HC Deb 16 February 1949 vol 461 cc1159-93
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, after "that," to insert "before the commencement of this Act."

This is a paving Amendment, which should be taken in conjunction with the new Clause on the prohibition of premiums which appears on the Order Paper. It will no doubt be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this matter later in the proceedings.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We should have been perfectly prepared to discuss the matter on the paving Amendment. It is a little difficult to leave the whole matter until we reach the new Clause, as that course makes this Amendment rather meaningless. If the Minister wishes to take the matter now, we shall be willing to do so.

Mr. Bevan

I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but in view of the fact that hon. Members may have assumed that the new Clause would be reached at a certain time, it would perhaps be best if we allowed this Amendment to go through in the ordinary way. Members sometimes make their arrangements on the assumption that certain major questions will be taken at certain times in the course of the Committee stage. If we discuss the new Clause on what is purely a paving Amendment, it might give rise to misunderstanding.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Our only difficulty in following the course which the Minister suggests is lest that might be taken to prejudge the matter, which I am sure the Minister does not desire to be the case. One has to be careful in case the Chairman feels that some commitment has been entered into by the Committee which it would be wrong to reverse at a subsequent period. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Bowles, whether, if this Amendment is accepted now as a paving Amendment, it does not necessarily commit us at a later stage. If we could be so assured we should be willing to agree to the Amendment, but we should not wish, in doing so, to surrender any of our rights of criticism and debate at a later stage.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles)

In my view it would be more convenient for the Committee to discuss the general issue when we reach the new Clause. If the Committee accept this Amendment, it will be without prejudice to debate or decision later.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

On that understanding, that it is without prejudice to later debate and decision, we should not object to this Amendment now being included in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevan

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "the tenancy," and to insert: a tenancy of the dwelling-house to which the application relates. This is a clarifying Amendment which is linked with a series of consequential Amendments. The position with which the Amendment is concerned is that a contractual tenancy may have expired with the tenant in possession of the house and with a rental equivalent still to be collected. The idea is to continue the period of the right to occupy the premises until the expiry of the period over which the rental equivalent has still to be collected. It does not affect an entirely new tenant who would have no such rights; it is concerned with a continuing tenancy, where the tenancy may have expired but where the tenant is still in possession of the house, and still has rental equivalents to collect; and it extends the period to the time when the rental equivalents expire.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We are grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the fact that this Amendment is a little more than a clarifying one. The intention of the original Measure was by no means clear. The proposition which the Minister now advances that a tenant might have possession of the building during his tenancy and thereafter for a period rent free seems to us to be going a long way. It might easily produce a situation in which it would be quite impossible for the property owner to maintain the premises in good and tenantable repair. Some of my hon. Friends have put down Amendments for consideration at a later stage dealing with that point. Perhaps it would be more convenient if we discussed the matter now, as this is an Amendment connected with a group of Amendments which the Minister has down for subsequent consideration, all of which have this same general purpose.

As I understand the position, the tenancy may be prolonged for a period during which a tenant may enjoy rent-free possession—that the physical possession of the house may be granted to the tenant for presumably quite a considerable period so that what the Minister would call the overcharge, might be collected by the tenant. That involves certain questions which it would be impossible simply to dismiss.

Mr. Bevan

This Amendment is merely concerned with a question of doubt. There are some people who could contend quite properly that these Amendments are not necessary to achieve the end I have stated. In order to make quite sure that this end is secured, however, this Amendment and a succession of other Amendments have been put down on the Order Paper. This Amendment does not prejudge the question of principle, but if the principle is determined, this is the way in which it will apply.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

What would happen if another tenant replaced the tenant of whom the Minister has been speaking?

Mr. Bevan

The rental equivalent would cease entirely. This Amendment is merely to make it clear that a new tenancy does not necessarily mean a new tenant.

Mr. J. H. Hare (Woodbridge)

Do these Amendments affect the principle which we are to discuss later which concerns the position when a premium, for the sake of convenience, is divided into instalments, and when the premium to be returned is greater than the rent payable; and when the period of the tenancy is limited to three or four years and there is still some premium to he repaid at the end of that time? Is that position being dealt with in what the Minister is saying?

Mr. Bevan

We are not at the moment deciding the principle of whether any rent should be recoverable. In the event of Parliament subsequently deciding that these conditions should apply this is the way in which we consider they should apply in this particular case. Suppose the lease expires and the contractual tenant becomes the statutory tenant but nevertheless a rental equivalent has to be collected for some years because of the premium which has been paid. That tenant can continue to pay a low rent despite the fact that he has become a statutory tenant. But if he vacates the premises and a new tenant takes possession, that new tenant cannot claim any rental equivalent, as there can be no assignment of a statutory tenancy.

Mr. Janner (Leicester, West)

This rather differs from a reply which was given to me in the course of the Second Reading Debate, about this point. I understood that reply to mean that if a subsequent tenancy was entered into, those reductions would apply in respect of the new tenancy. Otherwise the position would be rather awkward. It would mean that if a landlord charged a premium, and if that premium was not recoverable in subsequent lettings, the landlord would be retaining an advantage which was quite wrong. The way in which I would suggest the matter should be dealt with—and I should be obliged if the Minister would consider it between now and the Report stage—is that the amount of the rent should be reducible also to cover a transfer, and that the assignor should be entitled to claim a portion of the premiums from the assignee.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

I do not wish to discuss the main question now. My hon. Friend has it quite wrong in this matter. There is no assignor of a statutory tenancy. What will happen, if Parliament so determines at a subsequent point, is that there will be first of all a contractual tenant who has paid a premium to the landlord. That contractual tenant will have received a reduction of rent as rental equivalent. He could become an assignor, before the end of his lease, to another person. Therefore, that subsequent person could collect the reduced rent. But this will be a statutory tenant and he could not become an assignor and there is no reason why an entirely new tenant should collect money which he has never paid.

Mr. Foster

I think that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) was wrong in using the word "assignor." He should have said "subsequent tenant." The reason we are a little suspicious about this Amendment is because the right hon. Gentleman has said that it helps him to achieve his object later. On reading it I do not see how it does that and the right hon. Gentleman has not explained how it does it. If one reads—

Mr. Bevan

I did not say that. All I said was that if subsequently we decided that premiums were to be paid, this would be one of the vehicles by which they could be paid.

