord serves notice on him straight away and the case is not referable to the tribunal. There are cases in which tenants have been deprived of access to the tribunals because, before applying to the tribunals, they have first tried to reach agreement with their landlords, and in which the landlords have "put one over them" by giving them notice to quit before they could go to the tribunals.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I have listened to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and the Minister very carefully, and I have been frying to make up my mind which of them is right in regard to the main purpose of the Bill. I think that on this occasion the Minister is right, and that it would not be right for those of us who opposed the Minister on other occasions not to say that we believe he has adopted the right position. On the other hand, the hon. Member for West Leicester is a lawyer and the Minister is not. Can the Minister tell the House that he has the legal authority behind him for the statement which he has made. I think that he probably has, but this is a very complicated matter, and there must be a certain amount of sympathy with the position taken up by the hon. Member for West Leicester. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to have the assurance of the Minister that he has gone into this matter very carefully and that he has legal authority behind him for stating that this Amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr. Bevan

A Minister does not speak at this Box on these matters unless he is reasonably assured that what he is saying is correct. Must I always say that I have consulted a lawyer before I make a statement? It is an unreasonable question, and I do not understand the purpose of the intervention.

Mr. Williams

If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I am afraid that he deliberately makes me explain further. This is a very complicated legal Bill, and we have not the advantage of one of the Law Officers sitting on the Front Bench opposite. I did not want to complain on that point, but when the Minister answers me in such a fashion as he has done, I am bound to stand up for my position. This Amendment has not been raised by our side; it has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, and it seems to be only common courtesy that when I think that he is right I should get up and say so. If he does not like my doing that I might adopt a different attitude next time.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I beg to move in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert: so however that the said period shall not exceed six months from the date of the reference to the tribunal. After the long wanderings in the jungle of the law, we now come to a fairly straight-forward and simple point. Our discussion of this Bill has raised my admiration for His Majesty's Judges very much. I hope that it will be possible for us to reach agreement on this simple issue. We have now passed out of the stratum of great landlords and property owners altogether, and we are on the stratum of comparatively humble people with lodgings or lettings of one kind or another. The Minister has indicated that he fully appreciates this point. In these circumstances, I am sure that the Committee will agree that the burden of hardship is likely to be as much on the side of the person who is providing the rooms as on the side of the person who enjoys the rooms. What the Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that if the period is extendable it should not be extendable beyond a total period of six months.

The Minister has spoken on this matter twice. He spoke on it on Second Reading and he spoke eloquently just now on the previous Amendment of the danger of tying people together as militating against anyone taking the risk of letting someone share accommodation. The Minister will be familiar with the play of Mr. Bernard Shaw called "Getting Married." In that play, two people decide to get married, but after reading the marriage service and realising the obligations which it would put upon them they find that it is not a thing which they can undertake at all. I myself have provided some house property for people to live in. I must say that if I had read the Statutes which govern these things, I, like the two people in "Getting Married," would have come to the conclusion that it would be better to turn the thing down and avoid the risks which are apparently inseparable from such an undertaking.

Surely six months is a long enough period. This is a problem of human relations. The right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will know the difficulties of even binding people to employment, and the haste with which Parliament seeks to remove that bond at the earliest possible moment. This is a much more intimate bond which is being inflicted upon people. Someone with only a separate bedroom who has a right to share the table of the person with whom he is living, might find under the present provisions of the Bill his rights indefinitely extended. Is that going to favour the provision of accommodation or militate against it? I think that it will militate against it.

The Minister spoke of the possibility of women quarrelling with each other. He will remember the eloquent lines of Kipling: Two women in one house, Two cats and one mouse; Two dogs and one bone, Which I will leave alone. This he is not going to leave alone. He is going to give the tribunal power by force of law to yoke these people together indefinitely. I say that in these circumstances I think the Minister is taking a risk which he himself has looked at before and quite properly refused to undertake. He says that instances of vindictiveness have come to his notice. We cannot legislate against human nature. To make an indefinite period of sharing a thing as close and personal as the house in which one is living, is for the legislature to press the powers of the House further than they should reasonably go. I do not wish to press the matter and delay the Committee, because the Amendment is clear and simple. We think that the present position will be fully met by a possible six months' extension, and that the indefinite extension contemplated in the Statute goes far beyond what is reasonably desirable.

