HC Deb 01 November 1965 vol 718 cc697-9

Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 7, line 45, at end insert: except in the case mentioned in subsection () of this section.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 8, line 28, at end insert: () The provision to be made by an order under this section with respect to an existing controlled tenancy which is one to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 would have applied but for paragraph (c) of section 43(1) of that Act (or would have so applied had it been a tenancy within the meaning of of that Act) shall be that the existing controlled tenancy shall be treated for the purposes of that Act as a tenancy continuing by virtue of section 24 thereof after the expiry of a term of years certain.

Mr. MacColl

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be agreeable. Lords Amendment No. 6 deals with the special problem of what are usually known as mixed premises—that is, premises which are occupied partly for business purposes and partly as living quarters. These were included originally in the Rent Acts historically because there was no other way of protecting tenants except through the Rent Acts. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, however, there were provisions for looking after the interests of people in mixed premises which to some extent rival the provisions in the Rent Act.

All through this Bill we have tried to avoid having conflicts of jurisdiction but to keep the Rent Act procedure for cases which are not otherwise dealt with. In Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act there is a code of protection for tenancies of premises which are occupied by tenants for business purposes, and that seems a reasonable protection. So wherever the Bill provides that an existing controlled tenancy may become a regulated tenancy and a statutory tenancy of mixed premises may be affected it is necessary to make provision deeming this statutory tenancy will be a tenancy to which Part II of the 1954 Act applies. So it is to keep the protection of that Act, rather than enter into regulation this has been done. There is an analogous case in Clause 13. I think this is a reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

I think this is a thoroughly good Amendment. It is an example of one of the ways in which the Bill has been improved during its course through the two Houses of Parliament. As I understand it, it puts the whole of mixed premises along with business premises now entirely under the control of the 1954 Act rather than having the previous position where those at a lower rateable value were under the protection of the ordinary Rent Acts. If that is so, I think it is a good provision, as I understand it. My only comment would be that it is noticeable that by doing that it now allows the landlord of these premises to obtain possession on the ground of the fact that he wishes to obtain them for the purposes of development. This is what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary opposed when we put the idea forward.

Mr. MacColl

rose—

Mr. Speaker

The Minister may speak again only by leave of the House.

Mr. MacColl

If I may have the leave of the House to answer the first point if not the second, the answer is, yes, they are all covered by the 1954 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to.