LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL

HL Deb 12 April 1949 vol 161 cc1080-144

2.46 p.m.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Variation of standard rents fixed by reference to new lettings.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, if the rent so determined by the Tribunal as aforesaid is less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section it shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house.

LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (2), after "is" to insert 'greater or." The noble Lord said: In rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, I know that I am treading upon well-trodden ground. Suppose, for example, the rateable value of a house in London is £90 and that that house was let for the first time in 1946 at £450 per annum. Subsequently, on application being made to the Tribunal, the reasonable rent is found to be £200 per annum. Thereafter, £200 per annum becomes the standard rent. Now suppose that the same house had been let for the first time during the blitz period, in 1941, for £70 per annum. It is not open to anyone to apply to the Tribunal to increase the rent up to the reasonable rent which is, in fact, £200 per annum—or, perhaps I should be more in order if I said that the Tribunal, on any application made, has no jurisdiction to increase the standard rent from £70 to £200 per annum. That appears to me to be striking at the very roots of justice. Incidentally, I should like to know what is the position where the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value, because where the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value, the Rent Acts do not apply to the tenancy. Suppose that in the case which I have given the rent was less than two-thirds of £90—that is, less than £60 per annum—on a first letting after September 1, 1939. In those circumstances, could either the landlord or the tenant make application to the Tribunal to fix the standard rent at the reasonable figure—namely, £200 per annum? This is a small point which is not really the subject matter of this Amendment. Nevertheless, I think it arises out of the Amendment which I now beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, after ("is") insert ("greater or").—(Lord Weston.)

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I have much pleasure in supporting my noble friend's Amendment. This idea that Tribunals can decide one way and not another is, clearly, offensive to every principle of justice. Nor is it easy to see why the Government so strictly adhere to it, because if they are confident in the rightness of their cause there is nothing to fear. But if, on the other hand, there are many cases in which the rent should be increased, it is only just and reasonable that the unfortunate people concerned should have this addition. It is not possible to defend the attitude of the Government.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment, on the same general principles as those mentioned by the noble Lords who have spoken. I should like also to take this opportunity of referring to the debate which we had a short time ago on this subject, when we argued the point of the rightness or wrongness of being able to adjust the levels of rents upwards to what was reasonable. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack quoted from the Report of the Committee of which I was the Chairman some figures which he used as showing the extreme variation in the level of rents. He inferred from that Report that rents were more often excessively high than excessively low. On page 16 of their Report, the Committee have given a table of statistics simply to show the method of selecting the categories of houses which should first be dealt with by the tribunals we proposed. The categories we suggested were of houses which varied widely as between their rents and their gross rateable value. Of course, a valuation of that kind does not necessarily imply a variation from what the rent should have been. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to make that comment, which I think is material to the discussion we had at that time.

Furthermore, I feel strongly that the interests of the landlord and tenant are not in conflict on this point. I think it is agreed by all that in some cases there is hardship on the tenants, which this Bill seeks to remove, and in other cases—very probably not nearly so many, but at any rate some—there is hardship upon the owners of property. It seems only fair and right that the Bill should give some means of removing that hardship to the extent and numbers in which it actually exists.

LORD PAKENHAM

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will hardly expect much satisfaction in this case. In regard to the secondary point he raised, on the case where rents are two-thirds of the rateable value, the class of house he mentions is excluded from this Bill. That is outside his main contention. There are two questions here: first, whether a provision of this kind would be suitable in the context of this Bill and, secondly, supposing it not to be suitable, whether some completely different Bill should be brought forward. I should like to make it plain that this Bill is intended to prevent extortionate rents for lettings made since 1939. Therefore, it should not be regarded as the kind of Bill which will do ultimate justice between all landlords and all tenants, and I have little doubt that if the proposed provision were introduced here it would be quite out of context.

On the other hand, noble Lords, and perhaps best of all the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, are entitled to argue that the Government should be weighing the question of legislating to tidy up the whole rent situation. The Government have been weighing this question for some time but, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made plain on the previous occasion, if we were to produce legislation of that kind at the present time, it would mean a colossal amount of work. It would probably mean about 200 tribunals reviewing the rents of 8,000,000 houses. Generally speaking, that would be out of the question, at a time when all the skilled man-power we have is needed to remedy the housing shortage. The Government do not deny that there may be exceptional cases where a landlord is suffering hardship and where the rent should be reviewed from that point of view, but there is no evidence in the possession of the Government that there is sufficient suffering of that sort to justify this tremendous labour of reviewing 8,000,000 rents and undertaking the kind of comprehensive reform which has been suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. Therefore, while I am sure the House sympathises with what is in the minds of the noble Lords, I am afraid it is out of keeping with this Bill, and I must ask the noble Lord whether he cannot see his way to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I could not follow the last part of Lord Pakenham's argument? He said that this Amendment would give rise to some thousands or millions of cases (I am not quite sure which word he used) coming before this Tribunal. It would do nothing of the sort. It deals only with cases which either a landlord or tenant has brought to the notice of the Tribunal, because Clause I does not operate at all unless a landlord or tenant applies to the Tribunal. This has nothing to do with a wide-roving inquiry to look into the rent of every house. The Tribunal will have to look only at those cases where one party is aggrieved, and the whole of the noble Lord's argument does not apply to the limited terms of this clause.

LORD PAKENHAM

I see the noble Lord's point, and he has clearly convicted me of failing to make myself plain. Perhaps it is due to a heavy cold, or perhaps it is due to other factors, but I am sorry that I have not made myself understood. This is an emergency Bill to deal with cases of extortionate rents in a special situation, and in the view of the Government there is no halfway house between a Bill of this kind and a comprehensive review which, the noble Lord agrees, would involve a great deal of labour. From the point of view of the Government, therefore, it is no use their attempting to try to establish some kind of limited degree of equity between landlords and tenants, apart from dealing with the special emergency provided for here. If the noble Lord, Lord Meston, had his way, it would lead to a vast number of cases, yet he would only have tinkered with the subject. I must repeat that we are dealing here with real hardships, caused by extortionate rents, and I do not see any halfway house between this and the comprehensive review which will be necessary one day.

LORD MESTON

I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I remain quite unconvinced. In other words, I want this Amendment to suffer whatever fate is in store for it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

3.0 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (2): Provided always that in the case of a dwelling-house the first letting of which occurred between the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and forty-five in consequence of the landlord serving in any of His Majesty's forces or otherwise being required to reside elsewhere than in the dwelling-house by reason of circumstances arising out of the war, the rent so determined as aforesaid shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house whether the same shall be greater or less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section.

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in the hope of obtaining some satisfaction from the noble Lord, if there is any sense of justice left in the Government of this country. This Bill, as originally introduced in another place, did not apply to any house which was first let before V.J. Day, or at any rate, a date in August, 1945. When the Bill was going through the other place, such was the pressure exerted by one of the Communist Members of that House upon the Government—or perhaps it was for other reasons—they accepted an Amendment to date back the operation of the Bill to September 3, 1939. It must be well known to all your Lordships that during the war houses in some parts of the country were at a premium. I knew many people—let nobody think they were personal friends of mine—who, on the outbreak of war, rushed madly off to the Lake District, or similar parts of the country. Incidentally, they were very upset afterwards when we erected an aircraft factory there.

However, there were other people who had to leave their houses. The two classes of persons I have in mind and with whom my Amendment deals are those who were called up for service, or were serving, and who, due to circumstances arising out of the war, had to leave their houses, and civil servants and others like them who also had to leave. When the war had been going on for a little while the civil servants in the Ministry over which I had the honour to preside for some twenty-one months—namely, the Ministry of Food—were, willy-nilly all moved up to Colwyn Bay; they had no choice in the matter. Many of them had homes in London, or in places near London. The bombing had started, and not many people who lived outside the capital wanted to rush into London. So, if these civil servants were able to let their houses at all, they had to let them at absurdly low rents. They have been all right up to now, but when this Bill becomes an Act that absurdly low rent will be the standard rent—a standard rent which was fixed when there was a complete tenants' market in houses. No rent restriction Acts have ever tried to deal with a tenants' market when houses are let for the first time at absurdly low rents; they have tried to deal with what I might term a landlords' market, when there is such a scarcity of houses that larger rents can be charged than would normally be the case.

Obviously, there is considerable justice in what I am saying. This Amendment is much more limited in its scope than that which we have just been discussing. If we do not do something about these people, then by reason of the acceptance of this Communist Amendment in the other place we shall "do down" quite a number of highly respectable citizens who served their country in the war. They are not in the position of the members of the Communist Party, who sided at one time with the enemy and finally came round to support their own country. They were people who were directed—whether they were from the Ministry of Food or other Ministries—and had to leave their houses completely empty, or let them at whatever rental they could get. I say that if those people were directed away, and let the property at what rent they could get, they ought not to be penalised by having that fixed as the standard rent. Such is the justice of my case, and such is the fairness of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, that I feel quite justified in saying that I expect to obtain some satisfaction from the Government this afternoon. The passing of this Amendment will do no harm to anybody, but if it is rejected people will be tenants of houses at rents which in the present circumstances are much too low. In the confident belief that I shall obtain some satisfaction, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Llewellin.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I should like to add a few words on this topic, in which I am greatly interested. I obtained some information from a county court judge whose court is in one of the London areas, and it will not be open to my noble friend Lord Pakenham to say that the Government have no information about the facts on which this Amendment is based. The county court judge wrote to me in these terms: Many small owners had to leave early in the war, because they had to join up or because they were directed to work elsewhere. There was then little demand for their houses and they were let at low rents. Later, compassion led to a large amount of sub-letting, or letting at almost nominal rents. These tenants and sub-tenants remain and their tenancies may be protected for half a century"— It is true that we may expect another Landlord and Tenant Bill in ten years time, which is the average time between Bills of this sort; but there may not be one, and the wives or children of the original tenants will be entitled to carry on as tenants. The letter continues— and except for quite minor matters like rate increases their rents cannot be raised. There is another consideration which I feel is equally important, in the case of many of these small people. Of course, their houses cannot be sold, except at enormous discount, while there are protective tenancies at very low rents. Then the county court judge pointed out to me that many of the tenants who have these houses sub-let them; and very often they are, in fact, as rich as, or richer than, the people who originally had to leave the houses because of a direction from the Government, or from some like authority. To my mind, the factors in the case are these. In the first place, lettings which under this Amendment would have to be established before the Tribunal as being at too low rents are not within the argument on which the Rent Restrictions Acts are founded. The case on which this Amendment rests is that, so far from the rents being exorbitant—which is the basis of the Rent Restrictions Acts—they are much too low, because of the circumstances under which bodies of public servants of one kind or another were directed away. I have some small knowledge of that, because I was concerned with the arrangements which had to be made for a large number of people who were employed in lunacy matters in the courts—I think there were 2,000 of them. At some time or another, they were directed to go elsewhere, and if they were not living with their parents, or in some similar situation, but were living in their own house, they were liable to have to leave that house; and, to prevent the house remaining vacant, they had to let it at any rent they could obtain.

