HC Deb 04 April 1951 vol 486 cc322-6
Sir Austin Hudson (Lewisham, North)

I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 39, and to insert "bind the Crown."

The object of this Amendment is to attempt to clarify the position regarding sub-tenants, particularly sub-tenants under the Crown. As I explained on the Committee stage, there are only a very limited number of tenants of Crown property who are affected. They seem mostly to live in that part of London which I represent and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward), who will second the Amendment.

I am sure that everyone in the House knows what we mean by Crown property and Crown tenants, but I have found that certain people seem to think that I am attacking the Monarch, and that His Majesty must in some way be a bad landlord. But everyone here, I hope, knows that Crown property is under the Commissioners of Crown Lands who, in turn, are supervised by the Government. In fact, when I wrote about some point to the Commissioners, I had a very polite reply from the Minister of Agriculture, who took complete authority to answer the point.

The reason I have put down this Amendment is to provide an opportunity for the Solicitor-General to report the result of the investigations which, on Committee stage, he promised to make into this point. I realise that the Rent Acts do not apply to sub-tenants of Crown lands and that nothing in this Measure can make them do so. At the same time, it is rather hard to tell these sub-tenants that they had no form of security before and, therefore, they shall have none now. I believe that the direct tenant of the Crown will have his lease extended for two years, provided he has the 21-year lease or over, coming to an end at the appropriate time. I presume that is so, otherwise I cannot see what is the object of Clause 16. But the subtenant appears to be the only person in this class who is not assisted in any way by the Bill.

The whole object of this Bill is to help those tenants and sub-tenants in long ground lease property where the leases are coming to an end, and to carry on the leases for two years until the Government have an opportunity of introducing permanent legislation in which I believe that they intend to deal with the question of Crown tenants. It seems hard that these Crown tenants should not have the same security as they would have if they had a private landlord. They should be able to carry on for two years just as if they were tenants and not subtenants or as if their landlord were a private citizen and not the Crown or the Government.

Another point is that by these wider words which I propose, we shall bring in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. This question was raised during the Committee stage and the answer given was that both of the Duchies are good landlords and, therefore, there really was not much object in bringing them in. However, sub-tenants there might meet the same difficulties. I do not know whether my wording is correct, but, if it is, I think the two Duchies would be included as well as the ordinary Crown lands which are covered by the original words of Clause 16.

Mr. Steward (Woolwich, West)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so in the hope that it will be accepted by the Government and that this will be a first step towards the removal of discrimination and hardship suffered by an unfortunate section of the community—the sub-tenants who are residents of Crown property. As we all know, as the law stands leaseholders of Crown property can evict sitting tenants upon application to the court, and then re-let at extortionate rents or sell, if they think fit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) said, there are a large number of houses in my constituency which are affected. Some 3,000 are on Crown property, and a number of cases occur every month where new landlords acquire the property and, upon the tenant refusing to pay an increased rent because he cannot afford it, eviction follows. An example was brought to my notice towards the end of last year of a certain person who acquired a number of residues of Crown residential properties, turned out the tenants by process of the law and sold or re-let at increased rents. One of the victims was an old age pensioner who literally could not afford to pay the extra amount. When the new landlord was asked how it was thought possible for this old-age pensioner to pay such an increased rent, in view of her slender income, which was known to everybody, he replied, "I neither know nor do I care." Incidentally, this old-age pensioner had lived in the property for 16 years.

9.30 p.m.

I submit that this sort of thing is taking place throughout London and that here is an opportunity for the Government to do something about it. This is an important point: I know of no case where the Crown has been plaintiff in an action of this nature. The Crown is always assumed to be a good landlord, and we all know that undoubtedly it is. But often, long after the Crown has granted a 99 years' lease, by sub-demise a succession of landlords arise who are as far removed from the Crown as they could possibly be; and it is nonsense to assume that those landlords are also good landlords merely because they hold their sub-leases from the Crown while, at the same time, assuming that other landlords, equal to them in other respects but not holding Crown leases, are bad landlords.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, has said, on 22nd February the Solicitor-General was good enough to undertake to look into the position of sub-tenants of the Crown, but as I see it, as a very humble layman surrounded by many able lawyers, this Bill does nothing whatever to protect the subtenant of Crown property, who can be turned out at the notice of a week or a month or a quarter merely in accordance with how he pays the rent.

We often hear from the Government side about fair shares for all. By accepting this Amendment, the Government could put into practice their expressed beliefs and thus ensure the same fair treatment and protection for sub-tenants of the Crown as is enjoyed by sub-tenants of any other property. I appreciate that it may be said that there are all sorts of legal difficulties in the way of bringing about this reform, but it is for the Government to administer justice and to see that justice is done to all alike.

The Solicitor-General

Whether the argument on the merits of the case is well-founded or not, the fact is that the Amendment would not in any way alter the position of Crown sub-tenants and would not, therefore, achieve what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward), have in mind. The Amendment has an altogether different effect and is really drafting, except that it would of course affect the position of the Duchy. Thus, whether the argument is justifiable on the merits of the case or not does not really enter into the purview of the discussion on this Amendment.

I turn, next, to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North. The position of sub-tenants from the Crown depends upon what Clause 7 does with regard to them. The hon. Member is really concerned with the application of the Rent Restriction Acts to subtenants of the Crown and, as he knows, those Acts do not bind the Crown. In so far as sub-tenants of the Crown are concerned, Clause 7 does not in any way alter the position, nor does Clause 16, which is the Clause which says that this Bill binds the Crown. What Clause 7 does is this: it says that where a mesne lessee's interest comes to an end, the subtenant from the mesne lessee shall for the period of two years have such rights against the head landlord as he would have had if the mesne lessee's interest had continued for those two years.

We start from the position, therefore, that the Rent Restriction Acts do not bind the Crown and do not protect subtenants from the Crown, and it follows as a result that the effect of the Clause is not to give sub-tenants of the Crown a rent restriction protection which otherwise they would not have had. That, I think, does answer the hon. Member's question, and I think it does also provide the answer to the incidental suggestion that he made, that in order to bring in the sub-tenants of the Duchies, his Amendment should be accepted. Inasmuch as the Rent Restriction Acts will not apply to the sub-tenants of the Crown, I think he will probably agree that there is no point in accepting his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.