HC Deb 20 June 1967 vol 748 cc1586-7
Mr. Allason

I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 26, line 38, to leave out "twelve months" and to insert "three years".

Clause 17 permits the landlord to recover premises at the end of a lease, on proper compensation, for the purposes of redevelopment, but he has only twelve months before the end of the lease in which to seek that power, and that is an inadequate time. It is unreasonable to expect him to go to great expense in making detailed planning proposals and all the preparation necessary in order to put a major redevelopment scheme into effect just twelve months after the time he gets permission. He has to choose between waiting until he discovers whether he will get authority to recover the premises and then set about the redevelopment plan, which may take a long time to prepare, and spend a great deal of money beforehand. Therefore, from the landlord's point of view, a year is inadequate.

It is also unsatisfactory to the tenant, for he will learn only twelve months before the end of the lease that he is to get notice to give up the premises. He would sooner know somewhat earlier.

The Government's objection to my proposal is that one year is the shortest time during which a tenant will have the right to enfranchise, but how valid is that objection? When the lease had had more than three years to run, the tenant would already have had the chance to enfranchise and suddenly to be served with notice then would not do much harm to him. Alternatively, if he had only one year of the lease to run when the Bill came into effect, the landlord would be entitled at once to make his application and, if the application were successful, the tenant would have no chance to enfranchise, although he would get compensation. The only people affected are those who at the passing of the Bill have leases with between one year and three years to run. Such tenants would be adversely affected by losing their tenancies if their landlords got authority to redevelop, although they would get compensation.

I agree that it is hard in this small number of cases, but I think it would be better to make special provision for the small number of cases rather than to have the very unsatisfactory period lasting for the whole time the Bill will be the law of the land.

Mr. Skeffington

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has moved this Amendment very fairly and we have given reconsideration to the matter and letters have been sent to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). We are in a real dilemma here which I think the hon. Member realised. I can put this on record in a succinct and comprehensive way by quoting the second paragraph of that letter. The difficulty about doing this"— that is, extending the period in which he can serve notice to three years— is that it only becomes of real value to landlords who have ideas about redevelopment, while Clause 17(6) still provides for the lease-holder's right of enfranchisement to cease on the making of the order fixing the date for the lease to terminate—and the order could be made two years or more before the end of the lease. This would bite too deeply into the leaseholder's right to enfranchise during the original period of the lease. On the other hand, if Clause 17(6) were amended so as to allow the leaseholder to enfranchise even after the court order had been made, there would be grave risk of the landlord wasting his money. —and then, of course, finding that the tenant was going to enfranchise. For both these reasons, we feel on balance that we should leave the matter as it stands. The hon. Member has fairly stated that some leaseholders would be disadvantaged and I must equally concede that some landowners would also be, if it is left as it is, but on balance we feel this is the wisest course to adopt.

Amendment negatived.