The first factor, then, is that the rents are not exorbitant, but are too low. The other factor, which I think is equally important, is that the Government or the public authority in question have brought this misfortune upon the people who were owning these houses. It seems to me that it is not open to the Government to say: "Oh, but this is an exception which we do not propose to deal with in this Bill." But the Bill is already full of exceptions, and if this is to be an exception I venture to think it is one with which in the interests of their own honour and decency, the Government must attempt to deal. I am not saying anything which is political, because all Parties bear some responsibility for this series of Acts, which are creating the greatest hardship. But this particular Bill is one for which the Government are responsible. They told these people to go away, and later told them to come back to premises which they could not occupy. Many of the people are living under circumstances of great hardship, and, as I say, they cannot sell the house because of this restricted rent. Under those circumstances, it is absolutely shaming in my opinion that this injustice should continue when, by accepting the proposed Amendment—which seems to me very well drawn—the hardship could be brought to an end. I urge upon the House and the Government to do all they can to see that this particular injustice is remedied.

LORD PAKENHAM

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, made a very persuasive speech—I might almost say a very crafty speech—and certainly one has to be closely attentive to the arguments he brought forward. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, also spoke in weighty fashion. But I am afraid there is very little prospect—it would be fairest to say straight away that there is no prospect—of my being able to make the concession called for. The facts have not been presented until to-day, but let me concede for the sake of argument that there may be here some cases of real hardship. I am very sorry for the people concerned, and very sympathetic towards them. Their case was well stated, but there is an old saying—the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is a lawyer and I am not, but I have the greatest of lawyers sitting beside me—that "hard cases make bad law." Frankly, it would be quite impossible to introduce what would be the thin end of a wedge. If noble Lords were able to convince me, or my right honourable friend, that there were some exceptionally hard cases, even so it would be impossible to introduce into this Bill the principle of raising rents. When the time comes, and the general review which I mentioned takes place, no doubt some rents will be raised, though far more, presumably, will be reduced. But at the present time we have no knowledge. If we began to alleviate hardship, then many of the people referred to earlier would come forward and say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston: "We see that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has secured concessions for a small number of people who are suffering hardship"—

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

The noble Lord cannot say there will be 8,000,000 applications.

LORD PAKENHAM

I always try to avoid talking nonsense.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Sometimes you do.

LORD PAKENHAM

I cannot say that there would be 8,000,000 cases here, but the noble Lord wants to affect the whole position for the sake of a few people whose hardship is very pronounced. He says there are just a few people, but that we ought to try and find some special way of dealing with them. I am bound to say that it would be impossible to take special steps for their benefit which would not seem extremely hard to the wider category referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Therefore, I am extremely sorry, but I am afraid that these gentlemen, if they are suffering hardship—and I do not doubt that they are—will have to wait until the general review.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am not at all satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. What are we doing? For the first time we are putting a standard rent on houses, let for the first time between September 1, 1939, and August 15, 1945. We are bringing them in, and we are bringing them in willy-nilly, although it is admitted by the noble Lord that there will be some cases of hardship by so bringing them in. We know that this was not in the contemplation of the Government originally, because it was not in the Bill as originally introduced into another place. Let us get those facts clearly into our minds. Let us get also clearly into our minds the fact that there were completely abnormal conditions in housing during the war period and that, because of the war and because of people being directed away to do other jobs, many houses were let at far less than their proper value. There is no question of exorbitant rents here. If there were, the Tribunal would not allow any increase. We are relying on these Tribunals. It is not as though we are saying that the rent in every case must be increased. We are saying only that where the Tribunal are satisfied that the standard rent is abnormally low, they shall say that it will not continue to be the standard rent for all time, or for so long as the Acts remain in force.

I hoped to receive a more accommodating answer from the noble Lord than that which I have received, because for the reasons I have given I feel that there is a real case here. The noble Lord quoted the Old legal maxim that "Hard cases make bad law." But from what has happened in the last three-and-a-half years I think it is bad government which makes bad laws—much more so than hard cases. It is obvious that there will be hard cases—cases made hard cases for the first time by this legislation. It is not as though they were existing hard cases which had come within the ambit of the Bill; it is only this legislation which will create them. That is the aspect from which we have to consider this Amendment. Second thoughts are often best, and if the noble Lord would say that he will think this matter over between now and the Report stage to see whether something cannot be done about this really important point, then I might be disposed to withdraw my Amendment now. That is the offer I make. I consider that this is the kind of case which ought to be met. We are putting these people in a most difficult position, because we are bringing their houses in long after the event, and also because many of these men were directed to leave the district by some Government Department. Therefore I would suggest to the noble Lord that perhaps we could discuss this matter between now and the Report stage, and see whether something cannot be done or the lines suggested in my Amendment.

LORD PAKENHAM

I realise how strongly the noble Lord and some others feel on this matter. My only hesitation about accepting his friendly offer is that I might seem to be raising hopes which I was afterwards unable to satisfy. I feel there is going to be little chance of any concession, and therefore I do not want to raise any hopes. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, perhaps the right course for me to follow is to say that I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him between now and the next stage. I say that without any desire to raise false hopes. Perhaps I might explain that, even if the Bill were not passed, these house-owners would be in the same position. Their position is in no way worsened by the Bill. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will gladly discuss the matter between now and the next stage.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I was talking of the case of a man living in his house up to September 3, 1939, and then it was let for the first time. That house is not controlled under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and will not be until this Bill becomes law. A man might have been directed away to a job. He was then in the position of having to let his house for the first time, and so he falls within the ambit of these Acts. But these points can be discussed between now and Report stage. I hope that those who are responsible will appreciate that there is here a case which should be dealt with. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am sorry to impose a rather elaborate series of drafting Amendments on the Committee, and I hope noble Lords will not find them troublesome. There is a whole string of them, which ought to be thought of together. The one I am proposing now is the first. Under this drafting Amendment it is proposed to group all the transitional provisions about premiums in a single Schedule for the purpose of clarity and ease of reference. That means that Clause 2, apart from subsection (8), would disappear from the Bill and would be transferred to the Schedule. The various other changes are entirely drafting. The present one, as I have indicated, transfers most of Clause 2 to the Schedules. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, leave out ("and the next following").—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PAKENHAM

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 34, at end, insert: ("( ) In determining under this section what rent is reasonable for a dwelling-house, no regard shall be had to the fact that any premium has been paid in respect of the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy; but the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to such premiums paid before the commencement of this Act.")—(Lord Pakenham.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

With regard to this Amendment, perhaps it would be as well to make the position clear so far as I and those associated with me are concerned. We think that the words …no regard shall be had to the fact that any premium has been paid in respect of the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy should not be in the Bill. In another place the Minister said that he wanted the Tribunal to have a completely free hand and to be able to consider all the circumstances of the case. One of those circumstances is the question what shall be done about the premium. It seems to us, therefore, that it would be much better to leave these words out. I am trying to give the noble Lord a sort of warning of what our attitude may be. The Tribunal should certainly be left free to consider the matter, not only from the point of view of rent but of everything, as it were, surrounding rent, including the premium. We on this side see no reason why these words should be in the Bill and why the whole matter should not be left to the Tribunal to consider all the circumstances and arrive at the best decision they can, taking into account everything relating to the letting of the house. Although we may accept the Amendment now being moved by the noble Lord, we may on the Report stage put down an Amendment to leave out the words I have mentioned.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

This is one of the questions which were discussed during the Second Reading debate. I then said I could not understand why it was that regard was not to be had to the relationship between premium and rent. When a premium was legal it was a fairly common and reasonable custom for a tenant, at his convenience, to pay a certain amount of premium and a lower rent, rather than no premium and a higher rent. In the case of a tenancy for fourteen years or more, it was a legal and proper thing to do. If the rent is to be adjusted, it will be grossly unfair not to consider the rent and the premium together—bearing in mind the fact that, as I say, it was a common practice to adjust the one to the other when the tenancy was made. It would follow that when the rent is to be adjusted it ought not, in fairness, to be adjusted without considering what the premium has been. This applies to premiums which were legal; the question of premiums which were illegally demanded will be raised in due course. With them one can have no sympathy. If the noble Lord had not decided to rearrange the Bill by transferring Clause 2 to the Schedules, I think it would probably have been proper for some of us to move an Amendment that this clause should be left out from its original place. I have still to hear what in fact is the defence for the inclusion of this clause in the Bill at all.

