Lords Sitting of 8 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Viscount Simon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father
Prayers
  BEIT TRUST BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN MALAYA
2.36 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them private notice. The Question is, whether they have any statement to make on developments in the present constitutional position in Malaya, as reported in the Press this morning.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I am glad to be able to announce that after the High Commissioner had explained the course he intends to pursue when he appoints the nominated reserve members, to whom reference is made in paragraph 31 of the Election Committee Report, the leaders of the Alliance have stated that they are prepared to co-operate with, and participate in, the Government at all levels as before. I will, with the permission of the House, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the letters exchanged between the High Commissioner and Tunku Abdul Rahman on behalf of the Alliance, in which this agreement was reached. Briefly, it is the intention of the High Commissioner to consult the leaders of the majority Party or Parties among the elected members before making appointments to the five reserved seats.
I should like to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in having acceded to my request to postpone his earlier Question on this matter, in order not to prejudice
528
the success of the discussions in Malaya which were then nearing their conclusion.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate all concerned in bringing about this most satisfactory result, and, in particular, Her Majesty's Government, the High Commissioner and the leaders of the Alliance. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will agree that Her Majesty's Opposition in both Houses have also worked untiringly with the same purpose in view.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, my Lords; I concur heartily with the words the noble Lord has just spoken.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether what he has said does not mean that the discussions in Malaya about the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the Constitution of the Federal Legislature will be discontinued.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, if the noble Earl will await the publication of the letters in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that that is a matter which is coming up for discussion between the High Commissioner and their Highnesses, I think on the 15th of this month.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I thank the noble Earl.
Following is the text of the letters exchanged between the High Commissioner of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman:
A. Text of letter from the High Commissioner of the Federation of Malaya to Tunku Abdul Rahman, dated 6th July, 1954
"As a result of my recent discussions with you, Colonel H. S. Lee and Dr. Ismail, I am writing to clarify the coursed I intend to pursue when appointing 'nominated reserve' members, to whom reference is made in paragraph 31 of the Election Committee Report.
These members are not to be appointed by me until the election is completed and the appointments are to be made in the light of the result of that election. Apart from officials, whom all are agreed should fill two of these seats, the primary purpose of these members is to give a voice in the Council to any important element which had not found adequate representation in the Council through the electoral process. In giving effect to this purpose it would, I believe, be inappropriate for me to send these representatives into the Council to oppose the policy of the majority among the elected members; indeed this might

529
well be regarded as thwarting or frustrating the wishes of the electors as expressed at the polls and as being inconsistent with promotion of that harmony and close identity between the Legislature as a whole and the Executive, which the Election Committee unanimously indicated in paragraph 106 of their Report should be the constant aim of the High Commissioner. The purpose of these seats, as well as the basic intention of the Constitution, will, I believe, be more readily and appropriately achieved by filling these scats with representatives chosen for the purposes indicated in paragraph 31 of the Report, who are not likely to find themselves out of harmony with major political opinion in the Council as reflected among the elected members, and consequently less able to inform and guide that opinion effectively.
It is therefore my intention to consult the leaders of the majority party or parties among the elected members before making appointments to these seats.
I hope that with this statement of intention, you will find yourself able to co-operate in the establishment of the new constitutional arrangements arid to give your support to legislative measures which will give effect to the proposals contained in Federal Council Paper No. 21 of 1954."
B. Text of letter from Tunku Abdul Rahman to the High Commissioner of the Federation of Malaya also dated 6th July, 1954
"I have to thank you for your communication in regard to the course which you intend to pursue on the introduction of elections in appointing 'nominated reserve' members, which I have communicated to my colleagues.
In view of this statement we are satisfied that the proposed constitutional arrangements have a reasonable prospect of working satisfactorily and the Alliance is therefore prepared to extend its support to the establishment of these arrangements and to co-operate and participate with the Government at all levels as before. We therefore trust that for this purpose members of the Alliance will be reappointed to the various councils, boards and committees of which they were previously members. But in this connection you will appreciate our concern that all our members who have resigned should be afforded the same consideration in order to ensure co-operation at all levels.
We do, however, feel that there are other aspects of the Federation Agreement as it stands which merit further consideration and we understand that it will be Your Excellency's intention to discuss with Their Highnesses the Rulers on 15th July the request of the Alliance for a Commission to report on these matters."
C. Text of letter from the High Commissioner of the Federation of Malaya to Tunku Abdul Rahman, dated 7th July, 1954
"I have to thank you for your letter of 6th July on the subject of constitutional arrangements to provide for the introduction of elec-
530
tions and am glad to receive your assurance that the Alliance will give its support to the establishment of these arrangements, together with an expression of its wish to co-operate and participate with the Government as before.
In the circumstances I hope that the status quo before the resignations will be restored as soon as possible so that the Alliance may be able to give this support and co-operation. But as resignations have extended to councils, boards and committees in the States, it will be necessary for me to consult Their Highnesses the Rulers in this regard and I intend to take the first opportunity of doing so."

CIVIL DEFENCE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, this Bill takes the first step towards the development of a force of Civil Defence mobile columns for life-saving and fire-fighting purposes in war. I wish to male it clear at the out-set that it is no part of the Government's policy to maintain permanent whole-time Civil Defence mobile columns in peace. The reasons for this are simple; in the first place there would be no peace-time functions For them to fulfil, and in the second place they would not provide trained men on anything like the scale which the Government consider necessary, and which our own plans provide for.
Three things have to be achieved. First, the men selected for mobile column duties must be trained in peace to a reasonable standard of proficiency in the tasks which they would be required to perform in war, and for this purpose special fire-fighting and rescue training establishments must be set up. Secondly, these men must be allocated to operational formations. And thirdly, there must be power to mobilise them in those formations before the outbreak of war. The Bill accordingly provides the necessary powers for all these purposes. In considering this and all other Civil Defence matters, it is absolutely essential to remember the basic premise on which the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and, I may add, of the immediately preceding Governments—has been firmly

531
founded. It is not a policy based on the presumption that war is going to break out to-morrow. On the contrary, it is a policy directed to the prevention of war and not to preparations for a war considered to be imminent or even inevitable. And, my Lords, the general emphasis of that policy is not in any way altered by recent accessions of knowledge about the development of the hydrogen bomb.
The practical implications of that development are, of course, momentous and can hardly be exaggerated. As the Home Secretary explained in another place earlier this week, all our Civil Defence plans are at present under review. But whatever may emerge from that review, one thing is quite certain—the advent of the hydrogen bomb makes it not less important but more important than ever to build up in peace time organised services trained in all the manifold tasks of life-saving, fire-fighting and welfare. The coming of the hydrogen bomb will undoubtedly make necessary widespread modifications in the detailed organisation and practice of these services; but the absolute value of the services themselves is, if possible, enhanced. That is especially true of the mobile columns. Their function is to supplement the front-line units of the Civil Defence Corps and the National Fire Service in their life-saving and their fire-fighting tasks, and it is important that they should be viewed against the background of those two services. Against that background their importance can hardly be over-emphasised.
Your Lordships may find it of value if I briefly trace the history of events leading up to the introduction of the Bill which is before you to-day. The development of Civil Defence, and in particular of Civil Defence services, has been an object of policy of successive Governments. It was the first post-war Labour Government which decided in 1947 to reconstitute the Civil Defence Service of the country, which introduced the Civil Defence Act, 1948, and which, furthermore, in pursuance of that Act, established and started the recruitment of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service in November, 1949. It was also the last Government which took the preparatory steps for the
532
development of a mobile column force. When the present Government took office in November, 1951, they found that the plans for an Experimental Mobile Column were well advanced, and that at the same time a study had been put in hand to find means of providing manpower for Civil Defence mobile columns in war, if possible in advance of an emergency. It was, of course, manifestly sensible that we should proceed with these projects.
The Experimental Mobile Column was accordingly established in January, 1953. Since then, experiments have been carried out on the organisation, training, equipment and operational employment of mobile rescue columns and their personnel. That experiment will finish at the end of this year. It has certainly been successful and has given us a valuable opportunity to reassess the rôle and organisation of the mobile column force. In continuing the consideration of arrangements for providing manpower for this force, the Government have examined various possible sources of supply. If the international climate were appreciably to worsen, and a shorter, sharper, pull were wanted, it might indeed be found necessary to draw on a wider field of recruitment for the needs of the force than is at present proposed. But, for the time being, the Government have decided that it should be possible to make a substantial contribution towards our mobile column manpower requirements by using men who are already within the scope of the National Service Act, 1948.
At the present time, the Royal Air Force, to meet its cold war requirements, has to take for whole-time service a considerably larger number of National servicemen than it would need to mobilise during the first year of war. A large number of the men who will not be needed immediately on the outbreak of war can—and, in the Government's view, should—be made available for Civil Defence training in peace, and for Civil Defence service in war until they are required for ordinary R.A.F. duties. It was with this in mind that, in the course of his comment on this year's Defence Statement, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence recently announced in another place a proposal that selected National Servicemen should be given training in Civil Defence during their period of liability for part-time ser-

533
vice as an alternative to their normal Service training. He said that in war they would be mobilised in Service formations under their own officers—but under the operational control of the Civil Defence authorities; and that in due course Parliament would be asked to approve the necessary enabling legislation.
That legislation is contained in the Bill now before your Lordships. Its object is to provide statutory authority for a scheme to enable those National Servicemen who can be made available during their last two years of part-time service to be called up for one fortnight's Civil Defence training in each of those two years. In that period the men will be given training in rescue or in fire-fighting duties at Civil Defence or Fire Service establishments, and by Civil Defence or Fire Service instructors. The Home Office and the Scottish Home Department will be responsible for arranging the provision of the depôts, and the Service Departments for directing the National Servicemen for training. In the event of war the men would be mobilised by the Service Departments and employed in Service formations, but—and I emphasise this—they would be under the operational control of the Civil Defence authorities and would be formed into mobile columns, which would be tactically sited near the most vulnerable target areas. The Fire Service element would be integrated with the National Fire Service; the Civil Defence element, having no comparable parent force would be provided with an appropriate command structure from national to single column level.
As to the numbers involved, on the best estimate which can at present be made, some 15,000 men will become available for training in each year of the scheme. Thus, in 1955–56, 15,000 men will be under training, and in each subsequent year (when two intakes will be available) approximately 30,000. Therefore, a simple sum will show that over six years of the operation of the scheme—assuming that it will be possible to maintain these numbers—there will be created a second echelon force approaching 100,000 men. It is proposed that the annual intake should be divided more or less equally between fire-fighting and rescue duties.
534
For the training of these men we intend to provide initially for three establishments, which we hope to bring into operation in the spring of 1955. Two of these establishments will be devoted to rescue training, and one considerably larger depôt to preliminary fire-fighting training. In the following year, other depôts will be provided to deal with the additional intake, and at least one of these will be situated in Scotland. The depôts will be Home Department establishments, each under a civilian commandant and staffed with civilian instructors, but disciplinary control and internal R.A.F. administration of the men will remain with the R.A.F., who will provide for this purpose an officer in charge of the unit and other staff as necessary. Separate arrangements at other establishments will be made for training the officers and more senior N.C.Os. for the columns, since they will require a longer period of training than it is proposed to give under the main scheme.
In view of the preparatory measures which have to be completed and of the need to give the trainees adequate warning notice, the spring of 1955 is the earliest time at which the scheme can practicably be brought into operation. In addition to providing training centres it will be necessary to recruit a staff of about 250, including about 100 instructors, some of whom will have to be trained. It will in fact be necessary to take certain preparatory measures in advance of this Bill reaching the Statute Book.
The Government recognise that this scheme goes only part of the way towards providing a completely satisfactory mobile column force. It is possible, for example, that in the future, in certain circumstances, the Services might be able to contribute additional manpower. It is also possible that the national and international situation might, at some later stage, be deemed by the Government of the day to justify a call upon men outside the scope of the present Bill. In either of these ways this force might be expanded, but that is a matter which will have to be reviewed at a later date, in the light of the situation at the time and the extent and the success of the measures undertaken under this Bill. Equally, the Government recognise that the training of these men is only a begin-

535
ning There are clearly many other problems which must be solved before a completely satisfactory mobile column force can be available. Apart from the training of N.C.Os. and officers, to which I have referred, there must be unit training for the personnel; suitable places for operational and mobilisation centres must be selected, and the layout and establishment of these centres must be settled. But though there is a lot still to be done, I submit that the Bill is not to be scorned on that account.
Moreover, the planning which lies ahead should be aided by the appointment of a Commander-in-Chief designate of the Civil Defence Mobile Forces. Noble Lords will have noted the statement which my right honourable friend made about this proposal in another place earlier this week, when he said that he was already in consultation with the Minister of Defence about the selection of an officer for this post. One of the Commander-in-Chief's functions will be to co-ordinate the plans for the employment of Civil Defence mobile columns to aid local Civil Defence forces in war-time, and he will collaborate with his opposite numbers in the Armed Forces to ensure that these plans are in harmony with military plans. In time of war he would be in operational control of all the columns, and he will clearly be intimately concerned with the development of the scheme to which this Bill relates.
Coming now to the actual terms of the Bill, your Lordships will see that in general it proceeds by an extension of the Civil Defence Act, 1948. Clause 1 (1) extends that Act to enable the designated Minister (in effect, the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland) to make arrangements for giving Civil Defence training to part-time National Servicemen: and Clause 1 (4) enables him to pay for the cost of the arrangements. Clause 1 (1) also makes it clear that the training which a man may be required to undergo under the National Service Act, 1948, includes training provided in pursuance of the arrangements made by the designated Minister; and Clause 1 (2) extends the arrangements to other members of the Armed Forces in order to provide for the officers, noncommissioned officers and technicians who, although not themselves National
536
Servicemen, will be needed for duty with the mobile columns.
Clause 1 (3) deals with the application of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, in respect of accidents occurring at the training establishments, and Clause 1 (5)—which has been inserted for the removal of doubt—declares Civil Defence to be a duty of the Armed Forces generally. It has normally been accepted that the potential duties of members of the Armed Forces do, in fact, include Civil Defence, but, since the taking elsewhere in the Bill of powers in connection with the Civil Defence training, of Servicemen might throw doubt upon this liability, it has been thought desirable to assert the liability specifically by a declaratory provision. Finally, Clause 1 (6) defines the expressions "Civil Defence" and "designated Minister" by reference to the Civil Defences Act, 1948.
I should add that, although only the R.A.F. has National Service reservists surplus to mobilisation requirements, and although the Royal Navy and the Army will make no contribution to the projected scheme, for the present at any rate, the Bill has been framed to apply to members of all three Services in order to cater for any possible changes in the position which may occur in the future.
My Lords, I feel that I should not conclude without a reference to the help we have already received from the Royal Air Force, who have co-operated to the full in the development of these proposals. It will be the object of the Home Departments and the Air Ministry to ensure that the same spirit of co-operation governs the practical application of the scheme. In that way we feel that there is every prospect of achieving the success of a measure which will unquestionably be of great benefit to Civil Defence and which will in no way be detrimental to the interests of the Royal Air Force. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for the clear and easily understood explanation that he has given of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. Let me say at once that, so far as Members on this side of the House are concerned, he is assured of a Second Reading for his

537
Bill. Having said that, I want to make briefly a number of observations, both on the Bill and on the purposes for which it has been brought in. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill is quite a short one—there are only two clauses—but it is an important Bill because it introduces a new principle; and that principle is to be found in Clause 1 (5). As it is a general principle applying to all members of all the Armed Forces, Regulars and National Servicemen, I am rather surprised that it is not placed in the forefront of the Bill, instead of being tucked away in its present position.
I am not sure whether it is at present a legal liability for members of the Regular Armed Forces to undertake as a normal duty Civil Defence and Civil Defence training, and the reference made by the noble Lord in his speech did not make it any clearer to me. The Regular Forces are recruited on a basis of voluntary enlistment for military service in one of the recognised branches of the three Armed Forces. I think I am right in saying that the complement of officers, N.C.Os. and men in the Experimental Mobile Column were drawn from the Army and the Royal Air Force, but whether this was based on a legal liability or was merely a temporary extension of their normal duties I am not clear. But there will be no room for doubt in the future. Regular forces will be legally liable to Civil Defence and Civil Defence training as a normal Service duty.
It is certainly the case that the National Servicemen are not liable for this duty under the National Service Act. There is now to be an extension of their legal liability. It is clear, therefore, that the Bill makes an important departure, that it adds new duties to the existing duties of all members of all the Armed Forces. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong in extending the legal liabilities of men of the Armed Forces to include Civil Defence and Civil Defence training, but it is rather surprising that the present method should have been adopted to give effect to such an important new principle. It would seem that it is being introduced in this way at this time, not as part of a well-considered new plan to make Civil Defence the fourth arm of national defence, but in order to make it possible for a portion of the National Service reservists whom the Royal Air Force is not calling up for part-time training to be
538
made available for very short training for service on mobilisation in mobile columns. The very limited application of the new principle seems to justify that view.
I recognise that the Bill is designed to strengthen Civil Defence—and that is something which we all wish to see brought about. There has, I suggest, been too much of a tendency for Civil Defence to be treated as the Cinderella of national defence. I think it is a pity, however, that the Bill should have come before your Lordships' House without our first having had an opportunity to discuss the general problem of Civil Defence. Here, may I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his ready response to our request to defer the Second Reading of the Bill until to-day. I say this because those of your Lordships who have read the Report on Civil Defence issued at the beginning of the year by the Select Committee on Estimates will be aware that it pointed to serious shortcomings in our Civil Defence organisation and preparation and made a number of constructive suggestions.
There was a debate in another place at the beginning of the week, when the present position was reviewed. In opening the discussion, the Home Secretary said that studies are actively proceeding over a large part of the Civil Defence field, in parallel with the review of wider defence policy, but that he was not yet in a position to make any comprehensive statement about the probable results of that review. That is understandable; nevertheless, I feel that it would have been better if we could have considered an important proposal such as that contained in this Bill against the background of the results of the studies.
We all recognise that the advent of the hydrogen bomb has created new problems which, for their magnitude, complexity and gravity, far exceed anything of a like nature that this country has ever had to face in war time. The Home Secretary on Monday gave us some grim facts about the effects of a hydrogen bomb explosion. They were sufficiently clear to make perfectly obvious to everyone of us the appalling consequences of such an explosion, both in terms of casualties and of destruction or damage to homes, workplaces and the public services which are vital to the life of the community. I agree that Civil Defence

539
is of far greater importance than it has ever been, and that its needs have taken on a greater urgency. If another war comes, and if it starts with intense hydrogen bomb attacks, as is expected, the civilian population will be in the front line from the very first moment. We shall need mobile columns; in my view, they are indispensable. It is of the first importance that they should be in existence, and ready and able to undertake the heavy and difficult tasks that will fall to them.
My Lords, we welcome the decision to create mobile columns, but we are not happy at the way in which the Government are setting about their establishment. There is far too much of the part-time element about the present proposals. First of all, there is to be a part-time Commander-in-Chief of the Civil Defence Mobile Forces. His area of command will be England, Wales and Scotland. As we have been told, he is to do a triple job in relation to mobile columns. He will command the mobile columns in the areas at a time of emergency; he will ensure that there is proper liaison between the mobile columns and the Armed Forces, and he will see that the mobile forces are in a position usefully and properly to co-operate with local authorities. Those are to be his responsibilities—and I am not sure that they are all. These seem to me to be most important duties, and it is difficult to see how they can be done properly and effectively on a part-time basis.
Then the mobile columns are to be manned by part-time trained reservists from the Royal Air Force. They are to have a month's training in their last two years of reserve liability. At the end of six years—that is, by April, 1960—there will be, according to my calculations, a pool of 60,000 men who have had one month's training, and 15,000 with only a fortnight's training. But by that time, 1960, half of them will have been out of touch with training for two or more years, and inevitably their value will have seriously diminished. This is the pool of manpower on which our mobile columns are to depend on mobilisation. It may be that this force may be diminished in another way, because we have to bear in mind that at the present moment the National Servicemen are being taken in regardless of the industries in which they
540
are engaged in peace time—apart, I think, from coal mining. But when the war comes we shall be faced again with the question of reserved occupations, when it may be that some of these men will be retained in their civil employments, as members of reserved occupations. Does the noble Lord in charge of the Bill really consider that a month's training will provide the sort of mobile column service that we shall need? Does he consider that one month's training is adequate? In the debate in another place on Monday, one Conservative Member said that:
"in relation to the responsibilities, four weeks will be ludicrous."
I think most people will consider it utterly inadequate to provide an efficient mobile column service, capable of undertaking the vitally important duties of rescue and fire-fighting following a hydrogen bomb attack.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he and the Home Secretary have considered the suggestion of the Select Committee. The Committee suggested thirteen skeleton mobile columns—one for each of the regions in England and Wales, and one for each zone in Scotland. They had in mind the skeleton experimental column to which the noble Lord referred and which is to be disbanded at the end of this year. I think it was composed of 150 officers, non-commissioned officers and men. Thirteen of such columns would call for about 2,000 personnel a year for full-time service, and they would obviously be trained to a very high standard of efficiency. Or have the Government some other scheme in mind to give a fully-trained hard core to each mobile column? I believe that the mobile columns should be manned by members of the Armed Forces, but I do not see how it is possible to have mobile columns ready and equipped, and stationed for active service, if we are to rely in the main on the pool of National Service reservists with the four weeks' training to which I have referred.
What is needed are columns of fully trained men whose training is kept up to date. I hope, therefore, that the Government do not regard the present scheme as final. The noble Lord himself has said that it is a first step, and I was glad to hear that. I hope that they are going to produce a plan that will measure up to the requirements of war.

