HL Deb 18 February 1948 vol 153 cc1167-77

Read 3a (according to Order).

Clause 8:

(4) In this section the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:

"rent-restricted property" means a property (whether or not the subject of a tenancy) in the case of which the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say— (a) that immediately before the time when possession was taken of the property or part thereof in question the property or part was being used for residential purposes or if it was not then being used that it had been used for residential purposes when last used before that time, and

Lord LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (4) (a), after "purposes," where that word first occurs, to insert "by a tenant." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is, perhaps, somewhat unusual to move an Amendment on the Third Reading of a Bill. It has been done quite often before, however, and I think that, to-day there is some excuse, because we had the Committee stage of this Bill only yesterday; we have had no Report stage, and, though I am not casting blame on anyone, it is certainly not our fault that this Bill must become law within a very short time, otherwise the powers lapse. That—if there be any excuse needed—is my excuse for moving this Amendment on the Third Reading.

In the discussions which we had on the Bill yesterday one point made was that by this Bill we are putting back into the category of rent-restricted houses some houses which at the present moment no one considers to be in that category at all. By Clause 8 (1) your Lordships will see it is provided that: Where the requisitioned land consists only of rent-restricted land, the rental compensation shall not exceed the permissible rent.

If one looks at the next sub Section in that clause one sees that: Where the requisitioned land includes no rent-restricted land, the rental compensation shall not exceed one hundred and sixty per cent. and so on. I think that the Government are tackling this problem, if I may say so, in the wrong way. They are tackling it on the assumption that anyone who at present lives in a rent-restricted house, whether tenant or owner, when turned out by requisitioning, can automatically get another rent-restricted house in which to live. Similarly, I suppose, the assumption underlying subsection (2) is that if the person is living in a non-rent-restricted house he should be paid 160 per cent. of the value because he is the sort of person who will not get into a rent-restricted house, and in view of present-day prices will need the extra compensation. But that is not how it works out in practice.

I think it must be clear to your Lordships that it does not follow that if I live in a rent-restricted house it is likely that I shall be lucky enough to get back into one after I have been turned out by reason of requisitioning by a Government Department or by a local authority. This is how this Bill may work. I shall quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, if he says in reply—as he may—that this will not happen very frequently because, in the majority of cases, houses requisitioned are empty houses. That I quite appreciate. But it does not give any satisfaction to the two or three or twenty or a hundred—or whatever the number may he—who have had their houses requisitioned under these powers and who have to go out with what I believe is inadequate rental compensation. For what is rental compensation under the Rent Restrictions Acts? It is not the 1939 value, whether plus 60 per cent. or plus nothing. It is the 1914 value, plus whatever the permissible increases are, which may amount to 40 per cent.; and that is extremely little to give in rental compensation to a man whose house is to be requisitioned. Surely, it has been the policy of all Governments in this country, and of successive Parliaments, that if a property is needed for State purposes the State shall pay fair compensation; and it would follow that because the State happens to select the property of one individual damage shall not fall on that individual.

Let us assume that there are two houses side by side; they are exactly the same in all respects, and both are requisitioned under the powers of this Bill. One of them, in which is living an owner, has been subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts and has a restricted rent. Next door, another man is living, in an exactly similar house, but the house has never been let since 1914 and so has no restricted rent. The requisitioning authority come down and take both houses. Under the provisions of Clause 8 (2) of this Bill the man living in the house which is not rent-restricted receives 160 per cent., and the owner of the house next door receives 1914 restricted value, plus 25 per cent., or whatever it is. That is not fair. One man is treated completely differently from the other. The point may be made that the authorities will never requisition a house with people living in it. If that be the case, then it would do no harm whatever if the Government accepted my Amendment, because no charge will fall on the Treasury if it is never going to be done. But there is the power in the Bill to do it. If these powers are in the Bill, we ought to see that there are the necessary safeguards for people who live in their own houses.