LORD PAKENHAM

I will certainly look into those points, but my impression is that the noble Lord will not desire to press his suggestion when we have all examined and discussed the matter. My feeling is that a reasonable rent would be something that was arrived at, as it were, in abstraction from any payment of this kind which has been made. But, as I say, this is a matter which should be gone into thoroughly, and I promise that it will be carefully examined before the next stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MESTON moved to add to the clause: ( ) An appeal shall lie at the suit of the landlord or the tenant from a determination of the Tribunal as to what is a reasonable rent under this section to a single judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor under this Act. The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. For some reason which I am not quite able to understand, the Government appear to be resolutely opposed to any appellate tribunal, both in this Bill and in the case of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. I have spoken to a number of chairmen of tribunals under the 1946 Act, and they would positively welcome anything in the nature of an appeal tribunal, so that something in the way of uniformity might be achieved. We all know that an unlimited appeal is expensive and takes a long time. Therefore, I suggest that there should be a limited form of appeal, as in the case of the Pensions Act. I will not say anything more about it because, if noble Lords are interested in it, they will know a great deal more about it than I do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, at end insert said subsection.—(Lord Meston.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I think it is a bad one. I suppose that up and down the country there will be about seventy to a hundred tribunals which will have this great advantage: in nearly every case, they will be able to go and look at the premises, and one look is worth several hours' evidence. They will look at the premises and will draw their conclusion as to what is a reasonable rent in the circumstances. They are dealing with pure questions of fact. They will have to consider the cost involved in putting the premises in order, converting them or adapting them, the allowance on the money which is thus expended, and so on. But primarily their task will be to see what sort of premises they are, what the back view and the general outlook from the premises are like, and whether there is sufficient light and air. There are a hundred and one different things of that sort to be considered.

By this Amendment, it is contemplated that, on these pure questions of fact, there is to be an appeal to a Judge. If that does happen, I shall, in the first place, have completely to restaff the King's Bench Division, and get a number of Judges who will have to hear these appeals without having the benefit of seeing the premises. There will be expert witnesses on one side or the other who will spend a great deal of time describing the premises, which one could see for oneself to much better advantage in a shorter space of time. I beg your Lordships to leave the matter to the Tribunal. If the Tribunal are acting obviously wrongly and exceed their jurisdiction, then of course the court has control over them, by means of a writ of certiorari or prohibition. But it is better to leave to the Tribunal on the spot the fixation of the pure question of fact of what is a reasonable rent, rather than bring the matter up by way of appeal to a Judge who will not be able to see anything and will have to rely upon the evidence describing the situation to him. I do not thing that that is a reasonable solution.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I make this suggestion for the Lord Chancellor's consideration? I can see the weight of the argument he has put as to the general right of appeal; but what occurs to me is that, in determining what is a reasonable rent under the clause, every now and then there will crop up a question which is really a question of principle, where the Tribunal will need some guidance from people of greater experience than they themselves possess. What I suggest for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor is that it might be possible for him, instead of accepting the present Amendment, to allow an appeal with the consent of the Tribunal. On any question of pure fact, if they are well advised, they will not con- sent; but if there is a question which is really a question of law, I think they ought to have the advantage, if they care to have it, of a High Court Judge.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will look at that proposal, but it seems to me that in almost every imaginable case the question will be purely one of fact.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I should like to take the opportunity of asking what is expected to be the reasonable rent that the Tribunal are to decide. The only definition is on page 2, subsection (4), and it does not really say what a reasonable rent shall be. I am not supporting the proposal that an appeal, as suggested in this Amendment, should go to a Judge, but I do think that the Tribunal themselves are going to be in rather a difficulty. There may be variations as between one appeal Tribunal and another in different parts of the country, unless they get more guidance on what they are to consider is a reasonable rent for any property. I would suggest that it is not a matter for legal consideration; it is a matter of fact, and also to some extent it is a matter of opinion on a valuation. Furthermore, there is a certain amount of policy in it. Should a rent be reasonable in order to meet the financial circumstances of the tenant? Should it be considered reasonable if it provides for the landlord a sufficient income with which to repair the house? Or is it reasonable if it does that and also brings the owner of the house some return on his investment in the property? Or is it only reasonable if it does all three, at least to the extent to which they are not incompatible?

I appreciate the difficulty of making too rigid a definition. I think that this variation in cases of that kind should be left to the discretion of the appeal Tribunals, who will be local people and who will have experience from the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Acts which are now in force. I think the Tribunals will be very much in the air under the present definition, which, unless I am wrong, is the only one in the Bill. I should like to see something not too precise as a guide to what they should consider reasonable. Furthermore, it is certainly worth considering whether there should not be some method of rather informal consultation between different Tribunals in various parts of the country, not arising from an appeal in any particular case but so as to ensure that they all, in different parts of the local authority areas, approach the question in the same way; otherwise, there might be extreme variation from place to place. What is reasonable in one part of the country may not be quite so reasonable in another part. I think that some little help on a definition of "reasonable" should be included in this part of the Bill.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I rise merely to say that in this case I agree with the Lord Chancellor. I do not think that a Judge of the High Court could deal with the facts upon which these appeals will be based. I assume that these Tribunals will act like the old rating committees and compare like properties with like, and the usual letting value of similar properties in the neighbourhood. That is the kind of yardstick they should use, as indeed the rating committees have done in this country for a large number of years. Usually, they have come to a fairly correct decision. I do not think that this is a case where we could have either party bringing to the High Court every case they wished. I realise that perhaps some of the senior barristers would welcome that proposal, because I think it would lead to a considerable accession to their incomes.

LORD MESTON

I thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his reply, and I am also very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, for making what I respectfully suggest is an admirable suggestion. I am not a psychologist, but I do not see anything in the Lord Chancellor's mind which indicates good feeling towards this Amendment, and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the clause: (8) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section in determining what rent is reasonable for a dwelling-house the Tribunal shall determine the rent which is reasonable apart from the rates (if any) payable by the tenant and included in what would be the standard rent apart from this section and for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section in comparing the rent determined by the Tribunal as aforesaid with what would be the standard rent apart from this section there shall be deducted from such standard rent the amount of any rates included therein and the standard rent as from the date of the determination by the Tribunal shall be the rent determined by the Tribunal together with the amount of the rates (if any) which would be included in the standard rent apart from this section.

The noble Earl said: The intention of the new subsection which I seek to insert at the end of Clause 1 of the Bill is to make clear that in determining what rent is reasonable under subsection (1) of the Bill the Tribunal shall consider the actual rent which is received by the landlord, and not the rent plus rates. I am told that there are any number of cases under the Rent Restrictions Acts where the rent includes the element of rates as well, and the tenant pays an inclusive rent to cover each of these particular burdens. I am seeking to ensure that it shall be obligatory on the Tribunal that, in determining what should be the reasonable rent, they shall have regard only to the actual rent which has been received by the landlord and not to the inclusive rent which will be rent plus rates, which is payable, under an existing agreement. The more I look at my Amendment the more satisfied I am that it is a good one; and the more I look at it, the more I believe that the noble Lord will be the first to accept it. With that confident hope I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD PAKENHAM

I quite understand the noble Earl's enthusiasm for his own Amendment. I do not think it would do anybody any harm—and that is something in these times—but it is in fact unnecessary, so I do not know that one need get quite so "worked up" about it as the noble Earl is allowing himself to become. If the rates are payable by the tenant, that would be one of the terms and conditions to be taken into account by the Tribunal; and under subsection (3) of the clause there is already machinery for allowing landlords to increase the inclusive rent by the amount of any increase in rates. I must admit that the provision is worded in the most obscure way, but I am assured that it is in the first part of subsection (3) of Clause 1. At any rate the Act does provide machinery for allowing landlords to in- crease rents by the amount of any increase in rates. As I understand the noble Earl's point, it is in fact covered in the Bill and I venture to hope that he will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Has the noble Lord been given the right reference?

LORD PAKENHAM

I asked myself that question, and decided the answer was "yes."

LORD LLEWELLIN

As the noble Lord said, the subsection is drafted so that it is difficult to see at a glance that it deals with this point. It is obvious we are agreed in principle on this matter, that if the rates go up it does not mean that automatically the rents must go down. It is a matter of principle, and subsection (3) is very vague as to whether it has any application to this particular point. The noble Lord assures us that it has, but perhaps we can quietly talk this over somewhere to see how. In this case we are all agreed that that is what is intended in principle.

LORD PAKENHAM

We are agreed in principle, and if anybody can suggest a way in which a clause, or part of a clause, can be drafted so as to clarify it still further, I have no doubt that we shall be ready to listen.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for pointing out that in his opinion subsection (3) of Clause 1 covers the intention of my Amendment. Perhaps, in consultation together, we can see if we can make it a little clearer, so that at first sight the landlord and the tenant (because both are very much interested), as well as the Tribunal, will be quite clear that in the case where an inclusive rent is paid the Tribunal should consider only the rent received by the landlord and not the rent plus rates, which is the weekly sum paid to him. I am obliged to the noble Lord, and in those circumstances I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Provisions as to premiums, etc., where Section 1 applies]:

LORD PAKENHAM

This is another of the series of drafting Amendments. I beg to move that Clause 2 be omitted.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:

Annual value for Income Tax where rent reduced.

" . Where the standard rent of a dwelling-house is by virtue of a determination by the Tribunal under section one of this Act different from what would be the standard rent apart from that section the annual value of such dwelling-house for the purposes of Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall, as from the date of such determination be equivalent to the rent determined by the Tribunal to be the reasonable rent and section one hundred and thirty-eight of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall apply as if such annual value as aforesaid had been ascertained by a valuation verified by a person of skill under that section."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one which is of much concern to the tenants, and I have reason to believe that in point of fact it is a Privilege Amendment; nevertheless there is no reason why your Lordships should not discuss it. I am told that it is probably certain that in the case of property first assessed for Schedule "A" after 1939, the assessment in all cases corresponds to the rent which is payable under the tenancy agreement. If, as a result of the tenant's appeal to the Tribunal, the rent is reduced, it will then clearly be a rent which is less than the Schedule "A" assessment. Thus, if the rent paid by the tenant becomes less than that Schedule "A" assessment, then the tenant is declared to be what is described as the beneficial owner of the premises to the extent of the excess of the assessment over the rent. He has therefore to pay the whole of the extra income tax on the excess, without being able to recover any portion of it from the landlord.