541
I listened to part of the debate in another place on Monday, and I have read all the speeches that were made in the debate, and I think I am right in saying that there was not one speaker, in any quarter of the House, who did not criticise the basing of mobile columns on National Service reservists with only four weeks' training. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the present inadequate scheme has been adopted because the Armed Forces are not prepared to regard Civil Defence as having any claim on full-time manpower available for national defence. The Home Secretary has had to take what he could get and be satisfied with it. I hope that he will not be satisfied. I hope that both he and the noble Lord opposite will reexamine the question of mobile columns, and that they will insist on getting the manpower that will ensure, in the event of an emergency, that the mobile columns will be of such strength, efficiency, and up-to-date training as will enable them to undertake the very responsible tasks that will fall to them. That is all I want to say on this subject. I will only repeat that, so far as we are concerned, the noble Lord will get a Second Reading for his Bill.
3.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, Civil Defence never has been a Party matter and I feel very much in agreement with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said. I welcome the Bill, not so much for what it contains as for the indications that Civil Defence, after a slow start, is really getting on the move. The Bill itself deals only with a very limited matter; in fact the substance of the Bill and the question of mobile columns are only one or two trees in a fair-sized wood. Some of us have been a good deal critical in past times of the standard of forestry which was practised in that wood, and therefore welcome now a Bill which does seem to indicate that Civil Defence is being looked at in much more the right way—that is to say, steps are to be taken by Civil Departments to deal with aggression which will be part of total war. After all, when one comes to think of it one may talk about Civil Defence, but there is no such thing as civil attack; and Civil Defence in this country simply means steps which are to be taken by the Home Office, by local authorities,
542
and by other Ministries, in co-operating in the great task of resisting aggression. The more we take that line, the less it will be necessary for my noble friend in front of me or other people to come along to your Lordships' House and produce a Bill which says that Civil Defence is the duty of the Armed Forces.
As I listened to the noble Lord, I began to think back to 1940 and realised with horror that at that date, when I had an urgent order from Southern Command to send every possible water-cart to the relief of Bristol, where the water mains had burst, I was probably bringing myself within reach of the law. I am glad to think, after all these years, that the principle carried out then is now within reach of the Statute Book. I do not think it occurred to the nation at that time that we were in danger of doing anything that was wrong. We are told by my noble friend, Lord Lloyd, that a number of things are still under review by the Home Office. We know what those things are: they are, in fact, the subjects which were dealt with in the Select Committee in another place. I do not want to go too wide of the Bill, but I hope very much that too much time will not be spent in reviewing these matters. I want to remind your Lordships that it was because so much time was spent on reviewing armoured fighting vehicles in the 1930's that we went to war in 1939 with no proper armoured vehicle at all, and that is what will happen again if we spend too much time reviewing these masters.
The Bill does not introduce any new ideas into Civil Defence; it is really here to give statutory authority to those parts of the new idea which cannot be implemented without it. A great deal can be done administratively, and I very much hope (and I have very good reason for believing) that administrative action is going to be taken. All we are doing to-day is to make certain that we are not held up by lack of statutory authority. I agree, too, that, for the present moment, most of the manpower that is wanted can be obtained under the National Service Acts. It is a question of regular cadres, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned. Up to now, the regular cadres, if I understand the position aright, have been composed of paid Civil Defence personnel. Whether

543
they should be enlisted or enrolled under any Statute which is a counterpart of the Army Act or the Air Force Act is another matter which we have not yet reached, and with which I will go no further to-day. I will come back to the question of part-time people with regular cadres.
To revert to the Bill, the only two clauses which matter to anybody except those in the legal profession are Clause 1 (1), which declares Civil Defence to be a proper duty for National Service, and Clause 1 (5), which authorises Regular Forces to take part in Civil Defence, which, as I say, they have been doing for a very long time. On the question of using R.A.F. reservists, may I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said: how very grateful we should all be for the help which my noble and gallant friend the Secretary of State for Air and the Air Ministry have given in this matter. It is a good example of co-operation and augurs very well indeed for the future.
What is now happening is that each year 15,000 reservists in the last two years of their Service will be given a fortnight's training in rescue duties. Whether that is going to be a satisfactory answer to the problem of proper training in rescue duties I am not so certain. After all, the National Service plan in other directions than this service is that the soldier and the airman should be trained full time for a certain period to do a job which he will have to do in war. They are then sent to the Reserve and called up from time to time to be trained for the same thing. This plan reduces the Royal Air Force reservists to a fortnight's training, apparently, without their having had any full-time or previous training in mobile column work or in rescue work. If that plan is going to work satisfactorily, it will have to be carefully watched. Equally, the National Serviceman who does his service in the Territorial Army not only does a fortnight's camp but also does certain periods of evening and week-end training. It is not quite clear to me at the moment why that arrangement should not be taken advantage of for these reservists who are going to train not with the Territorials but with the Civil Defence people in mobile columns. It seems to me that
544
there is a good case for following that line. I agree that this Bill is a good start. We should see how things go on and be ready to alter them if alteration be necessary.
Then we come to this part-time commander who was mentioned by my right honourable friend in another place and by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I noticed that there was a certain amount of criticism on the grounds that the appointment will be a part-time one. I am not sure that I see it the same way as the critics. If this individual can do the job in part time, I see no point in paying him whole time, at any rate until the emergency arises. If this is a full-time job, of course, he should be employed full-time and paid for it, but I am not certain that it is. What I am concerned about is the responsibility that this individual is going to have. I am bound to say that I did not like the wording used in another place to describe his appointment. It seems to me that his responsibility was ill-defined, and you cannot command anyone unless the terms of your command are defined. If the poor man is merely going to walk round the corridors of the Home Office, hoping for someone to take his advice, I shall be very sorry for him. I trust that we may be told before long, in precise terms, just what his responsibility is to be, and whether he is to be allowed to have any say in the training of the people whom he is eventually going to command—if he is going to command them.
Now we cone to another point: namely, exactly what command does mean, in war time, of mobile columns. Mobile columns are really Reserves; they are people trained in fire and rescue duties, who are available to be sent to any point where they are particularly required. When they get to that point, however, if they are anything like any other troops I have ever heard of, they will not do their job under their commander; they will come under the command of the local commander—the Regional Commissioner or whoever it may be—and carry on the battle there. I suggest to my noble friend, Lord Lloyd, that a little clear thinking is necessary on this question of command. Indeed, I think one of the most important subjects to be considered now in Civil Defence is the whole question of staff

545
work and communications, and everything that goes with it. Unless the standard of efficiency is what it ought to be in that connection, these things will happen: the trained men may be there, but they will not get to the right places and they will not be told what to do.
My Lords, I think those are the main points which arise out of the Bill. As I say, I do not regard this as being by any means a thoroughly satisfactory solution of the problem, but neither would I say that I think it is possible to get a satisfactory solution of the problem until a great deal more practical experience has been had with regard to mobile columns and, indeed, with the whole of the staff work and control of Civil Defence. The position that the local authority is, so to speak, a commander, still wants a good deal of consideration. The question of how the cadres of the mobile columns and other Civil Defence units are to be enrolled is still far from clear to me. Going back for a moment to what Lord Henderson said, I am not worried about having a lot of part-time personnel in the mobile columns, provided there is a well-trained regular cadre of people holding the key positions. After all, a good many of the people in the mobile columns are persons who need not have a very high standard of training. The gunners used to call these people "higher numbers." They would do such jobs as passing shells to one another, and so forth. Provided they know what to do, what to fetch and carry and where to go to, or can drive motor vehicles—which many people in civil life can do—it is not necessary that they should be more than part-time. What is necessary is to have proper, full-time cadres, which ought to be on much the same basis as Regular cadres in the Reserve Army or corresponding units in the Navy or Air Force, because the problem is exactly the same. I repeat that I welcome this Bill as one more sign that unnecessary barriers are being broken down and that the problem of Civil Defence is seen in relation to the grand design of prevention of war—so we hope—or defeat of the enemy if it comes to war.
3.26 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two as one who had a good deal to do with Civil Defence during the war, and to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord
546
Henderson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in welcoming this Bill as a sign that the Government appreciate the importance of unity between the Armed Forces and the Civil Defence forces. It was very much borne in upon us during the war years that there was not quite as much unity as many of us felt desirable. That was to some extent overcome by the development of excellent relations between those in charge of Civil Defence arrangements in the regions and those in charge of the Home Guard—of whom the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was such an eminent leader. I think that his good will was one of the most important elements in that situation. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who was one of those who brought the most profound thought and originality to bear on these problems, frequently said that it was not possible to organise Civil Defence satisfactorily without complete unity between the civilian and the military side—both part-time and whole-time soldiers and the Home Guard. Although I think that some steps have, in fact, been taken—and this Bill is a sign that further steps are being taken—in that direction, I feel that we are still a long way short of the objective. The war situation—if we are to be cursed with another war—will clearly be more difficult to handle than it was during the last war, and I have no doubt that if we are to handle it successfully we must have much greater unity. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgman, has said, this Bill takes us some distance in that direction. Therefore, I think it is important.
One other point. There has been a little controversy over the matter of the mobile columns. I think that we in the North-Western Region, if not the originators of the mobile columns at any rate did much to develop those columns; indeed, did more to develop those columns than was done in other regions. Of course, one naturally likes to feel that one's own particular region was in the forefront; but I do think that that was really so. It was found that it requires a great deal more training than any other branch of Civil Defence. My noble friend Lord Henderson is right when he says that, so far as can be judged from the proposed set-up, the amount of training envisaged for these mobile columns is not going to be adequate. I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman,

547
on this matter. The fact that a man can drive a motor car and do this, that, and the other, does not mean he is able to fit into the complicated scheme of these columns. We found that a high standard of training was necessary, and I do not imagine that under the conditions of another war that will be less necessary. I think the Government are right in placing emphasis on these mobile columns—and very rightly, because they were one of the best developments of the middle years of Civil Defence when we were really getting ready for attack, which of course never came. I feel that under the conditions of another war these columns will have to be more highly trained and expert than under the conditions of the last war, and a good deal more training is necessary than is envisaged at the moment. I support what my noble friend, Lord Henderson, said on that point.
3.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like briefly to put one or two questions to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to which he may find it possible to give an answer in the course of his reply. They will be brief and rather general questions. The first is this: Do the Government imagine that this development of Civil Defence is in any way commensurate with the danger which faces us in the case of the use in war of chemical agents? The second question is: What period of warning have the Government calculated upon in making preparations for Civil Defence, for example, in London? And the third is: Do the Government consider that a defensive war may make it necessary for us to strike the first blow with the hydrogen bomb? That is a very important question, because it governs the period of warning we may get. As the noble Lord knows, I have raised these questions several times before—it is difficult to find an opportune moment to put them. If he can give me some reply, or indication of a reply, I shall be grateful.
3.33 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I think it fair to say that the Bill has received a welcome, albeit a cautious one, from most of your Lordships. It is interesting to reflect that, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, this Bill for the first
548
time places legal liability for Civil Defence on members of the Armed Forces, but I do not think that this is such a departure as the noble Lord suggests. The Armed Forces have, in fact, been engaged in Civil Defence for a long time. This is a legal departure, but I do not think it is a practical departure. Most criticisms that noble Lords have made of the Bill seems to me to have been based on the assumption that this is the Government's last word on Civil Defence. I am sorry that this should be so, because I did my best in my opening speech to emphasise that it is a beginning. It is the logical extension of the policy carried out by the noble Lords opposite, and it is merely a beginning. Nor can I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when he said that this was not part of a well co-ordinated plan. We feel that the first requirement is an adequate reserve of trained men. I profoundly disagree with the suggestion that we should have thirteen mobile columns producing 2,000 men a year. We feel that that would be about the most expensive and unsatisfactory way of doing it. The yield would be the smallest and the expense the greatest.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I interrupt? If we had thirteen mobile columns—that is an arbitrary figure, because I do not know how many the Government have in mind, and a large number would be required to do the job properly—with 150 men as their permanent cadre, we should then have units with a full-time backbone to which we could relate reserves for training. I am at a loss to understand how we are going to train reserves when there are no mobile columns in existence at all. These men will do their month's training and then disappear. Am I to understand that all we are going to build up are these training centres with qualified instructors? Are we going to put the Reservists through their paces and will they then disappear, and another bunch come along for the same thing? If so, I agree that we shall have a pool, but I do not think we shall have mobile columns.
LORD LLOYD: We will not argue too much on the details of that matter. I will deal with it more fully when I come to training. The most general criticism is that we have too many people working part-time. Reference was made to the

549
Commander-in-Chief of the mobile forces and it was felt that this should be a full-time job. I assure the noble Lord that we have not closed our minds on this matter. We are going to appoint this officer on a part-time basis; but as things develop it may prove necessary that he should be whole-time. We shall see as we go along, because we are feeling our way in all these matters. This is not the final word; but at the beginning he will be part-time, and we shall see how that works out. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman said he thought the Commander-in-Chief's duties ought to be more fully defined. My right honourable friend did give a fair definition of those duties in another place, and if my noble friend will forgive me I will read what he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 529 (No. 141), col. 1815):
"We propose to appoint an officer with the style of Commander-in-Chief designate of the Civil Defence Mobile Forces. The full scope of his duties will not be rigidly defined but his immediate task will be to collaborate with his opposite numbers in the Armed Forces in securing that the development of plans for civil defence mobile columns are in harmony with military plans and to co-ordinate plans for the employment of the former in aid of the local civil defence forces."
That seems to be a reasonable definition. My right honourable friend went on to define also what the Commander-in-Chief would do in war.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the paragraph which my noble friend read out was exactly the one I had in mind. What I feel concerned about is the phrase that his duties "will not be rigidly defined." I want to be quite certain that his responsibilities are rigidly defined; otherwise it will be impossible for him to get to work.
LORD LLOYD: I think the noble Viscount will find that gradually things will take a firmer shape than they do to start with. On the matter of training, I freely admit that a slightly longer period of training might be ideal, but I am bound to point out that the actual number of hours spent in training under the scheme will be broadly comparable with the aggregate time a volunteer spends in, say, rescue training in the local Civil Defence Force. To say that his training will be totally inadequate is pushing it too far. We must be careful
550
not to go to either extreme in this matter. We cannot fully train a man in rescue duties in two months; a month may be shorter than we should wish, but it is all we can spare, and in rescue duties and fire fighting the men will have very tolerable training in that period. A point was made about having men permanently on Civil Defence. But what could we do with them? After three months they would be fully trained in rescue duties and fire-fighting. Although our plan may not be perfect, I think the training provided will yield a useful nucleus for time of war. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman stressed the importance of command and staff work. I assure my noble friend that we shall not entirely forget about these things. We are reorganising all our plans at the present time, and those considerations are very much in our minds in the changes that we are making.
Finally, I should like to deal with the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. He asked me, first of all, whether the Government imagined that the present development of Civil Defence was commensurate with the danger. If he had heard the early part of my speech (perhaps he was not here) he would know that I did point out that the main emphasis of our policy at the moment is to try to prevent war, rather than to sit down and prepare to be bombed. We believe in doing it that way. Clearly, with the amount of manpower that we have, it is difficult to do both, Therefore, while we follow our present policy Civil Defence must always lag behind the Armed Forces. As regards the period of warning, the noble Viscount is as wise as I am. Nobody can tell what period of warning will be given. All I would say is that we hope to have some period of warning; but it is impossible for me to answer a question like that.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does the noble Lord mean that the experts at his command have not studied the question of whether it will be five minutes, quarter of an hour, or an hour? It is important. If he says that the Government have not finished their studies, that is all right. But if he says that no one will ever be able to know, then no one will ever be able to make an efficient Civil Defence.
LORD LLOYD: That is an extraordinary proposition. Nobody outside the Kremlin—supposing that was the opposition—could tell what warning might be given. Anybody can make guesses, and that is what I should be doing if I gave an answer. For me to get up and say that we think we shall have so much warning would be patently absurd.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am afraid that I have not made my meaning clear. I am not speaking about policy. The noble Lord assumes that some persons are threatening to attack this country—that is a matter of policy. I am talking about the technical side. When there is some intimation that somebody has started, what warning, do we get to make our defence?
LORD LLOYD: I do not think there is much object in pursuing this matter. It seems to me self-evident that it is impossible to know what warning we shall get; and we hope that we shall get as much warning as possible. We base our plans upon having a reasonable warning, and if the noble Viscount has any information as to what warning we are going to get, perhaps he will pass it on to the Government.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I call that a very silly answer.
LORD LLOYD: It was a very silly question. As regards the last point about the hydrogen bomb, that is outside the scope of this debate, and I do not propose to be drawn into a general discussion on foreign policy.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
3.44 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Tenancies to which s. 1 applies
(2) At any time before, but not more than twelve months before, the term date application may be made to the court as respects any long tenancy at a low rent, not being at the time of the applicaion a tenancy as respects which the qualifying condition is fulfilled, for an order declaring that the tenancy is not to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a tenancy to which the foregoing section applies; and where such an application is made—
(b) if the court makes the order, then notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section the tenancy shall not thereafter be treated as a tenancy to which the foregoing section applies.
(5) In this Part of this Act the expression "tenancy at a low rent" means a tenancy the rent payable in respect whereof (or where that rent is a progressive rent, the maximum rent payable in respect whereof) is less than two-thirds of the rateable value of the property comprised in the tenancy; and—

(a) if that property is a dwelling-house to which the Act of 1920 applies apart from the Act of 1939, the expression "rateable value" has in relation to it the same meaning in this subsection as it has in the Act of 1920 in relation to such a dwelling-house;

(b) if that property is not such a dwelling-house, the said expression has in relation to it the same meaning in this subsection as it has in the Act of 1920 in relation to a dwelling-house to which that Act applies by virtue of the Act of 1939.

LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
"unless on the application to the court at any time before the term date a person who did not appear when the order was made satisfies the court that his failure or omission to appear was in all the circumstances reasonable and that the qualifying condition is fulfilled on the date of the application."