Mr. Foster

That sounds the same to me, but perhaps I cannot appreciate Welsh subtlety. The right hon. Gentleman says that, and if one looks at the Amendment it looks quite an innocent Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

It is.

Mr. Foster

It looks innocent, because it looks as if the draftsman had written the words "the tenancy," and, no tenancy having been referred to before, had said to himself, "That is not clear, I want to make it clear that I am referring to a tenancy of the dwelling house to which the application relates." If it is confined to that, it is quite an innocent Amendment. It does not prejudice the question later in any way and does not enable the right hon. Gentleman to use any kind of vehicle to achieve his object later. That is what is confusing—that he says that this Amendment is one of the vehicles which helps him to achieve his object later. I cannot see how it does, and he has not explained how it does. If he will tell us what is the relation of this Amendment to his later objective, our suspicions will probably be allayed. But, he having said that, we do not know at the moment where we are. "The tenancy" here is just rather an inaccurate way of describing something which has not been referred to and therefore, as I see it, the draftsman has improved his draftsmanship. If the right hon. Gentleman stopped there we might be satisfied, but he goes on to say that it is one of the vehicles which helps him to achieve his object. It is not clear why it is and he has not said why.

Mr. Bevan

Is not the hon. Member being over subtle? The assumption is that the vehicle is there. Now the vehicle is being clarified and oiled up. That is all.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I think that on that we must accept the Minister's contention. It is rather mixing metaphors to speak of a vehicle being clarified, except in the administration of drugs, which is a different argument, but one with which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has become familiar in recent years. We can say that the vehicle is being oiled and trued up. I think we can agree that what is to be put in the vehicle we shall discuss afterwards.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

The next three Amendments which we have put down in page 3, lines 4 and 6, really relate to the Minister's new Clause and we shall be willing to take a discussion on that later. Therefore, we do not propose to move them.

Amendment made: In Clause 2, page 3, line 4, leave out "under that tenancy," and insert "of the dwelling-house."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Mr. Bevan

I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out from first "premium," to end of line 10, and to insert: Provided that this Section shall not have effect where since the said grant, continuance or renewal the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Is this still part of the oiling of the vehicle or is it not rather a flaw in the original Bill which is being corrected?

Mr. Bevan

It is entirely consequential upon the one we have already decided. There are a series of consequential Amendments.

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what that one is?

Mr. Bevan

The one we have just carried, which I said was oiling the vehicle.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

Is this a new part for the vehicle? On previous occasions the Minister has expressed sympathy with my desire that the drafting of Bills should be as simple and as lucid as possible. I have read and re-read this Amendment and I do not find it either simple or lucid. The very fact that we have to be told that it is consequential shows that it is not absolutely simple to understand. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how this lubricates the vehicle?

Mr. Bevan

If the hon. Member will look at it he will see it relates at once to what we have done. It is to make the distinction between an entirely new tenant and a continuation, which is what we originally decided was necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

It is desirable that we should have this clear and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) was justified in his remarks. The Minister has made it clear—and this point was raised by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr Janner)—that this distinguishes sharply between a person who has the tenancy and some other person. But what we ask is whether the Minister, between now and Report stage, will give attention to the wording and see whether, when these various points have been agreed to or dissented from in principle, it may not be possible to state it in clearer language. So far as clarification or redrafting on Report stage is concerned, we shall offer no niggling objection to anything which will make the Statute more easy and clear to understand, so that he who runs may read—if that ever may be said about rent restriction legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman

Would it meet the convenience of the Committee if I put together all the Amendments in the name of the Minister which follow?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We must have it quite clear which are the Amendments. We do not wish to find ourselves in the quandary in which we were this afternoon, and subsequently have to have—I will not say the OFFICIAL REPORT—may I say the "Demi-Official Report" altered in a subsequent entry. While we play the rigour of the game most sternly, we assume, and I think rightly, that the Minister plays it according to the rules. If he will give us an assurance that these are drafting Amendments, and can indicate from which line to which line he wishes them inserted, we shall not, for the purpose of delay or obstruction, wish any time to be spent on them.

Mr. Bevan

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I know it is difficult for hon. Members and I will read out the ones which I regard as entirely consequential. They are liable to be changed later if they do not turn out to be consequential. They are:

Page 3, line 21, leave out from "expression," to first "the," in line 22, and insert: "'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered, divided by the number of rent-periods between. Line 24, leave out "ending," and insert: the following date (in this section referred to as the 'relevant date') that is to say. Line 28, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."

Line 30, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."

Line 37, after "notice," insert "by the landlord."

Line 38, leave out "ending," and insert "giving."

Line 44, leave out from second "the," to end of line, and insert "relevant date."

Page 4, leave out line 6, and insert "that date were the relevant date."

Line 7, leave out "will," and insert "would."

Line 10, leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 11.

Line 12, after "paragraph," insert: shall be deemed to be the relevant date. Line 22, leave out from "after," to end of line 24, and insert: the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Minister has not said anything about the proposed Amendment in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 14.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Let us dispose of that first. We can go on to the bunch of Amendments the Minister mentioned later.

Mr. Bevan

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 14.

Mr. Foster

Would the Minister say why he is leaving out the definition of "premium"?

Mr. Blenkinsop

This is merely a drafting Amendment to transfer to Clause 14 what is at present provided here. There is no change in the provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman

Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if the next seven Amendments were taken together?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I think it would be simpler if the Amendment in page 3, line 21, were put now. That is where we have now arrived. From our own examination of it we are of the same opinion as the Minister, that these Amendments are drafting, or consequential, and therefore I would counsel my hon. Friends in that sense, that these do not alter the sense of the Statute and do not pre-judge any of the issues which we have to consider. For that reason they may well be made. I think it would be convenient, however, if they were called separately, otherwise not only we, but the Table might find considerable difficulty in following so large a bunch of Amendments some of which are scattered among other Amendments.

Mr. Bevan

I beg to move in page 3, line 21, to leave out from "expression," to the first "the," in line 2, and insert: "'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered, divided by the number of rent-periods between.