Mr. Bevan

If the conditions described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) followed from the application of the Bill in its present form, then I should certainly accept what he says. I imagine that it will work quite differently. If the application to the tribunal was in respect of families sharing accommodation with each other, and they were quarrelling and on bad terms, I doubt whether under such conditions the tribunal would perpetuate the security of tenure and keep them together. In fact, the tribunal would take into account the antipathy existing between the two families as a reason for wanting a separation, and the law would give as much notice as possible for other accommodation to be found. If I accepted the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would go far from providing what he himself wishes to obtain.

There is a lot of accommodation which is not necessarily shared accommodation. In fact, I suppose that in some parts of our cities the vast majority would be accommodation where the landlord is not himself or herself in close personal relationship with the aggrieved tenant, but where they have acted maliciously because the tenant has asked for the arbitrament of the tribunal. In such a case there is hardly any reason why security of tenure should not be given.

This is essentially a matter so much of looking at the immediate facts of the case, that we can safely leave it to the tribunal. Where the juxtaposition between the aggrieved parties is a personal one, then separation at the earliest possible convenient time is the only answer. Where the juxtaposition is not personal but merely legal, the landlord ought not to be given the power to destroy the security of tenure of the tenant merely because the tenant has taken him to the tribunal and has got a decision. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, on reflection, that the solution that we have arrived at would meet the varying conditions.

Mr. Hare

I do not think that the Minister has convinced the Committee with his argument. He is giving the same rights of security of tenure to furnished tenants as already exist for statutory tenants. That cannot be his intention. It cannot be right or fair that such an arangement should be made possible by the Bill. The Minister has stressed the danger of domestic strife as he called it, and of unhappiness within a household. He showed himself supremely human. He also stressed the fact that this was not a Bill to give security of tenure. He made that clear in the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). If that is so, I cannot see how he can logically bring in something which is quite new, which is to give furnished tenants, if the tribunal decides to extend the period of grace to a further three months, the same rights as at present exist for ordinary statutory tenants.

Mr. Bevan

Does not the hon. Member appreciate that there is a fundamental difference between the case where two aggrieved parties are in close relationship with each other, and the case where they are not? There is no reason at all, on the grounds advanced by the hon. Member, to permit a landlord who is not in direct personal relationship with the tenant who has taken him to the tribunal to get rid of the tenant. That is merely acting on vindictiveness. The tribunal can decide where the relationship is personal, to end it and not to give security of tenure.

Mr. Hare

The Minister is trying to convince me I think from what he has just said that it is fair that there should be a reasonable period in order to give security of tenure to the tenant of unfurnished accommodation but in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is introducing an element of security of tenure for the tenant of furnished accommodation, which is quite new and is not in any way desirable.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe

The right hon. Gentleman is approaching this rather difficult problem from the wrong end. He has put forward a case and his words were, as near as I can remember them, that the tenant ought not to have his security taken away. The Act of 1946 was not intended to give security of tenure. The three-months period was to protect the tenant who was in dispute with his landlord over rent. The basic principle of the 1946 Act was to see that only fair rents should be charged, and the purpose in regard to security of tenure was ancillary. The proper way to approach this question is not by the Amendment, in which one is taking away security of tenure from the tenant. The proper question is: "Are you not taking away from the landlord a right of possession of his own property?" We are not dealing here with wealthy landlords of landed estates but with furnished lettings and people who are very often in a very small way indeed and are often in close juxtaposition through having only one small room.

Mr. Bevan

The hon. and learned Member refers to the letting of one room in the house. He does not address himself to my argument. These tribunals are composed of experienced people. Does the hon. and learned Member think they will go on giving an additional three months to tie two families together who are living in the same room? The hon. and learned Member must think they are cretins.

