HC Deb 04 April 1951 vol 486 cc294-309
The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "insured," to "for," in line 36, and to insert: and that nothing in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection shall apply to the enforcement of any right on the ground that the property or part thereof is being, or has since the commencement of this Act been, used. The object of this Amendment is to meet a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The point made by him was that there might be a covenant so framed as to cover an immoral purpose. It might be a covenant against use in a way which constituted a nuisance or something of that sort. My hon. Friend proposed, and we thought it reasonable, that the landlord should be entitled to enforce his right of forfeiture in the event of immoral user, and that is what this Amendment seeks to carry out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert: or to extend to any failure of the tenant after the commencement of this Act to do work in conformity with the terms of the tenancy necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property. This Amendment is rather different from the one we moved on the Committee stage, which was directed to attempting to solve a particular problem of considerable importance. One of the difficulties in this so-called standstill Measure is to provide, first of all, that a landlord shall not be able to affect the operation of the Measure by enforcing, for instance, a covenant for repair. Everyone recognises that that is something that must not be permitted if this Bill is to operate. On the other hand, while we are preventing that from occurring, there is the grave danger that if we do not leave something available to the landlord, we may in the next two years get a very serious depreciation in the character of buildings through their not being kept in repair.

Let me put this illustration to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We often hear from hon. Members opposite about bad landlords. They always try to make out—for vote-catching purposes—that every landlord is a bad one, but that is not so. There are also bad tenants as well as good tenants. That we all recognise, and I hope I shall not be considered controversial in saying that. Take the case of a bad tenant whose lease is extended by this part of the Bill for another two years. Such a tenant may be bad, not only because he has not attempted to comply with the obligations into which he has entered, but also because, owing to his being unable to get any fuel under our present system—only a little slate now and then—he takes to destroying the staircase and using that as fuel to cook his meals. Or perhaps he takes up a bit of the floor and burns that, or breaks up the whole building. He does not keep the property in repair but actively engages in its disrepair.

Is there any effective remedy left under this Bill to prevent that from happening? It is all very well to say that under the new Clause its is provided that the landlord can go in and effect repairs at his own expense. That is provided for now as the result of an Amendment made on Committee stage; but it is of no use unless we can change the habits of the tenant; because he will just have another fire and get a bit warmer. The real cure is to have more fuel. I am giving this as an illustration of a defect in this Bill but it is not so very inaccurate in many cases. If hon. Gentlemen will turn their attention from what is, to them, the attractive idea of the bad landlord, and consider the bad tenant they will see that, in its present form, this Bill leaves open a loophole which ought to be closed.

Mr. Keenan

Cannot that take place now? It does not necessarily follow that, because there is an extension of the period to protect a leaseholder, he becomes a worse tenant.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

It can take place now, and I dare say it has taken place. I merely said frequently, but I do not know Liverpool, or rather that part of Liverpool which the hon. Gentleman represents, as well as he does. Supposing it does take place now, what happens? That property can be put right because the landlord will get possession of it and can get possession; and someone will get the tenancy who will maintain the property in a proper condition. Someone else in the housing queue will step in and have a chance of living in a house which has been properly repaired.

8.0 p.m.

Under this Bill, if it goes through in its present form, there will be no power to stop the tenant from doing this again and again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that the landlord has the right to get an injunction against the tenant. It is true that that remedy remains, but I doubt whether in practice it is likely to prove an effective remedy. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will recognise that the safeguards to prevent the depreciation of house property are somewhat inadequate. We are concerned with that. It is in the national interest that property should be kept in good repair. At the same time, we recognise that the landlord must not be given an opportunity to get round this Bill on the pretext of enforcing liability for repairs. That is the other danger. We recognise both.

What is the solution? I do not think that this Bill contains the solution. I am not sure that this Amendment contains the correct solution, but I am sure that a solution should be found to stop the landlord getting round this Bill improperly and, at the same time, to prevent unnecessary depreciation of house property. During the Committee stage we put forward the solution of making repairs enforceable when they were demanded in accordance with a notice served by a local authority. That had certain attractions, because it did not rest with the landlord to initiate the demand for those repairs. The demand was made by a third party having regard solely to the condition of the property. That suggestion was rejected.

