HL Deb 12 February 1946 vol 139 cc389-407

Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee read.

Moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Application of Act by order of Minister of Health, and appointment of tribunal

1.—(1) Where, as respects a district consisting of the whole or part of the area of a local authority, the Minister of Health (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") is satisfied on representation by, or after consultation with, the local authority that it is expedient that the provisions of this Act should have effect in that district, he may, by order, direct that this Act shall have effect in that district as from such (lay as may be specified in the order, and this Act shall thereupon come into force in that district.

(2) For each district in which this Act is in force there shall be a tribunal constituted in accordance with the Schedule to this Act, and the provisions of that Schedule shall apply to each tribunal:

Provided that, if the Minister so directs, the same tribunal may act for more than one such district.

3.45 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "tribunal," where that word first occurs, to insert "appointed by the Lord Chancellor and." The noble Lord said: You will remember that in this Bill in certain designated areas the Minister of Health may appoint a tribunal to deal with the question of the actual rents paid. I want to stress the very great importance of these tribunals. It was mentioned, especially by the Minister of Health, that this Bill forms only a part of the recommendations of what has come to be known as the Ridley Report on the whole of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and he forecast that there would be further Bills in the future which would implement other parts of the Ridley Report. These tribunals will undoubtedly be taken as models in further legislation dealing with rent in general, and therefore the composition of these tribunals is of the very greatest importance. There was considerable argument in another place as to whether provision had better not be inserted in the Bill insisting on some form of legal representation on the tribunal, but that was eventually dropped.

In the operation of the tribunal there is bound to be a number of people who will be dissatisfied. Three different classes of people can refer cases to the tribunals, the landlord, the tenant, or the local authority. A decision given will undoubtedy, in many cases, cause dissatisfaction to the person who does not "back a winner" so to speak, who does not get the decision in his favour. Therefore there is a chance that the impression will be given of political bias. I do not want to insinuate at all, and indeed it would be most improper to insinuate, that the Minister, or any Minister, would appoint a tribunal that would be biased, but what I do say is that that impression might be given. There is going to be dissatisfaction among a large number of people. That cannot be helped.

I would remind your Lordships that the members of these tribunals will be, or can be, in receipt of a salary. They are appointed by the Minister of Health. The local authorities form one of the classes who can refer a question of rent to these tribunals, and the Minister is working very closely with the local authorities. That he admits himself. I think perhaps it is a pity. I do not know, but it does appear to me that local authorities are becoming more and more the agents, or, to use an expression which I do not like but which is used here a lot, the "chosen instrument" of the Minister of Health. They are more and more carrying out edicts issued from Whitehall. Therefore, we might have one of the people who can refer matters to the tribunal, the local authority, working in close conjunction with the Minister of Health, themselves referring a case to a tribunal which is appointed indirectly in conjunction with themselves. It is possible.

I want to stress most strongly that there would be much more confidence in these tribunals if they could be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I mentioned this on Second Reading, and I was given an answer, which I am sure was on the spur of the moment, but which I could not accept. That was that the Lord Chancellor was grievously over-worked; he had far too much to do; in fact he was a very tired man. I am sure I have got the greatest consideration for the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, but I really cannot quite accept it as a reasonable answer. Judging from the amount of legislation which we seem to be getting, if that is a genuine answer, I am afraid that most of the Government will be in a nursing home before long! I do urge upon the Government that it will improve the Bill if this Amendment can be accepted, and, even if they can not see their way to accepting it, perhaps a better answer might be forthcoming. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, after ("tribunal") insert ("appointed by the Lord Chancellor and").—(Lord Chesham.)

THE PROVOST GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

I am glad the noble Lord has emphasized the importance of getting the right personnel for these tribunals, because that is a point on which we are all agreed. It is essential to find people whose judgment can really be trusted when it comes to deciding what is a fair rent. The noble Lord seemed a little afraid that there might be some political bias in the choice of the members of these rent tribunals. I do hope that he will be reassured if I describe, quite briefly, how it is proposed that the tribunals should be appointed, because I think he will be satisfied that every effort will be made to prevent Party political considerations from influencing the selection of the members of any of these rent tribunals.