Mr. Foster

I understand that the Minister is proposing to leave out the definition of "relevant part of the letting" and to insert a definition of "rental equivalent." That seems to be what the Amendment does. The relevant part of the letting is referred to in page 3, line 10. Is it to be defined again in Clause 14? Where do we find "rental equivalent"? As I understand the Amendment it is, in line 21, to leave out "the relevant part of the letting means the period the period beginning with," and to insert instead the words which follow in the Amendment. My question is: why are we leaving out "'relevant part of the letting.'" because it is an expression which occurs in page 3, line 10?

4.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

This Amend-is only consequential on the Amendment already accepted, as I understand it.

Mr. Bevan

That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, to leave oat "subsections (5) and (6)," and to insert, "the subsequent provisions."

Is it your intention, Mr. Bowles, that we should discuss at the same time the proposed Amendment in page 4, line 13, at the end, insert: (5) Where at the date of an application under the foregoing Section the landlord is a person who has become the landlord of the premises in respect of which or of any part of which a premium has been paid after the date upon which such premium has been paid and has purchased the premises for value the provisions of this Section shall not apply and the tenant shall be entitled to recover from the person to whom such premium was paid and in no other manner the amount by which the reasonable rent of the premises is less than the aggregate of the rent actually payable in respect thereof and of the rental equivalent of the premium.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is so.

Sir J. Mellor

The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that where the ownership of premises has changed hands the new landlord shall not be penalised if the previous landlord received a premium; that is to say, provided the new landlord acquired the premises for value. I think it will be conceded that it is quite impossible for the purchaser of a house to discover whether or not a premium has been paid to the vendor, so that if the purchaser has given full value for the premises it would be entirely inequitable that he should suffer because the person from whom he purchased had had the benefit of receiving a premium from the tenant. This Amendment is designed to secure that the tenant shall recover against the person to whom he paid the premium, and not from anyone else. It is, I think, a just proposal which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.

Mr. Bevan

As I understand the point it is that, when a house has been sold, the tenant is entitled to proceed against a landlord who has never received the premium, and to get a reduction of rent accordingly, whereas the proceedings ought to lie against the landlord who has benefited by receiving the premium. I think that there is a point here, and I shall look at it to see if it can be covered. I think that the proposed Amendment is a little too wide.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I do not want to make a long speech, but I must say that I should be against the proposed Amendment in principle. The premium was paid in respect of the house and the tenancy, and the liability to return it ought to attach to the tenancy and to the house. A landlord who has received a premium and sells the house ought to be under a duty to inform any purchaser from him of the circumstances. But to leave the tenant to have to chase the landlord to whom he paid the premium to Timbuctoo because the landlord has sold the house and run away. would be to destroy the purpose of the Bill.

Colonel Dower

It seems to me that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would be covered if the vendor were in some way made responsible and put under an obligation if he has received a premium.

Mr. Bevan

We are here dealing only with past cases, because once the Bill becomes law, any future premiums for rent controlled property would be illegal, so that that situation would not arise. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I would point out that, there being no legal obligation—because all these premiums are not illegal—on the part of the vendor to inform the buyer of the premises that a premium had been paid, it appears to me to be rather unreasonable that the new owner, who was kept in complete ignorance of the liability he might have to meet, should be the person to be proceeded against.

This is a question of equity as between the landlord and the tenant. We are not depriving the tenant of a remedy, but we are exempting the landlord from an abuse. It would be an abuse if, having paid a price for a house on a certain assumption which was altered, the tenant could get a reduction of the rent by a rental equivalent of a premium which that landlord never charged. It seems to me, therefore, to be quite just that the tenant should be able to pursue the previous landlord. It is not so difficult to identify the previous landlord in most cases. I agree that there will be some cases where it might not be easy to find him, but it would not be so difficult to find the landlord, whose name will be on the conveyance, as it would be, later on, to find the tenant who might have disappeared into the void. This seems to be a perfectly just thing to consider in itself, but I would say that perhaps the appropriate time to debate it is when we have put down the Amendment which we should consider reasonable to carry this principle into effect.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not want to debate it. If after consideration my right hon. Friend retains the view he has just expressed, I shall not make any difficulties about it, because it is only a small point. However, since my right hon. Friend has promised to consider it I do want to take this opportunity of ensuring that he considers it all round. I do not think that it would be such an easy thing for a tenant to find out where his landlord has gone after having sold the premises, whereas I do think that it would be a perfectly easy thing for a man who buys his house to put into his requisition on title—which he will deliver anyhow in the course of obtaining the conveyance, what premium has been received in the case of any tenancy disclosed. In that case the purchaser would buy with notice. Anyone who has had experience of conveyancing will know that it would be perfectly easy for the purchaser of such a house to protect himself.

Sir J. Mellor

In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 3, line 48, at the end to insert: or one-half of the reasonable rent, whichever is the greater. I can put the point at issue here very briefly. The general purpose of the Bill has been to enable premiums to be recovered, in so far as they can be recovered by reducing the rent still due. The Minister has made it plain that he does not intend that there should be any provision enabling money once paid to be claimed back. He obviously realises that in order not to impose an intolerable hardship, which might also result in great inconvenience, it is necessary that any sum recovered in respect of the premium should be recovered by deduction from the rents still to be paid. I put it to the Minister that it will also be a very great hardship, and likely to result in great inconvenience, if for a considerable period of time, the owner of the house receives no rent at all.

We have largely in mind the comparatively small owners of property, and the maintenance of that property is met largely, sometimes wholly, out of the rent paid. I hope the Minister will consider that it is reasonable that the minimum rent which shall be paid so long as these tenancies continue shall be one-half of the reasonable rent. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago about continuing into the future the existing contractual tenancy will make this provision less onerous in its operation upon the tenant, and will therefore enable this recovery of the premium to be spread over a longer period of time, and will reduce the inconvenience and hardship which would result from the landlord receiving no rent for a considerable period.

Mr. Bevan

The Committee will have in mind that we have already provided in the Bill that there shall be a minimum period of seven years as a divisor in order that the annual increment falling to the tenant should be reasonably small. At the same time, where the amount of premium was so exorbitant as not to be extinguished in such a period—in other words, it might be much more than the reasonable rent itself—we have made provision to add to the number of years so as to try to make either the two cancel out, or to make some small amount of rent payable.