Mr. Marlowe

The tenant may be living in one room. I did not mean that the people were all living in one room. I was talking of the case where the tenant is the occupier of one room. It is a case which often arises before rent tribunals every day of the week. The right hon. Gentleman's interruption was unjustified.

Mr. Bevan

I spoke of the two parties being in close personal relationship with each other—in other words, under the same roof, passing each other many times a day. In the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind of a person living in a small room in a small house, the parties would have every opportunity of quarrelling with each other. Those are circumstances which would naturally appeal to the tribunal in determining whether to give an additional three months. Is not that case wholly different from the other circumstance where the two families are not in personal relationship? I hope we are not going to spend so much time over small points as we are now doing, because we shall be an awfully long time before we get to the end.

Mr. Marlowe

The right hon. Gentleman anticipated the case which I was going to make. The right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to cast upon the tribunals not only a duty which was not cast upon them by the 1946 Act, but an entirely novel duty. He is asking these tribunals to go beyond the original function, which was (a) to see that the tenant had a fair rent and (b) to give the tenant security of tenure. He is saying, regardless of what any Statute has said, that part of the function of the tribunal is to decide whether people are living happily together or not. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman sighing. I can quite understand his sighing. I can understand anybody who is required to discharge that duty sighing very heavily. The right hon. Gentleman is going to make these tribunals into courts of morals.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes. I always know when the right hon. Gentleman turns his back that he knows that an argument is too much for him.

Let me develop my argument. Let me put before the Committee instances of a kind which anybody who has practised in the Divorce Court will have come across frequently. It is the case where the lodger has disturbed the matrimonial peace. Suppose you have a case where a man and his wife are living in a house, and they rent a room to a lodger. An affection springs up between the lodger and the wife. I am putting forward a serious case where there are two possibilities. One is that there is an affection between the lodger and the wife and the other is that, perhaps quite wrongly, the husband imagines there is. Suppose that case comes before the tribunal. It will come before the tribunal when application is made to the tribunal, and in those circumstances the tribunal has to decide the merits of the case as between the husband and wife. The husband may wish to get rid of the lodger and the wife may wish to retain him.

Mr. Bevan

If the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) were a member of the tribunal, how would he decide that case?

Mr. Marlowe

I can give the right hon. Gentleman two answers. The first is that his remark strongly supports our contention that lawyers should be on the tribunal and the second is that his question reinforces my argument that this imposes on the tribunal an impossible task. My point is that this imposes a task which the 1946 Act never presupposed. We have put forward a reasoned case why security of tenure should not be given for too long, that is to say, that a compulsory relationship between the people should not last indefinitely but have a limit—we suggested six months. The only

answer the right hon. Gentleman has given is that the tribunal will decide it. Our reply to that is that it is an impossible task for the tribunal.

Colonel Dower

I do not intend to go into details of domestic bliss and other arguments which have been put forward, but wish to tackle the Minister on the more difficult side of this matter. I want the Minister seriously to consider that, even in a case where people do not live together, there may be a temptation to make vexatious appeals to the tribunal. If an extension of three months is given, that may go on indefinitely.

Mr. Bevan

No.

Colonel Dower

I am glad to be put right by the Minister but I want him to avoid vexatious appeals being made by people who would not otherwise overburden the tribunal.

Mr. Bevan

We are making exceedingly heavy weather of a very simple point. The tribunal will have the two parties before them and all these matters will be discussed. These are really matters of common sense. They will not involve matters of fundamental principles of jurisprudence but matters which any ordinary men and women can decide among themselves. If the appeal is vexatious, the tribunal will not give an additional period. I think the time is ripe for us to get on to very much more important matters.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 276.

