HC Deb 30 July 1974 vol 878 cc673-87
Mr. Kaufman

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 24, leave out 'lets' and insert 'let'.

I suggest that with this we discuss Amendment No. 7.

The credit for seeing the need for these amendments must go to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who, with his habitual thoroughness, spotted the fact that the verb was in the wrong tense in the retirement home case. I should like to express the Government's thanks to him for such an admirable piece of proof reading and repeat the offer that I made to him in Standing Committee of a job in the Department at any time he chooses to leave this place.

By exchanging "let" for "lets" we make absolutely clear that this case may apply to a letting created before the Bill comes into operation as well as to a letting created after that date. Coupled with moving the amendment, I offer a vote of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Graham Page

I rise only to thank the hon. Member for that sarcastic bouquet.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allason

I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 37, leave out: 'has retired from regular employment and'. In this Clause, which introduces a new Case 10A, the Government appear to have provided satisfactorily for the case of the retirement home. Many people are required by the nature of their employment to live in tied accommodation or somewhere where they do not have to live after retirement. Consequently, they seek to provide for their retirement by buying a home somewhere else. They want to start while they are earning the money to do so, when they can begin to pay off the mortgage. Large numbers are affected. One thinks of police officers and bank managers. They need somewhere to live following retirement. People retire from their principal jobs and they then need the new accommodation. Unfortunately, however, in the clause the Government require a test of total retirement. This we seek to amend.

12.45 a.m.

It cannot be satisfactory public policy to require that someone retiring from his principal job—say, a police officer at the age of 55 or a bank manager at 60—should go into permanent, complete retirement, yet he is required to do this by the terms of the clause. Surely it must be sensible to say that if a man retires from the job which has held him away from the place in which he wants to live on his retirement, that should be the moment when he can take the house that he has provided for his retirement. So far it has all been simple—he has let the house furnished and he knows that he can get it back—but he knows that in future he will not get it back unless he is within the narrow terms of Case 10A. Case 10A is too narrow.

Case 10A requires a series of tests. First, the man must have bought the house with the intention of retiring to it. Secondly, he has to give notice to his tenant that that will happen and that he will come back to the house when he wants it. Thirdly, he must not let it on a protected tenancy. Fourthly, we get the objectionable part that the court has to be satisfied that the owner has retired from regular employment and requires the dwelling-house.

If we leave out the requirement that he has retired from regular employment we are left with the tests, first, that the house is required for the purposes of retirement; secondly, that there has been notice in writing; thirdly, that there has not been a protected tenancy; and, fourthly, that the owner requires the dwelling-house, but not that he has permanently retired because the likelihood is that many people who leave their principal employment will take on something else.

It is ludicrous to expect people to cease all employment at a quite early age. Officers of the Services come very much into this category. Perhaps I should declare not an interest but an experience. Having retired from the Services I received retirement pay, but I undertook another job, which I have carried on very satisfactorily for the last 15 years. I needed to change my residence.

It seems to me, therefore, that there is no need for these words. They will do an immense amount of harm. The court would have to judge. It would be able to weed out the unsatisfactory cases which, no doubt, the Minister will talk about, the bogus cases in which somebody gets round the entire matter by saying "I have bought this place for retirement and, therefore, I want to be able to get the tenant out of the house at any time I like." The court must be satisfied that the house was bought for retirement.

I therefore regard our amendment as necessary. If it is not passed, some very hard cases will be caused.

Mr. Freeson

The effect of the amendment would be to allow a landlord who retired from regular employment and who had purchased a house for his residence to claim possession of it if the court was satisfied that he required the house as a residence at another time.

It may be that the intention behind the amendment is to widen Case 10A, which is built into the Bill to deal with retirement homes—this was the Government's specific intention—so as to give a landlord an absolute right to possession of a dwelling-house for his own use. The amendment would not achieve this effect, whatever its intention might be. It would apply only where the landlord had intended, when he purchased it, to occupy the house on his retirement. It might be designed to do just this—to offer some relief to the landlord who wishes to move into his retirement home before retirement, whenever that might be, whenever such application might be made to the court for it to decide upon.