My Amendment is a very simple one, to add three words to Clause 8 (4). At present the sub Section is as follows: 'Rent-restricted property ' means a property (whether or not the subject of a tenancy) in the case of which the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

  1. (a) that immediately before the time when possession was taken of the property or part thereof in question the property or part was being used for residential purposes … "
and I am seeking after that to put in the three words, "by a tenant." It may be said against me: "Why are you doing this only in favour of the owner-occupier and not in favour of the tenant-occupier? If you turn a tenant-occupier out of a rent-restricted property, he may not be able to get a similar rent-restricted house in which to live." I believe that there is a distinction between the man who has bought his own house, and a man who is a tenant. We are not dealing with vast mansions or country estates, but with small houses under rent restriction. I believe that there is a distinction between the man who has put what capital he has into buying a home for life—a man who may be turned out with this inadequate compensation which is most unlikely to be sufficient for him to buy another house these days—and the tenant of a rent-restricted property, who has considerable security of tenure. It is true that it is not so secure as that of the owner of the property; there are ways in which the tenant can be made to give up possession, if the landlord claims that he wants the house for his own use, or for some other reason covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts.

At any rate, in my view it is a hardship to give as compensation to those people whose houses are under requisition only the 1914 rental value when we know that it is most unlikely that they will be able to get other houses at that value. I may not be doing as much as I could; perhaps I ought to have moved to leave out the whole of Clause 8 (1). But even if I am not going the whole way, I am by my Amendment going so far as to see that the person who has put his savings in a house and is living there, and thinks he has security of tenure, shall not be turned out with the highly inadequate compensation which this Bill, as it is at present drawn, provides. For these reasons I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 35, after ("purposes") insert ("by a tenant").—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I regret that I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. As he pointed out, the effect of the clause as it stands is that if an owner is occupying a small house which has previously been let and to which, therefore, a standard rent is attached, then rental compensation on requisitioning will be limited to that standard rent plus, of course, any statutory adjustments allowable under the Rent Restrictions Acts. If it has not previously been let, then no such maximum applies and rental compensation will be current market value subject to a maximum of 1939 value plus 60 per cent. The effect of the Amendment is to secure that an owner-occupied house shall attract a rental compensation, subject only to the maximum of 1939 value plus 60 per cent., even if the house has a standard rent which is all that the owner could secure if he let to anyone else.

The Government have given further careful consideration to this point since the Committee stage but they are unable to accept the Amendment. The point is not a large one, but it affects the whole principle of the clause. It has already been fully considered in another place and it is entirely a financial matter. The argument for the Amendment is that when the owner-occupier's house is requisitioned he has to rehabilitate himself elsewhere; and if the rental compensation is limited to the standard rent, then, unless he is lucky enough to be able to get another rent-restricted house, he is left with insufficient money to provide himself with anything similar. To the Government's argument that he ought not to receive more from the Government than he would receive if he let the house to anyone else, the Opposition reply that he never had any intention of letting to anyone else. Requisitioning is, in effect, a compulsory hiring and it is not fair for the Government to limit him to the rent which he would receive if he did something which he has no intention of doing.

These arguments cannot properly be used in support of this particular Amendment. If they were sound, they would apply over a much wider area. It is quite possible to argue that whenever a man is turned out of his house (whether permanently or temporarily and whether he is the owner or the tenant) by the compulsory action of the Government and receives compensation less than is sufficient to enable him to rehabilitate himself else-here, then there is injustice. This applies to the man whose house is compulsorily acquired and whose compensation is reduced through the operation of the notional lease. It applies to the man whose property is requisitioned and whose rental compensation is limited by the ceiling of 1939 value plus 60 per cent. It applies also to the tenant of a rent-restricted house which is requisitioned at a rental compensation limited to the standard rent; and last, it applies to the owner of a rent-restricted house whose rental compensation is similarly limited. In all these cases it can be said there is injustice. There are, of course, a number of telling arguments the other way, but it is not necessary to deploy them, because the remedying of the alleged injustice is not what the Opposition are proposing. They are proposing to single out only one small class for special treatment, and their arguments do not apply to this small class more cogently than to any other, but rather the reverse.

