HC Deb 19 February 1976 vol 905 cc1627-52

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th February],

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Notices to Quit (Prescribed Information) (Protected Tenancies and Part VI Contracts) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2196), dated 18th December 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January 1976, be annulled.—[Mr. Hugh Rossi.]

Question again proposed.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

When the debate was adjourned last week I was expressing the view that it would have been better had the Order prescribed not only the nature of the information which must be provided in notices to quit but the language to be used and the location where it needed to appear in a notice to quit.

As we have a different Minister to reply to the debate since we discussed this matter last, I should like to recap to the extent that it is necessary to take account of the fact that an unscrupulous landlord could find ways of complying with the Order whilst still producing a notice to quit which was, first, incomprehensible to the tenant and, secondly, frightening.

I have tried my hand at language which, so far as I could see, would comply with the Order but would certainly bamboozle any recipient who was not a lawyer. I think that the following language would be permissible under the Order as it now is. First, one would have the words "Notice to Quit" followed by the usual effective words used in a notice to quit. Then, in order to meet the requirements of the Order, one would have a text something along these lines: After this Notice to Quit has expired, if the tenant has not vacated the premises voluntarily, the law requires the landlord to proceed to court proceedings prior to the enforced expulsion of the tenant and his goods. In the event the law places no obligation on the landlord to find alternative accommodation for the tenant. The grounds on which the court will make a possession order vary according to whether the tenancy is a protected tenancy under subsection X of Section Y of the Rent Act 1968, as subsequently amended, or a tenancy other than a protected tenancy under the aforesaid Act. In the former case, the exclusive, sole and only grounds for a possession order are as stated in Sections 1, 2, 3 of the Act. The House will realise that language of that kind would not make the notice to quit any more helpful to the tenants than a notice to quit drawn up under present practice. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) believes—and he is probably right—that law stationers will produce copies of notices to quit which simply reproduce the text shown in the schedule to the Order. But it will not be obligatory to use them and it would be open to an unscrupulous landlord to use language such as this which is full of legal gobbledegook which would certainly frighten a tenant.

Why do we not prescribe the actual language to be used? This would not only be more in the interests of the tenant but it would be fairer to the landlord. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey to the extent that there is something wrong with saying to a landlord "You must put information in the notice to quit generally to the following effect, but you can find your own way of putting it and it must come from you."

The message in the notice to quit should be like the Government health warning on a cigarette packet. It comes not from the manufacturers but from the Government. We should, therefore, provide that message on the first page of the notice to quit. There should be a box with a heading, for example, "Notice from the Government" and then the rubric exactly as laid down in an Order. If there are reasons why that sort of thing cannot be done, I should like to hear them. I recognise that the Government are following precedent. All bad things can follow precedents and we have lots of bad habits in our ways of doing things. There is the precedent of the information which should be included in rent books, where the actual language to be used is not prescribed but merely the rough effect and nature of it.

Finally, I repeat a complaint that I made in the early part of the debate that this Regulation has been far too long a-coming. I have been nagging for it for at least a year. The Department of the Environment is notoriously a large Department with a wages bill which it would be too embarrassing to mention. It is up to Ministers—the Department is not short of Ministers either—and their many many civil servants to produce these measures a great deal quicker than this one. I say that purely because there is another Order, which is overdue, which prescribes the information to be included in the rent book. At the moment there is the preposterous situation that the law of this country requires certain out-of-date information to be stated in rent books. If the landlord does not provide out-of-date and, therefore, erroneous information about the law on tenancies in the rent book, he breaks the law. We compel him to provide wrong information in rent books.

I cannot imagine why Ministers have allowed that situation to continue until now. Some hon. Members may think that I have made a mistake and that that situation cannot exist. I simply refer them to an Answer the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave me on 18th February on this subject. In it he acknowledges that the Regulations as they now stand: do not take account of alterations in the law contained in the Rent Act 1974, the Housing Act 1974"— both those Acts were passed at the end of July 1974— and the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975."—[Official Report, 18th February 1975; Vol. 905, c. 713.] That is just not good enough. Ministers have to get those Regulations out a great deal faster than they have done on this occasion, especially in relation to the information to be contained in rent books. If the Minister can squeeze it in and still be within the bounds of order, as I have apparently succeeded in doing, I hope that when he winds up the debate he will be able to assure us that this other Regulation will be coming along, let us say, before the end of March.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Daventry)

I wish to declare an interest in a company which owns one tenanted residential property.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)

What about the rest?

Mr. Jones

The others are not residential tenanted properties. However, I hope that the House will not think that that in any way biases my judgment on the question of the declarations which should be made to tenants.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said when we were discussing this matter in the opening stages of the debate, on 9th February. I thought that I detected, in not only what he said but the manner in which he said it, that he was tending to look upon all tenants as the "goodies" and the landlords as almost outcasts. There are some quotations that I can take from what he said then which in any sensible judgment would confirm that view. I think that it is an unfortunate stance for him to take, because I recognise the sensible judgment that he brings to these affairs and his breadth of experience. I am sure that it was not bad language that he was using, but it showed a certain bias in his approach to this matter.

