HC Deb 11 November 1927 vol 210 cc525-56

Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words but such new lease shall in no case exceed the landlord's interest in the premises."— (Sir G. Hohler.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Amendment negatived.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING

I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, to leave out the word "fourteen" and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one."

When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading there was no Clause in it dealing with the period for which the tribunal could grant a new lease. Discretionary power was left to the tribunal to fix what, in their judgment, was an appropriate period. In Committee, the Home Secretary moved that it be 21 years, which it gave me very much satisfaction to support, but, unfortunately, by a majority of two it was decided to insert "fourteen" and not "twenty-one." In moving this Amendment, I am not actuated by a desire to benefit either the landlord or the tenant, who will go before the tribunal for a new lease. The aim of the Bill is not to injure the landlord, but to prevent him injuring the tenant. The merit of my Amendment is that it does not injure either. I desire to give the tribunal a discretionary power to fix either 14 or 21 years, as circumstances justify. It may be that a considerable number of landlords would prefer 21 years to 14. The landlord may not be a wealthy man. It may be his only property, or it may be the only source of income of a widow. If the tenant can make out his case for compensation, it will have to be reflected in the granting of a new lease if the tribunal so decides. I would ask the House to consider it from this aspect. Assuming the tribunal thinks £1,000 would be an adequate sum to satisfy the tenant's claim, it must be expressed in terms of a lease. If it were expressed in the terms of a lease of ten years it would be, approximately, £100 a year, but if it were expressed in the term of 20 years it would be satisfied by a reduction in the rental of £50 a year.

It might very well happen that the landlord would much prefer to have £50 reduced from his annual rental of £100 because it might be his only means of living. Having regard to the facts, it must be clear that a landlord might desire a smaller reduction in his rent for a longer period than for a shorter one, and in the interest of the landlord it is desirable that the tribunal should have this discretionary power. It does not follow that they would exercise it. The circumstances of the case will control and govern their judgment. On the other hand, the tenant might desire, and both parties might agree to a period of 21 years if it were in the discretion of the tribunal to give it. I think the Government would be well advised to concede this point and give the tribunal that discretionary power which I seek. It may be suggested that as this was defeated in Committee it is not an appropriate occasion to reopen it on Report, but, as I understand it, it is appropriate on Report to revise and correct and straighten out and co-ordinate anything that has happened in Committee, sometimes by accident, which on second consideration may deserve amendment and alteration. It is because I think a hasty decision was taken in Committee that I put this Amendment down. The matter is one that deeply concerns a vast army of tenants all over the country. In asking for this discretionary power, I am not asking for anything that undermines the principle of the Bill. I am only asking for what the Home Secretary sought to embody in it, and I am merely assisting the Government to pass a Bill which is moderate in all its aspects, with a desire to do a minimum of harm and a maximum of good. If for any reason the Home Secretary cannot accept the Amendment, I hope he will leave it to a free vote of the House and let the House decide the question on its merits.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

The common form of lease is for seven, 14 or 21 years.

Mr. WITHERS

No.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I am speaking from my own experience of some considerable property, both as owner and tenant, and I say that, at any rate, in the provinces,, the common form of lease to-day is for seven, 14 or 21 years. We ask that the tribunal should be empowered to grant the longest term. I appeal to the House to support the Amendment, which would empower the tribunal to grant a long lease, if, taking all the circumstances into consideration, they regard it as a fair and equitable thing.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH

I should like to say a few words, especially having regard to the appeal of the Mover to leave it to a free vote of the House. I am very loth to embark on a discussion of the merits of the question. I quite agree, that when it comes to be a question of a few years more or less there is much to be said on both sides. The reason I deprecate this and similar Amendments is that we should tend to destroy the balance of the Bill as it left the Committee. During this stage in the House I have looked upon this Bill as it left the Committee as practically a settled thing. I deprecate all Amendments wherever they come from that introduce questions settled upstairs. I do not deprecate anything that introduces new matter, new points improving the Bill that have not been dealt with or settled by the Committee, but I deprecate the idea that we should start over again in this House all the processes through which we went for three solid months in Committee upstairs in the discussion of all these points. I am under the impression that Members on all sides considered that we had come practically to a reasonable settlement, and in the interests of the Bill I think my hon. Friend's Amendment is inadvisable. I think he understands what I mean. It is simply inadvisable. I desire to see the Bill go through as a reasonable measure of justice as between landlord and tenant practically as it left the Committee upstairs.

My hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Perring) mentioned one or two points to which I think I must refer. He seems to think the Bill as it stands on this point would prevent the landlord and tenant from coming to an agreement as to a longer lease than 14 years. Of course, it will do nothing of the kind. There is nothing to prevent the landlord from granting to the tenant 21 or 42 years or any other period of lease they desire to agree about. One of the fundamental parts of the Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary insisted upon from time to time was that the parties should be allowed to come together in all respects. As a matter of fact, when this Bill passes, what I hope will come from it and what I believe will come from it will be that it will be very little used and that landlord and tenant will come together and amicably settle these points. There is another point to which my hon. Friend referred. It was an appeal that the Bill should be left to the unfettered judgment of the House. He said that it was a matter which had been settled by something in the nature of a snap Division upstairs.

Sir W. PERRING

Accident.

Sir P. PILDITCH

Well, it is more or less the same thing—by a majority of two. What happened upstairs? I will not go into the merits of the question, but the matter was discussed for several hours. It raised a number of points, and there were a large number of Amendments on both sides with regard to it. The Home Secretary suggested 21 years. Some hon. Friends of mine and others, including the right hon. Member for Hammersmith, South (Sir W. Bull), suggested seven years. I suggested, and others suggested, 14 years, and on the first Division the proposal to have 14 years instead of 21 years was accepted by 18 to 16. But I would like to remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the circumstances of that particular majority. The 18 was derived from that part of the House wherein, it is well known, the common-sense of the House generally resides—[Laughter]—without exception. The 16 was represented by 12 gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite, the Home Secretary and one estimable Member of the Liberal party, and my hon. Friends the Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who moved and seconded this Amendment to-day. What happened after that? It became an agreed point, one of the many agreed points which resulted in the Bill as we see it to-day. Another Division was taken. The Division which passed this Bill was 23 to 11, and in that Division, among the 23 who voted for the 14 years was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington, and my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby. We were all agreed.

