§ Page 14, line 20, insert as a 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 Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because it is inexpedient to make provision as respects a particular class of landlord.
§ 4.20 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, this is an Amendment in which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has taken a very great interest. I can hardly think that, if he were aware that this Amendment was being discussed now, he would not be here at this time. Perhaps a certain dilatoriness on my part now will be forgiven while attempts are made to obtain the attendance of the noble Viscount. The main point here, with which the noble Viscount is very well acquainted, is by now familiar to the House. The particular hardship, 1285 real or alleged, arises most obviously in the case of owners of flats. In this House we have had this in mind when discussing this Amendment, or the principle at stake, on previous occasions. The broad contention that I laid before the House just now applies here also. As in the matter of the last Amendment, it may be a case here of hardship. I am bound to say that, since this first came under public discussion, we have not had much evidence that there are numbers of cases in this connection, but I am not denying that there might well be some cases of this sort. Here again, I am afraid that we cannot begin to make an exception in favour of a particular class of landlord. Perhaps some noble Lords would feel that, if we were going to make an exception, the last Amendment provided a stronger opportunity. Others would say that this Amendment is, on the whole, rather stronger. Be that as it may, I must repeat that this is not the time to attempt to remedy all the injustices which may or may not exist as between landlords and tenants. This Bill has the limited purpose of removing the hardships of a certain kind of tenant. This particular hardship, real or alleged, will also be carefully considered when the comprehensive legislation comes along. Here again, I should say that our discussions will not at all have been wasted if the point has been ventilated in a way that will make discussion easier at that time.
I have only one further point to make in this connection—a point which I do not recall making, or hearing made, in this House when we discussed this matter before. It may be felt—I am not saying that some sensible and honest men would not feel this, whereas other sensible and honest men would feel the opposite—that it is particularly hard on the owners of flats not to be allowed some compensation for the increased cost of services which they are to provide as a contractual duty. I would only point out what I do not think has been pointed out before in this House—that, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, any increased cost of providing ordinary repairs is not treated as a reason for raising rents, even though a contractual duty exists to provide them. Therefore, there is nothing exceptional here in saying that the provision of something as a contractual duty should not be 1286 used as a reason for raising rents. For repairs to be treated as a reason for raising rents under the Rent Restrictions Acts, they must be structural alterations or improvements. Therefore, if we made an exception in this one case, we should soon find that in practice we were dealing with a whole class of ordinary repairs. That is an additional reason for our not being able to see our way to do as the noble Viscount suggested. Apart from that, in all honesty, we would not be able to start off under this Amendment and make an exception favourable to a particular class of landlord.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, who I know takes an intense interest in this Amendment, should not have joined us. It is through no desire of mine that he is not here. Other noble Lords have entered the Chamber, but not the noble Viscount, whose feelings, both inside and outside the House, are of the warmest. However, I do not wish to detain your Lordships indefinitely. Therefore, I beg to move that we do not insist on this Amendment.
§ Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Pakenham).
§ 4.25 p.m.
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I can join with the noble Lord opposite in at any rate one matter—disappointment that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, is not here, because this is an Amendment which I know he had very much at heart and of which, indeed, he was the mover when this Bill was previously before this House. The strength of this Amendment that we made in this House—contrary, it is quite true, to the Government's wishes—was this: that we had done this in regard to houses above the limits of the Rent Restrictions Acts, when we were dealing with, I think, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Bill. The fact that the various charges—the rate of wages for the liftman, the different services to be provided and the price of coal—had gone up was to be taken into consideration in fixing the rents.
The second reason why there appeared considerable justification for making this Amendment was the unanimous Report of the Ridley Committee on this point. That Report said that this particular grievance should receive the highest 1287 priority when the Rent Restrictions Acts were revised. It is interesting to note that one member of the present Government was a member of the Ridley Committee which signed the Report, and another member of the Committee was also, until quite recently, a member of the Government. So I should have thought their views would carry weight. I agree also with the noble Lord opposite that the previous Amendment was probably the stronger of the two. It may be that, as I was the father of that one and the noble Viscount was the father of the present one, I preferred mine to his. I still think that it is only just to allow increased charges for these contractual services to be made.
I think also that it is discouraging to any private land owners, who in future might think of putting in better facilities for their weekly wage-earning tenants, or for their middle-class tenants, not to allow this Amendment. One of the aspects of our housing that we want to encourage—indeed, the Minister has been making grants to local authorities to encourage it—is, in the case of a large block of tenement flats, the provision of some form of lift to take people to the top of the building, whether they be the richer or the poorer members of the community. It is a very difficult task to get a perambulator, for instance, up the outside staircases of some of the old-fashioned blocks of flats in the Metropolis. I believe that anybody who provides these services for that type of tenement ought to be encouraged—and not discouraged, as he may well be, by the knowledge that, if charges increase, he will still have to carry on those same services without securing the wherewithal in the rent to pay for them. That is my main reason for regretting that the Government have not seen their way to accept this Amendment. Their refusal to do so will discourage those who ought to be encouraged to provide for the cheaper rented houses the same facilities as many of us enjoy at the more expensive places. At the same time, we do not want to hold up this measure as a whole, and I suggest that we should not insist upon this Amendment.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, here again I would like to thank the noble Lord for his attitude. He has obviously given a great deal of thought to this 1288 matter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, can rightly feel that the case has been put with great effect, in spite of his regrettable, and to me inexplicable, absence. I saw him not long ago. I put some points to him, and I do not flatter myself that I made the slightest impression upon him. It seems to me particularly strange that he should have abstained from this crucial discussion. I would mention only one further point, in view of what the noble Lord has said. We had a reference before to the emphasis, which I do not in the least attempt to whittle down, placed on this kind of point by the Ridley Committee. I have not the Ridley Report beside me, but to the best of my belief there is no suggestion in the Ridley Report that this matter should be dealt with in advance of a general review. The Ridley Report proposed that there should be this general review and that there should be comprehensive legislation. I am fairly sure that the Ridley Report never suggested that in advance of comprehensive legislation of this kind one point should be singled out and treated in isolation. However, having said that, I thank the noble Lord once again for helping us with the Bill.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.