HC Deb 02 May 1923 vol 163 cc1445-51

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

Mr. PRINGLE

I wish to ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill as to the legal effects of this provision. There are some intricate matters regarding the application of this Bill to various classes of houses, and to different parts of the country, for example, in Section 18, Subsection (d), of the Act of 1920. It is a purely legal question. I should have thought it would have been well to have had legal gentlemen representing Scotland present. The Sub-section says: Where any dwelling-house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whitsunday nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the year ending at the said term of Whitsunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house. That is the case of notice to a yearly tenant. There are other things arising in connection with the Bill at present before the House. You have, at the present moment, under the Common Law, several periods from which notice shall run. In regard to quarterly houses, I think 40 days are required; monthly houses require a shorter period. There are different periods in Scotland; there is one period for England, and another for Scotland.

Under the provisions of the principal Act, you had the time expiring on a term date in both countries and there was no difficulty in relation to this. Now you are extending, in regard to Scotland, from 28th May to 31st June; and in regard to England, from 24th June to 31st July. I should like to know what is the effect of extending the Act to a date which is not a term date in either country, because there is a possibility that we may not have the new Bill through by the 31st July. I think the Bill is only to be circulated a fortnight after Whitsuntide and, considering that this House will be largely engaged with finance, there will be very great difficulty in getting it through before 31st July. Therefore, on 31st July, the question may arise as to what is the effect of the notices that have been given in respect of 28th May in Scotland, and 24th June in England. It would be well that we should know what the legal effect would be, before the question that this Clause stand part of the Bill is carried.

5.0 P.M.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH

Had I preceded the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I should have argued something very similar to what he did. It is very important that this matter should be cleared up. In the event of this Bill not being passed there will be a great many tenancies which will terminate by notice on 24th June. What will happen in regard to those tenancies in respect to which notice has actually been given? Will it be held that there will be another month added to the notice, and that, if it has terminated on 24th June, it will be good until the 31st July? Then again, beyond that, what will be the situation with regard to the large class of tenancies which do not expire on the 24th June in any given year? There are a great many tenancies coming under this Bill which are subject to the usual six months' notice for other quarters of the year than June. What will be the operation of the Bill with regard to these tenancies, and what will be the powers of the landlord and the rights of the tenant in regard to notices, first, on the hypothesis that the Bill is completed before the 31st July, and, second, if it is not completed by then?

Mr. FOOT

In regard to the point which has been put by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, may I ask if some explanation can be given to tenants throughout the country on the point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle)? I assume that, when the new Bill is introduced, a great many tenants who are at present protected will continue to have protection, but it is possible that some alteration may be made in the Bill, and by reason of that alteration some tenants at present protected may lose their protection. I believe it is intended to make some relaxation of the present law as far as the owners of houses are concerned. Many suggestions have been made in that direction. Where, for instance, a working man is the owner of a house and desires to have occupation of the house for himself, it is suggested that some further powers should be given to him greater than the powers we can exercise under the present Measure. How is a tenant who is to be deprived of the protection he has to-day to stand if this Bill passes? Has a further notice to be given if the notice to quit expires on the 24th June? Would the landlord who is to have power to enter into occupation of his own house have to give another notice? I can assure the Minister of Health that a great many people are concerned about the steps they ought to take in this matter, and if guidance could be given to them by the Solicitor-General it would be very acceptable to them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

This particular point which has been raised was considered when we were drafting this Bill. I do not think any difficulty will arise, because you must take this Bill in conjunction with the new Bill which we are to introduce, and any difficulties which might arise if this were the only Bill in question can be, and will be, corrected in the new Bill. Therefore the only difficulty that could arise is the one suggested by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). If the new Bill does not become law by the 31st July, it will be very easy to overcome that difficulty if the hon. Member for Penistone will move to omit 31st July from this Bill and insert 31st August.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD

I cannot think that the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman is entirely satisfactory, and I do not think the Solicitor-General will agree with him that in considering the present Measure we must have regard to some Bill the terms of which are unknown to us. There is a difficulty in regard to this, because a large number of notices have been given. I want to emphasise the point which has been made as to how the tenants and landlords are to get out of the difficulty. I think if some assurance were given by the Solicitor-General that he would look into this matter further, and, if necessary, add another Clause to the Bill, it would be more satisfactory. I venture, therefore, to appeal to the Solicitor-General to at any rate state his views, which will no doubt be regarded by landlords and tenants throughout the country as coming from one who speaks with authority.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