The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, may tell me that this matter should not be included in this Bill. He may also tell me that it is a matter which can be adjusted when the revaluation of all property takes place. But I hardly think that that will be of much satisfaction to the tenant. It seems to me that the ideal solution would be the lowering of the Schedule "A" in every case where the Tribunal lowered the rent; otherwise, the tenant will find that the financial assistance he has received from the reduction in the rent as a result of the Tribunal's decision may be of little benefit to him. I am prepared to admit also that there may be cases where, even if the rent were reduced, a portion of it would be in excess of the Schedule "A" assessment; and I see no reason why, should that be so, the assessment should not be brought up to the figure at a standard rate. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— After Clause 2, insert the said new Clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD PAKENHAM

As the noble Earl has said, this is a Privilege Amendment, and while he is, of course, completely at liberty to propound it here, I feel rather inhibited in replying to it. I do not think I can do more than say that I will make sure his observations are placed before my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will mention only one difficulty arising from his proposal: that it would apparently remove the determination of the amount of income tax assessment in such a case from the appropriate body, the General Commissioners for Income Tax, and that is an objection which might be found to be weighty. But I do not feel competent to argue the point at length. As this is a Privilege Amendment, I would rather confine myself to saying that I will make sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees the report of what the noble Earl has said.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I suppose that the ideal place in which to include words of this sort would be in the coming Finance Bill. I think there is a case here which the tenant could well argue that the Government should meet. I hope that at the next stage of this Bill, if I put this Amendment down again, the noble Lord may be in a position to make a statement giving the views formed by him as the result of consultation with his right honourable friend. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.50 p.m.

Clause 3:

Prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of tenancy

(6) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section, an assignor may, if it is so agreed, require the payment by the assignee—

1. (a) of so much of any outgoings discharged by the assignor as is referable to any period after the assignment takes effect;
2. (b) of a sum not exceeding the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the assignor in carrying out any structural alteration of the dwelling-house;
3. (c) where the assignor became a tenant of the dwelling-house by virtue of an assignment of the tenancy thereof, of a sum not exceeding any reasonable amount paid by him to his assignor in respect of expenditure incurred by that assignor, or by any previous assignor of the tenancy, in carrying out any such alteration as aforesaid; or
4. (d) where part of the dwelling-house is used as a shop or office, or for business, trade or professional purposes, of a reasonable amount in respect of any goodwill of the business, trade or profession, being goodwill transferred to the assignee in connection with the assignment or accruing to him in consequence thereof.

LORD PAKENHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 19, leave out ("this section") and insert ("Part II of the First Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PAKENHAM

I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 26, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MESTON

had an Amendment on the Paper in subsection (4), after "renewal" (where that word first occurs) to insert "or assignment." The noble Lord said: With regard to this Amendment, it appears prima facie that I have been blown out of the water, because subsection (4) of Clause 3 has now been brought into paragraph 5 of Part II of the first Schedule. Subject to that disability, may I just make this very short point?

LORD LLEWELLIN

Would it not be better that, with the leave of the House, these Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Meston should be discussed on the Schedule? They arise on the Schedule, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be prepared to move them when we come to the Schedule.

LORD MESTON

It is clear that Lord Llewellin wants to ensure that I shall stay to the bitter end! I had hoped to get away earlier. In this matter, I am in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham.

LORD PAKENHAM

And I am in the hands of the House. I wonder, however, whether the noble Lord would now care to move his Amendment at page 6, line 10. The Amendment at page 6, line 10, which stands in my name is really an attempt to meet him by including the words which are set out. The noble Lord will understand that I am not withdrawing my Amendment when I suggest that, if he would care to do so, he should move his.

LORD MESTON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his kindness and I will do as he suggests.

LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (6) to omit "if it is so agreed." The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands at the present time, if the assignor were to pay half a year's rates in advance, and subsequently assign the property during the currency of that half-year, according to the usual conveyancing practice the assignee would be called upon to pay a proportionate part of the rates referable to his period of occupation. Under the Bill as at present drafted, if the assignee said: "No, I am not going to pay any rates at all for this half-year because you have yourself paid them in advance," that would be the end of the matter. I think, therefore, that the assignor should be entitled as of right to require the assignee to pay sums of money as envisaged by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (6) of Clause 3. Lord Pakenham has been most helpful to me in this matter, but I do not know whether there is any hidden meaning in the words of his Amendment: if apart from this section he would be entitled so to do. In order to try to ascertain the meaning of those words I beg leave to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, leave out ("if it is so agreed").—(Lord Meston.)

LORD PAKENHAM

The words "if it is so agreed" were included in the Government Amendment in order to avoid any misapprehension arising that the assignor could expect, as a statutory right, something from the assignee against the assignee's will. It is appreciated—as the noble Lord made clear on a previous occasion—that the inclusion of these words might lead to some confusion. For that reason, the Government are suggesting the alternative which appears in the Amendment at page 6, line 10, standing in my name. There is nothing sinister behind those words to which the noble Lord has referred. They mean merely that no additional powers are being given to enable the assignor to charge something he might not otherwise be entitled to charge. The words are designed simply for the removal of apprehension and anxiety on this point, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that by this Government Amendment he has been met.

LORD MESTON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PAKENHAM

I now beg formally to move the Amendment at page 6, line 10, which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, leave out ("if it is so agreed") and insert ("if apart from this section he would be entitled so to do").—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MESTON had given Notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (6): In the event of any difference arising between the assignor and the assignee as to any of the above-mentioned matters in this subsection the assignor or the assignee may make application to the Tribunal to determine the difference and an appeal shall lie at the suit of the assignor or the assignee from such determination to a single judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor under this Act. The noble Lord said: The object of setting up a Tribunal here is perhaps narrower than in the previous case. However, I am under no illusion as to what would happen to this Amendment, and with your Lordships' permission, I shall not move it.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to the clause as a new subsection: ( ) In this section the expression "structural alterations" includes the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings.

The noble Viscount said: I am perhaps under some illusion in regard to this Amendment, because I think that my noble friend Lord Pakenham will either accept it or will tell me that he is in agreement with me. This is indeed one of those rare cases in which I believe I am in agreement with the Minister of Health. Shortly, the position is this. Under subsection (6) of this clause, the assignor is entitled to recover the cost of structural alterations. This Amendment turns on the meaning of "structual alterations." My purpose is to see that those words do not include repairs and decorations, painting and that kind of thing, but do include putting in a better bath, improving the hot-water system and things of that kind. It is in the common interest that the process of improving property should be continuous. I believe that the Minister of Health is of the opinion that these words do give that added effect or can be interpreted in the way I desire. These words were included in the Increase of Rent Act, 1920, but it was felt that they were not wide enough. The Increase of Rent Act, 1933, had to include a Section in which it was stated that these words must be interpreted to include any money spent on a house other than on decorating and work of that kind. I hope my noble friend will accept my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

LORD PAKENHAM

When the noble Viscount and the Minister of Health are in harmony, it is not for me to disturb it. I have pleasure in informing the noble Viscount that his Amendment is accepted in principle. Perhaps between now and the next stage we shall find the best way of giving effect to it. It is not unreasonable that the assignor should be recouped for part of any expenditure incurred in this way; and as it is doubtful whether the Bill makes provision for the point in Clause 5, except as to tenant's fittings, I give an assurance that it will be examined to give effect to the point raised by the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:

Relief from Death Duties on houses in respect of which the rent has been reduced or a premium is prohibited.

" .—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where—

1. (a) the rent payable in respect of a dwelling-house is reduced in consequence of a determination by the tribunal under section one of this Act; or
2. (b) a leasehold interest is subsisting in a dwelling-house at the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.

(2) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue:

1. (a) that estate duty has been paid, or is payable in respect of a dwelling-house or of the leasehold interest in a dwelling-house and the dwelling-house or leasehold interest in a dwelling-house was valued for the purpose of that duty as at a date in the case of a dwelling-house to which paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection relates before the date of the determination by the Tribunal and in the case of a leasehold interest under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection before the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
2. (b) that the persons to whom the interest in the dwelling-house or the leasehold interest in the dwelling-house passed beneficially on the death on which the duty was payable were the same persons as were beneficially interested at the date of the determination by the Tribunal or at the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, as the case may be, and
3. (c) that the interest in the dwelling-house or the leasehold interest as the case may be was the same in all respects and with the same incidents at the date of the determination by the Tribunal or at the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine as the case may be and at all dates relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the duty: and
4. (d) that the dwelling-house or the dwelling-house in which the leasehold interest subsists was in the same state at the date of the determination by the Tribunal or at the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine as the case may be and at all dates relevant for ascertaining the duty

the amount of the duty payable in respect of the dwelling-house or of the leasehold interest shall, where necessary, be reduced by repayment or remission of duty so as not to exceed the amount which would have been payable in respect thereof if the principal value of the dwelling-house or of the leasehold interest had been equal to the value of the dwelling-house subject to the limitation of rent imposed by the determination by the Tribunal or to the value of the leasehold interest as affected by the provisions of section three of this Act.

(3) Where the Commissioners are satisfied that the provisions of the last preceding subsection would have had effect but for all or any of the following facts, that is to say:

1. (a) that the requirement in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection is not fulfilled in that the duty was paid or payable on part of the interest only; or
2. (b) that one or more of the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the preceding subsection are only partly fulfilled

they may grant to any of the persons paying or bearing any of the duty such relief by repayment or remission of duty as may seem to them just and reasonable.

(4) The last two preceding subsections shall have effect in relation to any legacy or succession duty becoming payable on the principal value of the dwelling-house or leasehold interest as they have in relation to estate duty, subject, however to the modification that for the references to the death there shall be substituted references to the happening upon which the legacy or succession duty became or becomes payable.")