The man whose house is requisitioned—that is, the man who is only temporarily dispossessed—suffers much less disability than the man whose property is compulsorily acquired and who is thus dispossessed permanently; and even within the field of requisitioning it is difficult to see why the owner-occupier of a rent-restricted house should be specially treated. The Opposition may point to a case—as indeed they have—where there are two identical owner-occupied houses side by side, one of which has previously been let and has a standard rent and the other has not. It is quite true that if both are requisitioned one will receive higher rental compensation than the other. But if this is an anomaly—and the Government do not agree that it is—it is not nearly so serious as the anomaly which the Opposition's Amendment would create. Consider two identical rent-restricted houses with the same standard rent, one occupied by its owner and the other by a tenant. If both are requisitioned the Government propose that the rental compensation shall be the same in each case. The Opposition propose that the tenant should receive standard rent only, while the owner would receive much more. There is no difference in merits between the two cases, except indeed that there is a presumption (not, of course, a certainty) that the owner-occupier is a man of much more substantial means than the tenant-occupier. Yet it is the owner-occupier whom the Opposition wish to treat more favourably.

In order to justify their Amendment, the onus which the Opposition have to discharge is to show cause why the owner-occupier of a rent-restricted house should receive better treatment than a tenant-occupier of an identical house, and this onus they have not discharged. The fact, of course, is that it is quite impossible to justify the Opposition's Amendment, except on grounds which are addressed to the abolition of the whole of the rent-restriction ceiling; and the Opposition themselves clearly see that this is not a proposal which they can hope to sustain. As to the argument that the owner-occupier of a rent-restricted house would not willingly let it to anyone else, the same may, of course, be said of the owner of any other requisitioned house, or, indeed, of the owner of any house compulsorily acquired. Yet, although the owner is in fact unwilling to part with his house—whether to the Government or to anyone else—it is a fundamental principle of public compensation that it shall be assessed on the assumption of a willing buyer and a willing seller—this has been the law of the land since 1919—or, in the case of requisitioning, on the basis of a willing lessor and a willing lessee. This argument, therefore, gets us nowhere.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT SIMON

May I interrupt for one moment? Would the noble Lord mind expounding in his own words that last passage?

LORD CHORLEY

The law ever since 1919 has been that the principle on which compensation is based is that of the willing seller and the willing buyer. Therefore, the argument which the Opposition have put up gets us nowhere. Let me add that when this Bill was in another place an Amendment to exclude owner-occupiers from the rent-restriction ceiling was debated and negatived without a Division, the Opposition presumably being satisfied with the explanation which was given by the Government at that stage. At a later stage an Amendment to omit all the provisions dealing with the rent-restriction ceiling was debated at some length, and negatived on a Division. I am sure that in the light of these observations—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

In the what of these observations?

LORD CHORLEY

I am sure that in the light of these observations the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

2.49 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, until the noble Lord rose and addressed the House I never knew there were so many injustices done by requisitioning as those which he read out in his attempt to justify this further injustice. That was the effect, as far as I could understand it, of the first part of what perhaps he will allow me to call his well-read essay. Surely, it is quite clear to all your Lordships that the Government are not here dealing with a willing buyer and a willing seller, or a willing lessor and a willing lessee. They are dealing with a man upon whose property the Government Department or local authority will descend and say: "We requisition this property." The willingness does not seem to me to enter into one side of that bargain at all. The short simple point is: Are you giving him sufficient compensation when you give him only the 1914 rental value, plus, it may be, 25 per cent. in some cases, and in others 40 per cent., and telling him to get somewhere else to live? That is the short and simple point. All of us in our hearts know that that is not being done, either for the tenant or for the owner-occupier who is being turned out. It is difficult for us to know what to do now. The noble Lord says that because some Division was not taken in some proceedings in another place, the Opposition were obviously satisfied with foe arguments. I can tell the noble Lord that I am not at all satisfied with the arguments he has put before this House to-day, and if we do not divide on this let it not be said that we are satisfied, because we are not. I think a lot of injustice—