I am glad if it will be any help to my hon. Friend if I speak on the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). I understand that what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said as to considering the Bill to be introduced in conjunction with the present Bill, was in answer to the hypothetical question as to what would happen if the Bill be not passed by the 31st of July. Obviously the answer to that question is that when the Bill is introduced the Bill will deal with the question and make provision for all the circumstances which may arise I think the real question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), as to what would happen in the cases where notices have been given by a landlord to re-enter upon his house at a date which will expire when the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act expires. The Committee will remember that the operative part of that Act is in the introductory part, which prevents increases of rent or notices to quit taking effect. It is provided by the last Section that the Act shall continue in force till a certain date. Under the Bill now before the Committee that Section will be amended to this extent, that the Act will now have to be read as if that Section had been enacted as containing the 31st July instead of the 24th June. Without expressing any official or certain opinion upon it until I have had more opportunities of looking into it, I am inclined to think that the notices which have been given under which the landlord will re-enter, will not have to be repeated until the Act comes to an end. Of course, that might possibly depend on the terms of the notice, and I cannot express a general opinion upon that. What I will do, in response to the invitation and at the request of my hon. Friend, is that I will look into the question involved, in consultation with other persons, and, if necessary, see what Amendments can be made in the Bill which will safeguard the position of all the persons concerned.

Captain BENN

Apart from the legal point, which appears to me to be the possibility of a snare for us all, the important thing is to know when you are to have the discussions on this Bill. The Minister of Health has said that on the 4th June we will be in possession of the print.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

A fortnight after the Recess.

Captain BENN

That is later still. On the 31st July the Bill becomes operative. If we put the date at the 31st July, the Minister will come down to the House, and say, "I am extremely sorry I am to take this Bill to-night. It is a continuation Bill, and as the Act expires on the 31st July, you cannot delay this matter, because confusion would arise." If he does not do that, he will have to make his Bill retrospective, which is objectionable and has given rise to trouble already. I think we should have from the Minister of Health or from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury some definite undertaking about the discussions on this Bill. I have seen Bills brought along late at night, and when we wanted to discuss them we were told that the Bills must be got through. The Ministers said they were very sorry if it was inconvenient, but there was a certain date when the Bill must be passed. Can the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury give us a pledge that the stages of this Bill will be taken not after 11 o'clock? I think some sort of reply to that point might be vouchsafed. We have had many Ministers of Health, and we like this one, perhaps, best of all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I hope this good feeling to which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has referred, will remain. I cannot give an undertaking of that kind. I would only give an undertaking if I could keep it, but I cannot give the undertaking he asks for. I can only say that I am anxious that a proper opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the Bill at proper times, and I will do all I can towards that end.

Captain BENN

Is the Third Reading to be taken before the 31st July?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Certainly.

Mr. PRINGLE

There has been some indication given by the Solicitor-General that some Amendments will be put into this Bill—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I did not say that. My hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) asked me if I would look into the matter. I said I would look into the matter, but that does not suggest that there will be Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. PRINGLE

But it is within the recollection of the Committee that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General said it was possible that, as a result of his looking into the matter, some Amendment may be necessary. I do not interpret as an absolute promise what was given as a contingent undertaking. In view, however, of that contingent undertaking, can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when the Amendments will be introduced into the Bill? I notice the Minister of Health, in an accession of friendliness to me which surprised and overwhelmed me, suggested that I should move an Amendment. I thought that he would have regarded such an operation on my part as vexatious and obstructive, but apparently it would be a friendly act on this occasion. As I find he is benevolent towards an Amendment such as he suggested, are we to understand the Government contemplate such an Amendment, namely, making the date 31st August? I only wish to say that if it be contemplated I will treat it with absolute benevolence.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

If it appears to be necessary, as I do not anticipate it will, that Amendments will have to be put into the Bill to deal with the points raised, there will be an opportunity in another place and the proper provision will be made. That is what. I tried to say, and I now repeat it.

Mr. SHINWELL

May I ask the Solicitor-General, before he comes to a final conclusion, if he will consult the Scottish Law Officers? As he well knows, and as the House knows, considerable trouble has arisen from this source.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Yes. I also said that I would consider the matter in consultation with other persons.

Mr. SHINWELL

I did not understand other persons included those who represented the Scottish Office, but, if that is so, I accept it.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Short title and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. PRINGLE

I do not wish to delay the House in coming to a decision, but I wish to refer to that part of his speech in which the Minister of Health alluded to a substantial case which I raised on the Second Reading as a vexatious and obstructive proceeding. I want to point the moral. A single Member of the House could have prevented the Committee stage being taken to-day, and the Government would have got no more than the Second Reading, for no undertaking was given from any part of the House that more than the Second Reading would be given. It was only because the Minister was able to make some announcement in relation to the publication of the Government's proposals that the Government have been able to get the further stages of the Bill without delay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.