As regards tenants, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rather patronising, implying that none of them was capable of making any judgments himself on dealing with issues of tenant right for himself, or of drawing upon the information that is available from a local councillor, for example, to whom many tenants go if they are looking for advice. I am sure that I am speaking of matters within the hon. Gentleman's experience. It is certainly within mine. There are also citizens advice bureaux and housing aid centres, both of which are mentioned in the Statutory Instrument. I know that I am speaking for all hon. Members when I mention the great number of housing cases that are brought to their notice. I am sure that these sources provide a wide field for tenants who are in difficulties.

If I have left the hon. Gentleman in any doubt as to the substance of what I am saying, let me remind him that he said, It is those people who do not know the law, who are frightened of even going to a solicitor or a legal advice service, whom we are trying to assist. I cannot believe that there can be many people in that situation, because the sources to which a tenant can make approaches are very widespread.

When the hon. Gentleman spoke about landlords, he implied that there was a measure of deceit on the part of landlords generally. One wonders why he should commit himself to such an attitude. It amounted to a vilification of landlords. He said: I considered what I would do if I were a bad landlord. I have come across a few, so I know their habits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1976; Vol. 905, c. 193–94.] I think that is a biased attitude. Certainly the hon. Gentleman failed to tell us what their alleged bad habits were. He certainly gives unqualified support to tenants, but he goes out of his way, unfortunately, to condemn landlords. That is not an acceptable stance for bringing a balanced judgment to bear on the issues before the House under this Statutory Instrument.

We are all concerned to see that tenants have an equitable security of tenure and are able to be aware of their rights—but, at the same time, aware of their obligations as well. The security which is granted to tenants is set out in the Rent Acts, and these added powers which are proposed now—the added responsibilities of landlords, and the powers to go to the courts—must involve costly procedures, delays and often unfair and unreasonable publicity for landlords.

Why is all this necessary in view of the provisions of the Rent Act 1968? A list of nine cases is set out in Schedule 3 of the Act, and I cannot see why a tenant should be given additional and further protection. In Part I of Schedule 3 the court may order possession when a tenant does not pay rent. Surely that is a reasonable cause for giving a tenant notice. Case 2 concerns the tenant or his sub-tenant who has been convicted of using the dwelling-house or allowing the dwelling-house to be used for immoral or illegal purposes. Case 4 concerns the tenant who has given notice to quit, with the result that the landlord has contracted to sell or let the premises, or has taken steps as a result of which he would be seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession. I cannot see that a tenant needs further protection in those circumstances. Case 5 concerns the tenant who has sublet the whole of the dwelling-house without the landlord's permission.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

The hon. Gentleman appears to be making what might be regarded as a solid case. I acknowledge that he is well versed in these matters, and he usually takes a fair line. However, people have been evicted, or threatened with eviction, not because they were not paying rent but because the landlord insists that they shall go to his office with pound notes to pay the rent. In such cases the landlord will not accept cheques or other form of payment through the post. A tenant may be perfectly willing to pay his rent in the normal way. There are probably many of us in the Chamber who have paid rent by cheque or by sending pound notes through the post. However, there have been instances in which landlords have forced people to go from one town to another to pay rent physically. When the rent has not been paid in that way, the tenant has been threatened with eviction. In some cases the courts have upheld that sort of behaviour.

Mr. Jones

I do not understand how the courts could uphold that behaviour except in special circumstances. I am sure that I am not asked to adjudicate on that.

These proposals are an additional imposition on landlords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has said, they must lead towards further difficulties for the private rented sector. This is a policy to which the Socialist Party appears to be committed by its policies and by the advocacy of its spokesmen. In London, and to some extent elsewhere, the declared aim of the municipalisation of rented properties has gone ahead at a remarkable rate in the past two or three years. This has meant a great loss to society. The private rented sector has been increasingly under pressure throughout the country and especially in London, although I do not know the circumstances in the London area in any detail. It is much more difficult for young people to find accommodation in the great cities. That is a difficulty that they have to face in the early days of their career.

How are we to provide for the young people coming into London who feel that London provides them with the opportunity for a worthwhile career? If there is less and less private accommodation, London will suffer a great loss. It will mean that young people will be prevented from entering the city. London will become less attractive to them, and it will be unable to provide for those upon whom it depends for its future economic and social success. The increasing denial of private accommodation is clearly the Socialist's policy. That is demonstrated by the proposals before us. If accepted they will bear responsibility for the rapidly declining private rented sector. I deplore this. Its purpose is reflected in the Statutory Instrument before us.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)

I thought this debate was to be within a fairly narrow compass and I did not expect the sort of lengthy, plaintive apologia about the hardship of the private landlord which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones).