The circumstances envisaged by the hon. Member would, therefore, arise only where there has been an unreasonable premium and the landlord has been in enjoyment of the premium, so no hardship would fall upon him if he had no rent for some time. This could not arise except in cases where the landlord has exacted a very large sum of money, which the tribunal considered so utterly unreasonable as to extinguish, or almost extinguish, the rent. I cannot, therefore, accept that in such a case there has been hardship on the landlord. Indeed, the hardship would, under the terms of the Amendment, be transferred to the tenant because it would take him very much longer to get his money back.

4.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I think the Minister sees the strength of the case. Indeed, as he has admitted, when drafting the Bill the Government made this provision of seven years with exactly this sort of contingency in view. This brings up sharply the point about retrospective legislation, because this is an executed contract which was not illegal when it was carried out, and now a piece of retrospection is being carried out. What we say, from the practical point of view, is that a tenant may be in the position in which he is making no contribution towards the standing charges for the upkeep of the property. We all know that in practice that might lead to rapid deterioration of the property. This is really a very practical point to which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has drawn attention, and it deserves further consideration.

It may well be that the tribunal will act reasonably, but it is also not unknown that a tribunal may act in a somewhat unreasonable fashion. I consider that this Committee, which has given no directions at all to the tribunal, should not leave the owner of a small property in a position in which, for a period of years, he will receive no income at all by means of which he can maintain the property in good and tenantable repair. That will prove to be a disadvantage to all the large class of tenants who desire tenantable property, and to the occasional landlord who has carried out and executed a perfectly legal contract a number of years ago. I hope that the Minister will not completely dismiss the question, as he appears to have done in the reply which he has given to the hon. Member for The High Peak.

Mr. Piratin (Mile End)

Will the Minister clear up a point concerning repairs? Apart from the fact that the landlord has an obligation to do repairs, and that the local authority can order him to do so, this Bill as it stands does not forbid the tenant making an arrangement with the landlord not to withhold the complete rent if the landlord does carry out repairs. In my view, this Bill does not break that arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

This is a very important point. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has suggested that landlord and tenant can contract out of this Bill. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, the determination is that the tenant need not pay all the rent if some of the repairs are not done.

Mr. Bevan

It is an academic point. The tenant would not proceed to arbitration at all on that point. It is only the tenant who appears to have a grievance who will ask for the arbitration of the tribunal.

Colonel Dower

I do not think there is any dispute about the objective which both sides of the Committee are seeking to attain, and the question is how the money should be recovered most fairly in the interests of all the parties. The instance which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, and it is one on which I have some knowledge, is that of poor property concerning which there are loans and mortgages from the bank and so on, the interest on which has to be met. If the owner of this property did something illegal when he charged a premium, I should have no compunction or pity for him at all.

Mr. Bevan

I agree that the only case in which this could arise is one in which the landlord had been manifestly unjust and was in possession of excessive sums of money received over some years. I can imagine the tribunal coming to a decision on this particular case in those circumstances but this does not seem to me to be a point of hardship at all.

Colonel Dower

I was not concerned with hardship so much as with the means by which the property was to be main tained during that period. Will the Minister say how, in a case where the property is mortgaged, the landlord would be able to have that property maintained during that period?

Mr. Marlowe

This situation has been rather altered by the Amendment which was accepted yesterday and which put the relevant date back to 1939. I could see some force in the argument that if, during the last few years, the landlord had received a premium which was illegal at the time, that would have some relation to the money which he had received by way of premium being used for repairs in the subsequent years, but that has been altered by putting the date back a further six years. We must bear in mind that the premium was lawfully accepted, and that very often the rent was adjusted accordingly, especially if there was a rent which the right hon. Gentleman might call exorbitant and which others might prefer to call just and substantial.

Mr. Bevan

That is really one of the most relevant factors for the tribunal.

Mr. Marlowe

I know it is, but the tribunal cannot raise the rent. If the rent was a low one because there was a premium, the position will be that the rent must remain the same and cannot be increased to bring it up to what the rent would have been if there had been no premium. That is a very important point, and it is becoming increasingly important by reason of the fact that the relevant date has been put back six years.

Let us suppose that the rent was £1 a week, in relation to a tenancy beginning since the war ended in 1945, and that, over the subsequent period of three years, the landlord had received £156. That rent would have been fixed originally in relation to the fact that he was receiving, say, £150 over these three years. But, now, if a premium had been fixed in relation to the rent, it has to be spread over nine or 10 years, and that considerably reduces the value of the rent to the landlord. A tenant might even live rent free for a considerable time, which is most undesirable, both from the point of view of the tenant and that of the landlord and is not in the interests of the proper maintenance of property.

Sir J. Mellor

I think the trouble here is that the Minister has approached this question as if it were a criminal one. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Clause affecting only the landlord who has obtained a very unjust and unreasonable premium, and he appears to regard this as a punishment and thinks that that landlord should get no rent at all. This Measure gives certain civil rights to tenants. It is not a criminal proceeding at all, but, if it were, and if the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards it was correct, surely it would be highly improper by means of this Clause to impose a penalty retrospectively? It is one thing to vary civil rights retrospectively, but something which is never done by Parliament is to impose a penalty for an offence committed before the Statute creating that offence became law. I think there is an important point here.

If the Minister approaches this matter as if the landlord who had received an unreasonable premium had committed some criminal offence, it is quite improper to use this Bill as a means of punishing him, because it will be a retrospective punishment. If, on the other hand, we are to treat this matter as being purely a question of varying civil rights between two contractual parties, we ought to regard it in a different spirit. We must recognise that the landlord who obtained a premium, which was perfectly lawful at the time, had no reason whatever to suppose that that transaction would be interfered with by this legislation.

Now, however, the Minister is going to interfere with it, and I think that it should not be interfered with, if at all, without having reasonable regard to the position of the landlord, who is taken entirely by surprise. It is not the fault of the landlord that this Measure was not introduced three years ago. That is the fault of the Government, but I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if it had been introduced three years ago—I am not saying that it should have been, because it is a bad Bill now and would have been then—this situation would not have arisen. Introducing it three years late, I think it is highly unfair to treat a landlord who has received a perfectly lawful premium as if he had committed a criminal offence and to impose upon him a retrospective penalty.