Sir W. PERRING

May I correct my hon. Friend 1 If he will look at the Minutes of the meeting he will find that the voting was 18 and 16, 21 against 18 that the words stand part.

Sir P. PILDITCH

But my hon. Friend was pointing to what he called the snap Division; that was the first Division. When the matter became the substantive Motion it was carried by 23 to 11, and among those who voted for 14 years were my hon. Friends the Members for North Paddington and Grimsby.

Sir W. PERRING

As against seven years.

Sir P. PILDITCH

I do not know what it was against. It was not only against seven; it was against 21 also.

Sir W. PERRING

No.

Sir P. PILDITCH

I ask the Home Secretary to deal with the last point that my hon. Friend raised, which is to leave the matter to "the unfettered discretion of the House." What does that mean? It means the Government are asked to abdicate their position as leading the House. How many of the Members who are in the precincts of the House are in this Chamber at the present moment? One knows what happens in cases of this kind. The Government leave something to what is called the unfettered judgment of the House and Members not here troop in. They do not know what has happened; they think the Government are either luke ware, or, having left the matter to the unfettered judgment of the House, really sympathise with the Amendment which is before the House at the moment. This is just what happens when the Government leave a decision to the unfettered judgment of the House. In the interests of the Bill and in the interests of carrying this Bill through the remaining stages until it becomes law, it will be very undesirabile that a step should be taken towards breaking down what I consider to be the general balance of the Bill, because there were many Amendments brought forward on what I may call, if you like, my side, which were not accepted by the Home Secretary and on which we gave way and in one or two cases were defeated, and there were many Amendments on the other side where the same sort of thing occurred. Generally the Bill has come from the Committee in a more or less agreed form, and I hope that it will pass substantially as it left the Standing Committee.

Mr. DALTON

I was one of those who spent three solid months upstairs in Committee listening to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and others, speaking little, listening much and drawing certain very definite conclusions. I should like to support the appeal made by the Mover of the Amendment that the Government should leave it to the unfettered discretion of the House. The proposal of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment is for the same term of years which was originally proposed, as the hon. Member who has just spoken pointed out, by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It is true that in subsequent discussions and in subsequent votes in Committee upstairs the shorter period of 14 years was substituted for the period of 21. I think it is only reasonable to ask the Home Secretary not to put on the Government Whips against a proposal which he himself originally put before the Committee upstairs. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), it may be the case that more of my hon. Friends are attending to their duties in this House in proportion to the numbers of our party than those of the friends of the hon. Member. It may be that many of the latter are either not here at all on Friday mornings or are, if I may euphemistically describe it, in other parts of the House, but is that a reason why Parliament should not be allowed on occasions like this to express its opinion freely on a matter of great public importance which may affect the future conditions of hundreds of thousands of tenants in this country as against their landlords?

May I came back, from what I may call the atmosphere created by the speech of the hon. Member to the discussion of the merits of the Amendment moved by hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). The proposal simply is that the tribunal should have the discretion, not that they should be compelled, where they judge it reasonable to allow a new lease to be granted for 21 years. Very likely, if we accept this Amendment, there may be very few cases where the discretion will be exercised. We are assuming that the tribunal will consist of reasonable men who will take a sensible view of the applications that come before them. To resist this Amendment is simply to say that you are going in certain cases to fetter the discretion of the tribunal to do an act which in their judgment would be reasonable, namely, to grant a lease up to 21 years. My hon. Friends on this side and myself on more than one occasion saved the Government from the excesses of some of their own supporters in Committee. We maintain that on this Bill we were not dilatory. Although in a general way the Bill does not arouse much enthusiasm we have given it support, but on this particular Amendment it seems to us most reasonable and proper that the House should be allowed to decide by a free vote what is a very simple question, a question which does not imperil the structure of the Bill, which does not cut at the root of the Bill, although it is a question of important detail, and it is a suitable question on which the Whips should be taken off.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)

In this instance, I think there is one definite reason why we should prefer the term of 14 years. The House has passed Clause 4, and there is a limit in Clause 4 of 14 years. The landlord may get out of paying compensation if he gives notice to his tenant that he is prepared to grant a lease not exceeding 14 years. It would be very inconvenient if in the next paragraph there were power given for the tenant to go to the tribunal and get a lease not exceeding 21 years. With respect to the appeal made by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring), that I should leave this matter to a free vote of the House, I would point out that he has asked me to leave two questions to the free vote of the House, one the question of the change from seven years to five, and now the question of whether the term should be 14 years or 21 years. He has had his own way in one respect. I left the question of five years or seven years to the House, and I think he ought to be satisfied. He ought to realise that sometimes the Government of the day must have a will of their own, even at the risk of offending one of their most valued supporters.

With regard to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), I realise to the full the courtesy, friendliness, and co-operation which he and his colleagues gave to me in Committee, but I say, quite frankly, that I have very carefully considered this point, which was mentioned to me four days ago by the hon. Member for North Paddington, and for the reasons which I have given I have come to the conclusion that in my view, as the Minister responsible for the Bill, 14 years is the right term to insert here. It does not, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) pointed out, prevent the landlord and the tenant from agreeing to a term of 21, 35, or 42 years. It is only a question of the right of the tribunal to grant a lease not exceeding 14 years. I have formed the opinion that it is my duty to ask the House to support me in making the term 14 years.