Division No. 63.] AYES (8.27 p.m.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D, C. (Wells) Gage, C. Low, A. R. W
Bower, N. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) McCallum, Maj. D.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. Gammans, L. D. Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke) McFarlane, C. S
Bullock, Capt. M. Glyn, Sir R. Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Butcher, H. W. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Challen, C Grimston, R. V. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Clarke, Col. R.S. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Conant, Maj R. J. E Harvey, Air-Comdre, A V Manningham-Bullar, R. E
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Marlowe, A. A. H
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Maude, J. C.
Cuthbert, W. N. Hogg, Hon. Q. Mellor, Sir J.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin gh, W.) Molson, A H. E
Digby, S. W Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
Dodds-Parker, A. D Jarvis, Sir J. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Dower, Col, A. V. G. (Penrith) Jennings, R. Orr-Ewing, I. L
Drayson, G B Keeling, E. H. Osborne, C.
Drewe, C. Lambert, Hon. G. Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Eccles, D M Lancaster, Col. C. G. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Rayner, Brig. R.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Scott, Lord W. Thornton-Kemsley, C N.
Smithers, Sir W. Walker-Smith, D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Spearman, A. C. M. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.) Mr. Studholme and
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. White, Sir D. (Fareham) Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.
Sutcliffe, H. Williams, C. (Torquay)
NOES
Adams, Richard (Balham) Foot, M. M McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Albu, A. H. Forman, J. C. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) McKinlay, A. S
Allen, A. C (Bosworth) Freeman, J. (Watford) Maclean, N. (Govan)
Alpass, J. H. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N McLeavy, F.
Anderson, A (Motherwell) Ganley, Mrs C. S MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Attewell, H. C. Gibbins, J Mainwaring, W H.
Austin, H. Lewis Gibson, C. W. Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)
Ayles, W. H. Gilzean, A. Mallalieu, J P. W (Huddersfield)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mann, Mrs J
Bacon, Miss A. Grey, C. F Manning, Mrs L (Epping)
Baird, J. Grierson, E. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Balfour, A Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Medland, H M
Barstow, P. G. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly) Mellish, R. J
Barton, C. Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side) Messer, F
Battley, J. R. Gunter, R J. Middleton, Mrs. L
Bechervaise, A. E. Guy W. H. Mikardo, Ian
Benson, G Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Beswick, F. Hale, Leslie Mitchison, G. R.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil Moody, A S
Bing, G. H C. Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R Morgan, Dr H B.
Binns, J. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morley, R
Blackburn, A. R. Hardy, E. A. Morris, Lt.-Col H. (Sheffield, C.)
Blenkinsop, A. Harrison, J Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Boardman, H. Hastings, Dr Somerville Mort, D L.
Bowden, Flg Offr. H. W. Haworth, J Moyle, A.
Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Henderson, Rt Hn. A. (Kingswinford) Murray, J D.
Brook, D (Halifax) Hewitson, Capt. M Naylor, T. E.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hicks, G. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hobson, C R. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Holman, P Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)
Burden, T. W. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Oliver, G. H
Burke, W. A. Horabin, T. L. Paget, R T
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Hoy, J. Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Byers, Frank Hubbard, T. Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Carmichael, James Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Palmer, A. M. F
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Parker, J
Champion, A. J. Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.) Parkin, B. T.
Chater, D. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Chetwynd, G. R Hynd J B. (Attercliffe) Patton, J. (Norwich)
Cobb, F. A. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Pearson, A.
Cocks, F. S. Irvine W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Peart, T. F.
Coldrick, W. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Poole Cecil (Lichfield)
Collick, P. Jannner, B. Popplewell, E.
Colman, Miss G. M. Jay, D. P. T. Porter, E. (Warrington)
Corlett, Dr. J. Jeger, G (Winchester) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Cove, W. G. Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Price, M Philips
Crawley, A. Johnston, Douglas Proctor, W T
Cullen, Miss Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) Pryde, D. J.
Daggar, G. Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin) Pursey, Comdr. H.
Daines, P. Keenan, W. Randall, H. E.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Kenyon, C Ranger, J.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Kinley, J. Rees-Williams, D. R.
Davies, R.J. (Westhoughton) Kirby, B V Reeves, J
Davies S. O. (Merthyr) Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D. Reid, T (Swindon)
Deer G. Lang, G Rhodes, H.
Diamond, J Lavers, S Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Dodds, N. N Lee, F. (Hulme) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Driberg, T. E. N. Levy Miss J (Cannock) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Dumpleton, C W. Levy, B W. Royle, C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lewis, A W J. (Upton) Scollan, T
Edwards, John (Blackburn) Lewis, J (Bolton) Scott-Elliot, W
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Lindgren, G S. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Sharp, Granville
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Logan, D. G. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Evans, E (Lowestoft) Longden, F Shinwell, Rt Hon. E
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Lyne, A. W Shurmer, P
Ewart, R. McAdam, W. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Fairhurst, F. McAllister, G. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Farthing, W J. McEntee, V La T. Simmons, C J
Fernyhough, E. McGhee, H. G. Skeffington, A. M.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) McGovern, J. Skinnard, F. W
Follick, M. Mack, J. D. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Timmons, J White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Snow, J. W Titterington, M. F Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Sorensen, R. W. Tolley, L. Wigg, George
Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir Frank Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Willey, F T. (Sunderland)
Sparks, J. A Turner-Samuels, M. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Stamford, W Ungoed-Thomas, L. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Steele, T. Viant, S. P. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Wadsworth, G. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Stross, Dr B. Walker, G. H. Willis, E.
Stubbs, A. E. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wills, Mrs. E. A
Swingler, S Warbey, W N. Woods, G. S.
Sylvester, G O. Watkins, T. E. Yates, V. F.
Symonds, A. L. Watson, W. M. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Weitzman, D. Zilliacus, K.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wells, W. T. (Walsall) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thomas, John R. (Dover) West, D. G. Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wiltons.
Thurtle, Ernest Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Bevan