Mr. Janner

May I try to put this matter on a different footing from that on which it rests at present, due to the fact that we have not heard the whole truth about this Amendment? What has been overlooked by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) is that the principal Acts refer to properties and dwelling-houses which come within a certain rateable value. These principal Acts, in so far as the cover is concerned, are not affected by this Measure, and, consequently, the provisions of the principal Acts continue to apply and were being applied at the time when the tenancies to which hon. Members are referring were created. It was illegal to exact a premium except in respect of a tenancy agreement or lease which extended for a period of 14 years or over. Consequently, there cannot be any tenancy agreements affected by this Clause which have not still some time to run. If a premium was exacted for a shorter term, it was illegal. I understand that the complaint here is that it would involve a considerable hardship on the tenant unless some concession of this sort were made, but the fact of the matter is that, if the landlord let the place for less than 14 years, in asking for a premium he was committing an offence and was aware of the fact that he was not entitled to that premium.

Sir J. Mellor

Surely, if the landlord had received an illegal premium, that could have been recovered in full?

Mr. Janner

It may be recovered or it may not under the Bill, but this Clause purports to give the tenant another method of recovering the amount from the landlord. It serves the purpose of enabling the landlord to repay if he is not in a position to repay the full amount at once, and that of course is very important.

5.0 p.m.

I think the position is this: nobody who is called upon to repay a premium in those circumstances can be heard to say that he did not know what he would have to do in the event of his charging that premium. These people knew exactly what rent they were entitled to exact under the Act and they knew that if they charged a premium, and in consequence charged a lower rental, they would be doing something that would still enable the tenant to recover the premium. They cannot be heard to say at this stage that they will be prejudiced by anything in this Bill. I do not want hon. Members to think that I am trying to put a legal point to overcome something which it is reasonable to request.

Mr. Molson

I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. What I am referring to are the three kinds of premiums which, until the passing of this Bill, are and have been perfectly legal.

Mr. Janner

After the passing of the Bill, of course, the person will know precisely what he is doing.

Colonel Dower

We all know that.

Mr. Janner

I wish the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) knew the other thing, too. This only applies where the tenancy is for 14 years or over, and consequently there should be very few cases indeed in which the particular circumstances to which the hon. Member refers will arise.

Mr. Molson

The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has not referred to the case of the letting of property which had not been previously let—letting during the war—where it was perfectly legal to charge a premium.

Mr. Janner

It is really a question of a premium, which applies even in that case. The 1939 Act says one must not charge a premium, so when a person charged it as rent he knew very well that unless the agreement was for 14 years or over he would not be entitled to charge a premium. That is precisely the point I was trying to make.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 265.

Division No. 61.] AYES [5.05 p.m.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Cuthbert, W. N. Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Darling, Sir W. Y. Head, Brig A. H.
Barlow, Sir J. De la Bère, R. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Birch, Nigel Digby, S. W. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Dodds-Parker, A, D. Hogg, Hon. Q
Boothby, R. Dower, Col A. V. G. (Penrith) Hollis, M C
Bower, N Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh. W.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J A. Drayson, G B. Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Drewe, C. Jarvis, Sir J.
Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G. Eccles, D M Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W. Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Jennings, R
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T. Erroll, F. J Keeling, E. H.
Bullock, Capt. M. Fletcher, W (Bury) Lamoert, Hon. G.
Butcher, H. W. Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Langford-Holt, J
Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Carson, E. Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok) Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Challen, C. Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead) Linstead, H. N.
Clarke, Col. R S. Gammans, L. D Low, A. R. W.
Clifton-B own, Lt.-Col. G Glyn, Sir R Lucas, Major Sir J
Cooper-Key, E. M. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow) Gridley, Sir A. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Grimston, R. V. McCallum, Maj. D
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) McCorquoda'e, Rt Hon. M S.
Crowder, Capt. John E. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)
McFarlane, C. S. Peto, Brig. C. H. M Studholme, H. G.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Pickthorn, K. Sutcliffe, H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Maclay, Hon. J. S. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Teeling, William
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Rayner, Brig. R. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Renton, D. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Manningham-Buller, R. E. Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall) Vane, W. M. F.
Marlowe, A A. H. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Marsden, Capt. A. Ropner, Col. L. white sir D. (Fareham)
Mellor, Sir J. Savory, Prof D L. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Moison, A. H. E. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Morris-Jones, Sir H. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Eart
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Smithers, Sir W. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Spearman, A. C. M.
Nicholson, G. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Osborne, C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Major Conant and
Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Strauss, Henry (English Universities) Colonel Wheatley.
NOES
Albu, A. H. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Lee, F. (Hulme)
Allen, A C. (Bosworth) Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Alpass, J. H. Ewart, R. Lislie, J. R.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Fairhurst, F. Levy, B. W.
Attewell, H. C Fernyhough, E. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Austin, H. Lewis Field, Capt. W J. Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Awbery, S. S. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Lindgren, G. S.
Ayles, W. H. Follick, M. Lipson, D. L.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Foot, M. M. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Bacon, Miss A. Forman, J. C. Logan, D. G.
Balfour, A Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Longden, F.
Barstow, P. G. Freeman, J. (Watford) McAdam, W.
Barton, C. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N McAllister, G.
Bechervaise, A E. Ganley, Mrs. C. S McEntee, V. La T.
Benson, G. Gibbins, J. McGhee, H. G
Berry, H. Gilzean, A McGovern. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mack, J. D.
Bing, G. H. C. Grey, C. F. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Binns, J. Grierson, E. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Blackburn, A. R. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) McKinlay, A. S.
Blenkinsop, A. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Maclean, N. (Govan)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) McLeavy, F.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Gunter, R. J. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Bramall, E A. Guy. W. H. Mainwaring, W. H.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Brown, T. J, (Ince) Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Mann, Mrs. J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Hardy, E. A. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Burden, T. W. Harrison, J Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Burke, W. A. Haworth, J. Medland, H. M.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) Mellish, R. J
Byers, Frank Hewitson, Capt. M. Messer, F.
Carmichael, James Hicks, G. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Holman, P. Mikardo, Ian
Champion, A J. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Chetwynd, G. R. Horabin, T. L. Mitchison, G. R.
Cobb, F. A. Hoy, J. Monslow, W.
Cocks, F. S. Hubbard, T. Moody, A. S.
Coldrick, W. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Collick, P. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Morley, R.
Collindridge, F. Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Colman, Miss G. M. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Cooper, G. Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe) Mort, D. L.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Moyle, A.
Corlett, Dr. J. Janner, B. Murray, J. D.
Cove, W. G. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Naylor, T. E.
Crawley, A. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Cullen, Miss Jenkins, R. H. O'Brien, T.
Daggar, G. Johnston, Douglas Oliver, G. H
Daines, P. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Paget, R. T.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Jones, Jack (Bolton) Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Parker, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Keenan, W. Parkin, B. T.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Kenyon, C. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) King, E. M. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E Peart, T. F.
Deer, G. Kinley, J. Piratin, P.
Delargy, H. J. Kirby, B. V. Popplewell, E.
Dodds, N. N. Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D. Porter, E. (Warrington)
Driberg, T. E. N Lang, G. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Dumpleton, C. W. Lavers, S. Price, M. Philips
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Pritt, D. N.
Proctor, W. T. Simmons, C. J. Wadsworth, G.
Pryde, D. J. Skinnard, F. W. Walker, G. H.
Pursey, Comdr. H. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)
Randall, H. E. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Watkins, T. E.
Rangar, J. Snow, J. W Watson, W. M.
Rankin, J. Solley, L. J. Webb, M. (Bradford, C)
Rees-Williams, D. R Sorensen, R. W. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Reeves, J. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Wells, W. T (Walsall)
Reid, T. (Swindon) Sparks, J. A. West, D. G.
Rhodes, H. Stamford, W. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Richards, R. Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Stubbs, A. E. Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith Wigg, George
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.) Swingler, S Wilkins, W. A.
Robertson, J. J (Berwick) Sylvester, G. O. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Rogers, G. H. R. Symonds, A. L. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Royle, C. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Sargood, R. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Scollan, T. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Willis, E.
Scott-Elliot, W Thurtle, Ernest Wiils, Mrs. E. A
Segal, Dr. S. Timmons, J. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A Titterington, M. F Woods, G. S.
Sharp, Granville Tolley, L Yates, V. F.
Shurmer, P. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington) Usborne, Henry
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Viant, S. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Richard Adams