In the first instance, the local authority in the area concerned which is going to have a tribunal will submit a list of names to the Minister. That is clearly the sensible thing, because the local authority will know most about the people on the spot. The names thus submitted will be chosen with a view to securing people with much experience in public work and public affairs, whose judgment can be regarded as impartial and whose judgment will also be respected by their neighbours. Such persons will not necessarily, although they may incidentally, have legal qualifications. The Minister might, of course, wish to consult the Lord Chancellor about the appointment of a former County Court Judge, just as he might wish to consult the Foreign Secretary about the appointment of a retired diplomat. The Minister of Health has always been the Minister in charge of the Government Department entrusted with the task of dealing with the relations between Whitehall and the local authorities in England and Wales, and the officials of this Ministry have more numerous contacts with the local authorities than have those of any other Government Department. The Government, therefore, take the view that the appropriate Minister to exercise these responsibilities is the Minister of Health, and this view, I should like to emphasize, is supported in paragraph 51 of the Ridley Committee's Report. The recommendation there reads as follows: The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to have unfettered responsibility for appointing members of the tribunals. I think that is put very clearly and very strongly, and the Ridley Committee had every chance of considering the matter at great length and in great detail. Therefore, with much regret, I fear I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.

LORD CHESHAM

In view of that explanation, which is a good one, and the assurance that these tribunals will be appointed as the noble Earl has just stated, I am not going to press this Amendment. I wish to make it quite clear that I was not saying that there would be a political bias; I said it might give the appearance to dissatisfied people that there was a political bias. But I do not want to press this Amendment, and most of the Amendments that are down in my name are consequential on this. Therefore, I do not propose to move any of them until we come to the last Amendment on the Paper, which is an Amendment to the Schedule. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Reference to Tribunal of Contracts for Furnished Letting

(2) Where any contract to which this Act applies is referred to a tribunal, then, unless at any time before the tribunal have entered upon consideration of the reference it is withdrawn by the person or authority by whom it was made, the tribunal shall consider it and, after making such inquiry as they think fit, and giving to each party (and, if the house is one the general management whereof is vested in and exercisable by a housing authority, to that authority) an opportunity of being heard, or, in his option, of submitting representations in writing, shall approve the rent payable under the contract or reduce it to such sum as they may, in all the circumstances, think reasonable, or may, if they think fit in all the circumstances, dismiss the reference, and shall notify the parties and the local authority of their decision in each case.

3.55 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), after "tribunal," where that word thirdly occurs, to insert: unless they have considered a similar application by the same party within such a period as in their opinion makes the new application superfluous.

The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill, as those of your Lordships who were in the House will remember, I raised the point that these tribunals have no power to stop any frivolous or superfluous applications being made before them. In another place I know well that it was sought to check anything of the sort by giving the tribunals power to award costs against a party who made an unnecessary and frivolous complaint. That was resisted in another place, and in the Amendment which I have brought before your Lordships to-day I have sought to deal with the matter in a different way, not by costs but by leaving it in the hands of the tribunal to decide, if the same party has, within a short period (such a period as the tribunal thinks is unreasonable) brought an application, that they need not consider it. I think it is a good thing to give them power. There are not a great many people who would come time after time, but there are a few, and if the tribunal had to consider each one it would mean hearing a person tell the same story perhaps through to the end. I think that would waste the time of the tribunal and would perhaps bring the proceedings into some amount of disrespect. Therefore we should give them this power. With those few words, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, after ("tribunal") insert ("unless they have considered a similar application by the same party within such a period as in their opinion snakes the new application superfluous").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

As I think I told the noble Lord opposite during the Second Reading debate, we are very much obliged to him for pointing out a minor defect in the Bill as it now stands, and we do share to the full his desire to prevent the valuable time of these tribunals from being wasted by litigious or vindictive persons. I believe his object would be secured if he would be willing to accept a slight alteration in the wording of his Amendment, as in the circumstances it is most important that the wording of the Amendment should not lend itself to even the smallest degree of ambiguity. If he would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, I can assure him I will move an alternative at the next stage of the Bill, and in the meantime your Lordships will have an opportunity of seeing it and studying it as soon as it has been circulated.