Some of the slovenliness we have experienced with Common Market instruments, in which executive and operative words are muddled up with explanatory data, seems to have spilled over into this legislation. It appears to be a catching habit.

The schedule of prescribed information lays down specific provisions on the necessity for landlords to obtain an order for possession before a tenant can lawfully be evicted, but also gives details of where a tenant might reasonably expect to get advice. I do not like to see this slovenly mixing up of two aspects of Regulations in our legislation.

We expect it from the Common Market and no longer hope for anything better from the vague European instruments. They are intended to be misleading, and explanatory data have to be issued by the Minister concerned to make them intelligible. The area we are now discussing is one in which a measure of precision is required.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Inslington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in complaining that the Regulations do not lay down precisely what information a tenant might be expected to receive. It would have been the easiest thing in the world—and would have been in the interests of both landlords and tenants—for a statutory form to have been provided laying down the information, the consequences of non-provision and the date on which a notice to quit expires.

This is particularly important, because if a notice to quit expires before a tenant has submitted an application, the six-months protection is no longer available and the tenant is in peril of immediate removal.

As the debate has been widened by the hon. Member for Daventry, perhaps I could mention some other matters. The time limit provided for the notice to quit referred to in Regulation 3, which refers back to Section 16 of the Rent Act 1957, is not adequate. When there are rehousing problems, a period of four weeks is not enough. In practice, the period is considerably longer than that because of the time taken by court proceedings after the expiry of the notice and before an order can be made, but our housing problems seem, unhappily, to be getting ever more acute.

From my experience of looking after the interests of people who suddenly—and often through no fault of their own—find themselves in desperate need of accommodation, I know that the time taken by local authorities to make adequate provision even for emergency cases can exceed the respite a person is given between the time a notice to quit is served and the time the bailiffs arrive at the door. I suspect that it is the tenants rather than the landlords who need further protection.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Daventry should think that the Regulations are a Socialist attack upon the landlords. It is in everyone's interest to lessen the scope for conflict and, when conflicts arise, to make the tenant's going as easy and lacking in hardship as possible. Even a tenant who behaves so badly that any court would be reasonably bound to grant possession is entitled to assistance. It is often extremely difficult to assist such people. They may be problem families, and the difficulties experienced by local authorities are proportionately greater in finding accommodation for them thtan in finding accommodation for other people.

For these reasons the Regulations should not be regarded as controversial. My complaint is that they are totally inadequate, badly drafted and singularly uninformative.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon (Buckingham)

I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) in connecting this relatively modest Statutory Instrument with the operations of the European Economic Community. I declare an interest as the owner of protected rented property, and I do so to show that I know what I am talking about.

I have no objection to the wording of the Regulations. My objection is that they betray the malaise inherent in the private rented sector. I have recently been in correspondence with the Minister for Housing and Construction, from whom I received a long and courteous reply to certain suggestions I put to him. The substance of my letter was that both major political parties have, in effect, shot their doctrinal bolt over the private rented sector. The Labour Government have espoused the cause of municipalisation, yet every hon. Member knowns that there is not the money for this programme, either for the purchase of properties or, far more important, for the modernisation of the properties concerned.

When the Conservatives were in power they tried to free the private rented sector. The only result was a great haemorrhage in the number of properties available, because landlords, for financial and political reasons, sold the properties as soon as they obtained vacant possession. Both parties have tried and failed in their endeavour to revitalise the private rented sector and make more properties available. Now, for political and financial reasons, everyone connected with this sector wants out. Only people like myself—and my accountant continually tells me how stupid I am—for traditional reasons maintain their position in this sector.

I put it to the hon. Gentleman with great sincerity that the Minister for Housing and Construction is the only man in the United Kingdom who literally overnight could—dare I say it—at a stroke produce another million units of accommodation. He could do that first and primarily by backing the extension of short-life tenure for new tenancies. We are to have a Bill tomorrow to deal with that aspect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Order. The Chair has been fairly indulgent in dealing with this Prayer, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House is discussing, and must confine itself to, the desirability of including the proposed information in a notice to quit and the form of that notice. It would not be right to be discursive on other aspects of housing and rents.

Mr. Benyon

I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I was under the impression from preceding speeches that one could range fairly widely over the whole aspect of rented housing. I stick to my guns in the sense that the Regulations of necessity mean that we are discussing the difficulties inherent in the rented sector, and, therefore, I submit that I am within order in pursuing a slightly wider aspect than the actual words in the Regulations. The hon. Member for Handsworth even ventured into Europe. Anyway, I think I have made my point.