The noble Earl said: This formidable-looking Amendment seeks to give relief from death duties in respect of houses where the rent has been reduced or the premium has been prohibited. I do not need to go into all the sections of the Finance Acts which deal with the imposition and relief of death duties. I think the noble Lord will probably agree with me that if, as a result of the decision of a Tribunal, the rent is lowered of one house or of many of the houses on one property to which the owner has recently succeeded, he must clearly suffer a considerable depreciation in the capital value of the premises. Therefore, I move this Amendment to seek from the noble Lord an undertaking, if such is possible, that he would agree to my proposal that the landlord should receive some relief from the burden of death duties if they have already been paid. That is what the proposed clause intends to do. It is clear that it would not be appropriate to place a clause of this kind in the Bill, but it is one which can go into the Finance Bill which will shortly be introduced in another place. I would like to make one further point. If the noble Lord has no objection, I would put down this Amendment again on the next stage of the Bill, in the hope that between now and then he will have had an opportunity of discussing this point with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I feel there are good grounds for believing that in these circumstances a landlord is entitled to some relief from death duties where they have been paid.

Amendment moved— After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD PAKENHAM

The noble Earl has obviously given much thought to this question. He has stated that this clause is clearly inappropriate in the present Bill. That does not prevent him from moving it, but he recognised that it was out of place. I can do no more than repeat what I said just now: that I will certainly refer this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see what happens at the next stage.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am obliged to the noble Lord. Will he also remember at the same time that during the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, through your Lordships' House, an Amendment of a similar character, giving relief from death duties where land was compulsorily acquired at the price ruling in 1939 and not at the 1944 price, was put forward, and after the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, had discussed the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relief was given under Section 57 of the Finance Act, 1945? That is what I am seeking in this case.

LORD PAKENHAM

I have not the precise recollection of all the details with which the noble Earl has refreshed himself, but these also will be placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord]:

LORD PAKENHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 4.—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Excessive prices for furniture, &c., to be treated as premiums]:

LORD MESTON moved to add to the clause: ( ) After the commencement of this Act the purchase of any furniture, fittings or other articles can only be made a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of a tenancy at the option of the purchaser.

The noble Lord said: I think Clause 5 is an admirable clause, but I am not quite sure whether it goes far enough. Suppose, for example, an incoming tenant were to say to his landlord, or to his assignor, "I have enough furniture myself. I do not want to buy any furniture at all." Or suppose he were to say, "I have some furniture; I do not want to buy all your furniture, especially your very expensive television set, which is of no use to me at all." In those circumstances it appears to me that the incoming tenant would be unable to continue the negotiations any further. On the other hand, if it is clearly laid down that from now onwards the purchase of anything in a dwelling-house is entirely at option of the purchaser, then I think the incoming tenant would be in a stronger position than he is under the Bill as it is at present drafted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Meston.)

LORD PAKENHAM

The noble Lord was good enough to say that this is an admirable clause, and I think that if he goes into it further he will feel that it is complete as it stands and does not require his Amendment. The Bill does not prevent or penalise the sale of articles at a reasonable price as a condition of tenancy. The Amendment proposes to give the purchaser the option whether or not to accept a condition to purchase articles in order to become a tenant. I do not quite follow what is in the noble Lord's mind, because the landlord cannot force the tenant to become a tenant in this case. There is nothing in the Bill which enables the landlord to demand a tenancy or that a certain person should become a tenant. It is simply left to the option of both parties. I hope the noble Lord will feel that the clause as it stands, in fact, gives effect to his general purpose.

LORD MESTON

I thank the noble Lord for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Register of determinations of Tribunal under foregoing sections]:

LORD PAKENHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 11, leave out from ("section") to end of line 14 and insert— ("and (d) the matters required to be contained in the register by the provisions in that behalf of the First Schedule to this Act.")—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

4.10 p.m.

Clause 9:

Provisions where tenant shares accommodation with landlord.

9. Where under any contract—

1. (a) a tenant has the exclusive occupation of any accommodation,
2. (b) the terms on which he holds the accommodation include the use of other accommodation in common with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons, and
3. (c) by reason only of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section, the accommodation referred to in paragraph (a) thereof is not a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply,

the Act of 1946 shall apply to the contract notwithstanding that the rent does not include payment for the use of furniture or for services.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to the clause: but for the purposes of this section the said Acts shall apply as aforesaid as if Section twelve of this Act had not been enacted. The noble Viscount said: This is a simple Amendment, but one which I hope will excite the sympathy of your Lordships. The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act gave the tenant security of tenure for three months only. By Clause 12 of the present Bill that security disappears. My Amendment does not seek to reopen the whole question of furnished lettings, but deals simply with the very elementary position where the tenant is sharing accommodation with the landlord. It does not require any elaborate flight of the imagination to see how close a contact there must be between these people; they are actually sharing the same accommodation. It seems to me an altogether intolerable position that in such a case the landlord can never terminate the tenancy. But if Clause 12 stands as now printed the tenant could, by constantly renewing his application, and by going again and again every three months, secure an unlimited and altogether indefinite tenure.

We are not, by any stretch of the imagination, dealing here with rich people oppressing poor people, but with people who are practically of the same financial standing and status. Moreover, many of these lettings were granted only because the landlord felt certain that he could at some time or the other, if the position became unbearable, rid himself of his tenant. It is easy to see that such a position can become absolutely intolerable. The landlord would not have let if he felt that he could never terminate the tenancy. The Minister of Health—on this occasion also, I agree, with his original words, although he appears to have changed his mind since—said that we should give the landlord protection and encourage people to take others into their homes and let accommodation to them. But it is not encouraging such landlords if, having asked them to do that on the basis that they could terminate the tenancy, the Government now tell them that they can never terminate the tenancy. In other words, it means they have been tricked into letting the accommodation. The ultimate result must be to diminish the accommodation available. I hope that this Amendment, which is limited in scope, and I venture to think not unreasonable, will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I would like to support this Amendment, because I think it is one which will give a great deal of relief to people who, in response to the housing shortage and in response to the policy expressed by His Majesty's Government, have allowed tenants to share their houses. As my noble friend has said, it is not like a landlord oppressing a tenant; it is two people in much the same circumstances of life, one of whom has a spare room in his house and allows the other to come in. This is only part of the matters covered by Clause 12. Clause 12 covers the security of tenure of all houses within the furnished houses category. Quite apart from the question of shared accommodation, I think that Clause 12, which in effect in many cases allows almost perpetual occupation of furnished accommodation, puts an undue hardship on people who are not only sharing rooms but who, in some cases, have left their furniture and belongings in a house occupied by some other person. I would like to see Clause 12 amended to allow a maximum period of six months. That point was debated in another place but was finally negatived. At the least, I suggest that this Amendment on the point of shared accommodation is one to which the Government might agree. The number of cases of shared accommodation is fairly high. The number of appeals to Tribunals, although appreciable, is not large. But to force people to have to live with them others who have gone to law against them seems to me to be asking for trouble. That is something which could easily be avoided by this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Viscount who moved it has pointed out that the Bill provides, under this clause, that the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act of 1946 shall apply to these tenancies where living accommodation is shared between a landlord and a tenant. Clause 12 of this Bill says that Tribunals set up under that Act shall be able to grant extensions, not exceeding three months at a time, of the original period of three months, provided that the tenants apply to the Tribunal. The proposition which noble Lords have advanced—and they have advanced it in a very attractive way—is that that three months ought to be rigid and final. They can visualise no case at all where a further extension would be justified, and they are unwilling to leave it to the discretion of the Tribunal. I think that is wrong. I can see at once that if I were a member of a Tribunal, considering whether or not I should grant an extension, this question of shared accommodation, with strained relations existing between people, would be a powerful factor and would probably make me reluctant to extend the period of time any further than I was obliged to.

But I can well imagine circumstances of very great hardship, illness or the like, where it would be wrong to take this matter out of the discretion of the Tribunal and say: "You can grant an extension of three months and no more, no matter what the circumstances may be." I believe this is a case in which we ought to trust to the discretion and the good sense of the Tribunal. After all, on that the whole scheme turns. If the Tribunal are not going to show good sense and discretion, then it is much better not to have a Tribunal. We have all agreed to set up Tribunals and, therefore, ought to assume that they have this good sense and discretion. That being so, I am not prepared to say that there may not be circumstances—in exceptional cases, I agree—where it is reasonable, right and proper that there should be another extension of three months. I do not believe it is right to make an absolutely rigid rule which must apply as a matter of law in all cases, no matter what the Tribunal think or may wish to do.

I suggest to your Lordships that it is much better to leave this matter to the discretion of the Tribunal, bearing in mind that in this particular sort of case, where one set of people are forced to live with another—which is something we do not want—a sensible Tribunal would realise that it was very undesirable to grant longer or more extensions than necessary. I agree with that. But I do not agree with the proposition that there should be a rigid rule, and that in no circumstances should the Tribunal have the right to grant a further extension. I do not agree with that and, therefore, the noble Viscount sees why I am not prepared to accept this Amendment. I understand the motive which has led him to move it, and I appreciate that extensions in this class of case are undesirable, if they can be avoided. But in my view there may be cases which are justified, and which merit an extension.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that something might be put in to show that the granting of a further extension, three months after the first extension, was to be given only in special circumstances? In the document I have before me it would seem that one case is just the same as the other, and yet the Lord Chancellor himself agrees that the intention is that it is only in special circumstances that something more than three months shall be allowed. I can conceive several forms of words which would show that the Tribunal have to think twice before allowing the second extension.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

Surely the point is this: What is going to be in the mind of a man who allows another family to come in and share his house? I do not believe that in those circumstances the landlord will be comforted by being told that he must rely on the good sense of the Tribunal. He does not know the Tribunal—it means nothing to him at all. If he consults an authority of the law, he will be told that, having invited a stranger to share his house, this stranger may apply to the Tribunal for an indefinite number of extensions, each of three months, to continue an arrangement which may become exceedingly irksome to the landlord. The landlord would therefore refrain, would he not, front offering this accommodation? I beg the noble and learned Viscount to consider it, not from the point of view of what will happen when the arrangement is made but with regard to what is going to be in the mind of the landlord when a proposition of this kind is put up to him.

