HC Deb 16 February 1949 vol 461 cc1217-21

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, after "contract," to insert: made on or after the first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine. This Amendment might conveniently be considered with two subsequent Amendments which, like this one, stand in the names of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Deritend (Mr. Longdon) and Ladywood (Mr. Yates). They are: In Clause 7, page 7, line 20, after "accommodation," to insert: in common with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons where the occupation arises from a contract of tenancy entered into before the first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, or. In Clause 8, page 9, line 9, at the beginning, to insert "Except as aforesaid."

They all relate to the same subject matter. It is a question of moving a certain section of tenants from the protection provided under Clause 6 to that provided under Clause 7. Clauses 6 and 7 both attempt to stop a gap in the principal Acts which was created by the decision of the courts in the case, of Neale versus del Soto. In that case and in other cases it was decided that where accommodation more especially kitchen accommodation, was shared either between the landlord and the tenants or between two tenants, the dwelling was not a separate dwelling within the meaning of the Act, and that therefore the protection of the principal Acts do not extend to the tenants. Clauses 6 and 7 endeavour to stop that gap in two days. The case of the tenant who shares with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons is dealt with under Clause 6. Such tenants are given only the limited protection provided under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which means that if a case has not already come before a tribunal for the determination of rents, there is nothing to prevent the landlord from giving notice to quit, and there is no security of tenure.

Clause 7 applies to tenants who share accommodation. They receive the protection of the principal Acts, which means that they get security of tenure. The question of security of tenure is obviously extremely important. It seems a pity that the damage done by the case of Neale versus del Soto is not repaired to a larger extent. I can appreciate the argument which the Minister has advanced on other occasions so far as the question of tenancies shared between landlords and tenants are concerned. In these cases it is desirable that no discouragement should be given to owners of houses or tenants who wish to sublet to other tenants, and therefore it is felt that if the wider protection of the principal Acts were applied to any kind of tenancy it might discourage lettings, thus preventing the letting of accommodation which might otherwise have been available.

That point is met in these Amendments because they do not propose to transfer all tenancies shared with the landlords so as to provide those concerned with the protection of the principal Acts, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7. In substance only existing tenancies—and the date of 1st February has been taken as the arbitrary dividing line—will be protected, but future tenancies are only to be protected under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, so that every inducement is given to landlords or owners of houses and tenants to continue to sublet.

If these Amendments are accepted they will definitely improve the lot of the tenant who shares premises with the landlord at present. I know from wide experience that great hardship is involved in these cases on account of the lack of security of tenure. These people are subject to eviction and in many cases the consequence is that they lead a most unhappy life because that fact is exploited against them. I know it is said that in many cases a landlord who is tied to a tenant in the same house and who cannot possibly end the bond between them is in a difficult position. That may very well be so in certain cases, but from my own experience the number of cases in which the tenants are faced with hardship and are victimised on account of their lack of security is far greater. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister, by accepting these Amendments, to give the added protection for which I ask.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

On a point of Order. Without wishing to be in the least obstructive, but merely seeking information, may I ask if it is possible for the hon. Member to move all these Amendments at this stage? I quite appreciate that, for the convenience of the Committee, they can be discussed together, but can they be moved at this stage?

The Temporary Chairman

I thought that the hon. Member was moving the first one and reciting the other two for the greater convenience of the Committee.

Mr. J. Silverman

That is so.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I did not so understand it. If that is so, I beg the pardon of the hon. Member and I beg your pardon, Mr. Butcher. I merely sought to clarify the situation.

Mr. Blenkinsop

The Amendment which my hon. Friend is seeking to insert here is one which I fear we cannot accept. There is a clear distinction between the case of the tenant who is sharing with the landlord, and the case of the tenant who is sharing with other tenants. In fact, my hon. Friend has agreed that that is the position. It would. be quite an arbitrary decision to establish this date line which would make a further distinction betwen different classes of tenants sharing with the landlord.

It is quite well understood in the Committee that where these agreements have been made between tenant and landlord they are essentially, by their nature, very much subject to change. Circumstances may alter very considerably, and we feel it would be unreasonable to attach to those agreements the full provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts. Had the landlord known the position at the time it would have made it very difficult for him to accept tenants on those sort of terms. Although my hon. Friend has been careful to assure us that he did not mean this to apply to future cases of this sort—

Mr. J. Silverman

It does not.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Although that is so, we think it would be unfair to make this purely arbitrary decision between one group and another. I would remind the Committee that the tenant will have the very real protection of the 1946 Act, which protects him against unreasonable rent, and should unreasonable rent be charged, the excessive—

Mr. J. Silverman

It does not prevent him from being evicted, which is the important point.

Mr. Blenkinsop

It would not prevent eviction where no application has been made on unreasonable rent. I realise that there are hardships on both sides, but we have to be reasonable about this.

In our view it would be unfair on the landlord, who has come to this agreement in sharing with tenants, to put him into this special category. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this point, because we have already gone a good way to meet cases of difficulty of this sort and we feel it would be unreasonable to go further.

Mr. J. Silverman

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.