§ Mr. WylieI beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 32, line 23, leave out from "circumstances" to end of line 29.
The Clause spells out many of the circumstances which the sheriff must take into account. Is it wise to spell them out in this kind of detail, especially immediately following the generality of regard having to be had to all the circumstances? The Minister has often told us that to do so emphasises aspects which do not merit emphasis. It leads to questions of interpretation. For example, the sheriff has to take into account the tenant's means in relation to the increase of rent that would result. What is meant by "means"? Would that take into account supplementary benefits to which he would be entitled if the work were done and the rent increased by that amount?
These are the kinds of questions of interpretation liable to arise when one seeks to spell out these things in such detail. Would it not be wiser to leave it in the broadest possible way to the discretion of the sheriff by stopping the Clause where we suggest?
Mr. Edward M. TaylorFollowing the argument so convincingly made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), will the Minister say whether the disadvantage and other circumstances would be those arising as a result of the repairs or as a result of the works being done? Many of these cases will arise with small houses occupied by large families and some works might result in reducing the available accommodation.
We all know of circumstances when well-meaning factors have proposed alterations and improvements which, although excellent in themselves, would substantially reduce the accommodation. We have had examples of this with smoke control orders which have resulted in the provision of necessary facilities while reducing space.
For example, there might be a man and his wife and their six children living in a two-apartment house. If the proposal would have the result of reducing their available accommodation, would that be one of the circumstances which the sheriff could take into account? If so, these words will be valuable. I should appreciate the Minister's view on whether the words refer to the inconvenience in the course of the works being done, or that which may stem long term from the works being done.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonI am grateful for the aid of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). "Disadvantage" could be interpreted as referring to a reduction in size.
The hon. Member is probably speaking from experience of Glasgow. Perhaps he will take this a step further and accept that if we allowed automatic exemption for one tenant in a tenement block, that might make it virtually impossible for the owner to provide amenities for the whole house, or to make conversions involving amalgamations of houses.
In other words, a restriction of the kind used in the English Bill would be inappropriate to us in Scotland and would make it, if not impossible, very difficult for Clause 55 orders to be made in many tenements where landlords proposed to undertake improvements. I extend the hon. Member's example beyond the large family in small accommodation to families in tenemental accommodation where 191 one family could be affected by the rights of another.
New Clause 4 was added to the English Bill to introduce income limits to restrict the operation of the equivalent Clause. We do not think that in the Scottish context, it should be made. Our sheriffs are well used to exercising discretion on matters to be taken into account and are well able to make a judgment between conflicting interests, between landlords and tenants, but the Amendment removes any guidance to sheriffs. The guidance is varied.
The first point is that which the hon. Member for Cathcart reported, and which supports me—I hope that this does not embarrass him. That is of accommodation being converted into a bathroom—a good example—which the hon. Member gave, or the example I gave, the effect on a next-door tenant. There is the question of temporary accommodation if works cannot be done while the tenant is in the house, even if the house is to be improved or converted.
The last item, about which we are not now arguing is that touched on by the English new Clause—Ability to pay the rent. There is precedent for similar directions in other Acts and it is right to guide the sheriff on these three points. They are peculiarly Scottish and there is no need to qualify it as the English new Clause 4 has done. It is important not to upset Clause 55. We expect a great deal of it.
Mr. Edward M. TaylorCan the Minister answer the point about the first part of this:
… disadvantage to the tenant which might be expected to result from the works"?Does "works" refer to the position after they have been completed or to when they are being done?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)Order. Interjections must be brief.
§ Mr. WylieThe matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has drawn attention underline the danger of trying to spell out in detail too many criteria. As the Minister said, the sheriffs in Scotland know well how to operate this type of provision and it would have been much better to have 192 left this as a simple direction to the sheriff that he should have regard to all the circumstances, instead of filling it up with language practically every line of which is open to question and may be open to judicial interpretation. I will not press this kind of point at this hour, but precedent or no precedent, we should be careful.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.