LORD LLEWELLIN

In addition to that assurance, the noble Earl has also let me know what words he proposes to use. They are an improvement on mine, and. I shall be glad to see them on the Paper. With that assurance from the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.58 p.m.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (2), after "reduce" to insert "or vary". The noble Viscount: said: This is a point which can be put in a few moments, because if I do not convince your Lordships of the justice of it in a few words, I shall certainly not convince anybody in a great many. It is a perfectly simple thing. These tribunals, as you know, have power to reduce the rents and they have power to dismiss the applications, but they have no power to increase the rents. Now there are cases in which a rent is abnormally low. Often it is a case of kindness or of charity. However, the relationship that then existed may go. A person may become spiteful and he may apply to the tribunal, knowing that he cannot lose. There are no costs which can be given against him and there is no appeal; therefore he cannot go wrong in any way at all in making an application. It is only common justice in such a case that the tribunals should have power to make an appropriate increase in the rent. And it is not only common justice, it is common sense, because you are getting the benefit of the judgment of these tribunals which you are taking so much trouble to establish. Why should we not have the benefit of their knowledge and be told what the rent ought to be? We are told, as an alternative, that if the application is dismissed, it meets the case. How can it meet the case? The landlord knows he is charging too little. His only answer then is to charge too much. The answer to that is that the other man then lodges another application and so you go backwards and forwards.

There is a further point which I want to make. I hope I have not been provocative in anything I have said, but I do urge my noble friend to consider that if these one-sided tribunals are set up and if there is created an impression of injustice (which is the only impression I can get out of it) people will not be anxious to let their rooms. The purpose of this Bill is to control extortions and not to stop rooms being let, but that is the very thing which will be done if people are not given the common justice which they are entitled to expect and which, of course, the Ridley Report recommends they should receive. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 26, after ("reduce") insert ("or vary").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I should like to say one word in support of this Amendment. It seems to me clearly just that the tribunal should have the right to increase the rent payable under a contract if they find that in the circumstances the cost of services has increased, as they naturally have in the last few years. While I am mentioning this, I should also like to point out that the cases where this provision would be of value are the cases of hotels and flats. I have already invited the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider whether at some stage or the other he should not remove luxury hotels and flats which may be described as luxury flats outside the purview of the Bill altogether. I can imagine from what I know that it would be very unlikely that he would not desire to retain within the Bill smaller hotels, where moderate prices are charged, and flats which would be likely to be used by people of not too great means. In those cases it is almost inevitable that the costs of services have gone up since the date when the rent or the other payment in respect of the accommodation was originally fixed. In some cases I am sure that the increase in the cost of services will be very great. Those are particular cases in which, as I said, the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Viscount Buckmaster would be useful in preventing injustice.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The noble Viscount has three Amendments on the Order Paper, two on Clause 2 and one on Clause 7.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

Perhaps I can help the noble Earl. I am going to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the final Amendment, which is superseded by the second Amendment standing in my name.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

That makes it easier for me to make the request I intended to make, which is, that I should deal with the two Amendments which he intends to urge on the House in one speech, because they are both designed to achieve the same object, namely, to give the tribunal the power to increase.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I hope that in doing that the noble Earl will not deny me the right to put forward my views on the second one, which I have not expressed yet.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

