HC Deb 30 March 1955 vol 539 cc461-71

Mr. Powell I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after " purchase " to insert: in pursuance of a contract made. The object of the words …(not being an owner whose interest was acquired by purchase at any time after the thirtieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-four)…. is to prevent persons who obtained knowledge from the Gracious Speech of the intention to promote this legislation from purchasing thereafter requisitioned premises with the object of availing themselves of some of the provisions of the Bill. The case might occur where a person, before 30th November, though he had not completed the purchase of such a property, might have entered into a binding contract to do so. It would clearly be unfair that he should be excluded, for that technical reason, from any benefit that would be available under this Clause. So I suggest that the time should apply to the making of the contract, and not to the completion of the purchase.

Mr. Hay

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris) rose—

Mr. Lindgren

Are we not going to have the view of the Government on this Amendment?

Mr. Hay

I think you had collected the voices, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Sandys

This seems to me to be such a reasonable Amendment, and so clearly put, that I thought it was not necessary for me to add anything. It obviously carries out the intention of the Clause as previously drafted, which was that people who bought property with the knowledge that a Bill was on its way should not benefit under these provisions, but that people who had entered into a binding commitment should be treated in the same way as though they had completed the purchase before the date mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Lindgren

I would agree, provided that nobody knew what was going to be in the Queen's Speech. It is going a little far, however, to suggest that nobody had knowledge that this Bill was coming forward. There was pressure from property owners' associations, there were discussions with them, and everybody knew that this Bill was coming along. To suggest that a person who started in anticipation of what was going to happen, knowing very well that the Government, to save their face, would have to pay their debt to the speculative purchaser, should now benefit, is, I think, carrying things rather far. I would advise my hon. Friends not to agree to this extension, and, if the Government insist on accepting it, then I would advise them to divide against it.

Mr. H. Butler

I hope that my hon. Friends will divide against this Amendment. We are satisfied that many owners of requisitioned properties, knowing the intention of this Government, and that eventually they would have to pay their pals who contribute to party funds, knew that this Bill was coming along. We have evidence from the local authorities of the increase in the number of people purchasing requisitioned properties. We did endeavour to make this particular date conform to the date of requisitioning, but that was rejected. Obviously, I cannot now discuss that.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has some peculiar ideas of Government and Ministerial responsibility, and he is agile in devising ways and means for the Minister to do a little more than he has done for the landlords. Whilst this Amendment appears innocuous, and not particularly important, it is an extension to cover those people who, as soon as this proposal was mooted, and after representations had been made by the Property Owners' Protection Association, entered into negotiations, through estate agents and people of that character, for the purpose of purchasing requisitioned properties and who bought at prices which took account of the fact that the places were occupied.

This Amendment not only extends the date of November, 1954, but it includes anyone who started negotiations or had a contract to purchase at a certain time.

Mr. Powell

There is no mention of negotiations in the Amendment.

Mr. Butler

I have not a legal mind—

Mr. Lindgren

It is a suspicious one where the landlords are concerned.

Mr. Butler

—but it looks at the facts of the situation and does not indulge in the niceties out of which certain people manage to make a reasonable living. I face the facts as they are, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not deny that if there were no added advantage to the landlord in the Amendment, he would not have bothered to put it down.

Of course the hon. Gentleman may have the idea that the landlord is a respectable member of the community and that, therefore, he is entitled to make all the intelligent observations he can on behalf of the landlord. Indeed, he may take the view that he has considerable responsibility for that section of the community. I take the view that there is a responsibility to all sections of the community, and I regret that after a certain date has been inserted in the Bill, there is an attempt to make the date even earlier-or later as the case may be-in an attempt to give this benefit to those who entered into a contract, well knowing that these proposals were coming forward.

Mr. Sparks

I believe the Minister admitted in the Standing Committee that there had been a certain amount of business taking place in the transfer of these premises even before the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Sandys indicated dissent.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Sparks

If the right hon. Gentleman indicates that that was not the case, I must accept that, but I was under that impression when we discussed the matter in Committee. The fact remains that for many months before the Gracious Speech, going back almost 12 months before, hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite had been pressing the Government, particularly the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, to bring requisitioning to an end.