Now we put forward an alternative method of trying to solve the problem which both sides of the House recognise exists. This method is to take action in respect of the failure of the tenant after the commencement of this Act to do work in conformity with the terms of the tenancy necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property. I commend to the attention of the House the words: work…necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property. That is what we want to do, while preventing the landlord from getting round the Bill. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be for the landlord to take proceedings, if he thinks that this wording has been infringed by the tenant. But he can succeed in those proceedings only if he establishes the points mentioned in the Amendment; namely, that since the commencement of the Act there has been a failure by the tenant to do work which he has undertaken to do and which is necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the conditions of the property.

It seems to us that, having in mind that there is the safeguard of the court having to be satisfied of that before any steps can be taken against the tenant, the insertion of these words would go a long way—we think the whole way—towards securing the objective we want to secure of not providing a loophole for the landlord to get round the Bill, but providing a method whereby when a bad tenant not only fails to repair but, by neglect or active action, leads to the disrepair of the building, action can be taken against him before the expiry of the two years.

I do not feel at all optimistic about this Amendment, in view of the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in reply to other Amendments; but I am sure that if he gives the matter careful consideration he will agree that there is this defect in the Bill as drafted. I am sure he will realise that we do not want to provide a method of evasion for landlords, and that we are not trying to do that. I hope he will say that he will see whether he can do something to secure that, in the two years for which these leases are prolonged, something can be done to prevent further depreciation.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say, "We have moved a new Clause to do that"; but that is not enough. Although the landlord may act time and again, if there is the same tenant in the place the tenant may act in the same way time and again. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter, even if he cannot say that he can accept something on these lines at present.

Mr. Powell

I beg to second the Amendment.

Since the Bill was first presented it has been improved to some extent in regard to the matter mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). In its original form there was no redress of any kind for the landlord for dilapidations which might be perpetrated by the tenant during the two years' extra tenancy granted by the Bill. It might be contended that Clause 6, which was added to the Bill in Committee, meets the point which this Amendment is designed to meet. On examination, it will be found that that is not so.

Clause 6, which we must consider in connection with Clause 5, certainly enables the landlord to carry out work to arrest or prevent serious depreciation. It enables him to charge the tenant for the cost of that work, provided that the tenant's terms and conditions place upon the tenant the burden of maintaining the property in repair. But, and this is the difficulty, that obligation can only be transferred from the landlord to the tenant, and those sums can only be recovered from the tenant, after the termination of the extension of the tenancy which the Bill permits. Therefore, the landlord who enters upon a property and carries out work to arrest or prevent serious deterioration, may well find himself—and in many cases probably will find himself—after the end of the extra period provided by the Bill unable to recover from the tenant the sums which he has expended.

There are, even with this Amendment, ample safeguards in the Bill to prevent Clause 5, as amended, and Clause 6 from being used by landlords as a means of evading the intention of the Bill. First, the object has to be to prevent or arrest serious deterioration; second, the court has to be convinced that it is reasonably necessary; and, third, the repair had to be originally a part of the tenant's obligations under his lease. With those three conditions, upon all of which the court can insist, there is no danger whatever that the right to require the tenant to do, or to pay for, essential necessary repairs currently could be used by any landlord as a means of getting the tenant out.

On the contrary, it is essential that those repairs should be carried out during the period of extension granted by the Bill and that the landlord should not have to undertake them with the risk of not being able to recover his expenditure. It is only if those essential repairs, which the tenant is obliged to carry out under his existing lease, are carried out by him or at his expense during the currency of the lease that a great deal of property will be kept in reasonable repair which otherwise would deteriorate and which, otherwise, the landlord would be obliged to allow to deteriorate.

Finally, I ask why a tenant enjoying the advantages of the extension granted by the Bill should be in a superior position with regard to his duty to repair and to keep in a good state of maintenance by comparison with the tenant whose lease expires a few months later. If a tenant has still two or more years of his lease to run, then he has to fulfil these obligations; he has to maintain the premises in repair or he can be evicted by the landlord. If, on the other hand, it so happens that his lease expires a few months earlier, then he is to be freed from his obligation until the end of the extended period—and at the end of that period it is very questionable indeed whether he will meet such obligations as the landlord can prove against him.