553
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 of the Bill deals, amongst other things, with the case of a person who may desire to know some time before the expiration of a lease whether an application is likely to be made by his tenant for a continuation of the tenancy. Subsection (2) of that clause provides that application may be made to the court as respects a tenancy of this kind:
At any time before, but not more than twelve months before"
the expiration of the tenancy,
"for an order declaring that the tenancy is not to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a tenancy to which the foregoing section applies. …"
And if the court makes the Order that this Part of this Bill does not apply to such a tenancy, then whoever is interested, any tenant or other person, is for ever deemed to be barred from taking advantage of the Bill.
I would draw the attention of the Committee again to the actual wording of subsection (2), which, presumably, gives the landlord power to go to the court. It says:
"At any time before, but not more than twelve months before, the term date application may be made to the court …"
and so on. It does not say by whom. Presumably, the intention is that it should be the landlord. But I wonder why this subsection does not say plainly by whom the application is to be made. Obviously, it is not going to be the tenant; he will not want to know. Furthermore, if it is the landlord, there is no obligation on him to give notice to anybody of the application. He is not obliged to tell the tenant, apparently, that he is making such an application. According to the wording, an application is made to the court by somebody, and the court may thereupon make an order that the provisions of this Bill do not apply; and if such an order is made, then, whatever may happen thereafter, the tenant has no rights under the Bill. It may be that, at the time the application is made, the tenant has not been served with any notice; it may be that he is away; it may be that the order is made on information which the tenant could have rebutted if he had been there; and it may be that he has been unavoidably prevented from being there. Nevertheless, in spite of all these things, the tenant is
554
barred for ever from taking advantage of the Bill.
I cannot believe that the Government are serious in putting forward this proposal in the words in which they have done it. I concede that it may be a good thing for a landlord to know some time before the end of the term where he stands; but if he wants to know there ought to be an obligation upon him to serve notice on the tenant, and to make quite sure that the tenant receives the notice. The tenant ought to have every opportunity of making his case and explaining that the provisions of this Bill do apply to him. All this should be stated in the Bill, and there should be definite provisions covering it. This Amendment provides that the order of the court declaring that the provisions of this Bill do not apply to the tenancy shall stand unless the tenant is able to establish that his failure to appear when the order was made was not due to any omission on his part and was in all the circumstances reasonable, and that the qualifying condition is fulfilled—in other words, that he had no opportunity of making his case against tthe order, and that the provisions of this Bill ought to apply to him.
I hope the Government will appreciate that some provision of this kind is necessary if justice is to be done to the tenant. I may have to say this over and over again in the course of the afternoon. Whether these particular words do all that I want only the noble and learned Lord or the Parliamentary draftsmen can say. I have no doubt that defects can be found in the wording of every single Amendment that has been put down, except where I am moving to leave out a provision. Nevertheless, I hope that I have made the intention of the Amendment perfectly clear, and that whoever is to reply will not taunt us on this side for our failure to draft Amendments in the way in which they would have been drafted if we had had skilled assistance at our disposal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, after ("applies") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): Let me say at once that whether the wording of this Amendment is clear or not, the noble Lord, as he always does, has made his intentions very clear. I am going to say something which

555
I expect I shall say over and over again, too; and that is this. Every provision in this Bill, almost without exception, is a provision which improves the condition of the tenant. We have constantly to guard against the danger lest, in attempting to ameliorate his position, we go too far. By these provisions we are detracting from the bargain which has been made between the parties, and we are doing so because we think that circumstances have arisen, uncontemplated at the time these leases were entered into, which make it equitable that that should be done. But we are anxious to do justice between the parties.
Now the first element of justice in regard to this matter is this. The landlord, who until the provisions of this Bill were known to him was entitled to assume that the bargain that he had made would be carried out, is entitled to know beyond all doubt whether or not at the date of the termination of his lease the provisions of the Bill are to operate in favour of his tenant. In nine cases out of ten, or in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, I dare say there will be no doubt upon that fact. But if there is a case in which a doubt arises, he is entitled to go to the court to ascertain what his position will be upon the date of termination, because, according to what the position is, so he must make his plans. It may be that he wants to redevelop. It may be that he is content that the tenant should stay on. His plans may be what you like; but he is entitled to know the position. If this Amendment, or any Amendment which carries out the intention of the noble Lord, is inserted into the Bill, the very purpose of this provision will be defeated; for until the last hour the landlord will not know whether the tenant will come forward and say, "I did not know what was happening; I was away," or whatever it may be; and so the landlord's plans are defeated. That cannot be right.
Let me tell the noble Lord what this Bill does provide, which will really give as much relief to the tenant in default as he is entitled to. The landlord goes to the court, and from the court he will get a judgment. I am prepared to say—indeed, it is implicit in the Bill—that exactly the same provisions will apply to the tenant as to any defendant in the county court. It is impossible that he
556
should not have knowledge of the proceedings except by some default of his own—avoiding service or something of that kind. As the noble Lord knows, better probably than I do, the rules of procedure in the county court are strict to ensure service. There must be an affidavit of service; or good reasons must be shown, when the case comes before the court, why judgment should be given against the defendant in default of his appearance. There is no reason why, in proceedings under this Bill, a man should be in any better position than in any other proceedings on which he is brought before the county court. There are ample precautions taken in the county court to see that the defendant has knowledge of the proceedings.
Further, the tenant will get the advantage, as do all other defendants in the law courts, of the provisions of the County Court Rules. Order 37, Rule 1, of the County Court Rules provides that:
"The judge shall in every case have the power to order a new trial to be had upon terms as he thinks reasonable, and in the meantime to stay the proceedings. An application for a new trial may be made"—
and so on. Observe Rule 2. It says:
"Where a defendant to an action or a defendant to a counter-claim does not appear at the hearing, and a judgment or order is given or made against him in his absence, the judgment or order and any execution thereon may, on application, be set aside and a new trial may be granted."
I am prepared to say—because it will be my duty to frame the Rules under this Act—that the tenant who is made a defendant to these proceedings will get exactly that relief under the County Court Rules. I am sure that when the noble Lord considers it he will see that there can be no reason why a defendant in such proceedings as these should be placed in a more favourable position than any other defendant against whom a suit is brought. Indeed, I would venture to say that we are going a very long way, in the special circumstances which exist here, in giving him the same measure of relief as we give to other defendants in county court proceedings. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we go as far as is reasonable to meet him in his suggestion. I hope he will think we have gone as far as we can to meet the case where a defendant, for one reason or other, has failed to appear and has failed to give reasons why he should be brought within the provisions of the Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: Did the noble and learned Lord say that he was framing Rules under this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill provides for Rules to be made, yes.
LORD CHORLEY: Would the noble and learned Lord tell me whether the Rules will, so to speak, link this matter up more clearly with the existing County Court Rules? The noble and learned Lord knows far more about this matter than I do, but I did not feel convinced that the County Court Rules which he read out would necessarily apply to an application of this kind. They were framed to apply to the ordinary litigation in a county court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have told the Committee that the Rules which I propose to make will so provide.
LORD CHORLEY: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD SILKIN: In a sense, the noble and learned Lord has given me what I want. All I want is that the person who is most affected by this clause—namely, the tenant—should clearly be aware of any application that has been made. If he has not been aware of it, through no misconduct or default on his part, he should have an opportunity of going back to the court. If the noble and learned Lord says that the Rules will be made so as to ensure that that is the case, and that the tenant will have the advantage of the provisions which he read out—with which I am quite familiar, although I did not see how they related to this provision—that is all I want. On his assurance, I gladly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (5), after the second "tenancy" to insert "of a dwelling-house." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which is linked up with Amendment No. 3. When I referred to bad draftsmanship a moment ago, let me say at once that I had this particular Amendment in mind, among others. The purpose of this Amendment—frankly, I am not sure whether in fact it fulfils it—is to raise the question as to the class of persons to whom the Bill is to apply. As the Bill stands, it applies to persons
558
living in houses which have rateable values within the limits to which the Rent Restrictions Acts apply. Therefore, if a person is living in a house with a long lease and with a rateable value, in London, of more than £100 a year or, in the country, of more than £70 a year, then the provisions of this Bill do not apply. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that, by leaving out these limits—and that is what the Amendment does: it cuts out the limits—the provisions of this Part of the Bill will apply to anybody who has a tenancy at a low rent, as defined in the Bill.
I discussed the merits of this matter, to a certain extent, on Second Reading. It seemed to me anomalous that the protection which this Bill provides, not only for persons living in dwelling-houses but also for persons in business, so that at the end of their tenancy they get some kind of security, should stop short at just this section of the community who are living in houses with the higher rateable values. It is all the more curious that these same people are protected in their shops, their offices or their factories. No limits are prescribed at all. Any person who has a business with a rateable value of £10,000 a year is nevertheless protected at the end of his tenancy under Part II of the Bill. Indeed, everybody is protected except this relatively small section of people the leases of whose homes come to an end and in respect of whose houses the rateable value is higher than the prescribed limit.
Who are these people, by and large? It is no good noble Lords opposite talking of very wealthy persons. There are a limited number of those, of course. The noble and learned Lord referred to himself. I put him in the category of wealthy. There are a number of very wealthy people whose leases will come to an end, and this House might say, if it wanted to: "We are not out to protect them. They can look after themselves." Perhaps they can, although, for the sake of uniformity, I should not myself have wanted to exclude them. This Bill protects most people whose tenancy in respect of their homes or their businesses comes to an end. I see no particular reason for leaving out anybody. But we are not really talking about wealthy people; we are talking about the large section of the

559
population whom we generally describe as the middle classes.
In my Second Reading speech the other day I referred to the people in Dulwich. Dulwich seems to me typical of the districts in which the kind of person I have in mind lives, and, as I said then, it happens to be a district in which I have myself lived very happily for a number of years. Many of the people living there are living in houses where the rateable value is somewhat higher than £100 a year. It so happens that a good many of the leases in that district are coming to an end. I make no reflection in this House, nor would I do outside, against the landlords of those houses. I have no doubt that they will perhaps come to reasonable arrangements with the tenants at the end of the lease—I do not know. I am not suggesting that they will not. What I do suggest, however, is that the tenant at the expiration of the lease is entirely at the mercy of the landlord. That is exactly what we are seeking to prevent.
In the case of tenants of houses at a lower rateable value than £100 a year, we are trying to give them a reasonable opportunity of bargaining as to what is a fair rent and of having their future rent settled by the court, if they cannot come to an agreement. This considerable and most worthy section of the community, of whom I am speaking, however, will have no such opportunity. They will have to accept what the landlord requires, or get out. They will have no opportunity of getting a fair rent settled by the court. Frankly, I do not understand why they should be left out. What are the reasons that have been given? From time to time, out of the lips of various Ministers and others, it has been suggested that these people are in a position to look after themselves. Are they in a position to look after themselves? They are not; and anyone who knows anything about housing conditions in London knows perfectly well that some of the people of whom I am thinking, people whose incomes are between £1,000 and £1,500 a year, are suffering the greatest possible hardship through being compelled to pay very high rents, more than they can afford, owing to the scarcity of accommodation, or to buy their houses at prices which are considerably inflated—though I am glad to say not quite so inflated
560
as they were a year ago. The noble and learned Lord must not make any Party capital out of that fact. The rents are extremely high and more than the people can afford to pay.
I said in my previous speech that the Party opposite are posing as champions of the middle classes. Then why do they deliberately leave them out of the provisions of this Bill? One reason given is that they can look after themselves. I reject that entirely. I admit that people of the highest incomes may be able to do so, but not the kind of people of whom I am thinking and large numbers of whom I know personally. They are not in a position to look after themselves. They are suffering great hardship. Many of them are educating their children at considerable cost and they are having a hard battle. If, at the end of their term, they are forced to pay whatever rents may be demanded of them, without any redress on their part, the hardship on them is going to be great.
The second argument that has been put forward is that it would not be consistent with the general policy of this Bill; that this Bill provides for protection of dwelling-houses within the rent restricted limits and it would be dangerous, wrong or improper to go outside those limits. I recognise that this is a major Amendment, in the sense that, if it were carried, it would involve major Amendments to the structure of the Bill. Nevertheless, that is not really an argument for not accepting this Amendment. Let there be such drastic Amendments to the Bill to provide for people of that category. I see no reason why that should not be so. Of course there will be consequential Amendments. Another argument raised (and I imagine the noble and learned Lord is going to deal with this point) is why, if we think so much of it, did we not do it ourselves? I have heard the noble and learned Lord ask that before. Well, we did not do so, and I think we ought to have done. But if noble Lords opposite can rest only on the imperfections of their predecessors, and suggest that they are not prepared to do any better than their predecessors, what is the justification for their existence at all? I imagine they are here to put right all the defects, omissions and imperfections of their predecessors, and if their predecessors failed to protect adequately this particular section of the community, why do

561
they not do so and look after them—or is it that this section is comprised of pariahs and outcasts and nobody is going to look after them at all?
I hope that noble Lords opposite will give sympathetic consideration to this question. It is a grave question and I can assure noble Lords that it is worrying a large number of people. Noble Lords opposite may know that a considerable number of leasehold tenants' associations are growing up all over London. Among the strongest of them are the leaseholders in places like Dulwich, Lewisham, and other areas where there are a considerable number of houses that would be affected. These people are very worried indeed about their future, and if noble Lords opposite can do something to reassure them, this Bill will have been worth while. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 33, after ("tenancy") insert ("of a dwelling-house").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Silkin in this Amendment, which I think is a very reasonable one, for two reasons. First, any line drawn is bound to be an arbitrary line. The line in London is drawn at £100, and it is about £30 less in other parts of the kingdom; but it was a purely arbitrary line when it was drawn; it is an arbitrary line now, and of course any line of that kind means that considerable hardships may be caused to those coming above the line. I think the reasons which impelled the Legislature over a series of years to have a Rent Restrictions Act, and to have amending Acts, apply to a very large extent to those who have houses of a rateable value above £100, as well as to those with houses below, particularly in London, where rateable values are so very high.
The second reason I would give is that money has been falling in value for many years, and certainly has been falling considerably in value since 1914, when the first Rent Restrictions Act was passed; what was a reasonable figure in 1914, and even in 1920, when the second Act was passed, may not be reasonable to-day, when rentals and rateable values are so much higher than they were then. If one takes into account the considerable fall in the value of money, a large number of houses which in those days
562
would have been caught within the net of the Rent Restrictions Act would not be caught to-day.
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Silkin mentioned this particular view of his, and of others in our Party, on this particular issue, and we were countered by the extraordinary arguments of Lord Mancroft which I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not repeat—at least, I hope he will not. First of all, said Lord Mancroft, he was surprised to hear that we had any regard for people who lived in houses above a rateable value of £100 a year, because for six and a half years we had been engaged in "strangling" them. Of course, that is quite untrue; we have not been "strangling" anybody. But even if we had, surely that is a reason for unstrangling them; it is not a reason for continuing the strangulation, which is what the Government propose to do. The noble Lord's second argument against this proposal which was even more extraordinary, was that for four generations his family has been occupying a house of which the landlord is Lord Portman. Why that sort of argument should be adduced in a House of Peers against a proposal in a Bill, I cannot understand; it seems to have nothing to do with it.
LORD MANCROFT: It was not supposed to have anything to do with it.
LORD OGMORE: If it was not supposed to have anything to do with it, I do not know why it was put up as a sort of argument against this proposition. I think the noble Lord appears to have been trifling with the House. But we were not trifling with the House—we were putting up a very serious proposition, and we expected that the Government spokesman would treat it in the manner in which we had put it before your Lordships. If, as the noble Lord now says, his remark was not supposed to have any relevance, then I will not refer to it any longer. I certainly think that the Committee should most seriously consider this Amendment, which, as I have said, will bring within the scope of this measure, a large number of premises where people are feeling the pinch of modern times. I strongly support the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The last thing that my noble friend Lord Mancroft intended to do was to trifle with the House. He was, I think, making a declaration of the "self-interest" point, and the last thing he did, or intended to do, was to treat the House with levity on a serious or any other question. I must say that I have been completely surprised by this Amendment. Until the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was good enough to speak to me on the Woolsack I had no idea whatever—and I do not think I could have had any idea—that by this Amendment he intended to raise the very large question of whether the scope of this Bill should be enlarged so as to embrace a large class of people who are not entitled to the benefit of the Rent Acts.
If the noble Lord will be good enough to look back to Clause 2 (1) of the Bill he will see that it is there implicit that we are dealing with a class of tenants who would be subject to the Rent Acts, but for the fact that their rent is low. Let me read it, and the noble Lord will follow:
"The foregoing section applies to any long tenancy at a low rent, being a tenancy as respects which for the time being the following condition (hereinafter referred to as 'the qualifying condition') is fulfilled, that is to say that the circumstances (as respects the property comprised in the tenancy, the use of that property, and all other relevant matters) are such that on the coming to an end of the tenancy at that time the tenant would, if the tenancy had not been one at a low rent, be entitled by virtue of the Rent Acts to retain possession of the whole or part of the property comprised in the tenancy."
From beginning to end of the first Part of the Bill we are dealing with that sort of case, and with nothing else. Accordingly, when I read the noble Lord's Amendment, I thought that he merely wished to be enlightened as to the meaning of subsection (5) (a) and (b), because I am bound to say they are a little difficult to understand.
Now, however, the noble Lord has raised a question which is indeed far-reaching, because he wishes to include within the scope of this Bill, and therefore pro tanto within the scope of the Rent Acts, a class of person who, rightly or wrongly, from 1915 onwards—for nearly forty years—by the consent of all Parties, has not been brought within the protection of the Rent Acts. With great respect, this is not the way or the time
564
to do that. I would ask, as I have done before, why did not our predecessors do it? I am far from saying that everything done, or omitted to be done, in the past was wrong. But, quite rightly, and by the consent of all Parties, for forty years persons whose premises were rated at above a certain amount have been excluded from the protection of the Rent Acts. Are we now, at this moment, to alter that, when there never has been any sort of discussion or suggestion that that should be so?
As the noble Lord has said, to do so would be a major Amendment: it would involve, so far as I can tell from a cursory glance, a great deal of amendment throughout this Bill. It is wholly alien to its purpose, and for that reason I really cannot advise this House to accept this Amendment. I am not without sympathy—I do not think any of us is without sympathy—for the class of tenant to whom the noble Lord has referred, occupying premises at Dulwich; but that is a matter which will have to be considered on a separate occasion if and when a general amendment of the Rent Acts is considered. Although I am not egalitarian by philosophy, I should regard it as a grave injustice if all people who are now occupying premises at a rateable value above that prescribed by the Rent Acts were not to get relief but under this Bill persons who had held long leases were to get such relief. It would be an anomaly which would be intolerable, and would not be tolerated by the people of this country. Accordingly, although one may feel sympathy for that class of person, I cannot advise your Lordships' House to accept this Amendment.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot feel this reply is as satisfactory as the last one. The noble and learned Lord has quoted the reference to premises comprised within the Rent Acts. That is there in order to define the kind of premises to which protection should be given. There is nothing sacrosanct about those words, and if this Committee were desirous of giving protection to a wider section of the community there is no earthly reason why we should be debarred, because of those words, from so doing. I have admitted that this is not the happiest piece of drafting that I have

565
attempted in my life. I admit that it is exceedingly difficult to redraft this Bill in such a way as to widen it in the way I had hoped, but if it is desired to do so, I do not think the mere difficulties of drafting should stand in the way. Nor do I think the fact that certain classes have been protected for forty years under the Rent Acts should stand in the way. This is not a protection under the Rent Acts, this is merely a reference to the Rent Acts which defines the scope of the protection to be given to people at the end of their long tenancy. There is no reason why that should be defined by reference to the Rent Acts. That can be defined in any other way desired, either by reference to a very much higher rateable value, or (as I would wish) without
LORD SILKIN: I beg to move this Amendment. I do not think I need say anything about it, because it is really part of the Amendment that we have just been discussing. I beg to move.
any reference to rateable value at all. The noble and learned Lord has not really addressed himself to the merits of this Amendment. He has told the Committee that he has great sympathy, but beyond that he has not addressed himself to the merits of his own difficulty, which is one of machinery. Unless we can get a much more satisfactory and reassuring reply to this, I feel that we shall have to divide the Committee as an indication of the seriousness with which we take this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Cork and Orrery, E.

Stansgate, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Jowitt, E.

Ogmore, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

Hall, V.

Hungarton, L.

Sinha, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Davidson, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Furness, V.

Foley, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Goschen, V.

Gifford, L.

Leathers, V.

Hampton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Monsell, V.

Harvey, L.

Reading, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Hawke, L.