Mr. TINKER

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) was right when he said that the Mover of the Amendment had voted for the term of 14 years; but I would point out that the Home Secretary originally supported a term of 21 years, and subsequently he voted in favour of 14 years. I could not understand at the time why he voted in that way. May I read to the House a few remarks which the Home Secretary made in supporting the term of 21 years in Committee. He said: I have considered the matter with my advisers, both legal advisers and the other advisers of the Government in this matter, and I am prepared to accept the term of 21 years which is mentioned in the Amendment. As the Committee knows, it has been my wish all the way through to leave all these questions to the Tribunal, because I cannot help feeling the Tribunal will be the fairest body to express an opinion as to rent and the length of lease; but I realise that some colleagues of mine on the Committee want a limitation put in, and I shall be willing to agree to this one. He further said: Taking all these things into consideration, I submit to the Committee that as between landlord and tenant a maximum of 21 years will be fair, leaving the length of term from one to 21 years at the discretion of the Tribunal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 21st June, 1927, cols. 421–424.] That is all we are asking for, that it should be left to the discretion of the tribunal. If the tribunal think that some term less than 21 years would be best, they will have power to grant it, but, on the other hand, if they think the term of compensation cannot be covered in 14 years they ought to have the power to extend the term to 21 years. If the Home Secretary was of that point of view when he spoke before the Committee, I should like to know what has caused such a change of mind on his part on this particular point. Having gone into this question in Committee and having come to that point of view, after full consideration, I cannot understand how it is that the Home Secretary has turned round so quickly. There must be some other purpose behind it. I do ask that he should leave the matter to the free vote of the House, seeing that in Committee a period of 14 years was only carried by 34 votes out of 65. Therefore, the fact of its having been carried in Committee does not necessarily mean that the House should accept it. Seeing that the voting was so close, I think the Home Secretary would be well advised to let the question go to a free vote.

Mr. RYE

I hope the House will stand by the 14 years, not for the reasons stated by other speakers, but for the particular reason that on the question of the new lease to be awarded, 14 years may well be a better compensation than the tenant would get under Clause 4, if he applied for compensation. That point was taken during the Committee stage, and it was pointed out that possibly a 14 years' lease might be a more adequate and better compensation than the tenant would get in the ordinary way if he went for his compensation under Clause 4. It seems to me clear that the term should not be extended. If there be a question of a 14 years' lease being more valuable to the tenant than if he went for compensation under the pre- ceding Clause then, in the interests of the landlord, it would be manifestly unfair to extend the lease and make it a more valuable compensation than would have been awarded under Clause 4. That is a logical reason why the 14 years should not be extended. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) mentioned that he had attended most meetings of the Committee. We had the happiness of seeing him there on a few occasions, but he was not there on a number of occasions. The views expressed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) are sound and I hope, fortified by the considerations I have respectfully suggested, the House will decide to stand on the 14 years and not extend the period to 21 years.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

I intervene in this Debate only because of an observation made by the Home Secretary. As I understand, the only substantial reason why he is not prepared to leave this matter to a free vote of the House is because of some alleged discrepancy between Clause 4 and Clause 5. That rather narrows the difficulty which he feels. I want the House to consider just what we are doing in Clause 5. Whether the tribunal be competent to exercise its functions or not is a matter which I have no doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing. The power which is given to this tribunal is certainly the use of discretion. They are to do what in all the circumstances is reasonable, and when we pass from the question of the term of years to other terms, the Clause provides such terms as the tribunal may determine to be proper. Apart from the length of the lease, questions like the conditions and propriety of the new lease are left entirely to the discretion of the tribunal. There is no limitation as to their discretion in deciding the propriety of the new lease. Why should not we apply that same principle in dealing with the length of the lease? Why should the Home Secretary assume that the tribunal is going to be unreasonable in this matter? You are giving an enabling power to the tribunal. The conditions which they have to consider in dealing with that matter are these; they are stated in the beginning of the Clause: Where the tenant alleges that, although entitled to claim compensation under the last foregoing section, such compensation would not compensate him for the loss of goodwill he will suffer if he removes to and carries oil his trade or business in other premises, he may in lieu of claiming such compensation, at any time within the period allowed for making a claim under the said section, serve on the landlord notice requiring a new lease of the premises. Whether that is a sound principle or not the Government have agreed that the substitution of a new lease for compensation where compensation is not satisfactory is a thing which the Bill contemplates. Surely the tribunal, in considering what they are going to give in lieu of compensation, should have unfettered discretion. It may be they will think that the case will be met by giving a lease of less than 14 years. The Bill provides that it shall not exceed 14 years. They may say that the loss of goodwill is such that an extension of two years would meet the case. Why should not the converse case arise 1 Why should not the tribunal say that the goodwill and situation and value which the tenant has built up is such that 14 years will not meet the case, and in those circumstances why should the tribunal be fettered and have to do what they believe would be an injustice. Imagine the case in which the tribunal on the evidence and the material before them considers that a 16 years' lease would be a proper compensatory period. They are precluded by this provision from doing what they themselves believe to be reasonable.

The only question which remains is whether there should be some limit on the powers of the tribunal. We cannot allow them to give a lease of 999 years, or anything like that. There must be some limit. The limit which was considered by the Government to be fair was 21 years, and we want to know why they have changed their views with regard to that. The mere fact that they have put 14 years in Clause 4 cannot be a reason why they consider 21 years to be unfair now. It is a maximum limit. We are asking the Government to allow the House to decide this matter for itself. Why should not the House be allowed to say whether it wants 14 years or 21 years. The foundations of the Government will be dissolved by matters other than decisions on this Bill. This is a Measure which cannot affect the credit of the Government if they have any credit left, and therefore I appeal to the Government to let us say what we want. In conclusion, may I remind the Home Secretary that on the last occasion when he allowed us to have a free vote the opinion of the House was so strongly against the opinion of the Government that the Government, or at any rate the supporters of the view which was put forward, were unable to get a single vote and the proposal went through without a Division. If the right hon. Gentleman will take off the Whips now, with the exception of one or two hon. Members opposite whose views we know, I doubt very much whether the Government, or rather the view which is being expressed by the Government, would receive any more support on this occasion than it did on the last. I ask the Government why what they considered three months ago to be fair should not be considered fair to-day, and at least to show some consistency by standing by their own policy.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER

I only desire to point out that, if this Amendment were accepted and the term of years increased, it would affect other Clauses later in the Bill which were agreed to on the understanding that the period was to be 14 years. If hon. Members will turn to Sub-section (5) of Clause 5 they will see that it lays down that a landlord may after seven years, if he requires the property for a scheme of redevelopment, give 12 months' notice to the tenant and get hold of his property for the purposes of development, paying compensation to the tenant on the value of the unexpired term of the lease. Under the Bill, the total amount he would be called upon to pay in order to get possession of his property would be the value of the unexpired lease of seven years. If you are going to alter the term from 14 to 21 years you alter the effect of this Sub-section, and the landlord will be called upon to pay for the value of the unexpired lease of 14 years instead of seven years. That is one instance where the possible acceptance of this Amendment would have an effect on other Clauses of the Bill which were agreed to on the understanding that 14 years was to be the term.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE

I regret the announcement made by the Home Secretary, but I still hope he will reconsider it. He has bean reminded of what happened last Tuesday, when the Solicitor-General said he could not give way and allow a, free vote of the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary came in and with great perspicuity at once detected the feeling of the House and allowed a free vote. The result was that there was no vote at all. I hope he will allow his better judgment to rule him on this occasion also. I support the Amendment because I think it is something in the direction of security of tenure. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are in favour of security of tenure. Traders and manufacturers do not want changes. They want to know where they are for some time to come, and I do not see why it should not be the same thing in regard to owners and tenants of business premises. A tenant is much more likely to develop his business, and thus increase the national wealth, if he knows that he has a reasonable period of years before him rather than a short period. Still, it is on the question of the free vote that I appeal to the Home Secretary, and I hope that he will be able to give way again.

Mr. MacLAREN

Neither the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Bye) nor the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) can allege that I neglected the work of the Standing Committee, nor was I responsible at any moment for obstructing the progress of the Bill in Committee. On more than one occasion I had to get behind the Home Secretary and threaten the Home Secretary's own supporters with what would happen to them if they impeded the progress of the Bill. My intervention now, therefore, is not to hinder the progress of the Bill at this stage, but rather to meet the arguments of the two hon. Members. It seems that they are apprehensive about giving these discretionary powers to the tribunal on the ground that to do so might enhance to some extent the compensation powers of the tenant as against the landlord. Really that is not a fair argument to use, if we are to review this Bill without bias. Surely a tenant has as much right as the landlord. What we are demanding is not something arbitrary, but merely the giving of discretionary powers to the extent of 21 years. The argument us ad by the hon. Member for Kettering does not meet the case at all.

I am speaking fully conscious of the fact that there may be many cases—I know of cases—where a tenant, if he gets certain powers supporting his position, may be a sort of dog-in-the-manger and prevent progress in a given area, and to extend his term of years or strengthen his powers in that direction would be detrimental to general public improvements. But I have heard no unbiased argument so far to support the contention that discretionary powers should not be given to the tribunal. Indeed, the substantive arguments produced by both the hon. Members have been rather arguments that savoured of vested interests. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary, who knows that I am doing all that I can to assist him to get the Bill, will listen to us when we appeal to him for a free vote of the House. Already there has been an impression made by his own colleagues that they feel strongly on this question. Why should the Home Secretary not face the consequences, as he has always done in Committee, and let us have a free vote.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I thought we should have a reply from the Home Secretary to the question put to him.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

It is not from any lack of courtesy that I have not replied. I am allowed to speak only once on the Report stage.

Mr. ALEXANDER

But the right hon. Gentleman can always speak, a second time by leave of the House, in reply to a question specifically put as to what is the reason which has led him to change entirely his point of view since the Bill went into Committee, on the question of 14 or 21 years. The hon. Member for Kettering (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) gave clearly the reason, which the Home Secretary desired to conceal. The hon. Member quoted a subsequent provision of the Bill, Sub-section 5 of Clause 5, and he made it clear that the real reason for opposing the increase of the terms to 21 years is that a landlord may discover at the end of seven years of the lease that either by the action of the community or by the personal endeavours of the tenant the property has so far developed that it would be of very great advantage indeed to the landlord to enter upon a scheme of re-development, not for the benefit of the tenant, but for the benefit of the landlord. Therefore, there is a fear that if the Amendment were accepted and 21 years substituted for 14, it would be possible for a landlord in those circumstances being mulcted in compensation based upon the 21 years lease instead of the 14 years. That is the real reason. Apparently the landlord interests have brought direct pressure to bear on

the Home Secretary. It would have been better if the Home Secretary had put that view plainly before the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

With permission, I will reply in one sentence. There is not a single word of truth in the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 166; NOes, 83.

Division No. 321.] AYES. [12.51 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gower, Sir Robert Nuttall, Ellis
Ainsworth, Major Charles Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Albery, Irving James Grant, Sir J. A. Penny, Frederick George
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Gunston, Captain D. W. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Atkinson, C. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Balniel, Lord Harrison, G. J. C. Pllditch, Sir Philip
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hartington, Marquess of Power, Sir John Cecil
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Price, Major C. W. M.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Remnant, Sir James
Bennett, A. J. Hawke, John Anthony Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Berry, Sir George Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) Rye, F. G.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Salmon, Major I.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Hens, Sir Sydney H. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Briggs, J. Harold Hills, Major John Waller Sandeman, N. Stewart
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Sandon, Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Savery, S. S.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Holt, Capt. H. P. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hopkins, J. W. W. Shepperson, E. W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Skelton, A. N.
Campbell, E. T. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Cassels, J. D. Hiffe, Sir Edward M. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smithers, Waldron
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sprot, Sir Alexander
Clarry, Reginald George Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Clayton, G. C. King, Commodore Henry Douglas Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Lamb, J. Q. Tasker, R. Inigo.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Loder, J. de V. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro) Looker, Herbert William Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dalkeith, Earl of Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll) Lynn, Sir R. J. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon MacIntyre, Ian Warrender, Sir Victor
Dean, Arthur Wellesle) McLean, Major A. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Dixey, A. C. Macquisten, F. A. Wells, S. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Elliot, Major Walter E. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Winby, Colonel L. P.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Margesson, Captain D. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Everard, W. Lindsay Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Merriman, F. B. Withers, John James
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Wolmer, Viscount
Fermoy, Lord Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Finburgh, S. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Ford, Sir P. J. Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L Nelson, Sir Frank
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ganzoni, Sir John Nicholson, o. (Westminster) Major Sir Harry Barnston and
Gates, Percy Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G. (Ptrsl'ld) Major Sir George Hennessy.
Gibhs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Amnion, Charles George Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Attlee, Clement Richard Barnes, A.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro) Baker, Walter Batey, Joseph
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Lawrence, Susan Sitch, Charles H.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lee, F. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Charleton, H. C. Lowth, T. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Connolly, M. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Snell, Harry
Cove, W. G. Mackinder, W. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dalton, Hugh MacLaren, Andrew Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Day, Colonel Harry Malone, Major P. B. Sutton, J. E.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) March, S. Thurtle, Ernest
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Montague, Frederick Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Naylor, T. E. Varley, Frank B.
Grundy, T. W. Owen, Major G. Wallhead, Richard C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, W. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wellock, Wilfred
Hardle, George D. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Ponsonby, Arthur Whiteley, w.
Hayes, John Henry Potts, John S. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Riley, Ben Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hirst, G. H. Ritson, J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Womersley, W. J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Rose, Frank H. Wright, W.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Salter, Dr. Alfred Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Scrymgeour, E.
Kelly, W. T. Sexton, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kennedy, T. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Sir William Perring and Mr.
Lansbury, George Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Tinker.
Mr. SPEAKER