On the one hand, therefore, this Amendment provides no loophole for a malicious landlord to chisel a tenant out of the protection which it is intended to give him and, on the other hand, it provides the only secure means whereby during the extended period a good deal of property can be kept in the minimum necessary repair.

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

We feel that we have gone far in doing justice as between landlord and tenant. What is the situation? If this Amendment were accepted it might well be the case, and in a great many instances it would be the case, that a tenant would find himself confronted with a very serious, heavy and immediate liability. The result would be that the protection which the Act purports to afford him would be more or less illusory.

We are considering what is purely a standstill Measure. The Bill operates for two years and the question is: What is the right interim arrangement to make for the purpose of that two-year period? If the property is in a state in which there is danger of serious depreciation, then it is unlikely that the landlord will not already have taken steps about it before the two-year period begins. He will have done so if he is apprehensive about the state of his property. I do not wish it to be taken that I suggest that all landlords will want to take unfair advantage of their tenants, but if, on the other hand, he desires to take advantage of his tenant during the two-year period it would be quite easy for him to pick upon a failure to repair which could be argued as possibly conducing to a serious depreciation in the condition of the property.

Faced with that problem, faced with the problem that we do not want this two-year protection to be only protection in name, and faced with the problem that a great many tenants sometimes have not complied with their covenants, particularly their covenants to repair, what we have done, with the assistance of arguments from both sides during the Committee stage, is to insert Clause 6 into the Bill.

I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) over-painted the picture which he was trying to draw. He mentioned quite casually, but only casually, that there was the remedy by injunction and he then proceeded to give an instance of a tenant who pulled up his stair-rods in order to light fires. In a case like that it is quite unreal to suggest that the remedy by injunction would not be extremely effective; it would be very effective indeed, and if a tenant disregarded an injunction restraining him from behaving in that way he would render himself liable to very serious consequences indeed.

It is a wholly unreal picture of the situation to represent the landlord as, during those two years, being wholly incompetent to protect his property. He is not incompetent to do so at all; he can go to the court and, if the kind of action which the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined is taking place, he can ask the court to grant him an injunction to stop it. The court has power to enforce the requirements of its injunction with very stringent penalties. Not only has the landlord that right but, by virtue of the Clause we have inserted, and which at present is Clause 6, he can go upon the premises, can see what repairs need to be done and can do those repairs. He is given the right to recover damages, although, admittedly, his right is suspended. Nevertheless, he has the right ultimately to recover damages from the tenant in so far as the tenant has neglected to maintain an obligation.

I can conceive that that does not go as far as hon. Members opposite wish us to go, but it is quite incorrect to portray the landlord as being subjected to a situation in which he has to watch his property go to rack and ruin and is powerless to take any steps to prevent it. So far from that being the case, he can go on to the property, can ascertain what it is that needs to be done and can do it himself. In due course he can recover the cost from the tenant and, if the tenant proceeds to undo what he has done or proceeds in a wasteful manner contrary to his obligations under the lease, he can go to the court and ask for an injunction. Those are formidable remedies now in the hands of the landlord. I suggest to the House that, bearing in mind that we are anxious to keep the scales equal between the two, we have about hit upon the right dividing line which fairly holds the balance between the landlord and the tenant. For those reasons I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Molson

I can scarcely think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was himself convinced by his own argument. He has taken an example which we put forward, and the fact that he has accepted it shows that he appreciates that there may be such cases. That is the case of a tenant who is either negligently allowing the property to go to rack or ruin or may even be doing wanton damage to the property. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it is an adequate remedy for the landlord to be able to go to the court and obtain an injunction. He also suggests that it will be satisfactory to the landlord if he is allowed to enter upon the property and carry out the repairs at his own expense, although he will not be able to recover the money from the tenant until the end of the two years during which protection is being given to the tenant under the Bill.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken that example of a person who is either carrying out wanton damage of that kind or is allowing the property to go to rack and ruin. What possible inducement is there to a landlord to enter upon the property and spend money upon repairs which have been made necessary by the wanton damage done by the tenant? The Government have repeated time and again that this is a standstill Measure and that they are considering what kind of permanent legislation they should introduce. It is quite plain that some of the back bench supporters of the Government have no intention that the property which comes within Part I of the Bill shall, in fact, revert to the owner.