Willingdon, M.

Swinton, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Waverley, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Woolton, V.

Leconfield, L.

Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]

Lloyd, L.

De La Warr, E.

Aberdare, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dundonald, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Glasgow, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Moyne, L.

Haddington, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Remnant, L.

Morley, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Rockley, L.

Munster, E.

Broughshane, L.

St. Junst, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Salter, L.

Rothes, E.

Chesham, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selborne, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Savile, L.

Stair, E.

Derwent, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Dovercourt, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Allenby, V.

Dunleath, L.

Teviot, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out all words after ("tenancy") to end of line 46.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Application of Rent Acts where tenant retains possession]:
4.36 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: This Government Amendment is designed to secure that the standard rent fixed under Part I of the Bill cannot be increased by a "repairs increase" under the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, which has recently been through your Lordships' House and your Lordships' Amendments to which, I believe, are being discussed in another place this very day. The standard rent will be an up-to-date rent fixed in the light of the landlord's repairing obligations under the statutory tenancy, and there is therefore no need for a repairs increase. I think your Lordships will appreciate that this Amendment is in the tenant's interest and is wholly equitable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("(5) Subsections (1) and (2) of section twenty-three of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, shall not apply where the standard rent of the dwelling-house (within the meaning of that section) is a rent agreed or determined in accordance with the next following section.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Settlement of terms of statutory tenancy]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment and the Amendment which follows are purely drafting. They are quite uncontentious, and there is no point to which I think I need to draw your Lordships' attention. So, in order to save time, I will, with the permission of the Committee, move them formally, unless, of course, any of your Lordships desires further information on them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("shall") to ("so") in line 23 and insert ("be made during the currency of the landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy and not earlier than two months after the giving thereof.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: As I have indicated, this next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to repairs during period of statutory tenancy
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as preventing the making of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant for the carrying out by the tenant at his own expense of repairs (hereinafter referred to as "tenant's initial repairs") specified in the agreement.
(5) The matters referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section are:
(c) whether any payment for accrued tenant's repairs is to be payable by instalments or otherwise, and if by instalments the number of instalments and the time at which each instalment is to be payable:
4.38 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning to insert:
"Where the tenant is willing to carry out at his own expense repairs (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant's initial repairs')"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the one which follows it should be read together, and with the permission of the Committee I will discuss them together. The purpose of the first Amendment is to permit the tenant to carry out the repairs himself if he so desires. Admittedly, the tenant has, presumably, made default in his obligations under the lease. The Bill, as it stands, however, provides that if the tenant desires to continue his tenancy it is for the landlord to decide what repairs shall be carried out, and for the tenant to pay the cost of those repairs. In default of agreement, the matter goes to the court. The purpose of the Amendment is that in such cases it should be open to the tenant to say that he will do the repairs, and if the landlord agrees and they come to terms as to the basis upon which the repairs shall be carried out, well and good. If, however, they fail to agree, the matter should be settled by the court in the same way as if the landlord were carrying out the repairs. In other words, the purpose of the Amendment is to give the tenant the first option to carry out the necessary

569
repairs to the premises at the expiration of his lease. I do not think it requires much advocacy on my part to justify that. They are tenant's repairs, and if the tenant is willing to do them there is no reason that I can see why he should be prevented from doing them, so long as he carries out such repairs as are necessary in order to bring the premises within the definition of good repair as laid down in this Bill. With those few words—and I hope it will not be necessary to amplify them—I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 11, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the idea behind this Amendment is a very fair one and it has been supported by cogent arguments. The language which the noble Lord proposes to insert is not exactly apt, but I am willing to accept the idea and I am prepared to move an Amendment on Report stage which will give full effect to his proposal. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment upon my assurance.
LORD SILKIN: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is largely drafting, in consequence of a small error of logic in subsection (5) of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out from the first ("the") to end of line 34, and insert ("amount of each instalment (subject to any necessary reduction of the last), the time at which the first is to be payable and the frequency of the instalments;").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Principles to be observed in determining terms of statutory tenancy as to repairs and rent
(4) Where it falls to the court to determine the rent which should be the standard rent of the dwelling-house during the period of the statutory tenancy, the court shall have regard in particular—

(a) to the state of repair of the dwelling-house which may be expected to subsist after the completion of the initial repairs (if any) to be carried out by the landlord or, in the
570
absence of any agreement or determination requiring the carrying out of initial repairs, to the state of repair at the time of the court's determination, and

(b) to the terms (other than terms as to rent, as to initial repairs and as to any payment for accrued tenant's repairs) which will have effect as respects the dwelling-house during the period of the statutory tenancy.

and the rent determined by the court shall be the rent which, irrespective of the personal circumstances of the parties, in its opinion would be a reasonable rent for the dwelling-house on a letting in that state of repair and on those terms.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (4):
"there being disregarded any effect on rent of—

(i) the scarcity of similar dwellings in the locality of the dwelling-house,

(ii) any improvement carried out by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord."

The noble Lord said: We now come to what is probably the most controversial clause in the Bill. It deals with the rent which will become payable in respect of a dwelling-house to which this Part of the Bill applies at the expiration of tenancy. Broadly speaking, it provides that where no agreement is possible between landlord and tenant, the rent is to be the market rent. In another place there were strong feelings about this matter. It was felt by members of my Party that the market rent was much too high, and that a proper rent would be the rent which would have been payable if the premises had been rent-controlled, as it was suggested they should have been and would have been but for an oversight, and that to put upon the tenant the burden of paying the market rent, when for so many years he had been paying a ground rent, would be an intolerable burden.
I would ask the Committee to appreciate what will be the case under the Bill as it stands. Many tenants are paying at the present time ground rent of £5. £6 or £7 a year. Few of those within the range of this Bill will be paying more than £10 a year. Then, suddenly, this Bill will impose upon them the burden of paying, ten, fifteen or twenty times the rent they have been accustomed to paying. That would be a great hardship on them. This matter has been discussed in another place in

571
Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, and the Government have not seen fit to give way. I do not imagine that they will give way to-day on the principle which my colleagues in another place have put forward, and I do not propose to ask them to do so. My own Amendment is one which, in my view, they could more easily accept. It is a compromise, and I believe it is one which most Members of this Committee will agree with in principle.
The first part of the Amendment deals with the scarcity element in the market value of rents. We all know that there is a scarcity element in fixing market rents. That is an element which time may gradually cause to disappear, but at the moment anybody who has premises with vacant possession can get considerably more than the intrinsic value of the rent of those premises. By "intrinsic" I have in mind what the cost would be to build similar premises, a reasonable rent having some kind of relationship between pre-war rent and present rent, having regard to changes in the value of money, and so on. But we all know that in many cases rents have quadrupled since the war and there is a considerable element of scarcity value in any dwelling-house which is available to rent at the present time. The purpose of paragraph (i) is that if the matter goes to the court and the court has to decide on the rent, the court should disregard any effect on rent of "the scarcity of similar dwellings in the locality of the dwelling-house."
In the framework of the Amendment there is a precedent—perhaps "precedent" is the wrong word, because it is contained in Clause 34 of the Bill, where similarly the court is asked to determine the rent in a case where parties fail to agree and the court is enjoined to disregard certain factors. One factor is:
"Any effect on rent of the fact that the tenant has or his predecessor in title have been in occupation of the holding,"
and there are a number of provisions which the court is enjoined to disregard in settling the rent. Therefore, I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not gibe me in respect to the form of my Amendment, as he did on a previous occasion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if I gibed.
LORD SILKIN: Criticised in a friendly way, then. I have a precedent for the form of this Amendment. There should be no difficulty in the disregarding of certain factors by the court. The other thing the court has to disregard under this Amendment is the effect on the rent of any improvements carried out by the tenant without his being required to do so under the terms of his lease. The Committee will know that many tenants with long leases have considerably improved their premises. Possibly they have put in an extra bathroom, or a garage, and have done all sorts of things by way of improvement and modernisation to their premises which they were under no obligation to do under the terms of their lease. We know perfectly well that they have done it with the knowledge that under the terms of their lease they were obliged to surrender the premises in good condition and even, presumably, to put those parts of the premises they have added equally in good condition.
The Committee on Leaseholds gave consideration to this question of whether the tenant should be compensated for the value of these improvements, and they recommended that he should; but for the reasons which appear in the Government White Paper on the subject, the Government have not been prepared to accept this recommendation. They have said: "The tenant did this with his eyes open; he knew he was going to have to give up the premises. These improvements may not be of any particular value to the landlord; he may not even have wanted them; they may not suit his particular idiosyncracies; he may not want an extra bathroom, garage and so on, even though it may have increased the rental value." Now the purpose of my Amendment is not to argue this point again. For the purpose of this Amendment I am accepting the decision of the Government that the tenant should not be compensated in respect of these improvements, although, curiously enough, in another part of the Bill where it applies to business premises, the tenant is compensated for improvements he has carried out; but I am not suggesting that that should be the case here. What I am asking is that rents should not be increased to the tenant

573
while he is a statutory tenant simply because he has improved the premises in such a way as to increase the rental value.
Of course, if the improvements that he has carried out are of such a nature that they do not really improve the premises at all, and certainly do not increase the rental value, then this provision will not apply. The court will disregard any such improvements because there is no increase in rental value. But I am supposing that there is an increase in rental value brought about entirely as a result of the improvements which the tenant has carried out. Is it really fair that he should be called upon to pay an increased rent because he has carried out these improvements. I submit that the landlord will get the benefit of the improvements without paying compensation. That is in the Bill. But it is really going too far to say that in addition to the landlord's getting the benefit of the improvements, and in spite of the recommendation of the Leaseholds Committee, the tenant should also pay an increased rent because of these improvements.
I come back to the scarcity point. What is the case against it? Why should the tenant be called upon to pay over and above a fair rental—I hope we are really trying to get at what is a fair rent—if he holds over? Is not a fair rent a rent which will give the landlord a reasonable return, not an unreasonable one? Surely noble Lords opposite are not justifying any landlord in charging an extortionate rent, a rent he could get, simply because there is a scarcity of similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood? If we accept the principle that it should be a fair rent, I ask the Government to lay down that the court should be able to decide what is a fair rent and to eliminate any factor of scarcity. Is it really difficult for a court to do this? While we are imposing so many decisions upon the court, so many things they are called upon to decide—and if noble Lords will look at Clause 34 they will see some of the things the court are asked to determine—I should have thought it would not be at all difficult for the court to form a judgment what is a fair rent, disregarding the element of scarcity.
I hope the noble and learned Lord, who has at last broken the ice in accepting the principle of an earlier Amend-
574
ment, will see that this is really a reasonable one. We on this side have gone a long way to accepting the basis on which rents have been settled. We have gone a long way, and we are not moving an Amendment that the rent should be equivalent to a rent-controlled rent. We accept the principle of a market rent, but we ask that the scarcity factor should be eliminated.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 39, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
4.55 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I think this is another case in which the Government, having started so well, should acquiesce in our desire to see this Amendment, or something like it, embodied in the Bill, because the question of what is a reasonable rent or a market rent is a very difficult matter to define. We are already told in subsection (4) that the court is to disregard the personal circumstances of the tenant and is to have regard to certain other things, such as the state of repair and the terms upon which the premises are held. We ask that the court should also disregard two other matters, not only the personal circumstances but the scarcity value of the premises and ally improvements over and above those which the tenant is obliged to make, and has made, to the premises. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin on this matter. These are circumstances which the court ought not to take into account.
On the question of scarcity, the court would be acting in line with the general principles which assessment committees, rating committees, and so on, have followed in this country for many years. So far as dwelling-houses are concerned, it has always been the practice to disregard scarcity value in assessing the gross and rateable values. There are eleven million dwelling-houses in this country, not one of which is rated on scarcity value. They are rated on the basis that there is an open market; that there are plenty of houses in the market, and that there are willing landlords and equally willing tenants—a state of affairs that has not existed for many years in this country. So scarcity already applies—or, shall I rather say, the ignoring of scarcity values already applies—through-out

575
the whole of the rating system as it applies to dwelling-houses. We ask the Government now to apply it also in this particular case. The other point your Lordships will know better than I do. As regards agricultural holdings, special circumstances are often included as a statutory provision where tenants have made substantial improvements. It seems very hard that where a tenant has made substantial improvements to premises which he need not have made—and the landlord will get the benefit of them in the long run—he should be prejudiced by having to pay more rent than he otherwise would. It seems that unless this particular provision is amended, it will penalise the good tenant and will operate to the benefit of the bad tenant, and I am sure that all your Lordships, in whatever part of the House you sit, would not wish that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord said that I have broken the ice—that may be. But I do not think it is quite right that he should then ask me to fall through; and I should fall right through if I conceded this Amendment. I said that I should have to repeat my opening words more than once, and I am afraid that I must do so now. Let us consider where we start. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, have both referred to the unfortunate tenant. This Bill is a marvellous charter for the tenant. Just consider what the position of the so-called unfortunate tenant would be but for this Bill: he would have to go out when the lease terminated; that is what he expected, and it was upon that footing that he got his lease. Your Lordships all know that leases have changed hands in the market over and over again upon a value fixed by reference to the fact that at the term date the tenant would have to go, and would have to meet the obligations of the lessee under the lease. That is the position of the lessee; and anything which departs from that is a concession to him and is his good fortune. It is really a misuse of language to speak of the "unfortunate tenant," when all that is happening to the tenant here is that he is getting substantial benefits and relief from his obligation.
Under the provisions of this Bill, the tenant will be enabled, if he wishes, to
576
stay on. That gives him a security of tenure which, above all things, he desires. If he is to stay on, is it not right that he should stay on upon terms which are fair to the landlord, who, but for the provisions of this Bill, would obtain possession of the premises—and, I may say, possession of premises which have been repaired in accordance with the repairing covenants in the lease? Everything that departs from that is a concession. Upon what terms ought the lessee to stay on, so far as rent is concerned. This question of scarcity is no doubt one of great difficulty. But, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, says, we are advised—and I believe it to be absolutely right to say this—that it would be impossible to tell the court to disregard scarcity as a single factor in the element of market value of the premises.
I think I have warranty for that statement in this: that when, in 1949, the Government of which the noble Lords were members set up tribunals under the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, when the question of scarcity must have been very much in their minds, what they directed the tribunals to do was to assess a "reasonable rent." Those are the very words which we have adopted in this Bill, because we think that what the tenant ought to pay, and what the landlord is entitled to, is a reasonable rent in all the circumstances. We are happy to find ourselves so completely in union with noble Lords opposite upon that point. We think, as I expect they thought (for I cannot believe that the point was absent from their minds) that it is sufficient for the tenant to tell the court—it does not matter whether it is a court or a rent tribunal—to fix a rent which is reasonable in all the circumstances. That is what we invite the court to do here, just as that is what noble Lords opposite required the rent tribunals to do under the Act of 1949.
With regard to the second point, I make much the same observations. A tenant who has effected improvements, so-called—it is often difficult to determine whether or not they are, in fact, improvements—has done so with the full knowledge that when the term date arrives he will have to give up his premises; and he has thought it worth while to make those improvements upon

577
that footing. But apart from the general equity of this, there is a further point. We believe that it would be quite impracticable to give effect to this Amendment, even if we wished to do so. These leases have, ex hvpothesi, been in existence for nearly 100 years—99 years is the usual term for a building lease. How in the world are you to find out what improvements have been effected in buildings over the course of 99 years? Not only must you find out what has been done, but you must find out what was the condition of the premises before it was done; and to ascertain the difference between the market value and the letting value of the premises before events which have happened over the best part of 100 years is well nigh impossible. This proposal is quite impracticable, even if it is theoretically just, and in spite of the plea which noble Lords make, I cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to certain examples in the later part of the Bill where we do lay down that certain elements are to be taken into consideration in fixing the rent. We are again advised that that is something which can fairly be done, and we are prepared to do it. This falls into a different category altogether, and I am bound to resist the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that if he accepted this Amendment he would not fall right through at all; and the more I heard him speak, the more I was confirmed in that view, because we are not really very far apart. Let me take the easiest part of the answer of the noble and learned Lord first—namely, the difficulty in which the court would be placed in assessing these factors. After all, the court has to go on evidence—nobody knows that better than the noble and learned Lord. It would be for the tenant to establish, for instance, what improvements had taken place. If they took place a long time ago, then the tenant would have to give evidence of them; he would have to satisfy the court that they were improvements which he had not been required to make, and which had increased the value of the premises. If he could not establish that, then no case would arise. If the noble and learned Lord were otherwise willing to accept this Amendment, I should not have thought the difficulties which he envisages here would be a reason for
578
rejecting it. So with the scarcity value, these things would have to be dealt with on evidence. If the tenant alleged that the rent he was being asked to pay included an element of scarcity value, he would have to call people who were well versed in these matters to say what would be a reasonable rent, and how much of the rent he was being asked to pay represented scarcity value. The courts are called upon to deal with far more difficult matters than that, and, on the whole, do so with great success. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument that it is the difficulties of machinery which stand in the way.
The noble and learned Lord has really taken his stand on the equity of this matter, and here I do join issue with him. The whole basis of this Bill, of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and of many other Statutes that we have passed—as I said on Second Reading, to the credit of the Conservative Party—is that there is a need, in the interests of equity, for interference in contracts which have been entered into by two parties. Every argument that the noble and learned Lord put forward against this Amendment could have been put forward, and no doubt was put forward (it would be an interesting piece of research to see the arguments that were put forward) against the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1926. I have no doubt that the argument about sanctity of contract, about two people having entered into the contract with their eyes open, and knowing what they were to expect at the end of it, was brought out at the time. Nevertheless, the Government of the day decided to pass the Landlord and Tenant Act, to give protection to tenants at the expiration of their tenancies—and, indeed, to compel the landlord to charge a fair rent, and, failing that, to give the tenant reasorable compensation in respect of his goodwill. All that was passed, in spite of the fact that people had entered into these contracts with their eyes open and knew What they wore doing.
As the noble and learned Lord knows better than anybody in this House, other similar Acts have been passed—the Law of Property Act, 1925, and the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938—all interfering with this sanctity of contract. Indeed, we are engaged at the present moment in a variety of other measures, for instance, the Hire-Purchase Bill,

579
which was before your Lordships' House recently. That Bill, which commands Government support, interferes with the relationship between the person who hires and the person who rents. The Moneylenders Act is another example. The Statute Book is full of legislation designed to regulate the relationships of two parties who are deemed to have entered into contracts freely. But, of course, the Legislature has always recognised that parties do not necessarily enter into it upon equal terms. A person who is seeking premises may be handicapped in dealing with a landlord, and other persons may be similarly handicapped. Because of the greater power that is deemed to lie in the hands of one of the parties, the Legislature steps in in order to equalise the balance. This Bill does the same thing.
In my judgment it is wrong to describe what is being provided for tenants as a concession. It is not a concession: we regard it as a simple piece of justice. Many of my noble friends have gone further than we are doing on this Bill this afternoon, but we regard the giving of security of tenure as a simple piece of justice. If the landlord is in a position to extort the maximum rent that he could get from anybody if he put the premises on the market, what is the concession that the noble and learned Lord is talking about? Where does the concession come in? It is true that the landlord might have sold the premises, but he would still have sold them on the basis of scarcity value. It seems to me that he is getting the rent on the basis of scarcity value. The concession is not very great, and a great many tenants will not be able to take advantage of it. As regards the question of improvements, I feel that the case there is even weaker. I cannot see why a tenant who has carried out improvements which are of value, and which are ascertained to be of value, should, nevertheless, have to pay an increased rent because of the improvements. I feel that we have not had satisfactory consideration of this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Ogmore also wants to say a word, but unless he can move noble Lords opposite more than I have succeeded in doing, I feel that we shall have to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
LORD OGMORE: I do not expect for one moment that I shall be able to do better than my noble friend Lord Silkin, because it seems to me that he has made an absolutely unanswerable case. But there are one or two observations that I should like to put to the Committee. The first is that I, too, must join issue with the Government, because I do not regard their thesis as being a reasonable one. They say, in effect, that because they are giving the tenant something, he has no right to complain about anything. The mere fact (they say) that one tenant may be in a different position from another—for instance, he may have spent a great deal more money on his premises than his neighbour has done—is no concern of theirs at all; it does not come into the matter. It is a question that they cannot go into. They cannot exclude either improvements or scarcity value. Yet the court is entitled to regard both the scarcity value and the improvements that the tenant has made.
I am quite certain that all your Lordships who have served in the Armed Forces—and I imagine that nearly everybody has done that—know that that would not go down at all well in any regiment, battery, ship, squadron or any other unit. If you say to two Service men, soldiers, airmen, or sailors, under different conditions, "We are going to give you a certain consideration, irrespective of what your rank may be, whether you are sergeant or private; irrespective of what your conduct might have been, you are going to be treated exactly alike," they would soon object. In fact, as we know, the tenants are going to object strongly to the provisions of this Bill. I ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of a householder who has spent a large amount on the premises. Let us take the case of a doctor who has erected a surgery and a dispensing room, and perhaps a small operating theatre on his premises, at great expense to himself. He need not have done it, but he has done, and has made a very desirable house. Then suppose that his neighbour next door has done nothing—the only things that have grown in his garden have been weeds. The premises are not in a good condition, and nothing has been spent on them at all. He has just paddled along and done next to nothing

581
ever since he has been in possession of the premises.
What are those two people going to say about this Bill? Let us assume that they are both members of the Primrose League—if that is open to men, as I think it is. They are both staunch Conservatives; they pay their subscriptions; they have the greatest admiration for Lord Woolton; they vote for their Conservative Member, and they are among the many who applaud Lord Mancroft when he goes down, as he tells us, to speak in the constituencies of Members of another place. What will the doctor say when he finds that, because throughout the years he has spent large sums on his house, his rent may be two or three times as much as that of the man who grows nettles and weeds next door? All I can say is that the Conservative Party will lose a lot of adherents. I do not mind that at all, but I do not see why even Conservatives should not have justice, and I submit here that the Conservatives, as well as the members of the
Clause 9 agreed to.
other Party, are going to be lamentably treated under this Bill unless my noble friend's Amendment is carried.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord invited me to say whether he has persuaded me. I am afraid he has not. I shall not retaliate, as he did upon the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, by suggesting that it was in any spirit of levity that he referred to Lord Woolton and the Primrose League. I am sorry, but I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. Nothing could be fairer than that a tenant who, but for this Bill would have to go, should be given security of tenure at a rent which is reasonable in all the circumstances. Those are the precise words adopted by noble Lords opposite in directing the tribunal set up under the 1949 Act what rent they were to impose. In this respect we follow their admirable example.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18 Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Glasgow, E.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Ogmore, L.