The next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye)— in page 7, to leave out from the word "proper," in line 33, to the end of line 37—is not selected by the Chair.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, after the word "award" to insert the word "such."

This is purely a verbal Amendment in order to make the Clause read better.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, after the word "compensation," to insert the words "as is provided."

This is also a verbal Amendment following on the Amendment already made.

Sir H. SLESSER

I do not think that this Amendment can be described as purely verbal, because if these words were not put in, there might be a great deal of difficulty. The Clause with these additions seems to suggest that the second sort of compensation might be given and I think that is absolutely essential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER

The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye)—in page 7, line 41, after the word " lessee," to insert the words (irrespective of whether the lessee intends to use the premises for the trade or business of the tenant)."— is not selected.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, to leave out the words "is entitled to claim," and to insert instead thereof the words "would be entitled to."

This is also a verbal Amendment. The House has already inserted these words in an earlier Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler)—in page 8, line 12, after the word "loss," to insert the words "of goodwill as ascertained under Section four"— is not selected by the Chair.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, after the first word "or," to insert the words "where the landlord is an individual for occupation."

The point of this Amendment is that under the Interpretation Act, a "person" includes a corporation, but a corporation cannot have a son or daughter. Accordingly, I propose that the Clause should read: That the premises are required for occupation by himself— which includes a corporation— or, where the landlord is an individual, for occupation by a son or daughter, etc.

Sir H. SLESSER

While not opposing the inclusion of these words I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they are necessary. The phrase in the Interpretation Act is to the effect that unless the context otherwise requires a person should be deemed to include a corporation. As the right hon. Gentleman properly says, a corporation cannot have a son or daughter, and it is quite obvious that the context covers the point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The words are not only unnecessary but they make the Clause read badly. If an ordinary layman reads this Clause as now amended he will gasp when halfway through this sentence. It is worse than the German sentences quoted by Mark Twain.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I will see if we can get better words.

Mr. RYE

On a point of Order. I have an Amendment on the Paper which should come before the Amendment now being moved by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, in page 7, line 41, after the word "lessee" to insert the words (irrespective of whether the lessee intends to use the premises for the trade or business of the tenant).

Mr. SPEAKER

I have said that that Amendment is not selected by the Chair.

Mr. RYE

I understood you, Sir, to refer to an earlier Amendment—in page 7, to leave out from the word "proper" in line 33, to the end of line 37—and also to an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler)—in page 8, line 12, after the word "loss" to insert the words "of goodwill as ascertained under Section four"—but I did not understand it to refer to my Amendment in line 41.

Mr. SPEAKER

I referred to both the hon. Member's Amendments—one in line 33, and one in line 41.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RYE

I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, after the second word "by," to insert the words "his wife or by."

I move this Amendment because it appears to me, not unreasonable to make this provision apply to a wife as well as to a son or daughter. If hon. Members refer to the Sub-section they will see that if the landlord proves that the premises are required for occupation by himself or by a son or daughter over 18 years of age, then, the tribunal, under an earlier Clause, will be precluded from making an order for a new lease. I suggest that in these days it is unreasonable to draw a distinction between a wife and a daughter in a matter of this kind. If it be a good reason for withholding a new lease that a son or daughter wish to occupy the premises I cannot see why the same provision should not also apply in the case of a wife who desires to carry on business. It is not infrequently the case nowadays that wives, rather than stay at home, engage in business and we find, particularly in the West End, many wives engaged in business as costumiers or dealers in antique furniture, If a landlord's wife bonâ fide decides to enter upon trading and requires to use the premises for that purpose, I can see no valid reason why that case should not be brought within the Clause. You allow it to the son and the daughter, but for some reason, some prejudice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman presumably, he does not like wives.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I do not like other people's wives.