No. I had no ulterior motive at all. The noble Viscount's Amendments are the most important on the Order Paper and go to the root of the Bill, so that I am afraid I shall have to speak at rather greater length than I have been advised to do until now. What in effect the noble Viscount has proposed is that where a contract for the letting of an apartment or a flat with services is referred to a tribunal, that tribunal shall have power to authorize an increase in the rent payable when they are satisfied that there has been an increase in the cost of services since the contract was made.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl to say that the essence of the matter is that they should only do so provided that they are satisfied that the rent is otherwise just. There can be no increase at all if the rent is otherwise an unfair one.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I quite appreciate the point. Let us see what the effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be if it were accepted. If the letting in question, the letting of an apartment or a furnished room with services, falls outside the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts, the noble Viscount's Amendment would not add much to what can already be done under the Bill, because of the power of the tribunal to dismiss a reference and thereby to leave the landlord at liberty to increase the rent at the end of the existing contract. That, I believe, was an amendment which was accepted when the Bill was passing through another place. It is only in respect of lettings with services which are within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and therefore subject at the moment to a standard rent, that the noble Viscount's Amendments would have any important and far-reaching effect, and then, of course, only if the Rent Restrictions Acts were amended in this Bill as well. Both processes would be necessary. Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 7 of the Bill it is said that its contents will not affect any provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts with the exception of two sections of the Acts relating to the charging of rents for furnished lettings, and those two sections will be repealed.

This feature of the Bill is really essential—that the main structure of the Rent Restrictions Acts shall be untouched by the provisions of the present Bill. The noble Viscount's Amendment, therefore, raises an extremely important issue of principle, as to whether this Bill should alter in a major way the operations of the Rent Restrictions Acts and allow standard rents to be increased in the limited cases which he has in mind. Of course, no one has ever suggested that there may not be cases where the rents of lettings and services subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts are at present far too low. Amongst the ten million—I believe the figure is approximately ten million—properties subject at the present day to those Acts, there are, no doubt, very many cases where the standard rent is too low, and where the landlord is suffering a genuine hardship. I think the noble Viscount himself mentioned an example of this kind in an earlier debate.

There are houses in the danger areas where the owner-occupiers had to leave because of war service, and who, at the time they went away, let their houses unfurnished at low rents, which of course then became standard rents, and still remain standard rents. The Bill, of course, cannot touch such cases as it stands at the present time. They will have to await the general Bill which the Government have in mind, and which they wish to introduce into Parliament at the earliest possible moment to give effect to the main recommendations of the Ridley Report. But, on the other hand, it should not be forgotten either that there are also tenants of unfurnished houses and rooms who are paying standard rents which are too high. Tenants as well as landlords are suffering under a hardship which will not be remedied by the Bill as it stands at the moment. They also must await what one might call a general amnesty for their position to be rectified.

The Government's view—which I expressed during the Second Reading debate, and which I will, therefore, not repeat again at any length—is that it would be preferable to leave any question of increase of standard rents in the limited class of lettings with services to be dealt with under a general Bill rather than to attempt to deal with it in this Bill which is designed for the special circumstances relating to the unfair advantage which is sometimes taken of hard-pressed tenants who are looking for accommodation at the present time.

