HL Deb 10 July 1952 vol 177 cc999-1003

2.37 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, it falls to my lot to move the first of the plethora of Private Members' Bills which appear on the Order Paper this afternoon. Some three years ago I attempted to introduce a Private Members' Bill into your Lordships' House entitled the Marriage (Enabling) Bill, the purpose of which was to enable a man, if he felt so minded, to marry his divorced wife's sister. I was unsuccessful. The noble Lord, Lord Uthwatt, whose death we still lament, helped me in the drafting of that Bill, and he afterwards commiserated with me on its failure. He told me, "There are three traps which confront every Member attempting private legislation. There are three things which a private legislator must not attempt. First, he must not attempt to amend the matrimonial laws of this country. That is what you have done this afternoon and you have, rightly, failed. The other two things which, even if you are the proud possessor of a particularly large barge-pole, you must not touch, are the Rent Acts and the legislation concerning the administration of justice." Your Lordships will note that the first of the Bills in my name this afternoon deals with the Rent Acts and the second with the administration of justice.

This Bill seeks to do only one thing: it seeks to give sub-tenants of houses or flats built on Crown Lands the same protection under the various Rent Acts to which they would be entitled if their property was built on ordinary land. It may come as somewhat of a surprise to your Lordships to know that this protection is not available to these sub-tenants. When a leading case was before the Courts in 1947, the Lord Chief Justice of England drew attention to the fact that this exception was not known to the majority of people. Now, my Lords, a considerable number of people are affected by this Bill. There are a considerable number who have flats and houses as sub-tenants on Crown property, and what has happened is this. Various unscrupulous persons—the type of person who always takes advantage of a housing shortage—have been buying up these leases and selling with vacant possession at a greatly enhanced price; or have been putting up the rents to a height which the tenant cannot afford. The result has been that these unfortunate people are thrown out of their houses. If they go to the county court they get sympathy but nothing in the way of practical assistance, because the county courts cannot help them. It is beyond their power to go before the local authority and ask for assistance from the housing committee, because, of course, they have never been on the housing list. The hardship, therefore, is considerable.

I know that it will be said that this Bill is merely a further addition to the ungodly jumble which is the Rent Acts. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, a few weeks ago, put a Question on this subject to Her Majesty's Government: he asked whether the Government were prepared to consider a general overhaul of the Rent Acts. The Lord Chancellor smiled sadly and gave us the answer which we all knew he must inevitably give. This is no place to argue the pros and cons of a general revision of the Rent Acts, but in the opinion of many people such a revision is long overdue. Legislation which originally had the wholly laudable purpose of protecting small house and flat owners against unscrupulous landlords has changed its shape completely. There have been leading articles in both The Times and the Observer asking how much longer we must wait before we reconsider the position of one man contributing towards the rent of another. They are no longer Rent Acts but Encouragement of Slum Development Acts. However, that is not the point. As long as the Rent Acts exist in their present form, it is my submission that it is grossly unfair to exclude quite a substantial portion of the community from their protection. That is what I am seeking to remedy this afternoon.

It may also be argued: why should this protection be given only to the subtenants of Crown Land and not to the tenants of Crown Land? Well, my Lords, there are several reasons. I do not think that Private Members' legislation is the proper place to start tampering with the prerogative of the Crown. It would also obviously lead to confusion in the case, for instance, of married quarters in barracks; of accommodation wanted for people working for the Crown in secret occupations—and many more examples can be thought of. For that reason, the Crown is excluded from this Bill. Of course, when the Crown shows itself a bad landlord, the Crown, through the Crown Commissioners, can always be brought to book in either House of Parliament. In another place it is the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible. Whether in this House it is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Under-Secretary for Agriculture, or the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who represents the Minister of Town and Country Planning in this House, I do not know. It may even be, as many of these properties are in the Duchy of Lancaster, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. We should then be in the unusual position of hearing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaking about affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster. But whoever it may be, this is too wide a subject to be included in this Bill.

That is all the Bill seeks to do. It is really a one-clause Bill. The remainder of the Bill is concerned with technicalities—and I am afraid they are many—and with the administrative machinery. It contains consequential provisions to link the Bill to such subjects as mortgages, and generally tidies up a considerable amount of complicated legislation. It has been thoroughly threshed out in Committee in another place and has been much amended. Some years before the war a lady well known in Irish social and political circles wrote a letter three and a half columns in length to the Morning Post, in which she set out her proposals for an entirely new religion. She even went down to the details of the pension scheme for her clergy. The next day, readers of the Morning Post were pleased, but not surprised, to see a letter from her husband saying that he was in no way responsible for his wife's letter in the Morning Post of the day before, save to have corrected the spelling and punctuation. I am responsible for this Bill but I am in no way responsible for the drafting, which has received the benefit of the attention of the official draftsman. I understand that it is now in a thoroughly workmanlike form. It is an uncontroversial Bill, and I think it will fulfil a long felt want and will alleviate much hardship amongst a large number of people. On those grounds I cordially commend it to your Lordships, and hope that you will be good enough to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, we do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, and in view of the excellent statement made by the noble Lord there does not appear to be any need for us to make a speech about it. If anything does arise between now and the Committee stage no doubt there will be an opportunity of raising any points. We beg to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to say that in this House, as in another place, this Bill has the blessing of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is much to be congratulated on bringing it before your Lordships for Second Reading. It will fill very usefully a gap which I think was not known to be a gap until a decision of the courts in the year 1947. I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.