Supposing we have the person who carries out this kind of wanton damage. Is it likely that after two years there would be any probability that a landlord would be able to recover from someone of that kind the cost of the repairs which he has carried out to meet the damage which such a tenant has done? We are, of course, dealing, as it is the whole purpose of this Amendment to deal, with the case of the really bad tenant. We are not suggesting that this is the normal case at all; but we are saying that there are bad tenants, and that it is only fair and right and reasonable, and that it is in the national interest, that there should be some adequate remedy against them; and it is, surely, reasonably obvious that, in such a case where the tenant has behaved in this way in the past, he is likely to behave in the same way in future.

I am astonished that the Solicitor-General should say that he really conceives himself to be holding the balance evenly between tenants and landlords. Surely, in the case of a bad tenant of this kind, the only simple, cheap and effective remedy that can be made available to the landlord is to enable him to evict the bad tenant and to regain possession of his house. If the Government really did desire to hold the balance evenly between tenants and landlords, surely in a case where, as is provided in this Amendment, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the tenant is not carrying out the obligations he entered into, and that the property is deteriorating, as a result either of the tenant's negligence or of his malice—

Mr. Awbery

The property belongs to the tenant until the lease expires.

Mr. Molson

That is the most extraordinary statement that we have heard in this debate. Obviously, the property does not belong to the tenant, because he would not be the tenant if the property belonged to him.

Mr. Awbery

He is the leaseholder.

Mr. Molson

Yes. His being the leaseholder shows that the property does not belong to him. If the real purpose of some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches on the other side is to use this Bill for the purpose of depriving landlords of their ownership of property, without any compensation it is not the purpose that has been avowed by the Government. It is something entirely different. We on this side of the House are fully aware—

Mr. G. Thomas

Compensation after 99 years?

Mr. Molson

This is extremely interesting. What I am asking for in the case of the landlords is reasonable protection for the landlords' property; and I have quoted what the Solicitor-General said, that the Government intend to hold, and believe that they are holding, the balance evenly between the landlords and the tenants. Interruptions that are coming from the back benches on the other side show that that is the very last thing they intend, and that their purpose is to use the Bill—which was introduced for the prime purpose of defending tenants, in a time of difficulty, against unreasonable treatment—for the complete transformation of the law of property in this country. They have admitted it, and are perfectly open about it.

But I am trying to address an argument to the Solicitor-General. Neither he nor the Attorney-General has suggested that the purpose of the Bill is to expropriate the landlords for the benefit of the tenants. I conclude by making what, I hope, is a reasonable appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to consider again whether, in the case of really bad tenants, adequate protection is given to the rights of the landlords; and I would also appeal to him to consider whether it is not in the national interest that as much as possible of the limited house property in this country should be kept in a reasonable state of repair.

Mr. Keenan

From what the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said, I gather that there seems to be some confusion as to what tenancies really are. I think that that is pretty obvious. So far as I understand the Bill, it covers leases falling in, as well as tenancies over long terms, where there is a danger to the tenant and the owner of the property from the owner of the ground lease, when that falls in. This Bill is not to resolve what is to be done about that, as I understand it, but is to give the Government an opportunity to introduce legislation to deal with it.

The hon. Member for The High Peak accuses back benchers of having certain desires in this connection. I want to plead quite guilty to the worst that he stated about them, because we all know about leases falling in. This goes on all over the country, and it certainly goes on in the Liverpool area, where people who built on land, and who probably occupy the houses now, lose the whole lot of it after 75 years or 99 years. That is one of the troubles. It is not only the owner-occupier who has bought the house or got possession of the lease who is affected.