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, leave out line 6, and insert "that date were the relevant date."

In line 7, leave out "will," and insert "would."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I beg to move, in line 8, after "be," to insert "as."

This is to correct a misprint in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 10. leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 11.—[Mr. Bevan.]

The Deputy-Chairman

The next Amendment is in line 12.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We have an Amendment in line 10, after "deemed." to insert: for the purposes of this section only.

The Deputy-Chairman

That has already fallen by the previous Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Which previous Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman

The Minister's previous Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

That is the Amendment in line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the first "the," in line 11. That is consequential.

5.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

That Amendment having been passed, it is impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to move his Amendment to line 10.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

This shows the difficulty we can fall into in being as reasonable as we can with the Minister. It is perfectly true that the Minister's Amendment was consequential. However, I should have thought that as we had indicated we attached importance to this Amendment of ours, and intended to move it, the Minister's Amendment might have been moved saving ours. As the Minister can see, we shall have to oppose Amendments—which otherwise we should certainly not oppose—for the purpose of saving our own subsequent Amendments. We do attach a great amount of importance to this. If we cannot discuss it now, perhaps we can on the Question "That the Clause stand part," although there would be a difficulty about that, as it would be tidier to have the discussion here and now.

The Deputy-Chairman

That cannot be done, because the Minister has insisted on moving his Amendment and it has been passed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, therefore, precluded from moving his Amendment. He would have been, in any case, with or without the "saving."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I think you will agree, Mr. Bowles, and I think the Minister will agree, that we have been very reasonable in not attempting to delay the Committee; but we are very anxious to safeguard our own position in these matters. I had not myself realised that, in assenting to the Minister's consequential Amendment, we were debarring ourselves from moving an Amendment which we regard as of real substance, and the point of which we shall try to bring out at another stage.

The Deputy-Chairman

Perhaps, it may be possible to do that on the Question "That the Clause stand part." As the position is at the moment, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is precluded from moving this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

There is not very much between us here at all. We think it is a matter of drafting. I will look at this. There is no real question involved.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

If the Minister in drafting will have in mind the implications of our Amendment then, of course, he will be going some way to meet our point. We shall, as has been said already in another connection, reserve our fundamental interest until we see what the proposals are that the Minister intends to lay before us at a subsequent stage. We shall do our best to take any Parliamentary opportunity that may be allowed us to develop the general line of argument we should like to deploy on this matter, and which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account.

The Deputy-Chairman

Perhaps, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may have an opportunity on the Question "That the Clause stand part."

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

You have disallowed our Amendment, Mr. Bowles, because we have accepted an Amendment which leaves out line 10 to the first "the" in line 11; but may I suggest that it would be perfectly possible for this passage to read properly if our Amendment were put in? It would read thus: For the purpose of this Section only the date determined under the last foregoing paragraph.…; I think that would meet the point.

The Deputy-Chairman

Perhaps, it would be more convenient to let the matter stand as it is, as the Minister is going to look at it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We find ourselves in this difficulty, owing, perhaps, to an excess of zeal in co-operation—an unusual fault in an Opposition. I should have thought that the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) would have been most convenient. It is tidier to deal with points one by one as we reach them, rather than by a general discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part." However, we are in the hands of the Chair.

The Deputy-Chairman

I have looked at the matter again, and I think that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) is right, and, therefore, the Amendment may be moved.

Mr. Hare

I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the beginning, to insert: for the purposes of this Section only. I should like to start by thanking you, Mr. Bowles, for helping us over this We think there is an important point here, and we should like more clarification of it. The premium is divided by the number of years in the tenancy of seven years. The amount of the premium is divided, and as a result of the calculation made an annual levy, so to speak, is made on the actual rent paid by the tenant. That is all perfectly well from a mathematical, calculating point of view, but the thing we want to find out is whether the tenancy is automatically extended—

Mr. Bevan

I have already said that if these fears turn out to be justified, I shall import into the Bill a form of words to make it impossible for that to happen. That is what I have guaranteed to do.

Mr. Hare

Since I have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. I shall not detain the Committee.

Mr. Bevan

We are at one here.

Mr. Hare

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 12, after "paragraph," insert: shall be deemed to be the relevant date. In line 22, leave out from "after," to end of line 24, and insert: the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Mr. Piratin

I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out subsection (7).