On the other hand—and this remains the point at issue—it was the subject of discussion in Committee—to do this without trying to define as closely as possible the question of retirement from regular employment, which we also discussed in Committee, would open the case to abuse, or possible abuse, by landlords who might claim that they had the intention of occupying the house on retirement when they bought it, when they did not intend any such thing. The Government have accepted from the start, without any pressure—it was on their own initiative—that there was a need to preserve the rights of people who genuinely buy a home in advance of retirement and who let it until such time as they retire.

At the same time, it is essential to guard against possible exploitation of the Case by the unscrupulous minority. Those landlords who have not retired and who cannot therefore claim possession under Case 10A are still able to apply to the court under Case 8 if they reasonably require the dwelling-house for their own use. This seems to the Government to give such people adequate rights without prejudicing the security of tenants.

As I argued on this and other matters in Committee, we are seeking to establish a reasonable balance between the two interests. There are existing homes to take account of—people who have brought up their families and lived in the dwelling-house for some years. This has to be weighed in the scales, too. If a person has indicated from the outset, through the procedure set out in the Bill, that the property is a retirement home, such a person is covered, subject to the discretion of the court—a discretion provided in the Bill before the end of Committee stage. If such a person has not notified the tenant, the court has a discretion to waive that fact when considering the application.

The home will be returned to the owner for retirement purposes, for which purpose he had declared his intention of buying the house in the first place. In the meantime, while it is let as a dwelling-house, subject to that, the tenant also has a right, in law, to protection, both as an unfurnished and furnished tenant. We think we have the right balance. Whatever may be the motivation of the hon. Gentleman, to do what he suggests would open the door to possible exploitation when that is not necessary. If we are people who have purchased homes specifically to retire to, which is the object of the case written into the Bill, our procedure covers that and there is no need for the amendment.

Mrs. Thatcher

My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) made our intention very clear and put the case extremely plainly. We believe that we were justified in pursuing the case he put forward, and we think that the Minister's attitude is quite wrong. Since, however, it is likely to be a period of three months before we can take positive action to put our beliefs into action, we shall not detain the House on the amendment any further tonight.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Freeson

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 43, at end insert: 'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in Clause 2, in page 3A, line 29, at end insert: 'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require', Government Amendment No. 9, and Government Amendment No. 15.

Mr. Freeson

The effect of these amendments is to fit the new Clause 18 introduced in Committee into the Bill in a more appropriate place. That new clause related only to Case 10—the temporarily absent owner-occupier—but these amendments extend the same provisions to Case 10A relating to the retirement home case.

The Government accepted in Committee that the requirement that a notice must be served by a relevant date if a landlord is to have the absolute right to recover his home or to gain possession of his retirement home might result in some cases in the loss of that home through misadventure. This is particularly true in transitional cases, where the landlord has let furnished before the Bill comes into force in the belief that he would be able to recover possession without difficulty. The Bill already provides means for such a landlord to preserve his right to regain possession.

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows a landlord to serve a notice within the first six months of the Bill coming into force. Paragraph 5 of the same schedule provides that when a temporarily absent owner-occupier has already served notice under Section 79—that is, the section in Part VI which prevents the rent tribunal suspending the operation of a notice to quit if the landlord wants the dwelling for his own use—that notice shall apply for the purposes of Case 10 when the tenancy becomes a protected tenancy by virtue of the Bill. But even so, landlords may well be abroad and, despite the publicity which will be given to the Bill's through consulates, and organisations which look after the interests of people living and working abroad, there may be some landlords who will not hear about these provisions in time to take the appropriate action.

These amendments therefore provide that where the appropriate notice has not been served, but the other conditions of the case apply, the court may grant an order for possession if they think this would be just and equitable. The court is given the power to disregard failure to serve under condition (a) on the present tenant or under condition (b) on a previous tenant. This is necessary to cover the situation where the landlord let his home without notice to a protected tenant who left willingly, and subsequently let again without notice to another tenant who refused to leave without an order from the court to do so when the landlord needed the dwelling for his own use. The power of the court to waive the failure to serve notice under the second tenancy would be of no use to the landlord if the court could not also waive the failure to meet the condition in subparagraph (b) of the case.

These are the reasons for introducing the amendments.