There are two different sorts of properties, business properties as well as dwelling-houses, the leases of which are falling in from time to time, and the landlords have not been quite so generous as the hon. Member for The High Peak and others have sought to make out in their treatment of their tenants. I remember that within the last three years the owner of a very fine, old-established business in Bold Street, Liverpool, which had been established 50 or 60 years, had to get out, not because he was not looking after the property, but because the individual who acquired the lease in that part of Liverpool was able to take advantage and get him out and get the good will. There was no compensation. There was not a halfpenny of compensation. It was a case of "get out."

8.30 p.m.

I do not think that every tenant has become a recalcitrant citizen or a vicious tenant. Because this standstill arrangement has come into being, it would appear that some of the Amendments at least have been designed to protect the landlord with the clear idea in mind that the effect of this Bill would be that every tenant would pay no regard to the property, and would in effect destroy it. It is not fair to assume that. Of course it is true that even today, some tenants do not treat property in a reasonable way. That is obvious to us all, and it ocours in every city; but it is not for the landlords to complain. Landlords have been neglecting property for a number of years. If as a result of this Bill there is, as is suggested, any likelihood of all these awful things being done to the property by tenants and it is necessary to protect the property, not necessarily because it is the landlord's, I am prepared to agree that there is justification for it.

Mr. Molson

The whole point is that under the leases as they are at present, the landlord has a remedy if the tenant does not carry out his contractual obligations. Under the Bill as at present drafted he cannot enforce those obligations during the extension of two years.

Mr. Keenan

I have heard the assurances given by the Solicitor-General from time to time, and I think the Government have taken everything into consideration and provided the necessary protection. For that reason, I think we must oppose this Amendment.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

I hope I may be excused by the Solicitor-General and other hon. and learned Members if I do not claim to be au fait with the precise text of various Clauses of this most complex Measure. As a layman listening to the arguments, I venture to ask the Solicitor-General whether he can answer one question categorically and clearly, because that would help to define my attitude towards this Amendment.

Does the Bill remove from the landlord any of the rights he possesses under the lease? There is a relationship between landlord and tenant. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a standstill for two years while the Government think what should be done. The Government may change, and other arrangements may be made. I am not advocating that course at the moment, but if we accept the view that this is a standstill Measure, ought it to prejudge what will be the result of that further consideration? I therefore ask the Government to make quite clear to the House and the country whether during the two years the rights of the parties remain what they are, or whether they are altered. If they are altered, are they altered to the disadvantage of the landlord or to the disadvantage of the tenant? If so, upon what ground or justification? There is one comment I should like to make on the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan). He appeared to me to speak with a prejudice in this matter. I do not say that in any offensive way, but he did appear to assume that legislation of this kind can be right only if it is one-sided. He said that the tenant has paid for the property for 99 years. Surely that is not the case. If he has been paying for the property for 99 years, or 75 years, or whatever it may be, the rent he has been paying has been the amount of money required to hire the property for the period, not to buy it. There is a difference between hiring and buying.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I think the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the Amendment.

Sir I. Fraser

I was only following the hon. Member for Kirkdale in his muddle-headed argument. I do not wish to pursue it.

Mr. Keenan

I cannot allow the hon. Member to call what I said "muddle-headed." He does not understand. He has not been here long enough to follow the debate. What he has missed—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This is the Report stage and the hon. Gentleman can speak only once on this Amendment.

Sir P. Spens

I want to raise only one point. On the Committee stage, I was taken to task because I said that the remedy of injunction was not a kind remedy from the point of view of the tenant or the landlord, because to enforce an injunction an order in the High Court would have to be taken and such action would be extraordinarily expensive for everyone concerned; and as we are dealing in the main with small houses and small tenants, it would not be kind to take even a bad tenant—and in 90 per cent. of the cases the tenants are good tenants—to the High Court.

The answer to that was that I did not know my procedure and that it was possible for a landlord to go to the county court to get an injunction. I have been studying the report of the present Master of the Rolls and his Committee on the procedure of the courts, and when they come to deal with the county court, they point out that one of the difficulties of the county court is that it cannot grant an injunction unless there is some other claim in addition to that for an injunction and a money claim.