My reasons for moving this Amendment are very simple. I want to ask the Minister to explain the real purpose of this subsection. My interpretation of it is that it makes a gift to the landlord of the proportion of a premium which has been taken illegally from the tenant in defiance of the law. The law in this respect is laid down in Section 8 of the Act of 1920, in respect of old controlled houses; and in respect of the new controlled houses, in the First Schedule to the 1939 Act. It seems to me that the landlord is now being allowed to get away with the money which he has already obtained. The subsection specifically deprives the tenant of his present right under these laws to recover part of the premium paid prior to the date of the tribunal's decision. The opening words of the subsection are, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Acts." Thus, the principal Acts do not apply.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain what is the purpose of this subsection. I am certain that there is a very large measure of common ground in his attitude and mine on this particular question. Neither of us—if I may put it moderately, without causing much contention on the other side of the Committee, although that does not worry me very much—wants to be overgenerous to the landlords; and yet it seems to me that in this case we are being over-generous to the landlords. On the other hand, if my interpretation of the subsection is wrong, and the Minister can explain it adequately, then it is likely that I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

The explanation is perfectly simple. A tenant can exercise one right or another. If he wishes, he can go to the courts for the recovery of the whole premium. If he does not wish to do that, he can go to the tribunal for the recovery of such part of the premium as this Bill would entitle him to obtain. It does not seem to me that he should have the right to do both together, but one or the other. Nothing is taken away from him. If he wishes to apply under the principal Acts, he can still do so. If he wishes to exercise his rights conferred by this Bill, he may do so. He is losing nothing.

Mr. Piratin

Can the Minister say how that explanation fits in with his new Clause on the Notice Paper (Prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of tenancy)? In subsection (9) of that new Clause it is proposed to repeal Section 8 of the Act of 1920.

Mr. Bevan

We can discuss that when we reach it. At the moment we are discussing whether the tenant has the right to make two applications. As I have said, this deprives him of nothing at all.

Mr. Piratin

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out subsection (9).

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I understand this is little more than a drafting Amendment, and that the subsection is to be omitted here and inserted at a later stage. We can discuss it then, and so we will not object now.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Colonel Dower

The matter I want to discuss can, perhaps, be better discussed on Third Reading, but I think it ought to be mentioned now. It is this. The Clause receives the general support of the Committee in so far as it seeks to stop abuses of premiums, and stops not only the owner but the tenant also from exploiting an assignment of lease. However, there is one difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman ought to think about with his expert advisers, and that is how it is possible for a tenant to get a really long lease. After all, if he wants a long lease—of 40 years, for instance—why should he not be able to have it?

If the right hon. Gentleman rules out any question of the payment of a premium of some amount—I am not now referring to the exploitation of premiums—I think he will find that there will not be that feeling of security that I should like to see every Britisher have—that feeling of security in knowing he has a roof over his head for the remaining years of his life. We have discussed premiums which are demanded in a vicious manner, which is fundamentally bad. However, there are occasions when a premium is not bad, and when, indeed, a man wants to pay it. It is on those lines that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the point I am bringing forward. I hope we shall cure the abuse of which we all disapprove, but will not deny the opportunity of security to a tenant who wishes to have a roof over his head for a number of years.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts (Birmingham, Handsworth)

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clear my mind on one point. When a man owns two houses which are on a collective ground rent, and he desires to sell one of them, that is commonly done by charging, say, £300 for that one house and granting a 99 years' lease, or the whole of the expiring term of the lease, as a notional conversion. One would not want that convenient device to be caught in a Bill designed to deal with something quite different. It may well be that there is a perfectly satisfactory answer to that point, but I have called the attention of the Minister to it so that the point may be covered, if necessary.

Mr. Marlowe

I should like to set it on record that I do not share the views of the right hon. Gentleman that all premiums are immoral per se. Unfortunately, as the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) has said, that is the manner in which this matter has been approached. There are instances in which a premium is defensible on every ground of morality and justice. I think it is unfortunate that, because there have been instances where the situation has been exploited and the power to extract a premium has been used immorally, it should be assumed that every landlord is an extortionate usurer. I find no evidence to make me believe that this is a matter of widespread malpractice. Personally, I know of many cases where a premium is desirable, and in return for a premium, by way almost of an investment, the tenant has to pay considerably less rent. Many tenants prefer to have their tenancy on such terms and I think it unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman is making that impossible.

There is one other aspect of this matter. I do not think this Measure will make any contribution to the right hon. Gentleman's housing programme. Perhaps that is immaterial because his housing programme is such a failure that there is nothing which could make it much worse. I think he is going to discourage conversion. There will be many cases in which owners of property would be prepared to convert old houses into a number of flats, to bring old properties up to date or even acquire properties for the purpose of conversion in the belief that they could legitimately make a small profit by doing so. They would be encouraged to enter upon conversion schemes because of the incentive of making that profit. They are up against the usual approach of this Socialist Government which believes that all incentives ought to be killed.

There is no doubt that the prospect of making a profit on a conversion of that kind is an incentive to a property-owner to make that conversion and thereby make fresh dwellings available. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, does not approach these things in that way. He prefers the rather vindictive attitude of assuming the property owners are persons who ought to be exterminated, and insists on putting on the Statute Book anything which he thinks will achieve that end. I cannot help feeling that by this Measure he will do a great deal of harm to the provision of fresh housing accommodation.

Mr. S. Silverman

No one, I think, will regret that we should for a minute or two, in the middle of this businesslike Measure, give the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) an opportunity of making his party's characteristic defence of landlords. All that is perfectly right, and it is well that the Opposition's case should be made so abundantly clear as he has made it. That is, however, no reason why we should be deceived in any way. No one has ever said that there is anything immoral in a premium by itself, any more than anyone has ever said that there is anything wrong in a rent by itself, or that there is anything wrong in free bargaining and negotiating between a tenant and a landlord and the fixing of a rent in that way. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken if he thinks that anybody on this side of the Committee has ever said any of those things.

What has been said is that we are aiming at a situation in which there is not any freedom of contract because there is a shortage of a necessary article, and that shortage has been occasioned partly by generations of neglect by the hon. and learned Gentleman's party and partly by the exigencies of the war in which we have been engaged, and that in those circumstances it is right that the State should step in and enact legislation to protect the weaker of the parties in negotiating what cannot fairly be described as a free contract. We should like to know whether the Opposition are officially taking a line that the State ought not to interfere in these circumstances? Are they against any rent control, and, if not, do they think that my right hon. Friend is wrong to have a Measure which deals with it under the circumstances in which this Bill applies?

