CLAUSE 7.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT SHARES ACCOMMODATION WITH OTHER PERSONS BUT NOT WITH LANDLORD.) (Hansard, 16 February 1949)

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, to leave out "living," and to insert "shared."
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the next two Amendments in page 8, namely, to leave out subsection (5) in line 21, and to leave out "living" and to insert "shared" in line 31, were taken together. They have been put down for exploratory purposes and to obtain, if possible, a clear exposition of the effect of this Clause in certain particulars.
Having read the Clause several times, I feel that it will add very considerably to the difficulties which lawyers have to face in dealing with the Rent Restrictions Acts. I must refer to the other part of the Clause to enable the points to be made clearly. In the first place, the Committee will see that "separate accommodation" is referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1). In paragraph (b) one notices the phrase "shared accommodation," and paragraph (c) provides for the reversal of the authority which decided that where accommodation was shared it was outside the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
On finds in subsection (3) that the shared accommodation, if I understand its effect correctly, shall not be deemed to be let for the first time in consequence of its being left for that shared accommodation; but in subsection (4) one finds an entirely new expression inserted, namely "living accommodation." So that we have in this Clause, "separate accommodation," which is presumably living accommodation; "shared accommodation" and yet another phrase, "living accommodation" which subsection (5) seeks to define in a fashion which, to me at least, is almost 1222 incomprehensible. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain what is meant by paragraph (a) of subsection (4). It is there stated that: Any such change of circumstances as is mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection"— that is, subsection (3)— being a change affecting living accommodation used by the tenant in common with others, shall be deemed to be an alteration of rent. How can a change of circumstances be deemed to be an alteration of rent? To what extent will the rent be altered by such a change of circumstances? How much will it be increased or decreased? There does seem to be something wrong in the drafting of that subsection. I entirely fail to see how it can said that change of circumstances in itself amounts to an alteration of rent.
When one goes on to subsection (5), which is also dealt with in these Amendments, and which seeks to provide for the definition of the expression "living accommodation," it really is most difficult to see what it means, having regard to the fact that the earlier part of the Clause seeks to divide the accommodation occupied by the tenant into two categories, the separate accommodation of which he is in sole and exclusive possession, and the shared accommodation. This "living accommodation" apparently means accommodation of such a nature that the fact that it constitutes or is included in the shared accommodation is sufficient to bring the tenancy within paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) of this Section. It may be necessary to have these three different types of accommodation referred to and separately defined in this one Clause—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to convince us that it is—but I should have thought that great advantages from the point of view of administration and the determination of cases would ensue if we could reduce these three categories to two, "separate accommodation" and "shared accommodation." The addition of this third category, "living accommodation" is bound to cause difficulty and confusion. I cannot see what "living accommodation" is meant to cover which is not already satisfactorily covered by the expressions "shared accommodation" or "separate accommodation."

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
This Amendment is not a matter of very great concern. As 1223 a matter of fact, as at present drafted, it is almost meaningless, simply because the Bill—

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I did point out these three Amendments had been put down merely as a peg on which hang a request for an explanation. I must say, with great respect, that the hon. Gentleman will be wasting the time of the Committee if he occupies time in pointing out defects in Amendments which are merely put down for the purpose of eliciting an explanation.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
In the past the definition of "living accommodation" has been difficult because of the varied circumstances taken into account by the courts. The intention in this Measure was to ensure that the definition of "living accommodation" should be so broad as to cover the interpretations the courts may put upon it. For example, what may be regarded as living accommodation in one case is not necessarily living accommodation in another.
It is not clear to us why, where accommodation is shared changes in what is not living accommodation in the ordinary sense of that term—for example, in bathrooms, coal cellars, and so on—should automatically lead to an alteration in rent. Where there have been changes in the living accommodation it is clear that, whatever the changes may be, there does attach a complete change in the whole tenancy agreement. By making this distinction between living accommodation and shared accommodation we are trying to ensure that minor changes in the use of shared accommodation—it may be, as I say, a bathroom or a coal cellar—should not be a matter of issue, whereas a change in living accommodation is clearly at matter which concerns us.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that living accommodation is equivalent to separate accommodation?