There is this further point, which I think is an extremely important one, to be remembered. If the noble Viscount's Amendment were adopted the work of these tribunals would be greatly increased. There would be a very much larger number of cases, and the danger would arise in certain parts of the country, particularly in London, that the number of applications from landlords for authority to increase their rents would be so large as to make it extremely difficult for the tribunals to deal, without very prolonged delay, with references to them from tenants complaining of exorbitant rents demanded for uncontrolled premises. These latter are often cases of extreme hardship, tenants being charged very high rents for the furnished accommodation which they are able to get, and they are the sort of matters with which this Bill is intended to deal. Therefore the effectiveness of this Bill in bringing about alleviation of the lot of the people for whose benefit it has been designed might be seriously prejudiced if the wider issue raised by the noble Viscount were incorporated in the Bill. I very much hope that he will feel that the undertaking of the Government to implement the recommendations of the Ridley Committee's Report at the earliest possible moment is sufficient to warrant the withdrawal of an Amendment that obviously raises this much wider question.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not know what the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment will think of the reply given by the noble Earl, but for my own part I am not at all satisfied with it. First of all we have the reference to the Ridley Committee, which, after a considerable amount of trouble and discussion, recommended that these tribunals should be able, if they see fit, to act as tribunals and not only decrease rent but increase it as well. So far as I understand the observations of the noble Earl, the Postmaster-General, he has given as one of his reasons for asking for the withdrawal of the Amendment that there would be a great many cases and that the tribunals would be overworked. If there is going to be a great many cases it shows that there are a great many people with justifiable grievances. Otherwise, there would not be this very large number of cases. If the noble Earl had said that there were only likely to be one or two cases in the whole country, that might have been the sort of thing that could be overlooked. But if one of his reasons for opposing the Amendment is that there would be so many cases that the tribunals would be overworked, surely then the grievances ought to be put right at the earliest possible moment. The earliest possible moment is when this Bill is put through. There should not be a delay until another Bill comes along, this general Bill about which the noble Earl spoke.

Incidentally, can we have any kind of estimate as to when we shall see this general Bill? It does not look very likely that we shall see it this Session. If that is so, it means that these people have just got to wait on until some general Bill appears concerning which, so far as one can see, we have no idea of the date of its introduction. If—as the noble Earl himself asserted we should—we are to have confidence in these tribunals, no harm can be done by giving them this power. On the other hand, a great deal of good can be done, because then, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, they will act as tribunals. The whole idea of tribunals is that they shall weigh matters between two sides and be able to give a fair judgment between one side and the other. I really think this is an important matter, as the noble Earl said, and if there are all these people who are going to flood the tribunals we ought to give these people justice now.

LORD CHESHAM

On the matter of another Bill which we are told will put all these things right, I must say that I am afraid I am not very much impressed by that argument. I read the report of the debate which took place in another place very carefully, and I noted that the Minister of Health apologized for implementing the Ridley Committee's Report piecemeal. He stated that the reason he could not carry out all the recommendations of the Report was that the Government were so busy that, so far as he could see, it would be a very long time before the whole Report could be embodied in legislation. Therefore, it does look as if these people, these landlords who are definitely in many cases losing money through providing services which have increased in cost to such a tremendous extent, and for which they cannot increase their rents, will go on losing money for quite a considerable time and not just for a matter of a few weeks as intimated—not said, but implied—by the noble Earl.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I am in a position of some difficulty because the noble Earl by answering both my Amendments at once has made it seem a little irregular for me to speak again. I know that I am in order, but I dislike trespassing on your Lordships' good nature. The first thing I would desire to do to help your Lordships would be to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment asking power to vary the rent and confine myself to the second Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: Provided that in any case where a contract to which this Act applies includes payment for services and the lessor shows to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the cost of the provision of such services has increased in respect of the house or part of a house since the date of the contract the tribunal shall, if satisfied that the rent is otherwise one which they would approve, have power to authorise the payment of the amount of such increase".

The noble Viscount said: I do not think I need say very much about the justice of this Amendment. The position is perfectly simple. Many of these people who own service flats have provided a vast amount of accommodation at reasonable rents. Many members of another place are living in such flats, and are taking advantage of those rents. No doubt they are very happy to be able to do so. Probably, some others have their names on waiting lists and are waiting to get into these flats. But the owners of the flats are in this position. They have negotiated agreements with their tenants, and the services which they have to provide were an integral part of those agreements. They are bound in law to continue those services. It does not matter how much more the services now cost or how much the landlords lose. They cannot get out of the arrangement, and they can be sued if they do not perform these services. They are in a further difficulty. They have got to take back—quite rightly—all the men they employed before.