Mr. RYE

The right hon. Gentleman makes a statement which was obvious to the House. I suggest that the Amendment should have the consideration of the House.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. SLESSER

I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to accept this Amendment, which seems to me to be both an absurd and a very dangerous Amendment. Normally, as the hon. Member must know, a wife occupies the same house as her husband. I know we live in days when there is a certain amount of infidelity, but normally, speaking for myself—I consider myself normal in this matter—a wife lives with her husband, and they are normally in the same occupation. Therefore, the only possible use which could be made of this proposal is that a husband could get out of the obligations which a tribunal might impose upon him by giving an extended lease and handing over his premises to his wife. This is not the first occasion on which husbands have found their wives useful, to evade paying their debts, for example, and I can see in this Amendment a very useful way by which dishonest people could transfer premises into the names of their wives and thus evade the operation of the Clause. A son or a daughter is in a different position. The son would be carrying on a business as an independent adult person, and though I believe we opposed even that limitation, at any rate a son is normally a separate person to carry on a business, but when you are dealing with a wife, who carries on a business, if at all, normally in company with her husband, the Amendment has the effect—I will not say it was intended; I do not know, but certainly it has the effect—of very much curtailing the power of the tribunal to grant a new lease, and it is an obstructive Amendment, in that it limits the functions and powers of the tribunal and the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it short shrift.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I do not propose to ask the House to accept this Amendment, which is quite unnecessary. We have met the case of the man who wants the premises for his own occupation or who wants to start a son or daughter in business, but my hon. Friend wants to bring in the case of a -wife also. I see no reason why he should not next week want to bring in a maiden aunt, or a second cousin, or a third cousin once or twice removed. There must be a limit somewhere, and I think the limit has been reached, for, after all, this is in derogation of the rights of the tenant. To whomsoever we give this privilege, it is something taken from the tenant, and I hope the House will reject this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 8, line 24, to leave out paragraph (iv).

This will lessen a little the length of the Bill. Under paragraph (iv), where the landlord is a Government Department or a local or public authority, the tenant may not get a new lease, but under an Amendment inserted in Committee in Clause 4 (1, f), it is provided that if a Government Department or a local authority wants the premises for their own purposes, there shall be no compensation, and if there is no compensation under Clause 4, there can be no need for this paragraph here.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RYE

I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, at the end, to insert the words: (vi) That he has entered into a conditional contract to let the premises for any purpose other than the trade or business of the tenant and has offered the tenant the grant of a new tenancy at the rent named in such contract for such period and on similar terms for a period of not less than fourteen years and the tenant has refused to accept such new tenancy. This really arises out of a point that was taken by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) during the Committee stage. He pointed out that a landlord would be in a difficulty, because he would never know how he stood before the end of the term, as regarded letting to another tenant. He said correctly that it is frequently the custom for an intending tenant to come to a landlord before a lease runs out and say, " When you get possession of those premises, will you let them to me and, if so, on what terms?" Without such an Amendment as this, the landlord would be powerless to do anything, but, with it, it would be open to him to enter into a conditional contract and to say to the intending tenant, "I will make a bargain with you, but it is conditional upon the tribunal not awarding a new lease to the sitting tenant. I am prepared to deal with the sitting tenant if the tribunal tells me I am to do so, but otherwise I am prepared to enter into a contract which would at once become binding if the tribunal refused to grant an order in favour of the sitting tenant." Having done that, the landlord could, and should, according to the terms of my Amendment, forthwith notify the tenant of the terms on which the premises had been conditionally let, and ask him whether he would like to take a new lease on the same terms. The tenant would then have his opportunity and, if he refused to take it, it would not be reasonable for him to come forward later and claim the lease. It would, on the other hand, be reasonable for the landlord to say that that was one of the reasons to be included in Sub-section (3) to justify the tribunal in refusing to order the grant of a new lease.

I may be told by hon. Members opposite, some of whom are under the impression that there never has been and never will be a good landlord in the world and that all landlords are unscrupulous, that an Amendment like this would result in the unscrupulous landlord, in order to avoid his liability to grant a new lease via the tribunal, putting up someone to enter into a conditional contract with him at a big rent, and then going to the tenant and in effect blackmailing him into taking a new lease at a higher rent. I shall be told that, but I do not believe it will be so. I have had a great deal to do both with landlords and tenants, and I do not believe there is a large number either of unscrupulous landlords or of unscrupulous tenants, but I think an Amendment such as this is necessary, so as to give a landlord some chance of dealing with his property. Otherwise, it might be that though six months before the end of the term, he received an advantageous offer to take the property, he could not take advantage of that offer until after the tribunal had made its award.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)

There being no Seconder, the Amendment falls to the ground.

Mr. RYE

I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, after the word "fails," to insert the words "except in circumstances beyond his control."

If hon. Members will refer to the Clause, they will see that there is a proviso that if the grant of a new lease is refused by the tribunal on any such ground as is mentioned in paragraph (b),the tribunal may make it a condition of refusal that if the landlord fails to carry out his intention within such period as may be allowed by the tribunal, the landlord shall pay to the tenant such compensation as the tribunal may fix not exceeding the amount of the loss which the tenant has suffered by reason of having been deprived of his right to the grant of a new lease under this Section. That, I may respectfully say, is a very reasonable and proper decision. If the landlord has wilfully deceived the tribunal, and so prevented the tenant from getting a new lease, he, obviously, should be penalised in this way, but it might be that the circumstances were beyond the landlord's control and so result in his not carrying out his intention as set out in paragraph (b). For instance, he might have represented that he wanted the premises for a son or daughter, and it might be that the tribunal had refused on that ground to make an order for a new lease, and some little time after, before taking occupation, the son or daughter died. In that case, obviously, it would have been beyond the control of the landlord, and he would not in any way have deceived the tribunal. It might be that, he might turn round and say to the tenant, "Now that my son (or daughter) is dead, the premises are available for you, and you may have possession," but the tenant might then say in reply, "I have taken new premises, and am entitled by virtue of the proviso to call upon you for payment of compensation." I think such a contingency should be guarded against, and I venture to hope that on this occasion, at least, the Home Secretary may see his way to accept my Amendment.

Mr. GATES

I beg to second the Amendment.

It seems to me a very reasonable Amendment. There might be all sorts of circumstances putting it beyond the control of the landlord to carry out his intention.

Sir H. SLESSER

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will harden his heart against this Amendment. I do not think it has been made absolutely clear that this proviso is dealing with what itself is a limitation on the right of the tribunal to grant the lease. That is to say, if the landlord proves certain things which are set out in paragraphs (3b i. to v.), then the right to grant a new lease will be proportionately affected. The Clause is quite right. It does not matter for what reason the landlord fails to carry out his intention, if the intention of the landlord, which was the ground on which the tribunal refused the tenant his rights, is not fulfilled in fact. Surely the tenant should not be left without a remedy, and when the hon. Member moves his Amendment to insert the words "except in circumstances beyond his control," really has he considered what that really means when a Court is asked to say what is and what is not beyond the landlord's control? Does he mean the intervention of what lawyers call an act of God? Does he mean something of that sort, or that some third party has intervened?