LORD LLEWELLIN

In this connection, I hope the Government will consider the suggestion which has been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham. The Minister of Health said in another place: …in 1946 hon. Members, and particularly hon. Members behind me, said that it was necessary to give more than three months' security of tenure; they feared that landlords and landladies—often of course not the owners of the property but the principal tenants—…would be vindictive and would turn people out merely on account of the fact that they had been to the tribunal. At that time I recognised that this danger existed. If hon. Members will cast their minds back, they will recall that we were at that time asking people to share their homes, particularly with returning ex-Service men. I was apprehensive that if we tied a landlady or a landlord and a tenant by Act of Parliament to a propinquity which would be repugnant to either of them, or to both, it might have the effect of losing accommodation which might otherwise be available. In other words, I was apprehensive that people would not let rooms if, having let them once, they could never get rid of the tenant. If the Tribunal go on giving one extension after the other, for the same reason—and quite a number of these people have let their rooms at the behest of the Gov- ernment and the Minister of Health—it will mean that this permanent propinquity has been achieved, to the disadvantage of people who were trying to do a kind act in the days of the acute shortage of accommodation.

I think it would be a good thing, even if this present Amendment is not acceptable to the Government, to make it clear that although the first three months' extension may be almost automatic, in order to enable the tenant to look around for new accommodation, the extension is given for that purpose and the tenant ought to make some efforts in that time to get fresh accommodation. It should be made clear that the second, third or fourth extensions—although they might be necessary for the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor—were not by any means automatic. Some words should be inserted to indicate that the Tribunal should be more reluctant to give an extension in subsequent cases than they are in the first. I hope something on those lines will appeal to the Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will certainly look at any form of words which can be devised, and I will see if I can find a form of words, myself. I must make it plain that I have no authority to accept or commit myself to anything of the sort to-day. I must say that, for myself, I cannot conceive any Tribunal which has to exercise discretion and consider all the facts not bearing in mind the all-important factor of what the Minister called "the repugnant propinquity." Obviously, that is one of the factors that has to be borne in mind, and I should have thought that any sensible Tribunal, if they realised that there was a way out (if one of the parties could go somewhere else, and so on) would obviously desire that he should go somewhere else, by reason of that very fact. If we can find a form of words to express it, I will gladly consider it with my advisers, so long as I am not being taken as binding myself in any way.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I remind the noble and learned Viscount about something of which I dare say he has no actual experience? I have seen the sort of cases which turn up at county court, in which the real trouble is that the person whom it is sought to evict says: "I can find no accommodation whatever. I have been hunting round the place for the last three weeks, but I can find nowhere to lay my head." Those who are familiar with these cases know well that, if a person does not want to regard alternative accommodation as convenient, he can easily come to that conclusion. In many cases, there are lots of premises which they can obtain, but they say that they are not convenient or suitable. On the other hand, the man who wants to get rid of a tenant is in this difficulty: that he does not know what is the proper accommodation to offer the tenant who is being turned out. It is one of the most difficult things in the world to prove that suitable accommodation is available. I am afraid that something of the sort will happen under the particular provision with which we are now dealing. Believe me, it is a matter of extraordinary difficulty to deal with that particular objection.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I appreciate the gesture on the part of the noble and learned Viscount, and if it helps him in any way I would say that I am not wedded to a strict period of three months. If a period of six months, coupled with some qualification as proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, would help, I would gladly accept it. I am not tied to three months, but I profoundly dislike the principle. In the hope that the Lord Chancellor may be able to find a bridge over this gap, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Clause 10:

Provisions where tenant shares accommodation with other persons but not with landlord.

(4) For the purposes of any provisions of the principal Acts relating to increases of rent, or to the transfer to tenants of burdens or liabilities previously borne by landlords,—

1. (a) any such change of circumstances as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, being a change affecting so much of the shared accommodation as is living accommodation, shall be deemed to be an alteration of rent;
2. (b) where, as the result of any such change as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the terms on which the separate accommodation is held are on the whole less favourable to the tenant than the previous 1116 terms, the rent shall be deemed to be increased, whether or not the sum periodically payable by way of rent is increased;
3. (c) any increase of rent in respect of any such change as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection where, as a result of the change and of the increase of rent, the terms on which the separate accommodation is held are on the whole not less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, shall be deemed not to be an increase of rent.

(5) In this section the expression "living accommodation" means accommodation of such a nature that the fact that it constitutes or is included in the shared accommodation is sufficient to bring the tenancy within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section.

LORD PAKENHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, after ("terms") insert ("as between the tenant and his landlord").—(Lord Pakenham.)

On question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to leave out subsections (4) and (5). The noble Lord said: When we come to look at Clause 10, we find in subsection (1) (c) that shared accommodation, by reason only of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (b), is not to be considered a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply. But the cases of Neal v. Del Soto and Cole v. Harris have shown that it was because of the fact that part of the shared accommodation was living accommodation that the tenancy was outside the purview of the Rent Acts. When we come to subsections (4) and (5) we find the words, "living accommodation" used for the first time. Then, to make the matter more confusing, subsection (5) states: In this section the expression 'living accommodation' means accommodation of such a nature that the fact that it constitutes or is included in the shared accommodation is sufficient to bring the tenancy within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section. So we are back to where we started. My suggestion to the noble Lord is that he should look into the drafting of this clause, because I believe that it may lead to the most complicated questions being brought from the county courts to the Court of Appeal and then, finally, to this House sitting in its judicial capacity. We could, of course, quite well use the words: "living accommodation" initially in Clause 10 (1) (c) and then if necessary define the expression later; but that would be rather a circuitous method of drafting. If the noble Lord will read Clause 10 through, he will, I am sure, agree with me that something could be done to simplify the drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 14, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD PAKENHAM

The noble Lord is always so kind that I was a little surprised by his last words, which perhaps implied that I had not yet read the clause through. I agree with him about the difficulties of drafting. I find that the problem on these occasions is to make up one's mind how far something that is clear to oneself with the help of the best advice, may be clear to someone without that advice. I gather from what the noble Lord said that he does not quarrel with the objects of the subsections, so there is no need for me to defend them. But his argument centres naturally round these words "living accommodation." I suppose, to cut a long story short, one can say that the definition here leaves it to the courts to decide what "living accommodation" shall be. That is really the gist of all the references to "living accommodation."

LORD LLEWELLIN

My point was that the only accommodation which, according to these court decisions, puts a tenancy outside the Rent Restriction Acts, is shared accommodation. But if the accommodation which is shared is a water closet or a bath room or something else which is only occasionally shared, that does not take the tenancy outside the Rent Acts. Cannot we do something about Clause 10 (1) (c) to show that it refers to living accommodation, or alternatively leave out from the clause the words, "living accommodation"? I should like to see the whole matter much simplified. I did not mean to be offensive when I suggested to the noble Lord that he should read the clause again. I felt it was quite possible that he had not read it with an eye on this particular point.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his concluding words. I will certainly look into this clause again and see whether the phraseology can be simplified; and I shall be very ready to discuss the whole matter with him.

LORD LLEWELLIN

In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PAKENHAM moved, after subsection (6) to insert: (7) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection and without prejudice to the enforcement of any order made there-under, while the tenant is in possession as aforesaid of the separate accommodation, no order or judgment for the recovery of any of the shared accommodation or for the ejectment of the tenant therefrom shall be made or given, whether on the application of the immediate landlord of the tenant or on the application of any person under whom the said landlord derives title, unless a like order or judgment has been made or given, or is made or given at the same time, in respect of the separate accommodation; and section three of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933 (which restricts the landlord's right to possession of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply) shall apply accordingly.

The noble Lord said: The Bill provides that where the tenant occupies separate accommodation and also shares living accommodation with a person not the landlord, the Rent Restrictions Acts shall apply to the separate accommodation, and it gives him also some protection in the shared accommodation. The courts have power, however, to modify the terms on which shared living accommodation is occupied and to terminate or modify the tenant's rights over accommodation other than living accommodation which is shared. The Amendment proposes that the courts shall be able to exercise the power to terminate a tenant's rights over shared accommodation, only if at the same time an order is made under the Rent Acts terminating his rights to occupy the separate accommodation. This is to remove the possibility that a tenant will be left in possession of the separate part of his dwelling but be deprived of a right to such necessary amenities as the use of kitchen or bathroom. This is an object with which I hope the House will be entirely in sympathy. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Pakenham.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

The noble Lord said that the Bill as at present drafted gives the tenant some form of protection under the main Rent Restrictions Acts in respect of shared accommodation, and he also said that the Amendment gave more security under the principal Acts. If that is so, it seems to me quite a different matter from that which we have been discussing.

LORD PAKENHAM

If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, I would point out that I said, or meant to say, that the Bill gives the man some protection in respect of shared accommodation. I did not say that the Rent Restrictions Acts gave the protection.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I thank the noble Lord, but I still think from what he said that this Bill gives the same protection in regard to shared accommodation as the Rent Restrictions Acts themselves give. I am anxious to know whether or not that is so. I am afraid it is not easy to follow.

LORD PAKENHAM

I doubt whether the noble Viscount's implication is quite correct. The courts have power to modify the terms on which shared living accommodation is occupied, and to terminate or modify the tenant's rights over other shared accommodation. Therefore, shared accommodation will be less protected than the separate accommodation.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

If it is, in fact, under the main Acts themselves that the shared accommodation becomes protected, a situation could arise under which a sub-tenant sharing accommodation and having separate accommodation may be protected in perpetuity without, of course, having to go to the Tribunal under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. I do not know whether the clause does mean that. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether that is so. I think it is the general intention, not that a tenant who is sharing accommodation in the house with the owner or another tenant of the house should have the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts themselves, but that he should have the protection of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, as discussed under Clause 9 and later under Clause 12 of the Bill.

LORD PAKENHAM

I feel that the noble Viscount may not have grasped this particular point in the Bill. What we were talking about was the case where the tenant was sharing with the landlord. Now in this particular clause we are talking about tenant sharing with tenant. I can only repeat what I know to be the law on the proposal. The noble Viscount taxes me rather when he wants to know under what laws these provisions are operating. I am afraid I must seek further guidance upon that matter.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am seriously adrift on this Amendment. I cannot see the effect of it at all.