Jowitt, E.

Chorley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Listowel, E.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Hungarton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Silkin, L.

Hall, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Sinha, L.

Stansgate, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Leathers, V.

Hawke, L.

Margesson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Monsell, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Killearn, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Swinton, V.

Leconfield, L.

Waverley, V.

Lloyd, L.

Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]

Woolton, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E.

Merthyr, L.

Dundonald, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Haddington, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Moyne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Morley, E.

Broughshane, L.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Carrington, L.

Rennell, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Roborough, L.

Rothes, E.

Coleraine, L.

Rockley, L.

Selborne, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

St. Just, L.

Stair, E.

Derwent, L.

Salter, L.

Dunleath, L.

Saltoun, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Savile, L,

Buckmaster, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Davidson, V.

Gifford, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Furness, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Teviot, L.

Goschen, V.

Hampton, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 10 [Provisions as to liabilities under tenant's covenants in former lease]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the clause:
"(3) If on the termination of the former tenancy a tenant does not retain possession of the dwelling-house under this Act the tenant shall not be required to carry out any repairs in excess of what is required to bring the dwelling-house into good repair as defined by section 9, subsection (2) hereof and any liability whether of the tenant or of any predecessor in title of his arising under the terms of the former tenancy shall be extinguished.
The proviso to subsection (1) of this section shall apply to this subsection."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Clause 10 is the clause which deals with the liability of a continuing tenant for the repairs of the premises. His liability under the lease is normally the onerous one of putting the premises into substantially as good condition as they were in when the premises were first built. Everyone has recognised that, to enforce this contract, into which both parties are deemed to have freely entered with their eyes open, knowing exactly what was going to come at the end of it, would be a hardship on the tenant. There has been imported into the Bill a lesser liability of the tenant to put the premises into good repair. "Good repair" is defined as making the premises merely structurally sound and in reasonable repair having regard to the age, the locality, and so on. Indeed, it is a definition about which we had some discussion in connection with another Bill. But, admittedly, it effects a considerable improvement in the tenant's liability; it is a much lesser obligation than the normal obligation that he would be required to fulfil. I have no complaint about that at all.
But exactly the same considerations which have induced the Government to give relief to a tenant who continues in occupation ought, in my view, to apply to a tenant who does not continue in occupation. For one thing, a great many tenants will not continue in occupation because this so-called reasonable rent which they will be required to pay, which includes an element of rent in respect of which they have themselves contributed by improving the premises, will be more than they can afford. In such a case they will lose the benefit of the provision
584
that they will be called upon to be responsible only for good repairs. I really fail to understand why there should be this discrimination in respect of repairs as between the tenant who remains and takes advantage of this Bill and the tenant who does not. One gets a very considerable concession; the other not only finds himself unable to afford to continue as a tenant, and loses the security, but also finds himself burdened with the higher obligation to carry out the full repairing covenants.
Of course, if anyone is shrewd and is so advised, he will take advantage of this Bill, pay the rent, get the repairs settled on the lower basis, and then give a month's notice and get out; by that means he will escape the higher liability. But do we want to encourage that sort of way out? If a tenant has that way out, surely he should be given a much more honourable way out, by being relieved of this extra burden and being asked to put the house into good repair, and that is all. Normally, I think I can see the case that can be put against an Amendment. In this instance, however, I frankly fail to see what is the argument against it. Therefore, I will content myself with saying what I have said and moving the Amendment, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will admit that in this case there really is no answer to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do my best to give an answer. This is, of course, a large question—how far a tenant should be relieved of his obligations to repair which are contained in his lease or tenancy agreement. That is a matter which was expressly referred, with other questions, to the Committee to which so much reference has been made. The question was in this form:
"Whether the rights of a landlord to impose and enforce covenants to repair should be further restricted, and in what manner."
I emphasise the words "further restricted," because already by the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act. 1938, the position of the tenant had been substantially alleviated. That was the question that was asked, and the Committee reported unanimously that there should be

585
no change in the law. As your Lordships know, amongst those who were members of the Committee and subscribed to that part of the Report were two members of the Party opposite—namely, the former Solicitor General and Mr. Leslie Hale; they were party to that recommendation that there should be no change in the law. They said:
"It does not seem to us that any further restriction on the extent of the damages recoverable by the landlord for breach of"—
repairing—
"covenants could reasonably be imposed."
It is a little difficult for noble Lords opposite to say that there is no answer to the case for granting further relief to tenants, and that if relief is granted to such tenants as we are dealing with in this Bill, there is no reason why relief should not be granted to all tenants under all leases. There are leases of 99 years and 66 years that we are dealing with to-day—long leases. Equally, there are leases of 21 years or less, which do not otherwise fall within the scope of this Bill, but in respect of which the tenants could ask precisely the same relief.
I agree with the noble Lord that in a case of this complexity there are bound to be anomalies, and I see the force of what he has said. But I do not think we should be right, in view of the unanimous expert opinion of the Committee which was appointed, representing all shades of Party opinion—and, morèover, the opinion of men learned in the law, and experienced in this particular branch of the law—in departing from their unanimous opinion. It is the fact, not to be forgotten, that under those Acts to which I have referred the position of the tenant is substantially relieved. I need not go into details about it—they are as well known to many of your Lordships as they are to myself, probably better; but I do not think that the time has come to grant to this particular class of tenants, as distinct from other tenants, further relief in this matter. I have dealt with the matter shortly, but your Lordships who are interested will see the whole matter set out in the Committee's Report, the arguments for and against, and their conclusion. It would not be right, I think, to occupy the Committee at considerable length this evening in saying anything further about the matter. I am sorry not to be able to accept the
586
Amendment which is proposed, but I am quite unable to do so.
LORD SILKIN: Now that we know the reasons which have prompted the noble and learned Lord to reject this Amendment, I should like to say another word or two. He rests his case almost entirely on the fact that there has been this recommendation of the Leasehold Committee—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if that has appeared to be so. I ought not to put it in that way. It was a unanimous Report of the Committee, and I agree with their reasons and with their conclusion. But I do not base my case simply on the fact that they have so reported, cogent as that is, but on the fact that I agree with their reasons and with their conclusion.
LORD SILKIN: Certainly the noble and learned Lord devoted the greater part of his answer to the fact that this was the unanimous recommendation of the Committee. But the noble and learned Lord has not always taken the view that a unanimous recommendation of a Committee, or even a substantial majority view, should necessarily be accepted. I think that your Lordships are entitled to have a more reasoned case than merely to have offered to them the views of this Committee. Moreover, in this particular matter the Government have departed from the recommendations of the Leasehold Committee. The Committee saw no reason at all for interfering with the repairing covenants in leases, but in Clause 10 the Government are interfering with those covenants, by replacing the normal covenant with an obligation to put the premises into good repair. That is a much lesser obligation, as I endeavoured to explain earlier, and that is a substantial interference with the ordinary agreement between the landlord and tenant. Therefore, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, the Government are themselves departing from the Committee's unanimous recommendations. Since they are so departing, I am not asking them to go any further than they have gone in connection with the obligation to put premises in good repair. All I am asking is: why have they discriminated in favour of the tenant who continues? Why do they give him the opportunity of a lesser obligation,

587
while the tenant who does not continue (very likely because he cannot afford to do so) must, they insist, carry out the full obligation?
I could have understood it, although I might not have agreed, if the Government had said to all tenants, "Here is your obligation; you are responsible for the full repairs, and you have got to carry them out." But the Government do not say that; they do not accept the unanimous recommendation of the Committee. They do give relief to tenants who stay on, but they fail to give relief to tenants who are not able to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill. That is what I still fail to understand. It is not a question of the merits of the matter at all, for the merits have long gone. The Government themselves have departed from the merits; but they do discriminate in this quite inexplicable manner, and I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord can explain why they differentiate between a tenant who remains on and a tenant who does not remain.
5.43 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I have not had the opportunity of hearing the whole of this debate, but where a tenant decides to go out for some reason—probably for the reasons advanced by my noble friend: because he cannot afford to pay the rent and to carry out the various obligations which may be imposed upon him by the tribunal—one would have thought he was entitled to greater consideration than the tenant who is able to continue. The tenant who has to go out and has, presumably, to find other premises is to be burdened with these obligations in respect of repairs. One would have thought that, if any relief was to be given, it ought to be given to the outgoing tenant. The noble and learned Lord has not advanced any reasons, either those given by members of the Committee or those held by the Government, and I should certainly have thought, on the grounds of natural justice alone, that the outgoing tenant, who is bound to be in a difficulty and who is going to be saddled with considerable expense, in addition to the burden which will obviously rest upon him to obtain other premises, should be entitled to the same benefit as is given by the Bill to the continuing tenant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If noble Lords opposite will bear with me I will add a very few words in answer to what has been said. The tenant who stays on under a statutory tenancy is in a totally different position from the tenant who gives up. The tenant who stays on under a statutory tenancy is under an obligation to do certain repairs, repairs sufficient to put the house into a state of good repair. The tenant who goes out has the protection of the law as it at present stands which is very substantial; for instance, the tenant may be the tenant of premises which the landlord re-occupies in order to develop. If that is so, under the Act of 1927 he is under no obligation to do any repairs at all, and his liability is limited, not by what is necessary to put the house into good repair—which is substantial—but to the damage which can be proved to have been suffered in respect of the reversion. Those are advantages which the tenant who does not remain in possession gets, and which the tenant who takes such a statutory tenancy does not get. With great respect to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, a man who is shrewd or well advised and who, in order to avoid his obligations, takes a statutory tenancy and then goes out, may find himself let in for a sum in respect of initial repairs necessary to put the property in a state of good repair which would be far greater than that which would fall upon him if he rested upon the relief given by the Act of 1927. So the two things are not strictly comparable at all. The tenant who stays on gets the benefit of this Act. The tenant who goes out gets the substantial benefits of the Acts to which I have referred and in respect of which the Leasehold Committee have noted (and I do not want to put too much upon that) that there is no reason why he should get further relief. I am sorry that I cannot add anything further. It seems to me that common justice is done here both to the tenant who stays on and to the tenant who goes.
LORD SILKIN: Greatly daring, I would venture to disagree with the noble and learned Lord in his interpretation of the law. Obviously, the Committee do not wish to hear a legal discussion on this matter, and if the noble and learned Lord is willing to look at the matter, again in the light of anything that I may be

589
able to put before him. I shall be quite prepared not to press this Amendment. I do respectfully remain unconvinced by his suggestion that the tenant who leaves and does not take advantage of this Bill is better off.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One cannot generalise. He may be better off—in many cases he may be much better off; but he will not always be better off. If I am not interrupting the noble Lord I would say that this is a matter which we have considered most carefully and we cannot give him any hope that upon
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Landlord's application for possession
(2) Where the ground or one of the grounds for claiming possession specified in the landlord's notice was that mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, then if on such an application the court is satisfied that the landlord has established that ground as respects premises specified in the application, and is further satisfied,—
the court shall order that the tenant shall, on the termination of the tenancy, give up possession
further reflection we shall be able to accept any other view. If the noble Lord wants to divide the House he must do so now.
LORD SILKIN: I was going to make an offer to reconsider this. I think the noble and learned Lord is basing his decision upon mistaken grounds, but if the Government have made up their mind there is nothing more to say.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Hungarton, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Silkin, L.

Hail, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stansgate, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Furness, V.

Hawke, L.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Leathers, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Margesson, V.

Killearn, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Monsell, V.

Leconfield, L.

Swinton, V.

Lloyd, L.

Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Merthyr, L.

Dundonald, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Glasgow, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Broughshane, L.

Remnant, L.

Morley, E.

Chesham, L.

Rennell, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Salter, L.

Rothes, E.

Derwent, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selborne, E.

Dunleath, L.

Savile, L.

Stair, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gifford, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Hampton, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of all the property then comprised in the tenancy.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (b) to insert:
"and
(c) that suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant at the date of termination of the tenancy."
The noble Lord said: Clause 13 deals with the case where a landlord seeks to resume possession of a dwelling-house on the ground that he wants to carry out redevelopment and that it is necessary, in order to carry out the redevelopment, that he should have possession of the house. In moving this Amendment, I

591
am not objecting to a landlord obtaining possession on that ground, but I think that the safeguards to protect a tenant against a landlord who acts not in good faith, or who makes this a pretext for getting possession, are not so strong as they might be. There is an Amendment later on which seeks to tighten up the safeguards, particularly where the tenant has been induced to give up possession on the ground that the landlord seeks to redevelop and subsequently does not do so. I think that in such a case the landlord should be required to compensate the tenant. But I am not arguing that on this Amendment. I merely put forward the proposal that where the landlord genuinely requires possession for the purpose of carrying out redevelopment he should provide the tenant with suitable alternative accommodation. It seems to me that that is a reasonable requirement.
Presumably, the landlord is carrying out this redevelopment because it is going to be a profitable undertaking for him. He is relieved of his obligation to keep on the tenant, he obtains vacant possession, and it seems to me that if it is merely a case that the landlord wants to carry out a profitable undertaking, the tenant ought not to be deprived of the protection which he would otherwise have under the Bill. The ability to obtain possession is entirely for the benefit of the landlord—I am quite prepared to sit down until the noble Marquess has finished his conversation. We are dealing with a highly technical subject, and I hope the noble Marquess will not mind my saying that it is very distracting to have a conversation audibly going on. The provision in this clause is entirely for the benefit of the landlord, enabling him to make a greater profit than he otherwise would. It enables him to escape from the obligation to provide the tenant with the continuation of his tenancy. Therefore, it seems to us reasonable that he should provide the tenant with alternative accommodation. This is by no means a unique obligation. The noble and learned Lord will know that in a later provision of the Bill a similar obligation is placed on the landlord in the case of business premises. In certain circumstances, if he wants the premises, he can get them by offering
592
alternative accommodation. And, of course, there are similar provisions in the Rent Restrictions Acts. If it is the intention to make this Bill in any way analogous to the Rent Restrictions Acts and give the tenant the same sort of protection, I submit that in a case like this it is not unreasonable that the landlord should be required to give the tenant suitable alternative accommodation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, after ("circumstances") insert ("and
(c) that suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant at the date of termination of the tenancy.").—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL JOWITT: In this battle of giants between my noble friend Lord Silkin and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, both giants in the knowledge of this branch of the law, anyone else hesitates to rush in, but I should like to make my little plea here. My belief is that the vast majority of landlords are extraordinarily decent people, but there are a small number who are not in that category and bring disrepute upon the whole body. I believe we may fairly take what the good landlord would do as a test of what we might reasonably enact. If the good landlord had a chance of developing his property and had a sitting tenant, I do not believe he would be content to turn that sitting tenant out unless and until he could offer him some sort of alternative accommodation. I think he would say that unless he could look after his tenant, who may have been with him for years, he must hold up his redevelopment. That is all we are asking here. If the ground on which the landlord is asking for possession is that he wants the property for redevelopment and he is going either to demolish or reconstruct the whole or part of the premises, then he ought to be able to say to the tenant that he had some alternative accommodation. That ought to be a requirement of the law. Without any great technical knowledge of this matter, I submit to your Lordships that that is what a good landlord would desire to do and would do. Therefore it does not seem to me to be wrong to put it into the requirements of this Bill.
LORD MANCROFT: After the observations of the noble and learned

593
Earl, Lord Jowitt, about giants, obviously under the impression that my noble and learned friend would reply, he will observe that a certain justifiable nervousness has crept into my voice. This Amendment, which superficially is an attractive one, has the effect of putting upon the landlord the obligation of providing alternative accommodation when he wants property for redevelopment. But there are two objections, so far as I can see. For the first I will apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because in his opening remarks he said he hoped he would not be taken to task for faulty draftsmanship which more expert pens could put right, but I think this objection is so fundamental that it may not be even faulty draftsmanship—if it is. I apologise in advance. The noble Lord has not put down any Amendment to leave out Clause 12 (1) (a). If noble Lords would be good enough to look at that paragraph, they will see that a landlord may apply to the court for possession on the ground:
"(a) that for purposes of redevelopment after the termination of the tenancy the landlord proposes to demolish or reconstruct the whole or a substantial part of the relevant premises;".
I should have thought, frankly, that Lord Silkin's Amendment makes nonsense of Clause 12 (1) (a). The availability of alternative accommodation is already a ground for obtaining possession under the Rent Acts after a statutory tenancy has begun and, under the Third Schedule of this Bill, before it has begun. If, therefore, a landlord can provide such accommodation, he has no need to make use of Clause 12 (1) (a). Only when the landlord who proposes to redevelop is not able to provide alternative accommodation does he need this provision.
That takes me to the second objection, which is a fundamental one. I agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that our objective is the standard of the good landlord. We must during this debate emphasise that point on both sides of the Committee. No doubt on many occasions a good landlord who desires to develop, and wishes to pull down a whole street or block, will do his best to provide alternative accommodation for those tenants with whom he wishes to remain in contractual obligation. But this is too heavy a burden on even a good landlord who genuinely
594
seeks to redevelop. We say this because we place so much importance on the facilities for redevelopment of residential premises, most of which, of necessity, must now be a century old. We feel that the landlord who genuinely requires premises for that purpose should not have to provide alternative accommodation, although, of course, it is seriously hoped that he will do what is possible. We do not think that is a fair burden to put ort the landlord. It is a question of two opposing interests, as so often it is in this Bill. It is to emphasise this need for redevelopment that we desire to relieve the landlord of this burden. For these two reasons—one a technical reason and the other a practical policy reason—we cannot accept this, on the face of it, attractive Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot understand the second reason, where there might be a hardship on the tenant and a burden on the landlord and the Government choose to sacrifice the tenant to the interests of the landlord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To the public interest—for redevelopment.
LORD SILKIN: It does not follow. The landlord is not developing in the public interest: he is developing in his own interest. I ask noble Lords opposite to bear in mind that it is not necessary to establish public interest. Under Clause 13, a person who wants to redevelop does not have to prove that it is in the public interest that he should redevelop—that is not one of the burdens put on the planning authority. So long as there is no particular reason why he should not redevelop, he would be allowed to do it from a planning point of view. If it does riot conflict with the plan he will get his permission.
As for the noble and learned Lord's assumption that every piece of redevelopment is in the public interest, I would profoundly disagree with him. This redevelopment is primarily in the interests of the landlord. It may be that the landlord's interest coincides with the public interest, and it may be that it does not. I admit that if it conflicts with the public interest he probably will not get planning permission, but in the majority of cases pubic interest is not involved. It is the landlord's interest. And I understand