I emphasise that it is only by bringing every sector together that we can possibly achieve any success in revitalising the amount of rented property available, particularly in our large cities. That means bringing together the private sector, the municipal sector and the voluntary housing movement.

There is no hope for the rented sector and the thousands of people who seek rented accommodation, particularly in London and the other conurbations, until we on both sides of the House bury our doctrinal differences and achieve a longterm bipartisan policy on rented housing, because rented housing, is essentially a long-term matter. It is a matter not just of five or even 10 years but, at least for investment, of much longer than that. Unless we achieve such a policy, we shall pay for our failure. We shall never get anywhere along the lines we have been pursuing up to now, and if we continue to try, then, far more important than our own personal views, we shall have failed the nation by not providing the housing it so sorely needs.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

Notice to quit, or its implementation, is one of the most fearful tragedies which can afflict an ordinary family. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should examine what is proposed in the Regulations, as has been done so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Handsworth (Mr. Lee).

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has rightly said that there have been other experiments to try to resolve the problems in the rented sector. One of the spectres for tenants, perhaps in some remote cases even causing some anguish to some landlords, is the notice to quit.

When the landlords were given their freedom, under the Rent Act of a Conservative Administration in 1957, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ordinary Britons were reduced to the ignoble and degrading status of refugees in their own land. Those of us who were active councillors in London saw this at first hand.

A notice to quit is a very serious matter, and a very emotional one. It can cause infinite damage to families. Many of us who are active in London boroughs have seen what can happen following the implementation of a notice to quit. We all know, on both sides of the House, the corporate landlord, with his solicitors and experts to call upon. The dice is so loaded on the landlord side that very often ordinary people are afraid even to inquire whether they have any rights.

The situation today concerning the Department of the Environment is an absolute disgrace. One of my constituents has been told by the rent tribunal that he is entitled to a rent book. The law says that he has to have a rent book. His landlord says that the law is a lot of nonsense, so my constituent goes to the rent tribunal and the rent officer says that of course he must have a rent book. Still the landlord refuses to give one. When my constituent goes to the tribunal a week later he finds that there is a different rent officer on duty, who says that there is no need for the landlord to provide a rent book.

What is an ordinary person supposed to do in a situation such as that? When will the moguls, the know-alls and the clever people of the Department give the ordinary people—who pay their wages—a quite clear law saying quite simply whether there is to be a rent book or not?

I have sent details of a case to my hon. Friend the Minister. With a little luck I may get a reply in six months' time, as only two months have passed so far. I am patient and I am willing to wait for an answer.

While that hare is running I shall introduce another. I have a constituent who has been told that he might be given notice to quit. He had one landlord of the "and Company Limited" type. That company has flogged all its possessions to another group of the same type. My constituent now has to deal with a nice, ordinary, individualistic landlord with about 14 faces that no one has ever seen.

My constituent, who for some 20 years has paid his rent by sending the landlord a cheque, has been told that he cannot do that any more. He must go along to the landlord and deliver it. My constituent's reply was that he would do as he had always done. He was told that if he did, the company would not regard the rent as having been paid. When my constituent pointed out that for the past five years he had paid by Giro and never missed, he was told that the company did not have a Giro account, so he must come to the office and pay there. My constituent, who is an old-age pensioner and an ex-Service man of the first World War, does not know the law, and is very worried.

I do not know who drafted the absurd rubbish contained in the schedule, but people are told that they can also seek information from the citizens' advice bureau. The Ealing Citizens' Advice Bureau has one permanent answer to all these problems: "Go to see Mr. Molloy."

When these people go to the rent officer, the answer depends on which rent officer is on duty. If it is rent officer A, the inquirer will get one answer. If it is rent officer B, the answer will be diametrically opposite.

I ask the Minister to look at this nonsense. I accept that Ministers are trying to do their best, but they are led right up the garden path by civil servants. With the greatest respect to civil servants, some of us have devoted our lives to this problem. Some of us have devoted 25 or 30 years to trying to clear slums and to protect tenants from vicious landlords. Those of us who have had our lives and homes threatened by the thugs of Rachman and all the evil of Rachmanism will not be shy about criticising regulations of this kind.

I make those two points. The first concerns the rent book. The second is whether a landlord can demand a specific form of payment of rent—whether it be in £1 notes, by postal order, by Giro payment, by cheques, or even in 1p pieces—and whether the decent tenant who does not comply risks being turned out of his accommodation.

There are tough, rough, uncaring tenants. There is a tiny minority who could not care tuppence one way or the other. They do not care whether there is a law. But I am concerned for the honest, decent tenant who is worried to death if he thinks that he might be breaking the law, that his home will be threatened and that he will be kicked out on to the street.

It is on behalf of ordinary decent people like this that I ask my hon. Friend to think again and to see whether he cannot produce a much better statutory instrument than the one before us tonight.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

As a matter of patriotic sentiment, I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will not expect me to join him in attacking the Department of the Environment.