This may double their wages bill but this is a statutory obligation they cannot avoid. So in two different ways they can be sued and yet they have no means whatever of recovering a penny piece from the tenant except by a voluntary agreement which some tenants have made. Yet there is no reason why because a few people are willing to do what they know to be just the remainder should take advantage of that which they know to be unjust. This is not only my view. The Ridley Committee had many supporters of His Majesty's Government in it and it was by no means a committee in favour of the landlord. Every single member said not only that an increase should be granted but that this should be done quickly and should receive immediate attention. The noble Earl not only says that it shall not receive that attention but that we must wait until some indefinite date in the future and all the time these tenants will be taking advantage of other people's financial loss.

I should like to deal with his two points. One of his points was not quite so convincing as his arguments usually are. He said on the Second Reading of this Bill that you cannot expect the Government to do a great deal at this time and that the major reform was to come later. But this is only a paragraph in the Ridley Report and the thing can be very easily done. He speaks of the flood of applications. All I propose in this Amendment is that if the tribunal otherwise approves, and the landlord proves how much the extra cost is, he should receive it. It is a short and simple thing which can easily be done. So that is no reason for postponing it. His second point was that you cannot interfere with the Rent Restrictions Acts. But those Acts are not sacrosanct. In the Committee stage in another place the Minister said he did not want to touch the Rent Restrictions Acts. He is the man who brought them in and it is for him to get out of his own difficulty. There are thirty of these Acts, all amending each other. There is no reason whatever why justice should not be done to these people and why some amendment on the lines I propose should not be carried.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. After all, a Government of this country is elected to render justice as far as possible. We have heard them talk a great deal about their mandate. Surely the aim is to do the greatest possible good and not merely to say that there are so many cases of injustice that you cannot possibly find the time to deal with them. In my opinion this particular Amendment is one which is extremely urgent. I can give you a definite example of what I have in mind in connexion with a charitable institution that I have a great deal to do with. It lets out houses for a small rent to a certain class of person and on one or two occasions the occupant has died. Before filling these houses—it took two or three months to do so—a widow was allowed to stay there at practically a nil rent. Now under the Rent Restriction Acts we cannot turn her out for a more worthy person and she stays there on a rent of practically nil. If we were allowed by this Amendment to make her pay even an ordinary rent we could get rid of her and put in a man for whom this charitable request was meant. I can see no possible reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. The noble Earl has admitted that it was an injustice not to admit the Amendment, but he only says that the Government have not the time to look after these people. They are bringing in Bills at the rate of two or three a week, which are going to give the country enormous problems. Surely they can find time to accept this proposal.

LORD WOOLTON

I am going to make an appeal to the noble Earl to give consideration to the views expressed on this side of the House. The noble Earl knows that we are very loth on this side to use a lot the considerable voting power which would be ours and I think he will agree that my noble friends have, sometimes under considerable difficulties, shown great patience. Here we feel quite strongly that there is an element of justice with which I am quite sure the noble Earl must be in sympathy. In fact some of the phrases he used, which I am sure were not loose phrases, show that he recognised that that injustice existed. I hope therefore he will not press us to a Division on this, and that he will consider what he can do either by way of accepting the Amendment which has been moved, or alternatively by giving us some assurance that he will consider the matter before the next stage. Failing that, I am bound to tell the noble Earl that I shall feel it my duty to advise noble Lords on this side not to refrain from voting.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am perfectly certain that no Minister would turn a deaf ear to an appeal from the noble Lord opposite and indeed, as he rightly said, there is a new feature of the case which only emerged during the course of the afternoon, namely the speeches made by a number of noble Lords all of whom stressed the great importance of the time factor. I do not think that there is any difference in principle between the two sides of the House; the difference centres entirely on the time factor, and I can assure the noble Lord opposite that I will direct the attention of my honourable friend the Minister of Health to the speeches which have been made this afternoon and if it is possible for me to make an offer at a later stage I shall certainly do so.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I am much encouraged by what noble Lords have said and I would point out to the noble Earl that everyone opposed to him politically has given unqualified support to this Bill with this one exception. I hope I am not saying what I should not say, but I do not think it would be an ungracious act on the part of the Minister if he were to make some concession in this case. In the hope that that may be in his mind I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Provisions as to local authorities.