Mr. Rossi

If it is said that we have not had much success on Report in persuading the Government of the error of some of their ways, at least it can be said that we did make some headway in Committee. The group of amendments now before us is the result of persistence by the Opposition in tabling a number of amendments to achieve the objective.

The Minister referred to new Clause 18, which is now Clause 11 in the Bill and which is sought to be removed by Amendment No. 15. That clause relates only to Case 10. It is one of a group of new clauses or amendments all with the same objective and relating to Case 10, Case 11, Case 10A and Case 11A in the Third Schedule to the 1968 Act.

We intended in Committee to give the court the power to waive notices where they have not been served for some reason and where it is just and equitable that those notices should be waived. This was the way we argued the matter on the earlier occasion. In fact, we said that it would be quite wrong that a man could be deprived of his home because he failed to serve a scrap of paper within a time limit laid down by the Government. The Government have now seen the justice of that argument and are content to leave it to the court to waive that requirement which the Government previously stipulated where it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement.

Therefore, we are happy to accept the amendment, and we thank the hon. Gentleman for acceding to our arguments.

Mr. Tyler

I, too, wish to express appreciation to the Minister for fulfilling the assurance which he gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Freeson

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:

'Case 10C

Where the dwelling house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 12 months and—

  1. (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
  2. (b) at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, the dwelling house was subject to such a tenancy as is referred to in section 2(1) (bb) of this Act;
and for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, we are to consider the following:

Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:

'Case 10C

Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 12 months and—

  1. (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
  2. (b) the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied by a person of a kind specified in paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act and was so occupied under a tenancy granted by a specified institution; and for the purposes of this Case "specified" shall, in relation to institutions, have the same meaning as in the said paragraph (bb);
and further for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term'.

Government Amendment No. 48, and Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:

'Case 11C

Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 12 months and—

  1. (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
  2. (b) the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied by a person of a kind specified in paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act and was so occupied under a tenancy granted by a specified institution; and for the purposes of this Case "specified" shall, in relation to institutions, have the same meaning as in the said paragraph (bb);
and further for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a specified period notwithstanding that it is liable to termination by forfeiture or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to terminate the tenancy'.

Mr. Freeson

This amendment introduces a new case for possession into Part II of Schedule 3 of the 1968 Rent Act. The Government agreed in Committee to the inclusion of the case on these lines, and this amendment is the result.

The case enables on educational institution specified for this purpose by the Secretary of State for Education to let accommodation for a short term to tenants who are not students in the certainty that they can recover possession again should the tenant not wish to leave at the end of the term. This case will solve the problems of several colleges and universities, in particular, which maintain supplies of accommodation for the use of post-graduate students. Inevitably the number of such students fluctuates from year to year and sometimes voids occur.

At present, of course, the educational institution can let short term until the accommodation is again needed for the use of a post-graduate student. We understand that these lettings are quite frequently made to newly arrived members of the teaching or administrative staff of the institution or another college or institution in the area. At other times, the lettings are made to members of the general public. In either case, the institution will in future be letting on protected tenancies and without this case there would be no way in which the accommodation could be recovered for its proper use when needed.

Mr. Rossi

Once again, I rise to thank the Minister for acceding to our request in Committee.

I point out simply that our Amendment No. 10 repeats the amendment that we considered in Committee and is repetitive of Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 48, subject only to a slight variation in wording. As the Government have tabled an amendment in identical terms to our own, we shall not press it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington)

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 57, at end insert: 'In Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968, the following Case shall be inserted after Case 14—

"Case 15

Where, in respect of the property concerned, planning approval has been given and remains effective for a change of user, provided that not less than six months notice has been given in writing to the tenant by the landlord that possession might be recovered under this Case." '.

The object of the amendment is to provide for the situation which arises where planning permission is given for a change of user. I have to declare an interest in that I am the owner of property which is let furnished. I believe that this matter was discussed in Committee, but I have not been able to ascertain whether the Government gave any undertaking about it. I feel that, if no provision is made for this eventuality, it will be a serious gap, and I hope that some provision, either on the lines of my own amendment or something similar, will find its way into the Bill.