Instead, I refer back to two important matters referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). He called this Statutory Instrument "slovenly" and asked why it should not set out a specified form. It would have been a great help to both landlord and tenant if a specified form had been laid down in the Statutory Instrument as he suggested, instead of leaving it to the rather vague statement that a notice to quit should include this information. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, it might be set out in any language. But it would help both the landlord and the tenant if we had a specified form.

The other matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Handsworth was the relationship between landlord and tenant. In connection with any form of notice to quit, we should try very hard to smooth over that relationship rather than put edges on it and encourage litigation between the landlord and the tenant.

When I began, it may be that I should have declared an interest. I am the landlord of a flat at the top of my Victorian house. I am also a solicitor—one of those people whom the tenant is told to consult. There is also a textbook on the Rent Acts, under which these regulations are made, the author of which is also the Member for Crosby. It may be that I shall do well out of this measure.

After that commercial, I refer specifically to the Statutory Instrument and to what happens when a notice to quit is served. At the one extreme, the immediate result is panic. At the other extreme, it is bloody-minded obstinacy. Between the two, there is a broad band of tenants who are reasonable but anxious——

Mr. Molloy

Frightened.

Mr. Page

Sometimes frightened, but ordinarily anxious.

I recall past debates on the subject when right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have joined to see how they could relieve that anxiety by making clear the right of both the tenant and the landlord when a tenancy was to be determined. The difficulty in finding this sort of solution has been that the law is very strict over the form of the notice to quit.

It may be that a kindly landlord serves a notice to quit by writing in a kindly way, "Never mind, my dear, if you cannot move by the time that the notice expires." He is later advised by his solicitor that the notice to quit is invalid. The solution given in the previous debate and way back to the 1957 Act was that we should put on the formal notice to quit some sort of information about the rights and duties of the landlord and tenant. So we have in these regulations this prescribed information.

I would have preferred that it be more definite than merely information of this sort but I do not think the notice was ever intended to be an invitation to the tenant to thumb his nose at the landlord. If one looks at the information on the back of the Statutory Instrument, it invites the tenant to do that. Here is a notice to quit—

Mr. George Cunningham

That is the law.

Mr. Page

Not quite. There is a lot more of law than that. The landlord has the right to possession in a large number of cases, and in those cases it is right that the tenant should not be encouraged into litigation, and not even warned that if he is obstinate over that litigation he may well have to pay the costs in it. Therefore, he should not be encouraged to do that.

It is right that in the Regulation it is said rather vaguely that the landlord can turn the tenant out in certain circumstances, but this is said so vaguely that it is not significant. If the landlord's rights are treated in such a cavalier fashion in this notice on the back of the form, there is a great deterrent to the continuation of landlordship.

I do not think that at this stage either side of the House wishes to destroy the private sector of landlord and tenant It may be that ultimately the Government and the Labour Party would like to see the private sector go altogether, but we have it now and we have to make it operate with a good relationship between landlord and tenant.

The information which the landlord is obliged to give under this Statutory Instrument, if no more is given, is an injustice both to the landlord and to the tenant. The tenant, as I see it, is given false optimism. It encourages him to litigate. He is told to do nothing.

Mr. George Cunningham

Is it not a fact that some of the sentences to which the right hon. Gentleman is taking exception are identical with those prescribed in the information to be contained in the rent books, which, so far as I recall, were prescribed in Statutory Instruments made during the right hon. Member's time as Minister for Housing?

Mr. Page

That is entirely different to saying that one should put those things in the rent book where are also set out the obligation on the tenant about keeping the property in tenant-like manner and paying the rent.

What always happens when a tenant is served with notice to quite is that he stops paying his rent. Service of a notice to quit with this sort of information means a landlord losing his rent for at least four months. If we had a rapid form of deciding the issue between landlord and tenant, with possession being granted, that would not be so bad. One could get a settlement between the parties, and the landlord would not lose the income from the property for so long a time. The matter could be settled. The Government have talked about an improvement in this matter for a long time. On Rent Acts we have debated again and again the slowness of possession cases. We have had promises again and again from Law Officers of both parties that they will be speeded up. It just has not happened, so the issue between landlord and tenant continues.

It would have helped if it had been obligatory, in accordance with the note on the back of the regulations, for the tenant to be told, "While you are under notice to quit, you are still liable to pay the rent and to deal with the property in a good tenant-like manner." It is a fallacy—almost an old wives' tale—that when a notice to quit is served the rent is not payable. If it is a controlled tenancy it does not invalidate the notice to quit if rent is still paid and received.

If the tenant were given the information I suggest, we might smooth the relationship between landlord and tenant, which is bound to become frayed when notice to quit is served. Insufficient thought has been given to the drafting of these four paragraphs and to their effect on the relationship between landlord and tenant. It may be inviting the tenant to litigate or to allow litigation to go on when it never should, when, instead, he ought to get together with his landlord to see whether he can be found other accommodation.