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Yes, but the difficulty in attempting to define precisely what is living accommodation would be that a change in interpretation in the courts might necessitate an alteration in the Bill. In drawing this definition as widely as possible we are seeking to avoid that difficulty. I do not think that 1224 there is very much in this. We should be glad to be able to meet the hon. and learned Member as far as we possibly can, but I hope he will appreciate that we are anxious, by this definition of "shared accommodation," to ensure that the minor issues should not be raised as matters of consequence.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I feel that the Committee will be rather disappointed at the reply which has just been made by the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to the lucid request of my hon. and learned Friend for an explanation of certain matters in this Clause. I must, as a lawyer, protest against the terms in which the Clause is at present cast. It is sometimes suggested that lawyers like elaborate and even ambiguous phraseology; I have never myself found that to be true; and must say that I have rarely met in any Act of Parliament provisions quite so ambiguous and difficult to comprehend as some of the provisions in this Clause. I do beg the Parliamentary Secretary to try, between now and the Report stage, to get this Clause redrafted in a more workmanlike form. If the Clause in its present form is enshrined on the Statute Book it will be a disgrace to this Committee.
My hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to subsection (5), which defines "living accommodation." So far as I understood the Parliamentary Secretary—and I am quite willing to believe that I may have imperfectly understood him—this definition is cast in deliberately wide terms. It seems to be cast in such wide terms as to be virtually meaningless to anybody attempting to construe it. It is. in my submission, very bad draftsmanship to have this very widely and loosely phrased definition referring back to subsection (1,c). Reading those two provisions together is, to say the least, singularly unenlightening, even to those whose customary practice it is to have to read and understand these things. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has most inadequately answered my hon. and learned Friend's request, and I should like him to assure the Committee that he does not really feel that degree of complacency with this Clause as at present drafted which his words have so far led us to suppose.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I must confess that I am a little disappointed at 1225 the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my request for an explanation. This Clause appears to expand the area of obscurity already around the Rent Restrictions Acts, and if anything the Parliamentary Secretary's reply sought to expand it a little further. In spite of his explanation, I have been looking at the Clause once again, and I should like him to tell me whether this is not the position. If it is the position, then perhaps a little redrafting would make it clearer and we could pass on.
One starts with living accommodation in a separate dwelling-house; that will bring the premises within the Rent Restrictions Acts, provided the other limits apply. If the living accommodation in a separate dwelling-house can, for the purpose of the points about which I am asking an explanation, perhaps be ignored, are we concerned here only with the living accommodation in the part of the premises which is shared; and is the whole effect of subsections (4) and (5) that, where living accommodation is shared, as distinct from, say, a passage between different tenants, that should result in an alteration of the rent? It occurs to me that that may be the meaning of this obscure Clause, that you should not take into account the sharing of a passage as bringing about an alteration of rent, but the sharing of anything coming within the definition of living accommodation. If that should be the intention, I think the Clause is extremely obscurely drafted.
7.30 p.m.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm whether that is the intention, and if it is, to make every endeavour to clarify the drafting between now and the Report stage. It is rather nonsense to say that a change of circumstances, as set out in subsection (4), shall be deemed to be an alteration of rent. That does not seem to me to be correct drafting. I should like him to say whether I am correctly interpreting now the intention of this subsection, and also to try and put it in simpler and clearer language between now and the Report stage.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
The hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly put the point. The whole object of this subsection is as he suggests, that we sould ensure that, when changes occur where living accom- 1226 modation is shared, there is opportunity for regarding that as, in fact, part of the change of rent; but we also want to ensure, as he suggested, that the other matters I have mentioned—he referred to a passage, I referred to a coal cellar—should not be regarded as coming within the ambit of that change. As I am advised, that position is provided for under this subsection as drafted, and although careful consideration has been given to it, it has not been found possible to bring forward any simpler or clearer wording to accomplish that design. Therefore, as advised, I am bound to stand by the wording as it is to accomplish precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)
I hope I misheard the Parliamentary Secretary. He mentioned two points, a passage and a coal cellar. One may be of no material value in shared accommodation; but in an extreme case, to deny somebody access to a coal cellar might be a very real disadvantage. I do not quite know how far we are getting. The other point is this. When he first spoke, he gave the impression that this was drafted ambiguously and he admitted—

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Broadly.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
Yes. I think loosely was also an expression used. He seemed to imply that that was done in order not to upset the effect of previous legislation. I hope he did not have that in mind, because that is something we could not possibly accept.

§ Mr. Molson
The Parliamentary Secretary, as a result of his two speeches, has made us understand what the Government wish to achieve. With the best will in the world we have not been able to understand this Clause by ourselves. This is an operative Clause, which all the tribunals in the country will be required to understand. It is therefore of the utmost importance that it should be drafted in such a way that they are likely to be able to understand the intention of the Government, which I do not doubt the Committee will accept. The Parliamentary Secretary said he will have to stand by this drafting. I hope he means—and I appeal to the Minister, who has just come in—that he stands by the sense of this Clause, and that an 1227 effort will be made to try and redraft it so that it will be much simpler, and likely to be understood in the same way by all the numerous tribunals.

§ Mr. Bevan
I apologise to the Committee for not having been here. There will be no difficulty on the part of the tribunals in construing this language, because it is not new. It is almost completely imported from the Act of 1920, which, speaks of limitation of accommodation as of itself an alteration of rent. In Section (2) (3) of that Act, it is stated: Any transfer to a tenant of any burden of liability previously borne by the landlord shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as an alteration of rent. So the same principle is followed as here, because obviously if a person has had the benefit of certain accommodation which was of advantage to him and that accommodation has been withdrawn, it is tantamount to an increase in rent, because actually he is paying the same for less. Although the language here is obscure, it is no more obscure than it has been since 1920. Although I say at once that I will look at it to see if it can be made clearer still—for I see no reason why we should not be as clear as is physically and intellectually possible—I hope that if we do not succeed in doing so I shall not be charged with not having fulfilled a pledge.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
Surely the Minister does not suggest that the wording in subsection (5) and the reference back to subsection (1, c) is taken from previous legislation?

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
The words "alteration of rent" are found in the 1920 Act, but I should have hoped that we might have made some progress. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will look into this, and I want to make one suggestion, because we do want to get it as well drafted as possible. If it is not well understood it will give rise to more litigation than any other part of the Bill. The suggestion I put to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration is this: that he should seek to emphasise in this subsection that, where the phrase "living accommodation" is used, it is not meant to apply to the whole of the occupation held by the 1228 tenant. I think that is one of the things that misleads people in reading it. He has assured the Committee, but it is not easily perceptible. It was not until we had heard the Parliamentary Secretary twice that it became clear to us. I think a little redrafting may make it easier for the people who will have to act on this Statute, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the attitude he has adopted to what we have said.

§ Sir J. Mellor
May I remind the Committee that the Act of 1920 has had to be construed by the county courts, and not by tribunals of this character, which is quite a different matter? May I also remind the Minister of the comments of the Ridley Tribunal on the chaotic condition of the law, and the great difficulty of anyone understanding it?

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.