Mr. RYE

It might be something in the shape of an interim injunction to restrain the demolition of premises.

Sir H. SLESSER

That is only adding one more to the intentions that the tribunal might have the right to consider. The hon. Member has provided me with another argument. It seems that the difficulties accumulate as the hon. Member applies himself to this problem. The fact of the matter is that the landlord has told the tribunal of certain events being about to occur, such as a son or daughter requiring the premises for occupation. The tribunal, believing that these events are about to occur, to that extent limits the tenant's right. Then the event does not occur. Surely the tenant is entitled then to be protected, and put back into the position, in which he would have been had the event which the landlord alleged was about to occur never occurred at all. According to the hon. Member's argument, what would happen is that it would only be where the tenant could prove, as I understand it, that the landlord had deliberately deceived the Court—

Mr. RYE

The tribunal.

Sir H. SLESSER

I do not see why we need waste time discussing whether it is a court or tribunal, if that is the way the hon. Member is treating this Measure. Let us call it a tribunal if the hon. Member pleases. What I am pointing out is that the hon. Member says, notwithstanding the landlord has said that certain conditions will occur, and the tribunal has acted on the assumption that those conditions will occur, unless the tenant can show that the landlord has deliberately deceived the tribunal, he is to be without a remedy. That is the effect of the Amendment as I understand it, and I hope the Home Secretary will refuse this Amendment, as he has refused several other Amendments of this kind.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. and learned Member has put my case so admirably that there is no necessity for me to say anything more. The point is perfectly clear, and my view is perfectly clear. There are certain reasons which enable the landlord to get out of his obligation, such as requiring the premises for a son or daughter. In the event of that contingency not taking place, it is not the tenant's fault. The landlord says, "I am going to demolish," and then circumstances arise over which he has no control—perhaps his banking account has run out—and the premises are not going to be demolished. Then the tenant is entitled to his compensation. It is not for the tenant to get an arbitrary sum, but merely that in certain circumstances, decided by Act of Parliament, the tenant is entitled to go to the tribunal for compensation or a new lease. I hope in the circumstances my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I very much regret that two years ago the Minister of Health did not hold the same views as those now expressed by the Home Secretary. I would add one further argument against the proposal of the hon. Member who sits for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), and who represents Westminster. If his suggestion were carried out, a delightful domestic situation would arise. Under paragraph (3b i.) if the premises are required for occupation by himself or by a son or daughter the tenant cannot get a new lease. Then the daughter marries and immediately a question arises, because she does not want to carry on business on the premises. The case falls to the ground, "but," says the parent before the tribunal, "he married without my consent, and it was a matter beyond my control." If she had married with the parents' consent, the tenant would get compensation. If the landlord can prove that she married without the parental consent, he would once more be saved, and the tenant would be deprived of his opportunity. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Lough borough would not wish to sow these seeds of domestic discord.

Mr. LOOKER

I do not quite agree with the wording of this Amendment, but I think there is something in what the hon. Member has in mind, although I am not quite sure that this is the right way to meet it. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if there is any provision in the Bill enabling the tribunal to extend the period originally fixed. If any extension of time is desired in unforeseen conditions, there ought to be power to extend it vested in the tribunal. I am concerned with the possibilities of what might happen under paragraphs (3b ii. and iii.) which cover cases of pulling down or remodelling the premises.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 21 he will find

"Where in any proceedings under this Act the tribunal has fixed or allowed any period for the doing of any Act or thing the tribunal may … extend that period."

Mr. LOOKER

Thank you; that meets my point.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

As I understand the Bill, if a new lease be not granted by the tribunal for any of these reasons compensation will be given under Clause 4. Is this Amendment to provide that where one of these conditions, in the event of the granting of a new lease, is not being fulfilled, the tenant is to go back and have a new lease or is he only to have damages for not having a new lease? Under this Clause as it stands, there will be great expense and great difficulty in the tribunal carrying out the Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Where the tenant goes out of the premises because the landlord said he was going to demolish, and the landlord does not demolish in the time fixed by the tribunal, it would be impossible, the tenant meanwhile having gone somewhere else, to order a continuation of the lease. Therefore, it is provided in that case, when the landlord has played false with the tribunal—not wilfully—and has been unable to carry out the reason for not granting the new lease, and the new lease is impossible because the tenant has gone, that compensation can be given.

Mr. HARDIE

Time was spent upstairs and there was some obstruction—

Sir P. PILDITCH

Who obstructed it upstairs?

Mr. HARDIE

Every move made by this group upstairs was to make the working of the Bill more and more difficult. This Amendment about "circumstances beyond his control" seems to show that in the minds of those who supported it the tribunal is not to be given credit for being able to assess the facts brought before them for consideration. This is simply another effort to try and so get the Bill arranged that the tribunal shall be operated by the landlord's power rather than by a fair power as between landlord and tenant.

Amendment negatived.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER

I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, after the word "proves," to insert the words "to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal."

Sir P. PILDITCH

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am prepared to accept it.

Sir H. SLESSER

This is a great deal more than a drafting Amendment, and we ought to have some explanation. I rather demur at the rather slovenly way in which we are dealing with this matter. To prove "to the reasonable satisfaction" is one thing; to prove "to the satisfaction 'is another, and I want to know why these words" reasonable satisfaction" are inserted. The tribunal has always got to be satisfied, and I do not understand the insertion of the word "reasonable." I should like to know from the Home Secretary why it is accepted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am sorry if I appeared discourteous in accepting the Amendment without giving fuller reasons, but I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to get on.

Sir H. SLESSER

I did not suggest any discourtesy.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The words "Where the landlord proves" might be held to mean a definite actual proof that a certain thing would happen. The landlord might well go to the tribunal and say, "I have a daughter who is going to get married, and I want to set her up in business in these premises." A man can prove that to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal, but to say he shall prove it by calling the daughter and the son-in-law and anybody else to prove definitely that the marriage will take place is not quite so easy. Take the question of demolition. If the tribunal is reasonably satisfied that a new street going through, then, although the local authority may not actually have got the consent of the Minister of Health to the spending of the money or anything of that kind, and that the demolition will take effect, proof to their satisfaction is sufficient.