What do the Law Lords think about this invitation to the tenant to litigate? Will more and more cases crowd out the already crowded county courts, just because the tenant is told that he can sit back and do nothing until his landlord takes him to court?

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I should first declare an interest as I am a barrister and am married to a solicitor. I know little about the intricacies of the Rent Acts. I understand that my wife knows something about them, but she has been unable to explain them to me.

This has been a disturbing debate. The whole House has been concerned about the way in which the Regulations are drafted. The arguments on this matter can be divided into the arguments of detail and the arguments of philosophy. As one would expect on such an important subject, the House is deeply divided in its attitude to the importance of the landlord-tenant relationship.

The most disturbing feature of the debate has been the way in which hon. Members on both sides, with considerable professional experience and knowledge, have cast doubt on the wording of the Regulations. Our procedure prevents us from putting forward detailed suggestions for amending the regulations. We have to accept or reject them entirely.

The whole purport of my speech is to suggest that the only honourable course for this House to take tonight is to ask the Minister to take thse Regulations away. They are defective. The cannot be bodged up. Moreover, even those who completely disagree with the philosophy put forward by the Opposition have a profound sense of unease that many of the remedies sought by these Regulations will create worse problems.

I shall recapitulate on the telling points which have been made by Labour Members during the debate. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) made trenchant criticisms of the words used in the Regulations, and spoke, as many non-lawyers do, of the need to try to produce legal documents in simple language. It is always difficult to have, on the one hand, simple language, and, on the other hand, accurate language. I am convinced by the arguments which the hon. Gentleman put forward that in this instance there are possibilities for a more simple exposition of the point which this schedule seeks to make. I also agree that if the philosophy of these Regulations is to be accepted, there is something to be said for getting the rent book Regulations up to date and for removing inaccurate statements of law from the rent books.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) made with such telling force. He said that the information in the schedule was inaccurate and would tend to encourage people to engage in litigation where they were certain to lose. In certain circumstances there may be an obligation upon a judge to make an order for possession against a tenant and therefore the information in this schedule is plainly wrong.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) spoke from his own professional knowledge about the slovenly wording into which the schedule degenerated. He said that the Regulations were totally inadequate and badly drafted.

However, the battery of abuse from Labour Members did not end there. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), whose concern about these matters is well known, said that he had devoted half his life to these problems and that he believed that the details on the rent book should be not only accurate and a proper statement of law but also complete. He believed that the details on the rent book should give some proper statement of the various methods of payment that the tenant could make. Like other hon. Gentlemen, he attacked the schedule.

The consensus of the House is to the effect that these Regulations, from whatever philosophical view one takes them, are a dog's dinner. It is not possible to amend them by changing the odd word here or there. They are bad and defective from start to finish.

However, it does not end there. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has as much experience as any hon. Member of the details of drafting complicated legislation. He pays great attention to these matters. He need yield to no one in his knowledge of the difficulties of drafting complicated legislation. He agrees that it would be a good idea that the form of the notice to quit should be in a common form and stated in the schedule. He also made the telling point that it is possible for Regulations such as these to be used in order to help the more speedy resolution of these issues. He made it plain that he believed that such Regulations as these could be used at the beginning of a more summary form of justice in possession cases.

He also took the view that the schedule should also tell the tenant that even after the notice to quit had been served the tenant was under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord, and that is a protection for the tenant. Sometimes when a tenant knows that a landlord wants him out, the tenant spends the money and so does not have it to give the landlord. The landlord at a subsequent stage then has a proper claim for getting the tenant out.

This is one of the difficulties which arise from assuming that the tenant knows nothing and then giving him incomplete and inadequate information. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, it is no more than an invitation to litigate. That is important because an invitation to dangerous litigation which is likely to fail is the most disgraceful thing that the State can offer the citizen. Not only does it cause enormous hardship to the individual citizen who is invited to litigate on a bad case but it is costly for the State because most of these cases in the county court are financed by legal aid.

Many Labour Ministers have seen fit in the course of this Parliament to lecture the House about the importance of not giving legal aid to various persons who may be disadvantaged in one form of tribunal or another. We have been told in relation to the Community Land Act that vast sums are being spent on legal aid and that it would not be right in the present financial circumstances to extend legal aid to tribunals held under that Act. Yet these Regulations encourage litigants to take up litigation in which they may well fail.