6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act the local authority shall be—

  1. (a) elsewhere than in the administrative county of London, the council of the borough, urban district or rural district;
  2. (b) in the administrative county of London other than the City of London, the council of the metropolitan borough;
  3. (c) in the City of London, the common council:

Provided that, for the purposes of Section one of this Act, the local authority shall, in the administrative county of London other than the City of London, be the London County Council instead of the council of the metropolitan borough.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso. The noble Earl said: The effect of this Amendment, which stands in my name together with that of my noble friend Lord Latham, is that the Metropolitan Borough Councils instead of the London County Council will become the bodies who may make representations to the Minister and with whom the Minister must consult before this Act is applied to the London area. This is, of course, a matter of machinery. I understand that the proposal has been agreed between the borough councils and the London County Council, and I am quite certain, if it were accepted, that it would make it easier to operate this Act in the London area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, leave out lines 9 to 12.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Interpretation and Saving.

12.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say: housing authority" means a council which is a local authority for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act, 1936; local authority" has the meaning assigned to that expression by Section five of this Act; register" means the register kept by the local authority in pursuance of Section three of this Act; services" includes attendance, the provision of heating or lighting, the supply of hot water and any other privilege or facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house; tribunal" means a tribunal appointed in pursuance of section one of this Act.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

had given notice of an Amendment in the definition of "services," after the words "part of a house," to insert "not being a privilege or facility requisite for obtaining access thereto." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to meet a point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham during the Second Reading debate, when he pointed out the somewhat loose wording of Clause 1 (1). What I am endeavouring to do is to exclude from the definition of services the means of access which a tenant shares with the other occupants of a building. It may be that the Amendment as drafted is not sufficiently precise, and does not exclude enough. I should like an opportunity to examine the matter further before the Report stage, in case it is necessary to amend the form of words I am submitting at the moment, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I want the noble Earl, if he will, to be so good as to consider also the question of the supply simply of electric light in a room. I am not sure that, as the clause stands, a room is not within the Act simply because it has an electric light print—sometimes it would be a gas jet. To have merely electric light in a room ought not to bring the room in question within the provisions of the Act. If the noble Earl will undertake to consider that point before the Report stage, I shall be quite content. I have mentioned some other matters of greater importance, which he has also promised to consider.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I will gladly oblige the noble and learned Viscount who has been so helpful in attempting to find a suitable form of wording. Generally speaking, lighting would be regarded as a service, but, no doubt, he has certain cases in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Schedule:

Provisions Regarding Constitution of Tribunals.

1. A tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other members.

2. The chairman and the other members of a tribunal shall be appointed by the Minister. During the absence or incapacity of any member a person appointed by the Minister shall act in his place.

3. The members and acting members of a tribunal shall receive such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances as the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

4. The Minister may appoint a clerk and such other officers and servants as he thinks fit of a tribunal, and there shall be paid to them such salaries and allowances, as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine.

LORD CHESHAM moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out "Minister" and insert "tribunal".

The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. The noble Earl has told me the Government are prepared to accept it in spirit with a very slight alteration of the words, and to bring it into effect. Therefore, I shall not weary your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line so, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("tribunal").—(Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am obliged to the noble Lord opposite for putting down this Amendment. It cannot be accepted as it is, because the cost of the staffs of these tribunals will fall on the Exchequer. Therefore, the Minister of Health must have some say in the decisions as to the number of clerks and their remuneration. But if the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment he has on the paper at the moment, I will submit an alternative which will be circulated before the Report stage. The object of my alternative Amendment would be to give the tribunal the right to appoint its staff, which I think is what the noble Lord wants, subject only to the approval of the Minister.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

4.36 p.m.