Colonel Dower

We want the Government to get on with building houses.

Mr. Silverman

That is not quite what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants. He wanted to take advantage of what he alleged was the failure to build houses in order that his friends the landlords could make a profit out of that alleged neglect.

Mr. Marlowe

I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does it not follow that we have not got a free market, and therefore, until we get a free market, the proper way to deal with this matter is to build enough houses to make a free market?

Mr. Silverman

Of course, it is. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman's party, when it was in power for over 20 years, did not find that it was so very easy to build houses overnight. My right hon. Friend has built five or six times as many houses in a corresponding period after the end of the war as were built after the end of the previous war. That does not relieve us of the obligation in the meantime, while we are building houses more rapidly than the hon. and learned Gentleman's party ever did—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

rose—

The Chairman

Unless the hon. Gentleman gives way, the right hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to intervene.

Mr. Silverman

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman paid me the compliment yesterday of saying that I always waited for him to finish his sentence before I interrupted. I should like to finish the sentence on which I embarked, if only I could remember what it was, which I can no longer do.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

In that case, perhaps I may complete the sentence on which the hon. Gentleman embarked, and then make my interruption. He said that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was building houses far faster than the party to which I belong ever did or could have done. I am sure that on reflection he will not wish to advance that thesis, and I leave it to his fairness to consider whether he did not considerably exceed the statistical basis for his argument in that contention.

Mr. Silverman

I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for reminding me of what I was saying. What my right hon. Friend has done has been to build houses in three years after the end of the Second World War many times more rapidly than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's party did in the corresponding period after the First World War. That, I take it, is not any longer, if it ever was, in dispute. I say further that he will continue to build houses far more rapidly than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's party has ever done. That I cannot yet prove, but the Government will do so after the next Election when it continues in power and has an opportunity of developing its policy even more rapidly.

The point I was making was that however short or long the time it may take, it is the obligation of any decent Government to protect people in the meantime, and to protect them in respect of contracts which they have been driven to make and which they would not have made except for the economic conditions which deprived them of any freedom of choice. It is interesting to see at this time that the Opposition are so greatly concerned to protect not those who are exploiting the victims of this situation but those who are making a profit out of it for what the hon. and learned Gentleman called an incentive. We prefer other incentives by relying on this Bill.

Mr. Janner

There is a very important Section of the Acts which some hon. Members have overlooked when making their arguments. I understood them to say that when a small rental is charged no premium can be exacted, no matter how long the period may be. That is not correct. The fact of the matter is that a premium may be charged and will be charged after the passing of this Measure. The Measure relates to houses within the purview of the principal Acts, and those Acts contain a proviso to the effect that if the rent is below two-thirds of the rateable value, the house does not come within the principal Acts at all; and secondly, if a person wants to give a very long letting after this Bill becomes an Act, he will still be able to do so and charge up to two-thirds of the rateable value, which is not an unreasonable amount in the sense of its being a small amount, and he will continue to do this in a way which those who want us to believe that the landlord is not properly protected, do not understand.

I want to make only one other point. I have intervened in these Debates from time to time because I felt that a considerable amount of argument was being adduced in order to convince the country that the Socialist Party is not prepared to act reasonably with the small landlord or with the tenant, or with any other party concerned. The fact of the matter is that these Acts were produced by the Tories. They excluded premiums, and we are doing precisely what they have been doing all along, namely, giving an opportunity of extracting a premium only if the rental is below two-thirds of the rateable value.

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Now that we have been exonerated, vindicated and decorated by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), I trust that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will hang his head in shame. We have heard a splendid vindication of the social policy of the Conservative Party in the years between the wars, against the somewhat splenetic condemnation by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. We can therefore get back again to the Bill.

We do not wish to enter now upon a Third Reading Debate, in which we shall have many things to say about the provisions against the exaction of premium, but under present conditions of shortage, these are provisions, the necessity for which we recognise. We said so upon the Second Reading, when we drew attention to one of the difficulties inherent in the Bill as introduced, namely, that it dealt with certain classes of abuse and not with others. At a later date the Minister is to bring in a new Clause in response to that appeal which, it is only fair to say, was made from more than one side of the House.

Our general contention remains, however, that we do not think that a premium in itself is morally wrong. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne went further and said that nobody on that side of the House had ever said that he was against rent as such. I looked at the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), and I could practically see his toes turning up in his boots, even through the somewhat substantial piece of furniture behind which he is sitting. He will not have omitted to remember the vehement denunciations of rent as robbery which the founders of his party have made.

The Chairman

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying far too widely. He is introducing matter which I really cannot allow to be developed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I was not going more widely than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. In fact, I had not embarked, nor did I intend to embark, upon a consideration of the general housing programme, not merely of the present Government but of previous Governments, as did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.

The Chairman

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appears rather to be reflecting on the Chair. I allowed the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to deal with that matter because it had been referred to by a previous speaker on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's side of the Committee. I endeavour to divide my favours as evenly as possible, but there is a limit to them.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I did not intend to go further than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had been allowed to go. I did not intend to say enough to bring me to the very narrow line which the hon. Member was on the point of crossing when he veered and stood off on another tack.

The difficulties in which we are just now are those of shortage. Owing to those difficulties of shortage some control must be exerted upon premiums. That is agreed. The difficulty that we see is that we fear that the arrest of the process of paying a certain sum in advance may easily lead to the withholding of letting altogether in favour of a process of sale. All that may happen is that instead of having to raise a certain proportion of money from the landlord, the unhappy tenant will be forced to raise a much larger proportion of money from a bank. Sales of property in those conditions will be greatly increased and that process will inure to the disadvantage and not to the advantage of the class which this legislation is seeking to protect.

In the present position we do not deny, the House having decided the principle upon Second Reading, that there must be control of premiums in certain conditions. We accept that. That control will also be exercised in the case of assignments which the Minister is dealing with later. Therefore, we do not propose to divide the Committee against the Clause. We shall examine the Minister's proposals with a sympathetic mind because they meet the objections which we ourselves advanced upon the Second Reading.

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