I say in a spirit of conciliation and moderation that the right thing for the House to do is to say in a firm and friendly voice that the Minister should take the Regulations back and discuss these matters not only with those who agree with his philosophy but with those like my hon. Friend who disagree and who have pertinent arguments to put forward about the details of the legislation. It is no more than our duty as Members of Parliament to criticise this sort of legislation in detail and to try to help the Government to produce legislation which makes sense. Quite palpably every right hon. and hon. Member believes that the Regulations do not make sense.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey said when the debate opened last week that these Regulations tended to worsen the present climate under which landlords are becoming less and less willing to let, thereby aggravating the existing housing shortage."—[Official Report, 9th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 190.] How much I agree with him. These Regulations start from the paternalistic assumption that all landlords are sharks and that all tenants are fools. I do not wish to break the consensus which I hope the House achieved earlier in my speech, but such an assumption is deeply offensive. The average landlord, certainly in the West Midlands, is an old lady who owns two houses which were perhaps left to her soon after the war. She lives in one and rents the other and gets so little income from it that she cannot afford to discharge her obligations as a landlord to the tenant. It is sad that the Regulations make such broad assumptions about people. There are bad landlords, of course, and there are bad tenants.

Mr. Molloy

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these things should not be, when we who have served as councillors in London know of people who have committed suicide because of the activities of scum such as Rachman? If there is no law to defend people who have been so terrified that they have taken their own lives, is Parliament to say "We regret this very much but we do not intend to do much about it"? Much of the legislation introduced by a Socialist Government has resulted from our memories of the appalling vulgarities not of the old ladies the hon. Gentleman mentioned but of wicked people such as Rachman and his ilk.

Mr. Budgen

There are, and have been, many bad landlords. The difficulty is that if one squeezes the private rented sector, as successive Governments have done, people who desperately want rented accommodation are prepared to rent from bad landlords, because there is a limited supply. If the market were allowed to find its own level, supply and demand would be in equilibrium, and then good landlords would be competing for good tenants, and there would be a proper choice. People would not be forced into the arms of the Rachmans of this world.

I have overrun my time, so I conclude by saying that there is a profound difference of philosophy between us. Even if the Minister does not accept what I have said about the philosophy of the matter, I hope that he will listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and my hon. Friends and will take the Regulations away and return with something better.

11.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

I take very seriously the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Bugden) and all the speeches I have heard. A notice to quit is a very serious matter for all concerned, and we take on board the various points made.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was not slow to remind the House, some time has elapsed since we made the provision in Section 123 of the Housing Act 1974. Therefore, I want to recall the background. That section gave effect to an undertaking made in another place during the passage of the Rent Act 1974. This was to consider the idea that a notice to quit a dwelling let on a protected tenancy or Part VI contract must, in order to be valid, be in writing and contain certain information as a source of guidance to the tenant. I believe that there is an unanswerable case for telling tenants of their rights under law at the time when they most need to know them—when they are served with a notice to quit.

The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) asked what the opinion of the Law Lords was. We consulted the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Law Society, which made very helpful suggestions on the Statutory Instrument.

Tenants under notice to quite will react in different ways. Some of them will be aware that their landlord cannot evict them without a court order and that, where they are fully protected, the landlord must prove to a court that grounds for possession exist. Other will have the good sense to seek sound advice on their position before doing anything. But it is evident that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has pointed out, many tenants given notice to quit and deliver up possession do not know their rights and, in fear or misunderstanding, leave their homes. On their departure they automatically forfeit their security of tenure and so, prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily, jeopardise their housing position.

Having introduced legislation which protects tenants in their homes, we do, of course, go to considerable lengths to educate the public on their rights. But we all know how difficult it is to get the message across to people who are not immediately at risk. It is when the crisis arrives that tenants need to know, and that is what these Regulations seek to achieve.

The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), in moving the Prayer against the Regulations, raised three points for our consideration. They have been covered by other hon. Members. He suggested, first, that the Regulations require one private citizen to give legal advice to another private citizen. Unfortunately, he did not choose to elaborate on this proposition. Nor did he explain why he felt that the requirement was a ground for objection to the Regulations.

Speaking generally, I see no objection to the principle that an individual who supplies goods or services should be under an obligation to acquaint his customer with the way in which the law overrides or qualifies the terms of the transaction between them. I see no reason why this should not be part of his normal business practice. I am thinking of the area of consumer protection where the principle is certainly well established and, I believe, fully supported by all hon. Members. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out, the obligation is not unprecedented in the area of landlord and tenant relationships. For instance, the Regulations prescribing the form of notice to be included in a rent book provide that the notice includes a good deal of information on tenants' rights. The rent book regulations are with the printer and will be sent out as soon as possible.

In his second point the hon. Member for Hornsey went on to the criticism that, having required the landlord to provide information, the form and content of that information is inadequate. In particular, he was concerned about what he saw as the specific omissions which he felt could mislead tenants.