I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out "under this Section," and to insert: being made under this Section— (a) the notice to quit to which the application relates shall not, unless the application is withdrawn, have effect before the determination of the application; (b). This is the Amendment to which I made reference some little while ago, and there are three consequential Amendments to it. It seeks to provide that the applicant to a tribunal shall not lose his tenancy because it will have expired before the tribunal has arbitrated. It in-tends to preserve the security for seven days at the very least after the tribunal has reached a decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 31, leave out "to which the application relates."

In line 34, at the end, insert: (c) if the Tribunal refuse a direction under this Section, the notice to quit shall not have effect before the expiration of seven days from the determination of the application.

In line 37, leave out subsection (4), and insert: (4) Where on an application under this Section the tribunal have refused a direction under subsection (2) thereof, no subsequent application under this Section shall be made in relation to the same notice to quit."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, at the end, to insert: (5) This section shall not apply in any case in which the circumstances set out in the First Schedule to the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, apply. This is quite a short point, namely, to exempt from the extra protection afforded by this Clause to the tenant of furnished accommodation where the rent has been referred to a tribunal, cases where an order for possession without proof of alternative accommodation could be made under the principal Acts against the tenant of unfurnished accommodation; that is to say, where the tenant has defaulted, or where the landlord would have the right of entry under the 1933 Act, for instance, for the use of an employee.

Mr. Bevan

We think this ought to be left to the good sense of the tribunal. If we accepted the Amendment, it would only lead to uncertainty as to what lay within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and we would prefer that ambiguity not to exist.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

This is an old discussion. I do not wish to divide the Committee on this point, because we have made our case frequently that the tribunal is entitled to some direction from the House, and we think so here. There are, however, important issues at which we wish to arrive and we are, therefore, willing to let the Amendment be negatived but I do not withdraw it.

Mr. J. Foster

Is it proposed that the Ministry of Health should give any indication to the tribunals as to what circumstances they can take into account? I have been told that there has been so much uncertainty about this that the tribunal at Marylebone has issued a book stating which circumstances they take into account. Would it help if someone specified those?

