HC Deb 23 June 1958 vol 590 cc32-4
Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from "subsection" to the end of line 48 and to insert: that tenancy shall be treated as including a term requiring the landlord to provide for the tenant any services which were ordinarily provided for him by the landlord or a superior landlord before the second day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight. As Clause 2 is drafted, it entitles an occupier, who is holding over to any service that was provided either by the landlord or by the superior landlord during the last rental period ending before 2nd April, 1958, and the owner is liable to a penalty if he unreasonably withdraws the services to which the occupier is entitled for the time being.

In our earlier consideration of the Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), and, I think, other hon. Members, suggested that this provision might well operate unreasonably in the case of a weekly or, perhaps, a monthly tenancy where the period referred to was the last rental period, either one week or one month. During that last rental period it might be that one service or another might, in fact, not have been available.

I think that it was argued in Standing Committee that the wording of the Clause might then operate unfairly so as to exclude seasonal services, or services that might have become temporarily discontinued as a result, perhaps, of the absence of the tenant, or of a breakdown in supply.

At that time, I gave an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend to re-examine the wording, and I very much hope that this Amendment will be acceptable to the House. It says, in substance, that the landlord shall be required to provide any services that were ordinarily provided before 2nd April, 1958, without any reference at all to the last rental period.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this Amendment meets a point of serious criticism made by Members on this side. We are very grateful for his concession, which does meet the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "and", to insert: (without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)".

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps I might suggest that this and the following Amendment, in page 3, line 21, at the end to insert: Provided that this section shall not relieve any person of any responsibility which he may have for repairs required to make good any damage or dilapidations existing immediately prior to the application of this Act to the dwelling-house can be discussed together.

Mr. Bevins

Subsection (2) of Clause 2 not only provides for the rent payable by the occupier during the holding over period, but also lays down that the occupier shall be treated as exclusively responsible for all internal decorative repairs and that the owner shall be responsible for all other repairs. The nature of these repairs is further specified in the Bill as being in each case repairs required to make good damage or dilapidations occurring during the application of this Act to the dwelling-house It is, therefore, implicit in the Bill as it stands that repairs which arise out of previous damage or dilapidations are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, and the making good of any such damage or dilapidations which occurred before the Bill came into force may, of course, be the liability of the owner or occupier, dependent on the agreement or terms of tenancy in force at the time.

What the Amendment does, and I think it is in substance what is suggested by the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), is to make it quite explicit that the liability for damage or dilapidations of that sort is not affected by the Bill; that is to say, liability for pre-Bill damage or dilapidations remains upon the same shoulders.

Mr. Mitchison

Am I right in supposing that this is a drafting Amendment and no more?

Mr. Bevins

I think that that is correct, but it was felt by one or two hon. Members in Committee that it would be desirable to clarify it in this way.

Mr. Page

With great respect to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I think this is rather more than a drafting Amendment. It is quite important. It is one which emerged in our debates in Committee as being rather necessary. Dilapidations are a gradual deterioration, and it is extremely difficult to repair existing dilapidations without repairing those which have occurred over a considerable period, so that if dilapidations have been accruing for a period of, say, five years, of which only one year was within the specified period of this Clause, to repair those dilapidations one would be spending money which the previous person responsible ought to be spending.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for including this Amendment in the Bill, because it exactly meets the point which I raised in Committee, and I would not now wish to move my later Amendment designed to cover the point.

Mr. Weitzman

Again, may I take it that this does not go beyond what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said was a drafting point? I take it that this Amendment merely means that the previous responsibility under contract with the tenant remains and nothing thereafter.

Mr. Bevins

That is so.

Amendment agreed to.