First, he suggested that the reference to protected tenancies is incomplete because it does not refer to the situations where the court has not discretion in granting an order. The lettings where this applies are, of course, strictly limited in relation to the general run of tenancies in the private rented sector. In addition, such lettings require notice to be served at the commencement of the tenancy that possession might be required under the non-discretionary grounds. The tenant is therefore already aware of the limitations of his protection. More importantly perhaps, lettings to which the non-discretionary grounds apply will in the majority of cases be for a fixed term——

Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Armstrong

No. The hon. Gentleman must take up this matter with me later. I want to answer the many points which have been made.

Therefore, I find the argument that false hopes will be raised, or litigation will be encouraged, rather far-fetched.

Secondly, I think the point the hon. Member made about rent tribunal protection being of no use when one of the normal Rent Act grounds such as nonpayment of rent is invoked is overstating the position. The prescribed information says only that the tenant may be able to ask the tribunal for a postponement. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the tribunal will give any more than a minimal extension if it accepts the landlord's evidence that the tenant is in breach of the terms of his agreement. Also, if the tenant seeks advice from either the tribunal or from another source, he will be told of the Rent Act 1974 provision.

The Regulations will thus have achieved their purpose of ensuring that the tenant did not give up possession summarily and before the court has arbitrated.

Before I deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury it may be helpful if I explain briefly why we decided that the prescribed information should be as set out in the schedule to the regulations.

Section 123 of the Housing Act 1974 allows the Secretary of State to make different provisions in relation to different descriptions of letting and different circumstances. We considered at some length the possibility that the Regulations should provide that information to the effect of that set out in a list should be contained in a valid notice to quit and that the information should be prescribed separately for protected tenancies and Part VI tenancies.

There were, however, difficulties with this approach. First, the form chosen might have opened the way to misrepresentation of tenants' rights and make it more difficult for a landlord to serve a valid notice. Second, as the borderline between a protected and a Part VI tenancy may well be obscure to both landlord and tenant, it would be difficult for either to know whether the appropriate notice had been served.

We therefore came to the view that on balance it would be preferable to adopt a combined prescription. It will be easy for law stationers to print a standard version of the information required. But as we are not prescribing an exact form of the words which must be used, a landlord will not be precluded from, for example, conveying the information in slightly more direct and personal terms. Prescribing a combined formula for protected and Part VI tenants also has the clear advantage of giving certainty to the landlord.

We accept that the formula we have chosen means that each tenant will get some information which does not apply to him. What is more important is that we have ensured that the vital information about the landlord's need for a court order and the advisability of seeking professional advice is clearly represented.

I can understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others that the information we are prescribing does not restrict the landlord to an exact form of words. The fact of the matter is that Section 123 does not permit the Secretary of State to prescribe a precise form of words. It only allows us to require that certain information should be given. This is not, as hon. Members will appreciate, the same as prescribing a statutory form. Nor, significantly, is it the same as prescribing that advice should be given.

I think, however, that my hon. Friend may be overstating the dangers that may arise from the unscrupulous landlord attempting to blur the issue by providing much more information than has been prescribed. I imagine that in practice the majority of landlords will adopt the wording in the schedule, no more no less. There may be a minority of landlords who will continue to attempt to confuse their tenants, but I wonder how successful they will be. The notice they serve must still contain the basic information. This will at least ensure that the tenant is alerted to the need to seek advice. This represents a considerable improvement on the present position.

The points that the hon. Members have made on the prescribed information suggest that the main purpose of the Regulations has been overlooked. What we are aiming to do is to ensure that the tenant does not forfeit his security of tenure unnecessarily and before he has sought advice on his position. I think the prescribed information achieves this.

I have not forgotten the third point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey who said that the Regulations would tend to worsen the present climate under which landlords are becoming less and less willing to let—no doubt we shall hear a good deal about that tomorrow—and that landlords had written to him saying that because of the Regulations they felt regarded as a race not worthy of consideration". I do not know how many have written to him complaining about the Regulations but I can say that none has written to me or my colleagues or the Department in this vein.

I should like to emphasise that we are fully aware of the need to ensure that landlords are aware of the new provision before it comes into force on 31st March next. We have therefore allowed a good margin of time between making the Regulations and their coming into force. This will give landlords, and particularly small landlords, the chance to learn about them and allow law stationers, if they are interested, time to print appropriate standard notices.

At the same time, we have alerted local authorities, rent offices and tribunals, housing aid centres and citizen's advice bureaux to the existence of the new Regulations. In addition we shall shortly be producing a new leaflet dealing with the Regulations and we are planning a campaign in the national Press.

Opposition Members have chosen to pray against this worthwhile measure. This they are entitled to do. But I do not see how any reasonable person can object to the principle that individuals who are affected by legislation which Parliament has passed should be informed of their rights and responsibilities conveyed by that legislation. I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that we shall be more than ready to consider suggestions for improving these Regulations once they have had a fair trial. In the light of this and of the explanations I have given I trust that the movers of this Prayer will be content to withdraw it.

Question put and negatived.