Mr. DALTON

I am very glad the Home Secretary has given us that ex- planation. We on this side have got into the habit of looking rather critically upon Amendments which the Government accept from certain hon. Members who were prominent in the discussions in Committee, and after what the Home Secretary has said I am inclined to be still more suspicious of this particular Amendment. I cannot see why the tribunal should not be required to receive a proper and complete evidence before exempting a landlord from the liabilities and obligations of this Bill, and, as my hon. and learned Friend he Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has pointed out, these words being somewhat uncertain from the legal point of view, we might be introducing a very lax standard of reasonable proof. We hope, and we believe, it is likely to be the case that the tribunal will consist of sensible people, who will handle these matters in a sensible way, but we must take proper precautions against the setting up of lax standards of evidence. In the hypothetical case stated by the Home Secretary I see no reason why proper evidence on oath should not be submitted to the tribunal if they decide that it is required, and, therefore, I say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we must oppose this Amendment.

Mr. WITHERS

I venture to suggest that you cannot prove future occurrences. For example, you cannot prove there is going to be an eclipse of the sun so many years hence. You can say that according to all reasonable knowledge it will occur, but you cannot prove it.

Mr. MACLAREN

If the Home Secretary is intent upon this Amendment, I think the difficulty might be got over by the omission of the word "reasonable," making it read: to the satisfaction of the tribunal. I think that would be more logical.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If the hon. Member makes the omission of the word "reasonable" the point of his objection, I am sure it would meet the views of my hon. Friends if the Amendment were moved with that word omitted. I could accept it in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 4, after the word "proves," insert the words "to the satisfaction of the tribunal." — [Sir M. Manningliam-Buller.]

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir P. PILDITCH: In "Page 9, line 17, to leave out the words 'grant of the lease,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'commencement of the term thereof.'"

Sir P. PILDITCH

This is one of several Amendments which I had intended to move, but, having had an intimation from the Home Secretary that he will accept a definition of the predecessor in title at a later stage of the Bill, I do not propose to move it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, to leave out the words "grant of the lease," and to insert instead thereof the words " commencement of the term thereof."

I think it is really desirable that we should insert these words. The phrase "grant of a lease" is not one which is known at law, and in the interests of strict accuracy the words "commencement of the term" would be better. As my hon. Friend seems a little backward about moving his Amendment, I will adopt it and move it myself.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, to leave out the words "at such price," and to insert instead thereof the words "for such consideration."

This Amendment is moved to fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee in response to a speech by, I think, the hon. Member for Burslem(Mr. MacLaren). I think the Amendment is a desirable one from the point of view of both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord may prefer to receive instead of a lump sum an annual sum in the nature of rent, and, equally, the tenant may prefer to give some consideration in place of paying an actual price. I think it gives a little wider scope.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 9, line 44, after the word "adequate," to insert the words: and the consideration may as to the whole or any part thereof if the tribunal so deter- mines be in the form of a terminable rent charge for such amount and of such duration not exceeding the duration of the landlord's interest as the tribunal may fix. The effect of this Amendment is to enable the tribunal, if it so desires, to order the payment to be made in the form of a terminable annuity. If the landlord is unable to provide cash he may, if the tribunal thinks fit, make a terminable rent charge for such amount and of such duration not exceeding the duration of the landlord's interest as the tribunal may fix.

I think that is reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (11), and to insert instead thereof the words: (11) Where the term for which in the opinion of the tribunal a new lease should be ordered to be granted would extend beyond the termination of the lease held by the immediate landlord, the power of the tribunal under this Section to order the grant of a new lease shall include power to order the grant of such lease and reversionary leases that the combined effect thereof will be equivalent to the grant of a new lease for such term as aforesaid. Provided that every such lease and reversionary lease shall be so framed as to confer on the landlord granting the lease the same rights of distress as he would have enjoyed had he retained a reversion expectant on the termination thereof. This Amendment proposes first to leave out Sub-section (11), which says: Where the term of the new lease ordered to be granted by the tribunal will extend beyond the termination of the lease held by the immediate landlord, 'or any superior landlord, the order shall provide for the surrender of any such lease, so far as it relates to the premises comprised in the new lease to be granted to the tenant, on such terms as the tribunal may consider just. In place of that Sub-section it will be better, I think, from every point of view to insert a new Sub-section in the terms set out in the Amendment. This is a very difficult and complicated question. Under Sub-section 11 as it stands we try to provide for the surrender of an existing lease where the landlord himself has only a short term remaining and the tribunal wants to grant a lease of, say, 14 years to the tenant in respect of the goodwill. We first came to the conclusion that they had better arrange for the compulsory surrender of the short lease and let the superior landlord grant one for a longer term, but after full consideration with my legal advisers we have come to the conclusion that it would be better to let the immediate landlord grant such a lease as he has power to grant and then let the superior landlord grant a reversionary lease- Reversionary leases are well known to the law, and there would be no difficulty. Each landlord will then have his rights undisturbed. The first landlord will have his rights as to distress for the remainder of the lease, say three years, while he is landlord, and then the reversionary landlord, coming in under the provisions of the reversionary lease, will be the landlord direct with all rights against the tenant for the recovery of rent, for distress and other obligations of the term of the lease as if the lease had been one to take effect immediately. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will consider that this improves the Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER

The Home Secretary has asked for my opinion, and I am glad to say that I agree with his view on this point. I was rather concerned with the notion of the tribunal having to deal with the surrender of the lease in its original form, and the incidence of the lease appeared to me to be left in the air. What is now proposed secures that there will be less disturbance of the continuity of general leases. I know there are some new ideas contained in this Bill, but by this Amendment the continuity of the existing common law is less broken than by the provisions contained in the Bill. For these reasons I hope the House will accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.