HC Deb 02 June 1954 vol 528 cc1377-80
Commander Galbraith

I beg to move, in page 32, line 9, to leave out from "work," to "has," in line 10, and to insert: (the nature of which shall be specified in general terms in the declaration). The object of the Amendment is to eliminate the possibility of an ambiguous interpretation. We think that the words which we are substituting for those at present in the Schedule will be better understood.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Galbraith

I beg to move, in page 32, line 17, after "such," to insert "continuous."

During the Committee stage there was some dubiety expressed about the period of three years during which the expenditure test was to run, and I gave an undertaking that we would put the matter right. The introduction of "continuous" makes it clear that it must be a continuous period of three years.

Amendment agreed to.

8.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 33, line 13, at the end, to insert: 6. If in such a declaration as is required by this Schedule any person makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceedingly thirty pounds. The new paragraph provides for a penalty on summary conviction for knowingly or recklessly making a false statement in the declaration regarding the expenditure test in the notice of increase served on the tenant. During the Committee stage several hon. Members drew attention to the fact that, as the Clause stood, it was necessary in order to secure a conviction to prove that the false statement was made knowingly and wilfully and that that imposed a heavy onus upon anyone seeking to establish that an offence had been committed.

The Amendment has been drawn to meet that criticism. The new paragraph will strengthen the safeguards for tenants by making it easier for a case to be made out against a landlord who declares wrongly that the expenditure test has been met.

Mr. Woodburn

We are at a loss to understand how the Government have come to change their mind on two points. We could understand the Government wanting to make it easier to convict someone who committed an offence, but we cannot understand why they want to make it easier for a man after he commits an offence.

Originally, the Government proposed penalties of £100 and six months' imprisonment, presumably on the grounds that they could not convict the man. Now, when they are going to convict him, evidently the fine must be reduced. I do not know whether the landlords have now discovered that they are more likely to be committing offences and want to make sure that their bluff will not be called in this sense. As there is a possibility that they might be convicted, have they made some approach to the Government that the fine should be lighter? It seems to me that if landlords are going to commit an offence, it is still an offence even though they are likely to be more easily convicted. The other offence would probably have been a theoretical offence which could never have been brought home to them, but it is now an offence which, presumably, may be brought home to them.

It would be interesting to have a further explanation from the Government as to why there has been a sudden outburst of leniency. The Government are increasing the rent by 40 per cent. and reducing the fine by 66 per cent. That is the wrong way round.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Might I ask the Lord Advocate whether a landlord facing these dire possibilities would be entitled to legal aid?

The Lord Advocate

That depends upon the extent to which the legal aid scheme is extended or otherwise.

In reply to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), there has been no approach by anybody in connection with this matter. The Amendment represents a sincere desire to meet a point made during the Committee stage. The reason for the penalties of imprisonment for two years or a fine, or both—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both?"]—certainly, 'both"; that is possible—is that these are penalties provided under an existing statute, the False Oaths (Scotland) Act, 1933, which still stands. This is an endeavour to extend the provisions to a case where a person does not go as far as knowingly and wilfully making a false statement but recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular. Obviously, the maximum fine should not be as high as if he was knowingly doing it.

Mr. Pryde

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the Committee how the fine squares with another part of the Bill, which provides that the sheriff could rule that it was a mistake on the part of the landlord and put it right?

The Lord Advocate

Here, we would not get a conviction unless he makes a declaration which he knows to be false in a material particular.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Galbraith

I beg to move, in page 33, line 43, at the end, to insert: (c) the floor area of a dwelling-house shall be ascertained in such manner as the Secretary of State shall prescribe, and the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or far bringing into computation at a reduced figure, of floor space in any part of a dwelling-house which is of less than a specified height. During the Committee stage, there was a certain amount of discussion as to how the floor area was to be measured in regard to the expenditure test and how expenditure was to be allocated. Accordingly, we thought it would be wise that the Secretary of State should be given powers to issue regulations on this subject, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel

Since we are to have regulations, and I am very pleased about it, because I know the difficulties which we have had about excluding certain areas in computing the cubic air space may I ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us an idea of the type of specification which he will bring in, and what actually will be provided in the regard to the floor space and the height of the room?

Commander Galbraith

I really have not in my mind at the moment what the regulations might do, but I would give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to bear in mind exactly what he said.

Mr. T. Fraser

May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the regulations referred to in the Amendment are to be made by Statutory Instrument to be within the control of this House? If so, my hon. Friend would not feel so anxious about the matter, but if they are not to be Statutory Instruments under the control of the House, it is a different matter. Would the Lord Advocate tell us how this is to be done?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

Before my right hon. and gallant Friend replies to that question, may I express the hope that he will not commit himself to introducing these regulations by means of Statutory Instruments? Where shall we be getting if we are to have regulations telling experts how to measure up a room, and these regulations are brought up on the Floor of the House? This is about the limit. All that is necessary is a directive, and that is all I myself asked for during the Committee stage. Surely it could be done without bothering the House any more about it.

Commander Galbraith

They will not be within the control of the House, but will be regulations made in the ordinary way.

Amendment agreed to.