I have in mind two cases where a provision of this kind is needed. The first is where planning permission for a change of user has been agreed for a property as it stands. The type of property, which might have furnished lettings in it but for which planning permission for a change of user is likely to be given, will not be the common or garden terrace property or a house originally built for private family occupation. It is much more likely to be a house of an institutional character.

In my view, it would be undesirable if a property of this kind were frozen and not made available for the community, even where planning permission was granted for its conversion, for instance, into a home for handicapped people, into a hostel or possibly, especially in the case of a completely isolated large property on a country site, for use as a club for recreational purposes, a golf club, or something of that kind.

The Bill must not be the cause of ossification so that communities cannot put their assets to the best use as circumstances change. The situation might arise where one tenant with security in a furnished tenancy in a corner of a large property of the kind that I have in mind sought to drive a hard bargain, using the protection offered by the Bill not ultimately to retain security of tenure but to be able to sell the vacant possession as dearly as he can.

It may be that I have misunderstood the terms of the proposed legislation and that such a situation cannot arise, but I believe that it could, and that would be highly undesirable.

The other instance is where slum property or property which is urgently in need of demolition is being lived in by people in the sort of wretched furnished tenancies which exist in parts of Kensington. It would be undesirable if the normal processes of urban renewal were held up because people were able to cling to wretched and unfit tenancies as a result of this legislation.

Obviously difficulties would arise if large numbers of families lost the security that the Bill intends to give them through properties being taken for demolition: but it would be the decision of the local planning authorities whether and when that situation should arise.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that the amendment allows for six months' notice to be given to the tenant in the event of vacant possession being required to give effect to a change of use. I believe that since the decision on the continuance of the property as furnished accommodation or some other use will rest with the statutory planning authority in the area, this is no major departure from the spirit of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will welcome it.

Mr. Kaufman

The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked whether in Committee we had given an assurance when the matter was debated. I do not think that we gave an assurance, for reasons which I shall expound shortly.

I accept that the hon. Gentleman sees this as a possible method of bringing about urban renewal, but I fear that it does not conform with the way that we believe urban renewal should be accomplished. In fact, I think that the whole House would agree that urban renewal is far better accomplished through those measures of the Housing Bill, on which both sides are united, which I hope will shortly be enacted and which carries out the views of all hon. Members on how urban renewal, including properties occupied by furnished tenants, should be carried out in stress areas.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument. I think that he ought to have included a double negative. I am trying to prevent a situation where the Bill stands in the way of renewal which the local authority wishes to sanction.

Mr. Kaufman

I hesitate to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that I did not misunderstand his argument, particularly since, with respect to him, I heard it put forward as eloquently in Committee as he has put it forward when an identical provision was proposed for the Bill and rejected by the Committee. We rejected it because its content runs contrary to the principles of the Bill.

The amendment appears to be an attempt to give the development potential of property priority over the statutory right of a tenant to continued occupation of his home. It is an amendment that would apply to all regulated tenancies, but it may be presented as particularly relevant to regulated furnished tenancies because of the developer's practice of buying premises in advance of need and letting them temporarily on furnished tenancies until they are redeveloped.

It may be claimed that if this is no longer possible such premises will stand empty in the period between acquisition and redevelopment, but the amendment is in no way specifically related to such a situation and would thus—although I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman intends—be open to wholesale abuse. It would allow, for example, any landlord who applied for and obtained planning permission to evict his tenants, but there is no requirement that the change of use should be effected after possession has been granted. That being so, a landlord could get planning permission, get rid of his tenants and then not pursue the project.

The Department has been told of cases in which long-resident unfurnished tenants have been exposed to the worst kind of stress when ownership of their dwelling houses passes to the sort of landlord who is intent on eviction to allow for subsequent development or sale with vacant possession. This case would give such landlords a legal right to indulge in such practices. The requirement that a landlord must give at least six months' notice of his intention to claim possession under the case would, in our opinion, do nothing to mitigating its damaging effects.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it gives me no pleasure to reject his amendments, as I have had to do on two occasions, but I fear I must say that we cannot accept what he has proposed.

Mr. Rees-Davies

We heard an identical speech from an identical brief, almost word for word, in Committee. The Minister made the same point at the time.