595
that in this case, where there is hardship on the tenant and burden on the landlord, the Government choose to leave the hardship on the tenant and to sacrifice the tenant in favour of the landlord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; that is not how I see it.
LORD SILKIN: On the first point, a technical point, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has not convinced me. I am prepared to admit that the Amendment may be in the wrong place; that it would come better in Clause 12 than in Clause 13, but I do not think that matters. In Clause 13 we are dealing with the conditions that have to be satisfied by the landlord in order that he may be able to resume possession, and it seems to me quite logical that one of those conditions should be that he has made certain plans and has taken steps to make it quite clear that he is serious in his plans. He must be wanting to redevelop, and it seems to me quite logical to say that he must also be able to provide suitable accommodation. If this Amendment is in the wrong place I am prepared to put it in the right place, and to be guided as to where it should go and the form it should take. Undoubtedly there is a right place for it if the Government want to accept it. I am sure that the true reason is that there is a balance or conflict between the interests of one party and the interests of the other, and the Government prefer the interests of the landlord as against the interests of the tenant.
LORD MANCROFT: I cannot let the noble Lord sit down with that remark unchallenged. It is not a very fair remark, and well he knows it. There is no question in this Amendment of a clash between the landlord and the tenant, and of the Government's choosing the side of the landlord. This Bill merely accentuates and facilitates the Government's desire to improve and develop residential property—there is no clash; and that is the overriding interest. As regards the technical point between him and myself as to where the Amendment should come, that is purely academic and we need not pursue it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Provisions where tenant not ordered to give up possession]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Government Amendment makes a slight change in the machinery of Part I. It is consequential on a series of Amendments made on Report in another place which substantially recast the timetable for negotiation and application to the court. Broadly speaking, the effect is that where less than six months' notice has been given, negotiations can continue until the end of three months from the giving of the notice. It merely allows a little more time for negotiations and it is for the advantage of all concerned. It is quite uncontentious I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 30, at end add—
"((6) Where by virtue of subsection (3) or (5) of this section the landlord gives a landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy which specifies as the date of termination a date earlier than six months after the giving of the notice, subsection (2) of section seven of this Act shall apply in relation to the notice with the substitution, for references to the period of two months ending with the date of termination specified in the notice and the beginning of that period, of references to the period of three months beginning with the giving of the notice and the end of that period.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Protection of Rent Acts not to be lost on coming to an end of superior long tenancy at a low rent]:
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 15 and to insert the following new clause:
"15. Where a sub-tenant of premises to which this Part of this Act applies is in occupation of them at the date when the term granted by the superior tenancy expires and where the sub-tenant takes advantage of his rights under this Act and continues in occupation of the premises then so far as the tenant is concerned provided he does not occupy any part of the said premises the covenants on the part of the lessee contained in the superior tenancy shall be deemed not to apply to the tenant or to anyone claiming through or under him."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that Amendment No. 14 should read in these terms: "After Clause 14 insert the following new clause."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me if I intervene. I have been very much puzzled about this Amendment. To leave out Clause 15, as is proposed by the Amendment on the Marshalled List, seems to me quite impossible. I have been studying this clause at length with a view to finding out what was in the minds of the noble Lords opposite, and I have been trying to read the new Clause 15 as a substitute for the old Clause 15. I really do not know quite where I am, and I cannot promise that I have given proper consideration to this in its new aspect. If the noble Lord will enlighten us I shall be only too glad, but I think, with great respect, that I shall have to tell him that I am not in a position to accept it. I will consider it if he will move it again on Report, but without undertaking that I will consider it favourably. He has put me in great difficulty.
LORD OGMORE: As I drafted this Amendment it was headed "New Clause." I do not myself propose to leave out Clause 15, but somehow or another "New Clause" has been omitted and new words "leave out Clause 15" have been inserted. I appreciate the noble and learned Lord's difficulty, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the noble and learned Lord if I explained it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was very puzzled.
LORD OGMORE: I do not expect to have the new clause inserted to-day if the noble and learned Lord wishes to consider it at more length. The purpose of the new clause, which has nothing whatever to do with Clause 15, is to take care, if I might use the expression, of those people who are neither occupying tenants nor sub-tenants; they are tenants who will, so to speak, be excluded by the Bill from all consideration. They are not occupying tenants and they are not subtenants in possession of premises, and at the end of the lease naturally the tenant will have no further beneficial interest in the premises. This class of tenant is not dealt with by the Bill, but he is obviously going to be much affected by it. He cannot negotiate with his superior landlord, as he undoubtedly would be able to do if this Bill had not been passed. In other words, we must imagine three people: there is the superior lessor, or
598
his successor in title, there is the intermediate lessee and there is the occupying sub-lessee. One of them is the ground landlord, one of them occupies the tenancy, and the fellow in the middle is the person I am trying to protect in this Amendment—the middleman, if I may so describe him; the only man who, as I said on Second Reading, probably has any capital in the premises at all, other than the capital of the ground landlord in the actual land upon which the buildings are erected.
This man, the tenant, in these circumstances is put in a serious dilemma, because the sub-tenant is given a relationship with the lessor which he never had before; he is given rights under the Bill which he never had before; and any possibility of negotiation which the tenant would have had in the normal case with the sub-tenant, on the one hand, and the superior lessor, on the other, is gone. He is completely handcuffed. He is not even like the old soldier, who "silently fades away"; he will fade away, but not silently, because all the obligations in the lease, as I understand it, will still be imposed upon him. He will still have to carry out the serious burdens of the building covenants, the covenants to repair and to leave in a good state of repair at the end of his lease. Those are serious obligations upon him. I remember a case in Cardiff some years ago where a large mansion came to the end of its lease, and the unfortunate woman who owned it had to spend many hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds on repairing it, to hand it over to the ground landlord, who immediately pulled it down.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was before 1927.
LORD OGMORE: It does not matter whether it was before or after 1927; it does not really affect a case like that. I should have thought that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, had no effect upon it. We are dealing with dwelling-houses. As a matter of fact, I do not think it was before 1927. I am searching my memory, and I cannot swear whether it was before or after 1927. I can see what the noble and learned Lard means. He means that such a tenant could apply to the court and get relief from the obligations. But in these conditions the court may say: "We are not going to give you any relief.

599
We cannot give you relief, because there are no circumstances which justify relief being given to you in this particular case." The only case of which I am aware where the court can give relief from covenants is where the circumstances of the district have so altered that the covenants are no longer applicable. I am not asking for any radical change in the Bill, but only that this one particular class of person, the only class of person dealt with under the Landlord and Tenant Act who is not beneficially affected in any way at all, should not be seriously prejudiced, as I believe he will be if this Bill goes through without some sort of provision—again, it may be that better words could be used than I have used—being inserted which will take care of his case. I hope I have been able to explain to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, the object of this Amendment, which I am sure he will agree is quite a reasonable one, and that on the Report stage he will be able to give us the satisfaction that we feel we should have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Cause 15 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I will examine this new Clause in the light of the old Clause 15 being allowed to stand and not being eliminated. The noble Lord will see that it becomes a very different picture. I do not propose to answer what he said any further, but I should like him to consider one point. The last part of the proposed new clause is in these terms:
"The covenants on the part of the lessee contained in the superior tenancy shall be deemed not to apply to the tenant or to anyone claiming through or under him."
That would, I believe, include the subtenant. I do not think that can be meant; but if it is meant, there would be nobody left who was under any obligation in respect of the contractual obligations in the lease. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point. I suggest that he should withdraw this Amendment, and put down a new clause on Report stage, which I will consider.
LORD OGMORE: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for pointing out that particular aspect of the wording. It was intended to apply to the tenant or,
600
in the case of the tenant dying, to his personal representatives. I will see if we can avoid the pitfall that the Lord Chancellor has pointed out. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation of Part I]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in the definition of "dwelling-house" to leave out (2) and insert (3). The noble Lord said: It looks to me as if even Homer sometimes nods, and I have put down this Amendment in order to make quite certain whether that is so or not. If the noble and learned Lord accepts the Amendment, as I imagine he may, I hope that he will not chalk this one up as a concession. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 35, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is perfectly right, and I am happy that he has given me the opportunity of joining the ice-breaking gang. I do not wish to make any comment on the second part of his observations, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "as being a member of his family." The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. Clause 22 (2) defines "the tenant" for purposes of Part I of the Bill. The words proposed to be left out have caused some misunderstanding, and as they are not essential it seems better to omit them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 34, leave out from ("Acts") to end of line 35.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Tenancies to which Part II applies
(3) In the following provisions of this Part of this Act the expression "the holding," in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies, means the property comprised in the tenancy, there being excluded any part thereof which is occupied neither by the tenant nor by a person employed by the tenant for

601
the purposes of a business by reason of which the tenancy is one to which this Part of this Act applies
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words beginning "there being excluded" down to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: We have now finished with dwelling-houses and are on business, professional and other tenancies. Clause 23 is the clause which defines the application of Part II. It deals with people who are in possession of premises, but it excludes any part of the premises
"which is occupied neither by the tenant nor by a person employed by the tenant for the purposes of a business by reason of which the tenancy is one to which this Part of this Act applies."
I put down this Amendment to inquire what is the purpose of this exclusion. On the face of it, it would look as if the Bill could not possibly apply to a person not in the employ of the tenant, who was not the tenant himself, and who was not concerned with the purposes of the business. Why was this put in at all?—because obviously it could not possibly concern such a tenancy. If there is some purpose behind it which I have not been able to fathom by reading the provision, then I should like to reserve my position, and, if I do not approve of what is intended, put down an Amendment at another stage. At the present moment my main purpose is to find out what is behind this provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, leave out all words after ("tenancy") to end of line 20.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MANCROFT: I do not think we need waste much time over this Amendment. I believe it is some slight doubt about the wording which has really caused the trouble here. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is interpreting Clause 23, as it now stands drafted, to mean that the occupier does not get security of tenure for premises which he occupies for purposes other than business purposes. If the noble Lord is in doubt about that, I can assure him that that is not the intention. But since it has caused doubt in his mind, I will certainly look at the wording again and see whether the point he has made can be cleared up. I hope that that will be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: I wish the noble Lord would explain to me what he intends, and then I can form some idea as to whether what he intends is something of which I approve and whether these words really carry out the intention. At the moment, I am somewhat mystified.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I myself to some extent misread this provision of subsection (3), which says:
"… there being excluded any part thereof which is occupied neither by the tenant nor by a person employed by the tenant for the purposes of a business by reason of which the tenancy is one to which this part of this Act applies."
The qualification of "for the purposes of a business" refers to "by a person employed by the tenant for the purposes of a business." Those words do not qualify the tenant, but only a person employed by the tenant for the purposes of the business. I think if words are put in to make that clear—and I have myself misread it—the noble Lord's difficulty will be solved. If there is any doubt about it, perhaps he and I may discuss it together before the Report stage. I think there is, in principle, nothing between us at all.
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether there is or is not until I understand it. But there is a genuine doubt as to what this means. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that we will look at it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Opposition by landlord to application for new tenancy
30.—(1) The grounds on which a landlord may oppose an application under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of this Act are such of the following grounds as may be stated in the landlord's notice under section twenty-five of this Act or, as the case may be, under subsection (6) of section twenty-six thereof, that is to say:—
(d) that the tenant could have obtained a new tenancy, or a renewal of the current tenancy, by the exercise of an option available to him within a reasonable time before the termination of the current tenancy, that the terms on which the tenant could have obtained the new tenancy or renewal were reasonable at the time when the option was granted, having regard to the terms of the

603
current tenancy and to all other relevant circumstances, and that the tenant has failed to exercise the option;
(f) where the current tenancy was created by the sub-letting of part only of the property comprised in a superior tenancy and the landlord is the owner of an interest in reversion expectant on the termination of that superior tenancy, that the aggregate of the rents reasonably obtainable on separate lettings of the holding and the remainder of that property would be substantially less than the rent reasonably obtainable on a letting of that property as a whole, that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord requires possession of the holding for the purpose of letting or otherwise disposing of the said property as a whole, and that in view thereof the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy;
(h) subject as hereinafter provided, that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him therein, or as his residence.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: There are three Amendments to Clause 30 seeking to delete three separate paragraphs. I wish we could have had one discussion on all three, but it seems to me that it would be more convenient to discuss each deletion separately, and that is what I have done in the Amendments. Paragraph (d), which I seek to delete, provides one of the grounds upon which a landlord may oppose an application by a tenant for a new tenancy. This ground is that the tenant could have obtained a new tenancy or a renewal in the exercise of an option at some earlier time which he failed to exercise, and that the option was a reasonable one, having regard to the terms of the tenancy, and so on. Because he has failed to exercise this reasonable option when he had the opportunity, he now loses his chance of a new tenancy.
It seems to me that that is rather unfair unless some words are included which would make it clear that if there were good reasons at the time for the tenant's non-exercise of the option, he should not be barred from getting a new tenancy at the time when the lease expires. I can think of a number of grounds upon which a tenant might
604
have hesitated to exercise an option. So far as I can see, a tenant with, say, seven years to run, might have an option to extend his tenancy beyond the next seven years on perfectly reasonable terms. He may find at the time when he is required to exercise the option that business is not very good, or he is uncertain about his movements and is not in a position to commit himself for a longer period than this seven years. He may be contemplating going abroad, or for a hundred-and-one perfectly good reasons he may have decided that he is unable to exercise the option. He may even have overlooked the fact that there is this option. The option is sometimes required to be exercised a considerable period in advance, and people do tend to overlook these things. Everybody is not a lawyer, and people are not constantly referring to their leases to see what are their legal rights—fortunately, I suppose, for the lawyers. The fact remains that there may have been perfectly good, intelligible reasons for the tenant not to have exercised the option.
It seems to me quite an unnecessary restriction on a tenant's privilege—if you like to call it so—of getting a new tenancy. What is the purpose of it? Why should a tenant be prevented from getting a new tenancy because he has not exercised an earlier option? In what way is the landlord damaged by the fact that the tenant has not exercised this option? If the Government want to insist upon this provision, ought they not to have a proviso of some kind, that where the failure to exercise the option is for perfectly good reasons, then the tenant should have the benefit of a new tenancy? Except on the basis that it is intended to put obstacles in the way of a tenant, to prevent him from getting a new tenancy, I cannot understand the purpose of this restriction. Therefore I beg to move that paragraph (d) be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 21, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MANCROFT: I think this was a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, touched in his Second Reading speech, and I hope we shall be able to set his mind at rest upon it. This is the position as I see it. If, when a tenancy is first granted, the parties concerned

605
freely agree that the tenant shall have an option at or near the end of the lease, to renew on terms which, at that time, are reasonable, then the aim of Part II of this Bill—which, of course, is to give the tenant a reasonable degree of security of tenure—is achieved. If the tenant fails to exercise his option, I do not think there is much reason to give him a further chance under this Bill. The landlord is surely justified in assuming, if the tenant does not exercise his option, that he does not want renewal, and the landlord may have made his plans for the property on this assumption. That is the answer to one of the noble Lord's points. It is because justice must be done on both sides, and it would be unreasonable to allow the tenant to upset these plans by a last minute change of mind.
There is also a precedent for what we propose here, because under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, the tenant, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will remember, was debarred from claiming compensation for loss of goodwill (and therefore from claiming a new lease) if he had failed to exercise a reasonable option to renew. The Leasehold Committee recommended the retention of this provision, but thought that the court should have power to extend the period of availability of the option where it saw fit. The Committee's suggestion has not been accepted, because it is not thought to be necessary in view of the way in which paragraph (d) (which is the paragraph we are now talking about) is drafted. The failure to exercise the option will be held against the tenant only if it was available
"a reasonable time before the termination of the current tenancy."
That means, not too long before. I think that meets the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is worried.
In these circumstances, therefore, there is no reason that I can see why the court should extend the period of the option's availability, which might do considerable injustice. After all, it might be extended in the case, presumably, of business men negotiating perfectly freely with their obligations well in mind. So I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the procedure that we propose now has the precedent of the 1927 Act to support it. It also has the recommendation of the Leasehold Committee—a Majority recommendation. I would also suggest
606
to the noble Lord that, taken by and large and looking at both sides, the tenant's side and the landlord's side, justice is being done by this clause as it stands, which is in itself really a reasonable and businesslike provision. I hope that that sets the noble Lord's mind at rest, particularly on the point of reasonability.
6.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My mind is not really set at rest because I do not accept the reasons that have been given. The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is hardly a good precedent for anything. It is an Act which is admitted on all sides of the House to have failed. Nobody would suggest that that is a good Act to follow. It is because it is such an unsatisfactory Act that we are dealing at this moment with this Part of this Bill. As to the Report of the Committee, of course it did recommend that in certain circumstances there should be access to the court. That is what I should be satisfied with. I should be quite content if there were some opportunity for a person to go to the court. At the moment, all that he can go to the court on is to ask for a decision on whether an option was available to him within
"a reasonable time before the termination of the current tenancy."
If the noble Lord can tell me what "a reasonable time before the termination of a current tenancy" is, I shall be grateful to him. I wonder what guide a person is to have as to what is "a reasonable time before"? It is not an easy question upon which to make up one's own mind and it is a very difficult question to ask a judge to decide upon. Nevertheless, one could go to court on that, and I would suggest that this is a provision which might be looked at again, to see whether a tenant who on perfectly good grounds has not exercised his option could not nevertheless have the opportunity of getting a new tenancy. Obviously, it would have to be settled by the court, if the landlord did not agree; but why not give such a tenant the right to go to court? He could go at his own risk and let the court decide.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is not this rather difficult? It seems to me it is most difficult. Here we are not dealing with people who are helpless, or anything