LORD PAKENHAM

If the noble Viscount concedes that this is the effect, I should have thought that he regarded it as a desirable effect. May I repeat it again: that it is to remove any possibility that a tenant will be left in possession of the separate part but be deprived of a right to such necessary amenities as the use of the kitchen or bathroom—in other words, be more protected on the separate part than on the shared part. This Amendment makes sure that he will not be left in possession of the separate part. That is the effect of it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

LORD PAKENHAM moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:

Certain sublettings not to exclude operation of principal Acts

" . Where the tenant of any premises, being a house or part of a house, has sublet a part, but not the whole, of the premises, then as against his landlord or any superior landlord (but without prejudice to the rights against and liabilities to each other of the tenant and any person claiming under him, or of any two such persons), no part of the premises shall be treated as not being a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply by reason only—

1. (a) that the terms on which any person claiming under the tenant holds any part of the premises include the use of accommodation in common with other persons, or
2. (b) that part of the premises is let to any such person at such a rent as is mentioned in proviso (i) to subsection (2) of section twelve of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (which relates to furnished lettings)."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is quite simple. It proposes that a tenant who sub-lets part only of the premises shall not thereby lose the protection of the Acts as against his landlord on the sole ground that there is a sharing of accommodation between the sub-tenant and the tenant or another sub-tenant. The proposed Amendment does not affect the mutual rights of tenants or sub-tenants, or any rights or liabilities of landlord or tenant under their contract, and does no more than alter the law, in the light of the judgment in the Court of Appeal, so as to fulfil the original intention. It brings the law into conformity with the original intention. It proposes that the tenant who sub-lets part shall not thereby lose the protection of the Acts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Application of two last foregoing sections]:

LORD PAKENHAM

I beg to move this Amendment, which is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 27, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, after Clause 13 to insert the following new clause,

Amendment of 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 34.

.—(1) Where the Tribunal is satisfied on the application of a lessor that the net annual sum received by him in respect of a dwelling-house in respect of which he is under a contractual obligation to provide services was less during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine (in this section referred to as "the later year") than the net annual sum received in respect of the dwelling-house during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-nine (in this section referred to as "the earlier year") by reason of the increased cost of providing such services in the later year over the cost of providing similar services in the earlier year the Tribunal may notwithstanding the provisions of the principal Acts increase the rent payable in respect of the dwelling-house to such an extent that if the rent had been so increased during the later year the net annual sum which would have been received by the lessor during that year would have been equal to but not greater than the net annual sum received by him during the earlier year.

(2) In this section the expression "lessor" means the lessor for the purposes of the Act of 1946. The expression "services" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1946. The expression "contractual obligation" includes an obligation to which a lessor is subject by virtue of the provisions of section fifteen of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The expression "net annual sum" means as regards the later year and the earlier year the rent payable for the dwelling-house after deducting therefrom the cost of providing the said services and any sums payable in respect of rates.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is somewhat lengthy but its purpose is simple. It is to provide that in respect of rent-controlled property the landlord shall be entitled to recover the increased cost of the services which he provides.

Your Lordships will remember that the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Ridley said that this question of services was eminently one for tribunals. They added that it was a matter which should receive priority, since costs had been rising and were likely to continue to rise. They said that almost exactly four years ago to-day. Since then, costs have again increased. It might be argued that if the Government have shown, as they have on many matters, an obstinate front to this proposition at all times, no concession could be made now. But under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, your Lordships will remember that by Section 2, permission was given to the Tribunal to take into account the increased cost of those services in assessing the rent. That was a concession which, through the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, we achieved in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, however, that concession was nullified by Section 7 of the same Act, which said that it should not apply to rent-restricted property.

Therefore there is this anomalous and absurd position: that, if the rateable value of the property in question is £100 a year or under, and the landlord before the Tribunal argues that the cost of coal, of gas, of electricity, of porterage, of lifts, and so on and so forth, has increased, the answer is "Yes, you have a case; your claim is quite just, but in no circumstances can we grant you any relief." On the other hand, if the rateable value is over £100 a year, and the same arguments are adduced, the Tribunal say "Certainly, your case is sound; it is unanswerable. We will give you the increase." So there is not only the grossest of anomalies, but also a position which I think is one of acute injustice as well. I have not asked anybody to send me any figures. It was entirely by accident that I saw some figures just before I came into your Lordships' House. I do not propose to read them out in detail, but taking two items only from those figures one can see that since 1938 the cost of coke has practically doubled and that the cost of running and maintaining lifts has actually trebled. As my noble friend Lord Llewellin points out, the cost of wages has doubled, but costs of maintenance and repairs to lifts have trebled. Therefore we have a position where the landlord is bound by law to carry out certain services, to provide them even if they involve him in loss. He can be sued if he does not. Yet, if his rateable value is under £100 a year, the law denies him the right to claim any relief in that regard. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to give serious and careful thought to this matter. The Amendment is both reasonable and just, while the position as it stands is utterly anomalous. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13 insert the said new Clause.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I think my noble friend has really covered all the points in his argument. I would like to support him and to ask the Government to consider this. It was one of the points we talked about in our Committee, and I think we all felt very strongly that it was a matter which could be quite simply rectified without inflicting any great hardship on tenants at large. As my noble friend has said, it is a case of being bound to provide services by one law, and of being prohibited by another law from fully recovering the costs. There are cases where the original contract for the letting may have been at a rent which was higher than it should be, but that should not bring about the necessity of denying landlords, where that is not the case, a proper recompense for enforced increases in cost.

One hears complaints about the poor heating in flats—particularly in large blocks of flats where these conditions apply. There are complaints of the nonuse of the lift and so on, to which the retort of the owner is that he is not allowed to cover himself for his costs. By an action at law he is liable in the case of extreme failure to carry out his obligations, and he has no defence. So I think it would be of interest to all parties if something could be done to adjust this matter. With respect to my noble friend, I am not sure whether this Amendment ought to come in this place, because I have an idea that there should be more room for the exercise of the judgment of the Tribunal upon it—although, of course, the clause says here that "the Tribunal shall be satisfied." I feel strongly, however, that something should be done about this matter.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I think this case has been covered. It is a very simple proposition, and I cannot help thinking that it is covered by ordinary notions of what is fair and just as between human beings.

LORD PAKENHAM

It is impossible to withhold sympathy for people who are placed in a situation such as that described by the noble Viscount and by other noble Lords. At the same time, according to my information there is little or no evidence that landlords of service flats are suffering as a whole. My information is that they are not, as a whole, having a hard time at the moment, although I am certainly not going to reject any statement relative to any particular individuals. Of course, their costs have gone up. On the other hand, before the war they apparently calculated on the basis of 15 per cent. voids and now they are full up: they have very much more security in that sense and, speaking generally therefore, I am not advised that they are one of the categories which have been hard hit, in the way that perhaps the category mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, had been so hard hit. Therefore I am afraid we cannot begin to single them out for special treatment in this way. As I explained earlier, at the moment we do not see our way to single out even those who are most hard hit, and I am afraid we cannot begin with the class of landlord described by the noble Viscount. If we attempted to do so I think others who are not allowed to increase their rents would have a very strong argument against us. I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the noble Viscount on this point.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The speech of the noble Lord to which we have listened surely reinforces the case for accepting this Amendment. First of all, he says that there is little or no evidence that landlords of service flats as a whole are suffering hardship. That means that there will not be many cases to come before the Tribunal. One of the arguments that we have previously been met with in dealing with this Rent Restrictions Act problem is that courts and Tribunals will be flooded with masses of cases—the noble Lord himself earlier this afternoon talked about millions. Here, fortunately, there are very few, so the Tribunals will not be swamped with work on account of this. Secondly, he said that we should be making a special exception in their favour. But we should be doing nothing of the sort. What has happened at the present moment is that there is a special exception to the detriment of these landlords because, on any set of flats of this sort that do not come within the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, they can, as a result of the noble Viscount's Amendment to the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, secure these increased charges. Therefore, we now find these people in an exceptional position, because they were not dealt with at the same time. We should not be giving them exceptional treatment by according them the treatment that we have already given to the other people.

It is clear that if there were a case in which the rent charged originally took account of the 15 per cent. void—and no doubt there were such cases—and that 15 per cent. void had now been filled up because of continuous lettings, that would not be a case in which the Tribunal would make any order. After all, during the discussion on this measure we have been asked a number of times to leave the matter to the Tribunal, to let them decide—and reasonably decide, there not being any court of appeal or anything of that sort. Surely, in this case, there will not be that vast number of cases for the Tribunal to decide which will so flood the court that they will not be able to get on with any other business. I suggest that this kind of Amendment is not only one which is equitable in itself but one which will help the tenants, because these services, if the landlord is not getting enough money to pay for them, are gradually disappearing. The result is that the lifts do not work; the coke is not bought, and the place is not heated; and the tenants are far worse off than they need be if the few exceptional cases (and according to the noble Lord, that is all they are), could be brought before the Tribunal and an adjustment made in the rents. I think the explanation given by the noble Lord is unsatisfactory, and unless he has anything more to say about it, although perhaps we might let the matter rest where it is this afternoon, I think we should return to the charge at a later stage of the Bill.

LORD PAKENHAM

We cannot, of course, tell how many people are in this category. But I refuse to be impaled on the horns of a dilemma which, in my opinion, is not a logical one—either there are so few that they will not give any trouble or there are so many that there must be great hardship. As I say, I refuse to be impaled on the horns of a dilemma in that connection.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

How do you get out of it?

LORD PAKENHAM

The extraordinary thing is that it is very easy to get out of it—if the noble and learned Viscount will permit me. In this particular case there is no clear criterion of hardship. If I have read the Amendment aright: Where the Tribunal is satisfied on the application of a lessor that the net annual sum received by him in respect of the dwelling-house in respect of which he is under a contractual obligation to provide services was less during the year… And so on. It is clear that anyone could go before the Tribunal provided that that phrase is satisfied.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

It is left to the Tribunal to work. Of course they will not act if only a small sum is involved. It is in their discretion.

