WAR DAMAGE TO LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1941)

LORD ALNESS

My Lords, the purpose of this measure, which applies to Scotland only, can be expressed within the compass of one sentence. It is to provide a cheap and expedient method of determining the rent, if any, which is payable in respect of certain dwelling-houses which have been the victims of war damage. Moreover, the method by which this end is achieved can also be expressed in one sentence. It is that, failing agreement between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the rent, if any, which falls to be paid in respect of bombed premises, the matter shall be referred for final determination to "a man of skill," who shall be selected from a panel to be set up, in virtue of the provisions of the Bill, by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Bill can be divided into two parts. The first relates to the question of principle, which I conceive to be relevant to a Second Reading debate, while the remaining provisions are in their main outline ancillary and procedural, and are more appropriate to the Committee stage. I would say, however, that the Committee in another place devoted most meticulous care to an examination of the provisions, of the Bill, and it comes here with the assent of another place, without, I think I am right in saying, a single Division having been taken upon it. The principle of the measure I have already stated. It is this, that for litigation in the matters with which the Bill deals shall be substituted arbitration. Perhaps it may be right and proper, however, that I should say just a word about the directions which the Bill contains in applying the principle to the circumstances which may, and probably will, arise.

In the first plce, the Bill provides that, where the premises are unfit by reason of war damage and are not occupied, no rent shall be payable in respect of these premises by the tenant. On the other hand, where an unfit dwelling-house is 974 occupied in whole or in part, or where the accommodation of the dwelling-house has been substantially reduced by war damage, the rent payable falls to be ascertained, failing agreement between the landlord and the tenant, by "a man of skill" appointed from the panel to which I have referred and to which I shall refer again in a moment. Again, the Bill is limited—and some of your Lordships may feel inclined to ask why—to dwelling-houses held on a tenancy of not more than a year, and it is also limited to premises the rental of which is not in excess of £90. The reason for selecting a yearly tenancy is that in Scotland many, if not most, of the working-class houses fall within that category, and the reason for selecting the limit of £90 is that that is the figure which is to be found in the Rent Restriction Acts in their application to Scotland. We think that, so far as houses with larger rentals and longer tenancies are concerned, there is no hardship in leaving them to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the Courts. In cases of that kind, where the property is large and valuable and where the tenancy is lengthy, it is obvious on the face of it, I think, that problems more complex in their character and different in their kind from those which arise in the case of the limited class of houses to which this Bill applies would be likely to be encountered, and therefore it is proposed to limit the operation of this Bill to houses of a rent not in excess of £90 and the tenancy of which does not exceed a year.

I should perhaps say a word with regard to the panel which is to be set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That panel will contain architects, surveyors and other persons deemed by him to be suitable for ascertaining the appropriate rent, if any, to be paid for damaged premises. They will visit the premises and in many cases settle the matter on the spot. At the same time, I would impress upon your Lordships that the hope and intention underlying this Bill is that in many cases, if not in most, an amicable arrangement will be arrived at by landlord and tenant without recourse even to the good offices of an arbitrator. The Bill further provides that the "man of skill" may issue a certificate certifying the fitness of a house for occupation, and, so long as it subsists, that certificate is conclusive evidence of fitness. 975 But the Bill also provides that, on the expiry of three months, the certificate issued by the arbitrator may be reviewed or revoked if circumstances require that course to be followed. I should add, perhaps, that the Bill also provides that a house is not deemed to be occupied while it is unfit by reason of war damage merely because furniture is left in it by the tenant, or because the tenant visits it for the purpose of protecting or removing his furniture, and although he retains keys of the house. That provision, I understand, appears textually in the corresponding measure which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to move.

Lastly, I may say to your Lordships—and some of your Lordships may think the provision is not unfitting in a Scottish measure—the cost of remunerating the "man of skill" who is to fulfil the functions of arbitrator is to be paid, not by the landlord or the tenant of the damaged premises, but by the Imperial Exchequer. I think I have now covered the points which are relevant to the Second Reading debate on this measure. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that the purpose of the Bill is commendable, and that the means adopted for effecting that purpose are acceptable. In the hope and belief that that is so, I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.