607
of that kind; they are business people with whom we are dealing. This is a case where the parties have entered into a bargain which contains, amongst other things, a provision or an option for renewal, and not only an option for renewal but an option for renewal upon terms which are agreed between the parties. It occurs to us that it is not right that, when the parties have come to their own agreement, it should be supplemented by statutory provisions which are intended to provide, by and large, for people who have not made their own bargains. The only reason why we have a provision of this kind and why the Bill contains what it does, which is relief for the tenant, is because he has not made provision for himself. Where he has, is there really any reason why he should have a double chance? It is not as if the terms were inevitable. If they are unreasonable, then the landlord cannot take advantage of this. It is only where there is a reasonable provision in the contract which the parties have made providing for renewal that the Act will step in. I think that is fair. It may be unfair to place the landlord in the position, when he has made his bargain, of not knowing whether the tenant is going to exercise his option under the lease or is going to wait until the last moment that he can in order to exercise his right. I suggest to the noble Lord that this is really a fair enough arrangement between the parties.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Lord and I are in disagreement upon this fundamental point as to what are the rights of a landlord and a tenant to reopen a bargain which has been made. The noble and learned Lord is assuming that business people are negotiating on equal terms, but, if they are, what is the point of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, or of these other Statutes? What is the point of this Bill? Surely, the underlying assumption is that the landlord is at some advantage and that the tenant does need some protection. Even as regards the option, I do not go so far as to press for the deletion of this provision, although that is my Amendment. I did think that the Government might be prepared to consider some alternative to entire deletion which would enable the tenant who, for reasons which are possibly beyond his control, did not exercise the option but who nevertheless later
608
on desires to continue the tenancy. I should hope that, even now, the Government would be prepared to give further consideration to this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are not dealing with Part I; we are dealing with Part II. Whatever presumption you may have in regard to long leases in Part I, and of some advantage of position in the landlord, that really is not the case with premises under Part II. And where you get parties bargaining and actually making a provision in the lease that there shall be a right to renew or an option to renew, that is not the sort of case in which it is fair to presume that the parties are not dealing with each other fairly at arm's length. It is almost certain that they would both have skilled advice and there is no question of advantage in the position of the one as compared with the other. That is a bargain that they have made, and one would think that they ought to stick to it and not take advantage of a statutory provision which is for people who have not made any such bargain.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.50 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (f). The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. Under paragraph (f) the landlord can refuse the tenant a new tenancy, or can refuse the grant of renewal, on the ground that this is a part-letting of the whole of the premises, and that by a rearrangement of the tenancies he can get a higher rent. It seems to me that that is rather hard on the individual tenant who is occupying a part of the premises. Surely that is a matter which will be taken into account by a court if they have to fix the new rent of the tenant. I am prepared to concede that the landlord should not be deprived of the opportunity of making the best use of his premises and to get the best possible rent, provided that he does not force existing tenants to go out and lose the benefit of the provision in the Bill. It seems to me that everything that is desired can be met in those circumstances by requiring the sitting tenant to pay a higher rent; and if the rent is too high to justify his staying on, of course he will not pay it. It seems a drastic remedy to deprive people of the benefit of this Bill simply because the landlord

609
can get a higher rent by making some other arrangement. No doubt he could do that every time if only he could get possession. The Bill does not give him possession on that ground; yet it seems to do so under this paragraph. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 43, leave out paragraph (f).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MANCROFT: This is rather an unusual case. The circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin has in mind, and about which we are talking, I should think will occur fairly rarely. Perhaps I can help the Committee to come to a decision on this matter if I give an example of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has in mind in his Amendment. A is a freeholder; B is the tenant of business premises—a shop with a basement; C is the sub-tenant of the basement only. B may not have had any use for the basement, and he sub-let it to C. B's lease expires and he does not want renewal, and he disappears from the scene; but C wants a new tenancy of his basement. If A is required to grant it he is left with the area occupied previously by B, and he may find that, by itself, it is not a convenient letting, because most of the tenants want the basement as well as the shop. The result is that the best rent he can get for the shop alone plus the rent for the basement would be substantially less than he would get if he were able to let the basement and the shop together. That is the example I think we all have in mind. It is likely to be rather rare, although it may well happen. Quite frankly, the trouble is that in this situation perfect justice between all parties is not possible—I cannot see how it can be achieved. Someone must suffer for the legacy, perhaps I may call it, left by B's subletting.
I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will repeat to me that, because Part II of the Bill is intended to protect tenants, it is the landlord here who should suffer, and that he must simply put up with the loss caused by letting in two separate parts. I suppose he may alternatively argue that some sanction should be applied to the mesne tenant, though the Amendment would not do that—and, indeed, it is difficult to see how it could be done when he has ceased to have
610
an interest in the premises. At this stage, let me quote from the White Paper. It is not really the object of Part II of the Bill to protect the tenant, no matter at what cost to the landlord. The White Paper, in paragraph 43, states that in the Government's opinion the landlord:
"is entitled … to a fair contemporary market rent for the premises."
The only practicable way of giving him this, in the case I have just been trying to explain to the Committee, is to enable him to let shop and basement together; and, quite frankly, this means giving him possession against C, the sub-tenant of the basement.
I should like to point out to the Committee that the paragraph we are discussing applies only where the landlord originally let the premises as a whole and the tenant sub-divided them by subletting a part. I must emphasise that the paragraph does not apply where the landlord originally let the premises to the separate tenants and now wants to let them as a single unit because he finds it more profitable. I hope the noble Lord is not going to come back at me and say, "You are supporting the landlord against the tenant." This is a case where a balance has to be struck, and I hope that I have convinced him that in this particular case someone has got to come out on the worse side of this rather unusual bargain. We think that we have struck what is admittedly a very difficult balance as fairly as we can. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the difficulty of this matter, and will realise that if we took the course which I think he wants us to take a far greater injustice would be done than the slight disadvantage which must admittedly devolve upon the sub-tenant in the case we have been discussing. I hope the noble Lord will realise that this is the best solution in a difficult case, and that he will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has sought to make the best of his case by quoting the case of shop and basement. But suppose we take the case of basement and shop. Suppose that the landlord is by this means enabled to get possession of the shop and not of the basement. Suppose that a person has taken the shop and the basement, keeps the basement and lets off the shop. Both these cases are rare—the noble Lord says

611
his case is rare, and mine would perhaps be rarer than rare. But in such a case the landlord would get possession of the shop, which seems to me to be defeating the whole purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord did not deal with my suggestion that this difficulty could be met in fixing the rent. Why not? It would be a perfectly appropriate matter for the court to settle. Incidentally, the landlord must be presumed to have agreed to this severance. Most leases provide that a tenant must not sub-let part of the property without the consent of the landlord, and the landlord must be deemed to have consented; or, if he did not, and the lease enables such subletting to take place, the landlord must be deemed to know what he is doing. But whether that be so or not—and it is not necessarily part of my case—if the tenant of the shop or the tenant of the basement wanted a renewal of the lease, surely the court would take into account the effect of the severance.
The court is required to take into consideration what rent could be obtained for the premises and, if it is not inherent in the existing provision, it could be made quite clear that the tenant must pay the rent which the landlord could have got if the premises had been in their original condition. I think that is perfectly feasible. It seems to me that this tenant should have the option of going on with the tenancy or of giving it up because he finds the rent too high. It seems that the tenant should not, through the action to which the landlord has acceded in the past—he has agreed to the sub-letting—lose his right under this Bill. That seems to me to be unfair. And, although the noble Lord may not like my saying so, where there is a conflict between the landlord and the tenant, it seems to me that this Bill comes down in favour of the landlord, and that this is just one more example of that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say a word? As to the last observation, I think the noble Lord ignores the position in saying that the Bill comes down in favour of the landlord rather than the tenant; he ignores the fact that the whole
612
of the Bill is introduced in favour of the tenant. It is not a question of starting level and coming down in favour of the landlord or the tenant. We are not starting, as in this hypothesis, with the landlord having everything and the tenant nothing. The whole Bill is aimed at giving the tenant something, but the noble Lord opposite is always asking for something more. I think the point which the noble Lord has made is rather far-reaching—for this reason: that if this is not to be a ground upon which a landlord can recover, I conceive that in the future (and this Part of this Bill may last for a long time, for it is part of our permanent legislation) a landlord will not allow any sub-letting; there will be an absolute covenant against any sub-letting, because the result of it might be just what we are providing against in this case. I do not know whether the noble Lord has considered that possibility. I would add this. He has put forward, in his usual way, a very cogent argument and one aspect which he has presented had not occurred to me before. Whether it has occurred to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary I do not know. I should like to consider this point, without making any promise, and perhaps the noble Lord would put down an Amendment on Report. I hope that that will not be regarded as a promise, but I should like to reconsider the matter, and if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment upon that footing, I will reconsider it.
LORD SILKIN: Of course, I will withdraw the Amendment, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
[The Sitting was suspended at seven o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.]

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
House again in Committee.
LORD SILKEN LORD SILKEN moved, in subsection (1) of Clause 30 to omit paragraph (h). The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. When we adjourned we were discussing the grounds upon which a landlord may oppose the granting of a new lease. Eight grounds are set out in Clause 30, which gives the landlord a great many opportunities of defeating the purposes of the Bill. I have dealt with two of those grounds by way of Amendment, without very much good fortune. The last of the grounds is if:
"the landlord intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him therein, or as his residence."
I feel there is some difficulty about this matter, and I want to be perfectly frank and to explain the difficulty as I see it. I can imagine cases in which there may be very good grounds for a landlord to get possession because he wants the premises for his own occupation. But I can equally well imagine grounds which are quite wrong, and I want to take as an illustration a ground which I imagine will be quite a common one in cases in which the tenant has been in occupation for a number of years of business premises, has built up a goodwill, has established a valuable connection—perhaps from nothing—has managed to earn a livelihood, and then the landlord says: "I want possession of this place because I want to carry on business here." And indeed he does, because he will be carrying on exactly the same business as heretofore and taking advantage of the goodwill which the tenant has built up. That will be, I will not say a common case, but one which will occur fairly frequently. There are, unfortunately, a good many landlords who may be tempted by the possibility of taking over goodwill and running a business, and even more who will be tempted by the possibility of taking over the goodwill and then disposing of it at a very good price.
If one looks at the economics of a business of this kind it may be found that a person has been in occupation for, say, twelve or fourteen years, has built up a goodwill, and is earning, perhaps, £1,500 a year in respect of the business on the premises. Goodwill of that kind may be
614
worth £3,000—that is, two years' purchase. The landlord can get possession by representing that he wants the premises for his own occupation. His liability for compensation will be, in the case I have mentioned, one years rateable value, if under 14 years—possibly £150 or £200 or something that is quite insignificant as compared with the value of the goodwill. He gets possession in this way and then disposes of the goodwill which he has done nothing to create and which has been built up by his tenant. That is the other side of the picture.
I can understand the case where the landlord genuinely requires possession, not to carry on the business of his tenant but to carry on his own business. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave a number of examples where the landlord may genuinely require possession, and I do not wish to interfere with such cases, but only with those in which the landlord requires possession only to enter into Naboth's vineyard. The question is: how can we distinguish between the two types of case? How can we deny the tenant the right of renewal in one ease but give it to him in the other? I recognise that my Amendment goes too far in one direction and I believe that the provision of the Bill goes too far in the other. I put it to the noble and learned Lord: is it not possible to devise a new paragraph (h) which will protect the tenant against improper expropriation of his goodwill, but which nevertheless will give the landlord the right to take possession where he genuinely requires it for purposes other than merely capturing the tenant's goodwill? I have put the position frankly and fairly. I do not want to push this matter too far and I think the noble Lords opposite agree with me that this is a problem. Can we not sit down and see whether we cannot thresh out something which will achieve as nearly as possible the kind of result I have in mind? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 17, leave out paragraph (h).—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nothing could have been fairer or more candid than the way in which the noble Lord moved this Amendment, and I will be equally candid with him and tell him that I can imagine cases in which the

615
landlord might seek to make an improper use of this subsection. But I would ask him to remember this: we have gone a long way to meet the case which he envisages, for we have, by subsection (2) of this clause, provided that the landlord shall not be entitled to oppose an application by the tenant for a renewal of his tenancy on the ground to which we have been referring if the landlord's interest was created within five years of the termination date. That eliminates the rascal—in this case, the man who we are afraid will purchase the reversion and then make use of the goodwill which has been created by the tenant for the purpose of carrying on his own business. I think that goes a very long way, but, of course, I recognise that there may be a rare case in which abuse is possible under this clause. I frankly do not see my way so to define the provision as to meet the case, but I am sure of this—and I think the noble Lord recognised it—that it is impossible generally to exclude the landlord who genuinely wants to obtain possession of his own premises.
For instance, it is no uncommon thing for a factory owner to plan ahead. He builds perhaps larger premises than he requires, knowing or hoping that in time, with the expansion of his business, he will require the whole. In the meantime, he lets part of his premises. Is he to be hampered for ever in his development by the fact that he has so acted? I think it would be wrong to impose that sort of restriction upon a forward-looking landlord. For that reason I can see no way—and we have tried to do this—of protecting the rare case where a landlord seeks to abuse his position under paragraph (h). After all, though we start fundamentally at different ends, I think the noble Lord will concede that this Bill does make a great improvement in the position of the tenant. The whole of Part II effects a great improvement in the tenant's lot; and while there may be still some tenants in respect of whom a landlord does not act as a good landlord should, I do not see my way to provide for every particular case. You merely get into a welter of refinement and confusion. You have to take the thing on fairly broad lines.
616
Here we have inserted a proviso which imposes a qualification—not, I think, too difficult a refinement—which will go a long way to meet the sort of case the noble Lord has in mind. I do not see my way either to accept this Amendment or to suggest an alternative which would carry out his object. I will say this at once. If he can think of any provision which will meet with the bad case without also involving the good one, I will sympathetically consider it on Report. I have not been able to think of one myself, nor have those assisting me, but that does not mean that the noble Lord will not be able to do so. If he does, we will sympathetically consider it. But an extension of the whole of the subsection, or anything like it, I do not think would be fair, and I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: Anyone who has listened to the speeches on this Amendment will be bound to agree that there is a good deal of force in the speeches of both noble Lords. I think we all recognise that we do not want to penalise unduly the honest landlord; and, on the other hand, we do not want to enable the landlord to seize the goodwill of the tenant without paying for it or by paying only a very small amount for it. That would be quite unjustifiable. That is the dilemma the Committee is in and I really do not think the Government should say: "There is a dilemma here; we recognise there is a dilemma. It is a difficult problem but if you can think of the answer you can bring it up on Report stage. But we are not going to do anything about it; it is up to you." That seems to me, roughly—differently though the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack put it—to be the attitude of the Government: "It is up to you to think of a better move." I think it is up to the Government to try themselves to see that they give equity and justice to Her Majesty's subjects.
One suggestion I would make is this. It might be possible to have a much higher measure of compensation. There is very small compensation now, as the noble Lord Lord Silkin, pointed out. In fact, it is derisory in many cases. While listening to the noble and learned Lord, it suddenly occurred to me that that is a possible way, though I do not think it is the best way. I think the united

617
brains of the Government and the Departments that they have available to them, and the Law Officers and the Parliamentary draftsmen, should be able to deal with this problem, which is going, I think, to be a very real one. It is going to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in the cases in which tenants are turned out by landlords who, as my noble friend has suggested, obtain premises under this Act, pay a small amount for compensation and then re-let them or even sell them at a great profit. I do not think one can contemplate with any satisfaction a circumstance of that sort arising.
There is some truth in what the Government have said in regard to Part I. It is true that, as regards an occupying tenant, under Part I he is in a better position than he has been before. However, that does not help the unfortunate people for whom I have been speaking—namely, the non-occupying tenants, who are put in a much worse position than they were in before. So far as the sub-tenants are concerned, they are in a better position, and to that extent the case of the Government is a justifiable one. But here the position is different, and I think it will be found in some cases that the tenant will not be in as good a position as he was under the 1927 Act. It is possible that if he were enabled to obtain the compensation he could have got under that Act—which he no longer is—he would have been better off than he will be under this Bill. We shall have to see how it will work out, but I can contemplate that to be the fact. In all the circumstances, I ask the Government to look at this again to see whether they cannot obtain some more equitable arrangement than they have under this subsection.
8.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has addressed himself to the case that I made on this Amendment. I suppose we are bound to agree to disagree about the extent to which this is likely to arise. I do not put it forward as a matter which is likely to be a daily occurrence, but I think it is likely to happen more frequently than he seems to believe. I realise that Part I of the Bill will be a great boon to tenants if they can get a renewal of tenancy, but
618
to set out eight different sets of circumstances in which a tenancy can be refused is a considerable obstacle; and it may well turn out that the benefits we are holding out to tenants under this Bill will be almost as illusory as those we held out to tenants under the 1927 Act. But let me accept the statement of the noble and learned Lord as being an admission that there is a possibility of this evil taking place in a certain number of cases—he thinks very few, I think not quite so few. Ought we not to try to meet such a case? I agree with my noble friend Lord Ogmore that the onus should not be entirely on the Opposition. If it is recognised that this is an evil, then it is for the Government to see whether this evil can be met.
We on this side are perfectly prepared to discuss the matter and to make suggestions. I will make one straight away; I do not know whether it will stand up to examination, but it is something we might discuss. Would it not be possible, in a case where it is established that the landlord has really stepped in and taken advantage of the goodwill of a tenant, that he should pay compensation for the loss sustained by the tenant? I am sure that the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsman would be equal to finding words to enable a tenant to obtain that remedy. It may be that that is not adequate, or that it would not work, but I feel that my suggestion is worth further examination than has been given to the matter so far. Therefore, while admitting that it would not be right to press this Amendment to its logical conclusion—because I am asking for more than I think I ought to get, and the noble and learned Lord will be "getting away with" more than he ought to "get away with" if I withdraw—nevertheless, I do ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I hope that the matter will be reconsidered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let me say at once, and I say it sincerely, that we welcome any suggestion the noble Lord makes. If there is any good to be got out of further thinking we will think further, and we shall be glad to meet the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Rent under new tenancy]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of an Amendment, after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) any effect on rent of the scarcity of similar holdings in the locality of the holding")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is similar in principle to one that I moved in Part I of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord was not able to accept that Amendment and I apprehend that he will be equally unlikely to accept this one. I could only repeat the arguments I put forward on that occasion, but that I do not propose to do. Therefore, without prejudice to further consideration of this matter, I will not move this Amendment.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Compensation where order for new tenancy precluded on certain grounds]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "rateable" and insert "rental." The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 stand together. Since I put down these Amendments certain suggestions have been made to me which I should like to submit in the form of an alternative Amendment. I have not put it down, and therefore I think it would be preferable that we should not spend any time in discussing the Amendments printed. I propose to put down at a later stage an alternative form of Amendment. It may be possible that I can put before the noble and learned Lord the proposals that I have in mind so that he can consider them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be grateful.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Restriction on agreements excluding provisions of Part II
(2) If at the date on which the tenant under a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies is to quit the holding the holding or any part thereof has been occupied for the period of five years immediately preceding that date for the purposes of the carrying on of the tenant's business (whether by the tenant or by any other person), any agreement (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not and whether made before or after the termination of that tenancy) which purports to exclude or reduce compensation under the last foregoing
620
section shall to that extent be void, so however that this subsection shall not affect any agreement as to the amount of any such compensation which is made after the right to compensation has accrued.
(3) In a case not falling within the last foregoing subsection the right to compensation conferred by the last foregoing section may be excluded or modified by agreement between the landlord and the tenant.
8.54 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 27. They can be discussed together, if the Committee will give leave. The point of these Amendments is to take out of Clause 38 the provision which enables parties to contract out of the provisions of compensation if the tenancy is for a term of five years or less. I see no reason why this differentiation should be made. I can understand the Government coming to the conclusion that, in spite of the provisions of this Bill, it should be possible for the parties to contract out. I should not have supported that view—I think it wrong; but it is a possible line of thought. What I do not understand is why parties cannot contract out, as regards compensation, if the tenancy is for more than five years, but can if it is for less than five years. I see nothing sacred in this term of five years, and I see no principle underlying it.
What we are really doing is giving landlords every possible inducement to grant tenancies for not more than five years. To-day, business premises are frequently taken on a term of seven, fourteen and twenty-one years. I can well imagine that a good many landlords will stop doing that and will in future grant them for a lesser term and insist upon a provision that the compensation provisions in this Act shall not apply. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he attaches any great importance to a provision which enables the parties to contract out in those circumstances. Would it not be better not to give the landlord the opportunity of insisting upon the omission of the compensation clauses from every agreement, thereby rendering so nugatory the good provisions of this Bill? It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that there is a considerable weight in the point that I am making.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 19, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MANCROFT: The effect of these two Amendments is to leave out all the provisions about contracting out of compensation. The result would be that contracting out would be permissible without limit. At present, contracting out ceases to be valid when the tenant's business has been carried on in the premises for five years. When I first looked at these two Amendments I thought it would be the intention of the noble Lord to prohibit contracting out altogether, because that was the way in which his mind seemed to be working in the course of his Second Reading speech. The distinction it is sought to make here is a fairly plain and a very just one. Contracting out of compensation is intended for the case where both parties enter into the tenancy in the knowledge that it is to be temporary because the landlord will shortly require possession. If contracting out were not allowed, the result, I should have thought, would be one of great rigidity. The tenant would not benefit because the landlord, knowing that he would shortly require possession on a ground giving rise to compensation, obviously would insist on a higher rent. The five-year limit, to which we have been referring, is an important safeguard. I would draw the attention of the Committee to that safeguard. It ensures that if, contrary to expectation, the tenancy proves not to be temporary, the tenant is entitled to compensation, despite the contracting out provision in the agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made again a few minutes ago a point which he made on Second Reading. He suggested that one result of the contracting out provision would be to make landlords refuse to grant leases for more than five years. I do not think that that result is very likely, and for this reason. The test is not the length of the lease, surely, but the length of time for which the business is carried on in the premises. At the end of the first five years the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from staying on unless he can establish one of the grounds for possession. If he can do this, then he is justified in limiting the lease to five years. If he cannot, there is no point in his limiting the lease to five years, because the tenant can remain longer and thereby
622
qualify for compensation. I see what is at the back of the noble Lord's mind; I think he has misdirected his mind on this point. It is a real and necessary distinction that we make. The safeguards provided by the Bill, to which I have attempted to draw the Committee's attention, are valuable ones and ones which should allay suspicion in the noble Lord's mind. I hope he will give it reconsideration, because I can assure him that in our opinion his Amendment is an unsatisfactory one.
LORD SILKIN: In the light of what the noble Lord has just said, I am quite prepared to reconsider it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe the noble Lord has missed a point for once.
LORD SILKIN: I am perfectly prepared to admit it is possible. I will certainly look at the matter again. Of course, if the noble Lord is right he will hear no more about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.1 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is a drafting Amendment. It is quite uncontentious. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 24, and insert—
("(2) Where—