We had more than one debate in the House on the derequisitioning issue within 12 months of the Gracious Speech Therefore, any intelligent person interested in trying to cash in on this matter could quite well have gathered, from the speeches made and the replies given, that the Government were about to do something in this connection, and could also have come to the conclusion, very reasonably, that the Government would include something in the Gracious Speech to bring requisitioning to an end.

Therefore, the Amendment is wrong, if there were any such persons, as I am sure there were, seeking to take advantage of a Bill in course of preparation. If there is any advantage to be gained by the Bill, that advantage should go to the person who owned the requisitioned premises up to the date of the Gracious Speech. It is morally wrong for somebody to take advantage of another person, through information which he may have gained that something would happen at the date of the Gracious Speech, by entering into a contract to buy a requisitioned house from an owner, who might be hard up or who wanted to dispose of it for some other reason.

That house would be purchased, not for vacant possession value, but for occupation value, which is much lower, and under the terms of the Bill the purchaser would be entitled to vacant pos session. That would be a good speculation and, unfortunately, a number of people are looking for that sort of thing. I am sure that quite a few of them have acquired requisitioned premises on the strength of the profit that will accrue to them as a result of this Bill, which will give them vacant possession value as against the occupation value at which they had acquired it.

Therefore this Amendment should not be accepted, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will leave the Clause as

it is because, by doing so, he would not be lending himself to a form of racket which, without doubt, has been going on to some extent. By resisting the Amendment he would be doing the right and fair thing.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 180.

NOES
Adams, Richard Hannan, W.

 Parker, J.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hargreaves, A.

 Paton, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hastings, S.

 Peart, T. F.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Hayman, F. H.

 Popplewell, E.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

 Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Awbery, S. S.

 Herbison, Miss M.

 Probert, A. R.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hobson, C. R.

 Proctor, W. T.
Balfour, A.

 Holman, P.

 Pryde, D. J.
Benson, G.

 Houghton, Douglas Rankin, John
Beswick, F.

 Hoy, J. H.

 Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bing, G. H. C.

 Hubbard, T. F.

 Reid, William (Camlachie)
Blackburn, F.

 Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Rhodes, H.
Blenkinsop, A.

 Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Blyton, W. R.

 Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

 Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bowles, F. G.

 Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Ross, William
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Janner, B.

 Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

 Jeger, Mrs. Lena Short, E. W.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Johnson, James (Rugby) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Burke, W. A.

 Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Callaghan, L. J.

 Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Champion, A. J.

 Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Clunie, J.

 Jones, James (Wrexham) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Coldrick, W.

 Keenan, W.

 Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, P. H.

 Kenyon, C.

 Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Collins, V. J.

 Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

 Sparks, J. A.
Cove, W. C.

 King, Dr. H. M.

 Steele, T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kinley, J.

 Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A.

 Lawson, C. M.

 Swingler, S. T.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

 Lee, Frederick (Newton) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lewis, Arthur Thornton, E.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lindgren, G. S.

 Timmons, J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Logan, D. G.

 Turner-Samuels, M.
Deer, C.

 McInnes, J.

 Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Delargy, H. J.

 McKay, John (Wallsend) Viant, S. P.
Dodds, N. N.

 Mainwaring, W. H.

 Warbey, W. N.
Donnelly, D. L.

 Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Watkins, T. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

 Mann, Mrs. Jean Weitzman, D.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Manuel, A. C.

 Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mason, Roy West, D. G
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mayhew, C. P.

 Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Stanley (Wedneshury) Messer, Sir F.

 White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fernyhough, E.

 Mitchison, C. R.

 Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Finch, H. J.

 Moody, A. S.

 Wilkins, W. A.
Foot, M. M.

 Morgan, Dr. H..B. W.

 Williams, David (heath)
Forman, J. C.

 Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Moyle, A.

 Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Gibson, C. W.

 Nally, W.

 Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Glanville, James Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grey, C. F.

 Oldfield, W. H.

 Willis, E. G.
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley) Oliver, G. H.

 Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oswald, T.

 Woodburn, Rt Hon. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Yates, V. F.
Hale, Leslie Palmer, A. M. F.

 TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pannell, Charles Mr.Pearson and Mr.J.T.Price.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, after " licensee " to insert and persons residing with him. With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and for the convenience of the House, I hope we may discuss with this Amendment the following one to line 12—to leave out " that person " and insert: the person for whom the dwelling is required as aforesaid and persons residing or proposing to reside with him. Both deal with the same principle. They define a little more clearly the respon- sibilities in regard to the licensee and those persons residing with the licensee. During the Committee stage, the Minister indicated that he would be inclined to accept such an Amendment on Report.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys

As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has said, this is an agreed Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 12, leave out " that person " and insert: the person for whom the dwelling is required as aforesaid and persons residing or proposing to reside with him."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Sparks

I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert: (3) In considering for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection whether other accommodation is available for the licensee of a dwelling, it shall be assumed that no preference would be given to him in respect of accommodation provided by the local authority under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, over other persons qualified, in accordance with the practice of the authority, to obtain accommodation so provided.

I understand that the Minister is willing to accept the Amendment in this form. The only point that I should like to make is that, although it is a good Amendment, which now lays it down that when applications for possession are made to the court, the court shall not assume, if an order is granted, that the licensee will be rehoused by the local authority to the detriment of other people on the housing lists who are in greater need, it does not necessarily follow that no orders for possession will be made against the licensee.

Therefore, to that extent, while it is a partial protection of the local authority housing list, it is not wholly a protection, especially where, despite this rule, the court might otherwise decide to give possession to the owner. In that case, the licensee would have to obtain accommodation, and, if unable to do so, the local authority would then be under a moral obligation to help him to obtain accommodation. As far as it goes, it is a worthy Amendment which is now proposed, and to that extent I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is willing to accept it.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Butler

I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to insert:

(3) Where the owner of a requisitioned dwelling has obtained an order for possession under this section and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order was obtained by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the court may order the owner to pay to the former licensee such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by him as the result of the order.

This Amendment introduces, I think for the first time, a specific provision that might do something for the poor licensee. We have been discussing what is to be done for the owners, and in this case we are trying to get some protection for the licensee. As one who has heard representations from owners who have applied for possession of their requisitioned properties, I can assure the House that many and varied are the reasons which are stated.

8.0 p.m.

It has sometimes been stated that it was essential on medical and other grounds that the owner should have possession of the property and the local authority committee, consisting of reasonable men and women, has come to the conclusion that it was necessary that that should be done and has released the property. After the property has been released, we have seen, much to our disgust, estate agents' boards advertising the property for sale with vacant possession. I am not suggesting that magistrates or judges would be swayed as laymen might be, but it seems to me that if a licensee has been forced to leave the property and go elsewhere, he should be recompensed if he has been turned out as a result of misrepresentation by the owner.

I would remind the House that we are here dealing with people who would not have been in these properties if they had not suffered considerable hardships in many ways already. If they have to be moved, it may be that the local authority will not be able to house them. They may go into furnished accommodation where they have to pay £2 10s. or £3 10s. a week, such as in the East End of London, in properties which were at one time requisitioned and of which possession has been obtained by people who have turned them into furnished flats. They may thus have to pay increased rents. Even if the local authority rehouses them, there is the responsibility and cost of removal. Being what they are, women going into accommodation of a different size probably require to have their curtains and other furnishings altered, and, therefore, another expense falls upon the person who is displaced. The licensee may, of his own volition, find accommodation in an area a con- siderable distance from his work, and he will then have to pay increased fares.

I am aware that if an applicant commits perjury in the courts he can be proceeded against, but the poor licensee who has suffered as a consequence of the applicant's action has no redress at all. I hope the Minister, who has been waving a pink paper all day—there used to be a paper belonging to Robert Sievier, called the " Pink 'un "—will realise that the House is anxious that a licensee should not be further penalised by misrepresentation on the part of anyone. I commend the Amendment to the House, and hope that the Minister will do something about it.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys

I gave an assurance during the Committee stage that I should be happy to recommend acceptance of an Amendment on these lines, and I do so now.

Mr. Butler

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.