The whole point of the amendment is to try to get from the Government an assurance that they looked at this problem and tried to do something about it. It is obviously desirable in proper and appropriate cases that those who obtain planning consent to enable the development of property to take place should be able to obtain their property with vacant possession to enable that work to be carried out.

This is a case in which it was incumbent upon the Government to bring forward the proper amendment on Report and introduce the point that the Minister made in Commitee, namely, that the person who obtained a planning consent had to carry that into effect. I made that point in Committee, and nothing would have been easier than for the Government to table an amendment to meet the criticisms that were made.

It appears that we are to have another Rent Bill in the event that the Labour Party is returned to power at the next election. This amendment will be a happy dream for Government Members to take away and think about, and the next time the Minister makes a speech on this subject, which may be in 10 or 15 years' time, he may find that his dreams are no longer realistic because by that time we in turn will have brought in amending legislation to deal with the hotch-potch of trouble that the Bill will produce. We shall have to introduce measures to put right many omissions, if nothing else. One of the first which I am sure my right hon. Friend will look at will be the problem of seeing that planning permission can be given proper effect to, to enable renewals to take place and other matters to be properly dealt with.

1.15 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

The Government have exploited the difficulties caused by the fact that the debates in Committee were not readily available to back benchers, and have made use of the fact that my amendment does not cover the point raised in Committee in order to defeat it here. This is an illegitimate device to defeat a back bencher who has made a valid point. It does no credit to the Under-Secretary that he has smugly produced the same argument. He ought to realise that my point was sincere and that his point was merely a drafting amendment to my proposal.

The hon. Gentleman has done himself no credit in the way that he has attacked the amendment. Had he wished to resist it simply on the ground that he wishes to ossify the housing situation, well and good; let him do that. But to pretend that he has to reject the clause as drafted, on his own grounds, as he rejected it in Committee, because he cannot find a way of amending it to cover his point, which could not have been in anyone's mind, is not a valid argument. The Minister has not acquitted himself well in this case. The point remains one which will have to be attended to in the end.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3A, line 11, leave out 'lets' and insert 'let'.

No. 8, in page 3A, line 29, at end insert: 'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 17, at end insert: '(3) At the end of Case 10 in Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 and at the end of Case 11 in Part 11 of Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 there shall be added the following proviso— Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require"'.

No. 48, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:

'Case 11C

Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 12 months and—

  1. (a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
  2. (b) at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date the dwelling-house was subject to such a tenancy as is referred to in section 2(1)(bb) of this Act;
and for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a specified period
  1. (i) of less than 12 months, if it is determinable at the option of the landlord (other than in the event of an irritancy being 687 incurred) before the expiration of 12 months from the commencement of the period of the tenancy, and
  2. (ii) of 12 months or more, if it confers on the tenant an option for renewal of the tenancy for a period which, together with the original period, amounts to 12 months or more, and it is not determinable as mentioned in paragraph (i) above'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

(2) In section 80 of that Act (reduction of period of notice on account of lessee's default) at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "or
(d) that the condition of any furniture provided for the use of the lessee under the contract has deteriorated owing to any ill-treatment by the lessee or any person residing or lodging with him".'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are to take sub-amendment (a) in line 6, after 'by', insert: 'any act or omission of'. Government Amendment No. 49, Amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 11, [Schedule 1], after 'by', insert: 'any act or omission of'. and Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 13, [Schedule 1], after 'by', insert 'any act or omission of'.

The Solicitor-General

The House may have noticed that my part in these proceedings has consisted of long silences interspersed with brief contributions. If this speech is the exception to the rule, I trust that it will prove only marginally so.

Section 80 of the Rent Act 1968 permits application to the rent tribunal for a reduction in the suspension period of a notice to quit where the lessee is abusing that protection. At present the section does not specifically entitle the lessor to seek a reduction where the lessee is misusing the furniture. The amendment inserts that entitlement. I understand that it arose out of an exchange of views in Committee.

Amendment No. 49 has the same effect in relation to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971.

As I understand it, the purpose of sub-amendment (a) to Amendment 13 is to include as a ground for reducing the suspension period not only the situation where the tenant has misused the furniture but where he has permitted it to deteriorate by failing to take positive care—that is to say, where his sin is a sin of omission.

Parallel to these provisions there is a provision in the Bill to deal with

Back to
Forward to