LORD HARLECH

We must divide.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think injustices will be done under this measure. It is quite true that my Amendment does not cure them all. I never knew that there were so many until the noble Lord spoke, and for myself I should not toe content to leave the matter as it is. It is quite clear that this does involve a charge on the Treasury, and a very proper charge which the Treasury should pay if they are requisitioning the property of small people in this way. But for the moment I will leave the matter like this. I do not think that the noble Lord's answer was a satisfactory one, nor was it sufficient. I would sooner have heard him speak the truth from his heart rather than read out the brief he did. If he had done that, I believe that he would have gone very much further towards meeting what I am sure is a very just and proper point of view.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has put us in an extremely difficult position. He read out an absolute farrago of words. I do not know whether it made any sense to him, but it made no sense to anybody else. Having stated very fairly in rather a confidential manner the case for the Opposition Amendment, the noble Lord admitted that there were a great number of injustices of which this was one; and so far as I could see he did not attempt to justify the conclusions which the Government have reached on this Bill. In any case, the speech of the noble Lord is one which really deserves consideration. As I say, it made little sense to us, but there may be more sense in it than appears at first sight. It is the sort of point on which, if there were time, I should feel that we ought to have further consideration. I know that there are peculiar difficulties about this Bill, and I am a little at a loss to advise what to do. I understand that the Government have special reasons for wishing to get this Bill passed this week, but I would ask what would happen if we did not pass it.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I am afraid that that is a question about which I should require notice in the ordinary way. Perhaps my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be better able to answer it. I gather, however, that if this Bill is not passed, some of the requisitions which have already been made will become illegal, and that would create a vast crop of difficulties which I am sure it is everybody's desire we should not create. I fully recognize the strength of the appeal of the noble Mar- quess; but he, of course, recognizes—as does the noble Lord beside him—that this case is one out of a very large number which necessarily arise when requisition takes place. We should have to deal with the subject as a whole—if it is dealt with at all—rather than with a small isolated case of this kind.

I believe that the noble Lord is aware that the existing powers expire on February 23, 1948, and to enable these tenancies or these occupations to be continued in some form it is vitally necessary that this Bill should be passed. I would ask the noble Lord to recognize the difficulties of the situation—as I am sure he does. I will certainly consult forthwith with my friends to see whether we can devise some ways or means of discussing with noble Lords opposite what can be done in the matter. So far as this particular Bill is concerned, it would create a host of difficulties which nobody wants to create if we were not enabled to enact it in time.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for that conciliatory statement, but the fact remains that we are being asked to legalize what we believe to be an injustice. The Government have brought this Bill forward in this House so late that there is no time for proper consideration. If it had come forward a fortnight ago we should have been able to deal with it in a peaceful and orderly manner. We are now having a pistol held at our heads. I know that it is not the fault of the noble Viscount, and I am not criticizing what he said. We are told that if we do not pass this Bill in its present form then the powers will lapse and a host of difficulties will occur. I wonder whether the Government could give any undertaking about this particular portion of the Bill, and whether they would reconsider it and, if necessary, bring in some amending measure? It seems a large thing to ask upon a comparatively limited point, but Parliament is responsible for the interests' of the people, and especially the interests of the small man, in this country. I do not think that the considerations of mere machinery of business should prevent us from doing that justice.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I understand that unless the Bill is passed it would be quite impossible to hold the lands already occupied—but I am sure the noble Marquess recognizes that. I will gladly bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues without delay, and I will confer with noble Lords opposite as to the result of such consultation. I will do my best to secure that consideration is given to the case, but, for all that, I am sure that a very small portion of a very wide matter should not be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion. Therefore I hope noble Lords, recognizing the situation which is neither of their creating nor of ours, will allow the matter to be dealt with in the way I suggest.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, it occurs to me that if the Government get their Third Reading of the Bill without Amendment to-day, they might go so far as to say that only in the rarest cases will they exercise these powers over houses which are occupied. That is the first point. I think they might equally say that the Treasury, in cases of hardship, will look into the possibility of giving some of these people an ex gratia payment. If we had some satisfaction on those two points I think we could probably dispose of this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

On those two points I can give the noble Lord the assurances for which he asks. It is expected that there may be no difficulties of this kind at all; there will certainly be very few. I am also authorized to say that in such cases the possibility of an ex gratia payment will be favourably considered. I can give those assurances, but it may well be that there will be no cases at all.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Viscount, as usual. A reasonable solution has probably been arrived at. I feel that it was perfectly right to ventilate this case, and our discussion has been justified, since it has drawn that assurance from the Government. In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill passed.

Forward to