When I look at the Bill and I see that every remedy except an injunction is put out of the way, I cannot see how a landlord will be able to issue a writ for an injunction alone and succeed in the county court. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that matter, and if I am wrong and he can assure me that there is a remedy in an injunction alone with no other claim in the county court, I shall be delighted; but if there is not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and, I think, the Attorney-General had no right to say that there is any real protection in this matter, if the only remedy the landlord has is to take the unfortunate tenant to the High Court, because by doing so the Government are doing no kindness to anybody, particularly the poor tenant.

Mr. Higgs

There are one or two points which arise on this question of forcing the landlord, as this Clause may do, to seek a remedy in an injunction where otherwise he would not seek it. After all, the law in this matter, so far, has been run on rules imposed between landlord and tenant. There are some faults on the part of the tenant that we proceed to put right by injunction as a suitable remedy, others which we proceed to put right by action for damages, and others, such as misbehaviour on the part of the tenant, which we have always regarded as being put right by re-entry and re-assuming possession.

What this Clause does, and what we seek to avoid by this Amendment, is to drift into one channel of remedy for the landlord in all cases, namely, by an injunction. One result is that the court would only grant an injunction in certain cases. On the question of getting repairs done, the courts have repeatedly said that they will not grant an injunction. In the case of stair-rods which were burnt in the fire, the court could not grant an injunction to get them out of the fire and to put them back after they had been burnt. There are many things that can happen in connection with which an injunction is impossible.

This Clause takes away the rights of the landlord in many respects. It takes away the right of the landlord to recover a proportion of the cost of insurance; it takes away the right of the landlord in the event of bankruptcy; it takes away the right of the landlord where a tenant, contrary to his covenant, has altered the property, where a tenant refuses to pay the rates when he has an obligation to pay them; and in a whole host of similar respects.

We are being very modest in this Amendment. All that we are asking the House to do is restore to the landlord his right to get something done when the landlord's interests and those of the community as a whole coincide. On one matter, even those hon. Members opposite who sit to the extreme left of their party may agree. That is the question of a landlord keeping a house which can be of service to the community, when the rights of the landlord and the rights of the community as a whole coincide. By that I mean that when it is the landlord who is seeking to have a house maintained, then the landlord is doing what the community ought to have him do. In this case, where we have a tenant who would neglect and a landlord who would preserve, surely the community ought to be on the side of the landlord. That is all we are asking the House to do in this case.

We are being exceedingly careful to make sure that a landlord cannot take advantage, as bad landlords do. I have seen cases where thousands of pounds of dilapidations for past failures have been demanded. That cannot happen, because in this case we give the landlord the right to claim only in respect of dilapidations arising or occurring during the period of the extension. I cannot see how it can be said that we are weighting the scales on the side of the landlord when we are only providing that a house shall get no worse for the period of the extension. I cannot see how it can be said it is unfair that the landlord should seek to do what the community ought to have done in the interests of us all.

Amendment negatived.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 5, and to insert: then—

  1. (a) in so far as the proceedings are for enforcement of any right of forfeiture or re-entry such as is specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, they shall be stayed except as respects the making of an order as to costs;
    2. 309
  2. (b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, no judgment or order given or made in the proceedings for the payment of damages shall be enforceable until the expiration of two years after the commencement of this Act or the coming to an end of the tenancy, whichever first occurs."
This Amendment is designed to carry into effect a proposal made by Members opposite in regard to subsection (3), which provides that if proceedings have been brought after 21st November, 1950, they are finally stayed, except so far as the making of an order for costs is concerned. It was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), that that was rather a wasteful way of dealing with the situation, because it really meant that, the proceedings being stayed, the landlord, if he wished to reinstitute them, after the two years had expired, had again to take all the steps he had already taken, with the result that the whole expense of the proceedings was thrown away. That was disadvantageous not only to the landlord but also to the tenant. It meant that whoever had ultimately to pay the costs had to pay the extra amount represented by the proceedings that had been thrown away.

We are proposing that there should be an interim stay, and that the steps already taken should not be thrown away, but that the proceedings can be resumed after the two-year period has expired. As I intimated, I felt that that was not an unreasonable proposal, and that it was in the interests of both parties to a dispute. In the interval we have considered the matter, and we have put down this Amendment which is designed to carry out the purpose the hon. and learned Member had in mind.

Amendment agreed to.