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg

I desire to put to the Minister a point which I should have put to him on an earlier Amendment. I did not do so then because I thought the atmosphere was, perhaps, a little too hilarious for it to be taken as seriously as I should desire. I have been impressed in the Debates on the various Amendments to the Clause by the fact that there is a fairly general comprehension, I think, on both sides of the Committee of what the purpose of the Clause is, and a wide measure of agreement on the kind of object which is required to be effected; but I retain myself a certain amount of genuine doubt as to whether there would not have been a simpler and better way of achieving this object.

May I recall the Committee for a moment to the history of the matter? We are all agreed that the tribunal determines the reasonable rent of furnished lettings and we are all agreed that, because of the fact that it may reduce the rent, it is necessary to give the tribunal power to prevent its decision being flouted by a landlord terminating a furnished tenancy, which he could otherwise do, and thereby getting rid of a tenant in revenge for his applying to the tribunal.

Under the 1946 Act, as we know, the tribunal has authority to give protection up to three months. For various reasons, that was found to be unsatisfactory because, in the present housing shortage, three months is not a very long time. In practice, the Minister had to resort to what I think he would agree was the somewhat questionable device of supplementing the powers of the tribunal by requisitioning the premises if it was thought that the landlord was taking advantage of the shortness of the period in order to get the tenant out unreasonably immediately after the expiration of three months. He now seeks to get from Parliament, and, on the whole, he has been conceded, the view that a wider measure of protection ought to be afforded by law than the three months which was given by the Act to the tribunal. He has accordingly provided that the tenant may apply from three months to three months in suitable cases to have that protection extended indefinitely.

I think we would all agree that that may give rise to difficulties, especially as we have to remember throughout that the tenant has absolutely no deterrent at all against making frivolous applications to tribunals. He can put the landlord to a great deal of embarrassment and fear, even in cases where there is no reasonable case, by going to tribunals for a determination of the rent. He has a clear prospect of success if he does so and nothing whatever to fear if he fails. On the assumption that he succeeds in getting a small reduction in rent, it is, of course, possible for him to be afforded—and he may be afforded, even in such a case—reasonable security of tenure. The question is whether it ought to be open for him or be left simply to the tribunal to go on from three months to three months renewing that security.

I am not altogether satisfied that that is reasonable and for this reason: the Minister very properly observed in an earlier Amendment—proposed, I think, by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks)—that we are not in this Clause discussing the proper security which ought to be given to tenants of furnished lettings in general. That is not our question and the Minister, quite rightly, said that this is not a Clause for effecting such a purpose. It would, therefore, not be proper to look to this Clause to give to a tenant a greater security than he would have had if he had not applied to the tribunal at all. That, I think, will be common ground between all those who have studied this matter. I am driven to wonder whether the effect of the Clause at present may not be in practice to give such a protection in such cases for an indefinite period.

8.45 p.m.

I should not have raised this point had I not been of the opinion that there is both an easier and a better way of securing the objective, and that is by taking the question of security of tenure out of the jurisdiction of the tribunal altogether and placing it within the jurisdiction of the county court, as under the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Committee will be aware that under those Acts the county court can suspend the operation of a possession order for any period for which it thinks reasonable. I cannot help thinking that that is what should have been done here once it was established, as I think it has been established, that the three months' arbitrary maximum supplied by the old Act was not adequate, and that the real procedure should be to leave the landlord in such a case to seek his remedy in the county court, as he would have to do, and to provide that the county court judge, where an application had been made to the tribunal, should not make an order for possession unless he thought it reasonable and upon such terms as he considered reasonable. That would give a greater degree of security and finality to the matter. It would protect the tenant and the landlord and would avoid the rather extraordinary situations which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested.

I do not want the Minister to give a considered reply to this matter now, because I should have given him notice that I was going to raise this point, but I hope he will bear it in mind as a suggestion which is not unfriendly to the principle of the Clause and that he will consider it before the matter reaches another stage.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.