LORD PAKENHAM

There is really no limit to the cases which could be brought before the Tribunal under this Amendment. I refuse to agree that only cases of great hardship can be brought under this new clause. Going back to the figure of 8,000,000 there are two points: one, as to the number of Tribunals and inquiries. There can be no question of 8,000,000 cases going before the Tribunals. The broader question is how best can we do justice as between one case and another until we have all the houses needed? Frankly, if there are people suffering hardship here—and there may be some, though as I said earlier, it is not a category that seems to us to comprise the most hard hit—I am afraid they are like people in other categories, some of them landlords and some of them tenants, who will have to wait until a general review occurs. When that day comes, when comprehensive legislation is passed, when the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, receives the reward which is certainly due to him, then all these anomalies and hardships and little difficulties will be cleared away. Until that time, I am afraid that many noble Lords will still be able to bring forward cases and ask me how I justify this. My answer, shortly, will be that there are many things which cannot be justified in isolation. I hope that noble Lords will bear that in mind, and that before the next stage of this Bill they will ask themselves: Is this a category which deserves any outstanding, special and peculiar degree of sympathy? That it deserves the sympathy which should go to those who are receiving less than we feel is their proper share, I agree.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has declared his refusal to be impaled on the horns of a dilemma, but I am not sure that he has escaped. He certainly has somewhat confused the issue by introducing this question of 8,000,000. No large figures of any sort are involved in this matter. We are dealing with furnished flats with a rateable value of £100 a year, and under. In regard to the point about special treatment, an exception has been made in punishing these people. The Government are making an exception in not allowing them to receive relief in this respect from a tribunal, as my noble friend Lord Llewellin has said, for, as I have already stated, if the rateable value is over £100 the tribunal can grant relief. I suggest that this Amendment is simple and logical. If the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, can offer no solution, however, I must, in withdrawing my Amendment, reserve the right to bring it forward on a later occasion.

LORD PAKENHAM

Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amend- ment, I am bound to say that I strongly resist the expression that we are punishing these people or any suggestion that we are singling them out.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to withdraw the word "punishing" which was stronger than I intended.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am grateful to the noble Viscount. Perhaps, if necessary, we can pursue this at a later stage.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I think that "penalising" would be the word I would desire to have substituted.

LORD PAKENHAM

Perhaps when the next stage of this Bill is reached, the noble Viscount will feel like substituting the word "rewarding" or something of that sort!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 14 to 17, agreed to.

Clause 18 [Application to Scotland]:

LORD MORRISON

The Committee having now reached Clause 18, those of your Lordships who were present in the earlier stages will remember that on the motion of my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, it was agreed to delete Clauses 2 and 4 with the object of transferring their substance to the First Schedule. Accordingly, this Amendment is necessary for drafting purposes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 9, after ("sheriff") insert ("for any reference to the grant, continuance or renewal of a term there shall be substituted a reference to the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy, and for any reference to a term in relation to a tenancy there shall be substituted a reference to the period for which a tenancy is granted, continued or renewed;").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, line 6, at end insert— ("(7) The First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if in paragraph 8 thereof for the definition of the expression 'reversion' there were substituted the following definition:— 'reversion,' in relation to the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy of a dwelling house, means the estate or interest in the dwelling house which immediately after the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy belonged to the immediate landlord of the tenant under the tenancy.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

5.8 p.m.

Clause 19:

Short title, interpretation and extent.

19.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (1): and shall remain in force until the first day of January nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

The noble Lord said: On receiving my first list of Amendments. I was much cheered by seeing that this Amendment, although I put it down, appeared in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I was cheered because I thought that the Government, in fact, were going to recognise not only in speeches but also in an Act of Parliament that the housing shortage might be over by the time they thought it was going to be over when we dealt with the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947. Your Lordships will remember that there was put into Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act the date January 1, 1954. That is the date which I now seek to have inserted into this Bill. It was incorporated in the Town and Country Planning Act as the date to mark the termination of the provisions of that Act which were designed to eliminate scarcity value from market value on the compulsory acquisition of land and buildings. So, in 1947 Parliament put that date in at the behest of the Government, and there it is. Therefore, I suggest that there cannot be much to be said against me for trying to insert the date once again in the Bill now before us, at the conclusion of a year when the Minister of Health tells us he has been doing better than ever in regard to the provision of houses.

None of us wants to see the Rent Restrictions Acts continued longer than the need for them exists. I am hopeful that the need for this Bill, which is a still further extension of the old one, may have ceased to exist by the end of 1953. I should like the noble Lord to get up in his place and say: "That is most reasonable. We are having such success with our housing programme that by the end of 1953 there will be no need for this Act. We are so reasonably sure of it that we can allow the Amendment to be put in the Bill, with a proviso that if we are wrong we may use the Expiring Laws Continuance Act to deal with the matter." I hope we shall not have a gloomy forecast of the housing position from the noble Lord to-day. It is only on a gloomy forecast that he will be able to reject my most reasonable Amendment, which I am glad to think once had the honour of appearing on the Order Paper under his name. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 35, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Let me hasten to explain that there is nothing to be said against the noble Lord but a good deal to be said against his Amendment. This Bill is dependent, first of all, on the Rent Restrictions Act, and secondly, on the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. The Rent Restrictions Act continues in force until six months after the date, to be decided by Order in Council, ending the emergency. The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act is to expire on March 31, 1950—round about the time of the Election—though it can be renewed year by year thereafter. The noble Lord wants to add a third method in fixing the date of expiry of this Act. He is not prepared to have the methods of either of the two parent Acts, but a new method of his own, and except on the principle that "All good things are three," this really makes confusion worse confounded. I see no point at all in having three methods. I am not going to be at all gloomy. It is by no means certain that the emergency will go on so far as 1954. It depends.

A NOBLE LORD: On the Election!

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Suppose the Party opposite find themselves in power: is it really to be said that houses will not "spring up like mushrooms" and in the course of a few months all our difficulties be solved? I thought we would hear that we have nothing to do but leave it to private enterprise and houses will spring up. According to the noble Lord, there is no need to contemplate such a gloomy proposition as 1954 in that event. Therefore I venture to think that I am not being too gloomy in saying that it is better not to have a separate date for this Bill. It is dependent upon the two parent Acts, and when those Acts come to an end, automatically this meritorious little Bill will fall into oblivion. For that reason I cannot accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question. The Acts which he mentions can be extended under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but in the first Amendment which we discussed to-day the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said distinctly that this was an emergency Bill. Naturally, therefore, my noble friend thought he would give the Government a little more scope than they would otherwise require by putting down an Amendment to make sure that this Bill expires on January 1, 1954. It now transpires that this is not really an emergency Bill, as the Rent Restrictions Act can be extended from time to time; therefore this Bill also may go on from time to time, and when 1954 comes along we may find that we are still saddled with it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Rent Restrictions Act is expressly stated to be an emergency Act, and six months after the ending of the emergency it comes to an end. I do not think there is any right of extension, but I hope the noble Earl will not hold me to that opinion; I will look up the Act and see. My impression at the moment is that there is no right of extension.

LORD LLEWELLIN

As I understand it, the "emergency" is what is called "the war"; so it is dependent on our friends on the other side of the Iron Curtain signing one, two or three Peace Treaties whether our Rent Restrictions Act continues. I had hoped to hear a more definite pronouncement from the Government as to when the housing shortage would have ceased. I was a little surprised to hear the noble and learned Viscount attributing to me those grand sayings about housing whose author is the present Foreign Secretary. He used them when talking in Bristol during the last Election, and I should not like to deprive him of the authorship. But in view of the fact that this is not one of the Amendments I think should be pressed, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am sorry to deprive the noble Lord of the credit for this contribution, but I understand he has passed it over to me. I now beg to move this Amendment as a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 39, at the beginning insert ("the expression").—(Lord Pakenham.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

As this Amendment was once attributed to me, let me say that, though I have no objection to it, I see no reason whatever why the words "the expression" should appear in every case. It would get rid of a good deal of printing if we left the words out. But as they appear in three other places, I have no objection to them going in a fourth time.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SELSDON moved to add to subsection (2): The expression 'dwelling-house' does not include any premises used for the purpose of a hotel.

The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment with a view to obtaining from the Government an assurance that it is not intended that the provisions of the Bill should apply to hotels and boarding houses. It is clear that arrangements with regard to rent control which are properly applicable to dwelling-houses are not necessarily applicable to hotels. In fact, in November, 1945, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, writing to a Member of another place about the 1946 Act, stated specifically, "This Bill does not apply to hotels." However, there was a rent tribunal in London who thought they had power to deal with hotels. There was then considerable correspondence, and again in July, 1948, the Parliamentary Secretary wrote: Normally, hotels, in the ordinary sense of the word, would be outside the scope of the Act because the value of the board would be a substantial proportion of the whole rent.…The attention of rent tribunals has been drawn to the limited extent of their jurisdiction, where the rent payable includes payment for board and they are, I think, fairly familiar with the position. So far as this Bill is concerned, in another letter written on behalf of the Minister of Health, dated January 25, 1949, it was stated that the views in the letter in which the Parliamentary Secretary wrote that the 1946 Act did not affect hotels: would appear to be applicable also to the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell me that this Bill does not affect hotels. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Selsdon.)

LORD PAKENHAM

I am glad to be able to give a rather limited amount of encouragement, and to set the mind of one noble Lord, at least, completely at rest. The Bill provides that expressions other than those defined should have the same meaning as in the principal Acts. The Rent Acts exclude specifically from control all premises licensed to sell intoxicating liquor on the premises, and all premises let with a substantial amount of board. There is no need, therefore, for the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, because his point is fully covered.

LORD SELSDON

I only wanted that assurance. I am obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

5.23 p.m.

First Schedule [Provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord]:

LORD PAKENHAM moved to omit the whole of paragraphs 1 and 2, and all words in paragraph 3 down to "paragraph," and to insert in their place:

cc1133-6
1. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO PREMIUMS PART I 1,228 words
cc1136-7
2. PART II 439 words
cc1137-44
3. PART III 2,747 words