(a) during the whole of the five years immediately preceding the date on which the tenant under a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies is to quit the holding, premises being or comprised in the holding have been occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the occupier or for those and other purposes, and

(b) if during those five years there was a change in the occupier of the premises, the person who was the occupier immediately after the change Has the successor to the business carried on by the person who was the occupier immediately before the change,")—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This also is a drafting Amendment. Not only is it uncontentious, but it involves some distinction in the definition of the word "landlord," and I am quite certain that at this stage in the evening the Committee would not wish me to launch on any explanation of that, uncontentious as it is. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 34, leave out ("between the landlord and the tenant").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
9.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment seeks to incorporate a somewhat long clause which is, I think, quite non-contentious. In a word, it seeks to apply Part II of the Bill to cases where either the tenant's interest or the landlord's interest in business premises is held on trust. That sums up the whole thing. In order to achieve it some very elaborate provisions are necessary which I shall be glad to explain if any noble Lords wish it. But I believe the Committee will take it from me that it is wholly non-controversial and, although elaborate, is I think free from ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
Trusts
"41.—(1) Where a tenancy is held on trust, occupation by all or any of the beneficiaries under the trust, and the carrying on of a business by all or any of the beneficiaries, shall be treated for the purposes of section twenty-three of this Act as equivalent to occupation or the carrying on of a business by the tenant; and in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection—

(a) references (however expressed) in this Part of this Act and in the Ninth Schedule to this Act to the business of, or to carrying on of business, use, occupation or enjoyment by, the tenant shall be construed as including references to the business of, or to carrying on of business, use, occupation or enjoyment by, the beneficiaries or beneficiary;

(b) the reference in paragraph (d) of section thirty-four of this Act to the tenant shall be construed as including the beneficiaries or beneficiary; and

(c) a change in the persons of the trustees shall not be treated as a change in the person of the tenant.

(2) Where the landlord's interest is held on trust the references in paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of section thirty of this Act to the landlord shall be construed as including references to the beneficiaries under the trust or any of them; but, except in the case of a trust arising under a will or on the intestacy of any person, the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the creation of the interest therein mentioned shall be construed as including the creation of the trust."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41:
Groups of companies
(2) Where a tenancy is held by a member of a group and the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by another member of the group and are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by that other member or for those and other purposes, the tenancy shall be one to which this Part of this Act applies, and in relation to such a tenancy—

(a) references (however expressed) in this Part of this Act of or to use occupation or enjoyment by the tenant shall be construed as including references to the business of or to use occupation or enjoyment by the said other member; and

(b) the reference in paragraph (d) of section thirty-four of this Act to the tenant shall be construed as including the said other member.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) to leave out all words after "group" (where that word first occurs) to the commencement of paragraph (a) and insert:
"occupation by another member of the group, and the carrying on of a business by another member of the group, shall be treated for the purposes of section twenty-three of this Act as equivalent to occupation or the carrying on of a business by the member of the group holding the tenancy; and in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection—"
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is substantially a drafting Amendment, dealing with a rather troublesome clause concerned with a group of companies, and it is required because of certain changes made in another place in Clause 23, in particular the commencement of the present subsection (4) of Clause 23. As I say, it is a clause which deals with groups of companies, and at present it provides that a tenancy is within Part II if it is vested in one member of a group of companies, although occupied for business purposes by another member of the group. The result of Clause 23 (4) is that occupation for business purposes is no longer in all cases enough to bring the tenancy into Part II. This subsection includes certain cases where the business use is in breach of the covenant. The Amendment makes the necessary changes in the wording of Clause 21. Again, this is difficult to follow without a much longer exposition, which I shall be glad to give if any noble Lord wishes it, but at this late hour I

625
do not think it is necessary to give it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out from ("group") to end of line 44 and insert the said new words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given notice of two Amendments in subsection (2), the first being to leave out "and", at the end of paragraph (a), and the second to add to the subsection:
"and
(c) an assignment of the tenancy from one member of the group to another shall not be treated as a change in the person of the tenant."
The noble and learned Lord said: These Amendments again are quite uncontroversial and non-contentious. The first Amendment is preliminary to the second, and the second corrects a small defect in Clause 41. The explanation is a somewhat long one but I think I ought to give it to you. The object of Clause 41 is to put a group of companies as a whole in the same position as a single company. The clause as it stands just fails to achieve this object, in one respect. Clause 26, confers the right on the tenant of business premises to take the initiative in having his tenancy replaced by a new tenancy. That right is confined to the tenant under a tenancy which was granted for a term exceeding one year. Where such a tenancy comes to an end after the Bill has become law it will automatically be continued under Part II, and the tenant's right to make a request for a new tenancy is preserved by subsection (1) of Clause 26. Where, however, a tenancy was granted for a term of years certain and the term expires before the coming into operation of the Bill, the law implies that if the tenant retains possession and the landlord accepts rent, then a new tenancy from year to year is thereby created. That is an adoption of law familiar no doubt to some of your Lordships, but not to all. Such a new tenancy would not be within the terms of Clause 26 (1) and therefore would not give rise to a right to request a new tenancy under Part II but for Paragraph 4 of the Ninth Schedule, which secures that a tenant who holds over after a fixed-term tenancy comes to an end shall have the right conferred by Clause 26, irrespective of whether the first term came to an end before or after the corning into operation
626
of the Bill. I cannot hope that your Lordships will have been able to follow that explanation, but I do not know how to put a complicated and elaborate provision more simply, and I hope your Lordships will accept that it does achieve the object we have in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 4, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I think I understood everything that the noble and learned Lord read out, but what I did not understand, and wish he would explain, is its relevance to this Amendment. This Amendment, I think, says that
"an assignment of the tenancy from one member of the group to another shall not be treated as a change in the person of the tenant."
I thought he was explaining that where a tenant was holding over and, under Clause 26, had lost his right to a new tenancy, he should get some kind of relief where he was holding over in respect of a lease which expired before the commencement of the Act. It may be that all this is relevant to this question of an assignment of tenancy from one member of a group to another, but I did not quite follow that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I ought to have read a little more from my brief. I apologise. The noble Lord has "caught me out"—I did not turn over the page. It is as well to be frank on these occasions, and I will now read out the passage which will make the matter clear to the noble Lord. The notion of the tenant holding over is expressed in sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph 4 in the Ninth Schedule as a requirement that the tenant under the current tenancy must be the same as (or a successor in business to) the tenant under the fixed-term tenancy—your Lordships will see that we are now getting somewhere. It is at this point that a group of companies requires special treatment. If, for instance, after the expiry of the fixed term, and before the passing of the Bill, a new subsidiary was formed for the purpose of holding all the land belonging to the group, arid the tenancy was then assigned to that new subsidiary, the requirement that the tenant must be the same would not be fulfilled unless the change of tenant were ignored. The same would apply if the fixed-term

627
tenancy was vested in the subsidiary and the subsidiary was for some reason dissolved after the expiry of the term. By ignoring the change of tenant in such cases the Amendment secures the benefit of Paragraph 4 of the Ninth Schedule to a group of companies. I hope that that explanation is clear to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Lord has certainly provided the missing link.
EARL JOWITT: I remember—if I may be allowed to reminisce for a moment—that when I was Lord Chancellor, on an occasion such as this I read out a completely inappropriate piece of paper in dealing with an Amendment. Your Lordships were very much impressed by what I read out and gave me the Amendment. A few minutes afterwards, I came to the Amendment to which the piece of paper was appropriate. I was in a great difficulty whether I should read the same paper again or go back to the earlier one which I had missed. I decided to read the same one again. I did so and it went very well. No one knew that there was anything the matter and I got my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 7, at end insert ("and
(c) an assignment of the tenancy from one member of the group to another shall not be treated as a change in the person of the tenant.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42:
Tenancies excluded from Part II
42.—(1) This Part of this Act does not apply—

(a) to a tenancy of an agricultural holding;

(b) to a tenancy created by a mining lease;

(c) to a tenancy where the property comprised therein is let under a letting to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, applies, or would apply but for subsection (7) of section twelve of that Act; or

(d) to a tenancy of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, other than premises where—

628

(i) the excise licence for the time being in force is a licence the duty in respect of which is the reduced duty payable under paragraph 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 or 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, or a licence granted on the provisional payment of reduced duty with a view to subsequent adjustment to the, duty payable under the said paragraph 3 or the said paragraph 6; or

(ii) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise certify that no application under any of the said paragraphs has been made in respect of the period for which the excise licence for the time being in force was granted, but that if such an application had been made such a licence as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph could properly have been granted.

LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment and the next one go together, and I am happy to find for my own safety and security that they are printed on one piece of paper. They are really no more than drafting Amendments. It is a small point. What is involved is the necessity to make this provision in the Bill complementary to a similar provision in the Rent Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 18, leave out from ("the") to end of line 19 and insert ("restrictions on the obtaining of possession by the landlord imposed by section three of the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933 apply in relation to the tenant,)."—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 21, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920;").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words beginning with "or", in paragraph (c), down to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put down by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, really to obtain from the Government the explanation for the inclusion of paragraph (d) of Clause 42 (1) in the Bill. As your Lordships may remember, I raised this matter on Second Reading and then said that I hoped that at some stage the Government would explain why they have included the provision regarding licensed premises in this clause. The position is

629
that under paragraph (d) the greatest number of licensed premises are excluded from the benefits of the Act. They share this fate, dismal or otherwise, with agricultural holdings, mining leases and certain premises to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, applies.
However, there are types of licensed premises to which the Bill applies. They are to be found, though not easily to be found, in the exceptions to paragraph (d). I have gone through the Fourth Schedule to the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and find they are premises like seasonal hotels, residential hotels which have licences to supply wines to guests but have no licence to supply the ordinary passing trade, restaurant cars, buffets on railway stations, and so on. These come under the provisions of the Bill, but the broad generality of hotels, inns and public-houses do not. I want to know why the Government exclude hotels other than those I have mentioned from the Bill. They are very different from agricultural holdings, mining leases and small premises to which the Rent Restrictions Acts apply. I can understand the argument which may be adduced by the Government, that the compensation provisions of the Licensing Act already apply to hotels, inns and public-houses. That is true, of course. If an inn loses its licence, there are provisions for compensation; and an inn which may have its licence removed because of a fault on the part of the manager, which is very easy to make under the Licensing Act, is often insured against loss of licence. But I cannot see how that really affects the need for the premises themselves, apart from the licence, to come within the purview of this Bill. It seems to be quite a different thing from an agricultural holding, which is a business amply covered by legislation. In this case the fabric, the building, needs protection under the Bill, even though the licence comes under special provisions of the licensing Statutes. Though we do not propose to press this Amendment, for the benefit of those who have to construe the Bill—and from what we have seen already it is not going to be an easy matter—a little enlightenment on this clause might be very welcome. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 21, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 40.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has put the point very fairly. He raised this matter on Second Reading and I intended to try to give him some sort of reply then, but time was against us and we had to hurry on. So I will try to explain this valid and important point now as shortly as I can. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, states, the present situation is that licensed restaurants and hotels are in Part II but the ordinary public-house is outside it. The reason for the exclusion of the ordinary public-house is that in the view of the Government it is most important, if the licensing laws are to be properly administered, that there should not be any impairment of the control exercised by the licensing justices. This means not only that it should be possible to get rid of a tenant to whom the justices have stated they are not prepared to grant or renew a licence, but that the landlord should have reasonable latitude, without waiting for that point to be reached, to get rid of a tenant if he conducts the business in such a way as to give reason to suspect that the police would object to the renewal of his licence.
The alternative to exclusion would be to leave public-houses in Part II and then give the landlord the right to take possession on these grounds under Clause 36. This would not, I think, be satisfactory, because it would divide between the county court, and in exceptional cases the High Court, and the licensing justices the jurisdiction which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would agree is much better left in the hands of those who best understand the subject and the locality—that is, the licensing justices. The exclusion of public-houses from this part of the Bill is the result solely of the Government's concern for the proper control of all licensed premises and is in no way the consequence of pressure of any sort at all. The position of the public-houses which I have described under this Bill is in point of fact precisely the same as under the Labour Party's temporary Act of 1951—that is, the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act. The reasons which led to the exclusion of public-houses from the temporary Act were exactly the same as I have described. They were accepted as valid by

631
the Government of which the noble Lord was then a member and apply with greater force to permanent legislation. The device adopted in Clause 42 (1), (d), for excluding public-houses is taken from that temporary Act. I think that is a satisfactory conclusion to a difficult problem, and I hope it will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD OGMORE: I see the difficulty of the Government in this matter. Of course the licensing justices might be very much prejudiced if all hotels and inns came within the purview of this Bill when it becomes an Act. Possibly on the whole the Government have done rightly in this matter. I think it is perhaps a good thing, at all events with certain classes of property. The way in which they have been divided is that where the licence is the main business the matter is left to the magistrates; where the licence is what might be called the secondary or ancillary business of the hotel, then the hotel comes under the provisions of this Bill. You cannot get absolute justice in this world, and I think that in a rough and ready way that is probably the best method of dealing with this matter. My noble friends and I do not intend to press this Amendment and I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Jurisdiction of county court is where lessor refuses licence or consent]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is purely a drafting Amendment, and a minor one at that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 29, leave out ("refuses") and insert ("withholds").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Compensation for possession obtained by misrepresentation]:
9.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Where under Part 1 of this Act an order is made for possession of the property comprised in a tenancy on the ground contained in section 12 (1) (a), or under Part II of this Act the Court refuses an order for the
632
grant of a new tenancy on the ground contained in section 30 (1) (g), then without prejudice to the rights of the tenant under the xlast preceding subsection, if it appears to the Court after the expiration of two years from the date of such order or refusal that no effective step has been taken by the landlord to carry out the demolition or reconstruction of the premises, the Court may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by the tenant as the result of the order or refusal."
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to deal with the problem arising where a landlord gets possession of premises or, through his instrumentality, a tenant is refused a statutory tenancy because the landlord satisfies the court that it is his intention to carry out redevelopment of the premises. This matter gave a good deal of trouble in another place, and a considerable time was devoted to the case where a landlord obtains possession by a representation which is either false or misleading, where he conceals material facts, or where he either never had any serious intention of redeveloping, or finds afterwards that, having got possession of the property which he desired to redevelop, it now suits him better not to do so.
The Government have made an attempt to deal with the case of a landlord who, by misrepresentation or the concealment of facts, induces the court to make an order favourable to himself. In such a case the court may order the landlord to pay to the tenant compensation in respect of damage or loss which the tenant has sustained. In my view, however, this does not go far enough. It is often difficult to establish that a landlord has obtained an order by misrepresentation or the concealment of facts. The landlord may have gone through all the motions that he is required to under the Bill, of applying for planning consent, of preparing plans, getting by-law consent, and all the consents necessary; and then, having got possession, he may desire to do nothing at all. He has not really misrepresented, nor has he concealed, material facts—or at any rate it may be difficult for a tenant to establish that he has done so. What I suggest in this Amendment is that where, after three years, the landlord has taken no effective step to carry out the redevelopment on the strength of which he obtained possession, he should be liable for damages in the same way as if he were

633
found guilty of misrepresentation of the concealment of material facts. I think at the end of two years one could definitely say whether or not he was going on with the redevelopment.
In some cases, it will be found that the landlord has made no attempt to redevelop at all, but has re-let or sold the premises. At any rate, it will frequently be possible to establish that not only has no effective step been taken, but that no effective step is going to be taken, because the landlord has put it outside his control to take such step. In that case, surely the tenant who has suffered damage ought to be entitled to recover from the landlord such damage as he can establish that he has sustained. In fact, this Amendment is really carrying a stage further—but not a long stage further—what I think it was the intention of the Home Secretary to achieve, namely, not to let a landlord recover possession on the ground that he was going to redevelop, and then for him not to redevelop. This Amendment is the best that I can frame for achieving that end. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord can find better words for achieving it, but I hope he will agree with me that we do want to give the tenant a right to recover damages in the circumstances which are contemplated in this Amendment. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nothing could be clearer than the purpose of the noble Lord and the language by which he seeks to give effect to it. But I approach this matter from a somewhat different angle. One of the grounds upon which the landlord is entitled to recover possession is that he may redevelop his land. If he makes use of that provision of the Act improperly—making misrepresentations in order to secure the order of the court—then he is guilty of art offence, and it is quite right that he should be punished for it. But it is something quite different if, having the intention to redevelop, through no fault of his own he is precluded from carrying it out. It may be because of his insolvency; it may be because he cannot obtain finance owing to a change in economic circumstances;
634
it may be he has gone bankrupt, or it may be that he is dead. In those circumstances, surely it is wrong. The tenant has suffered no greater loss because the landlord has been unable to develop.
The purpose of putting this provision in the Bill is that it may act as a deterrent, and a man shall not by misrepresentation secure an advantage which he would not otherwise get. It will not operate as a deterrent if he has a genuine intention but is precluded by economic circumstances from carrying out that intention. We do not think it is right in those circumstances that he should be called upon to pay compensation for something that arises through no fault of his own at all. As I say, we approach this from a somewhat different angle. The purpose of this clause is to prevent the landlord from making an improper use of the earlier provision of the Bill, and if he makes a misrepresentation he must suffer for it. But he really ought not to be made to suffer a further misfortune, because maybe he has already suffered a misfortune in the circumstances which have made it impossible for him to carry out his intention. I hope the noble Lord will see the wisdom of that.
There is something wider still, as it appears to me. Really the noble Lord is putting upon a man who is presumed to be innocent until he is guilty the burden of proving his innocence. Here we put the burden, and I think rightly, upon the tenant to prove that the landlord has been guilty of an offence and made a grave misrepresentation to the court. A man ought not to have put upon him the burden of proving his own innocence, and that is what is involved by and large in the Amendment which the noble Lord is seeking to put forward. Moreover, he is going further. He is really making the man pay even though he is innocent. I do not think that is a fair extension of the provision which we have put into the Bill. It is an extension but, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think it is a fair extension and I could not advise Her Majesty's Government to accept it.
EARL JOWITT: I see the force of the Lord Chancellor's point. On the other hand, there may be a case where a man simply changes his mind. There is no

635
alteration in circumstances; he has not gone bankrupt or insolvent, or anything of that sort. He thought to himself, when he was before the court, that he was going to develop, and he has changed his mind. He now thinks he is not going to develop. I realise at once that there is a vast distinction between that and the case of a man who is telling lies to the court—because, after all, the state of his intention, as a distinguished judge once said, is as much a matter of fact as is the state of his digestion, and it is terribly difficult for the court to say what the position is. It is difficult to say whether a man was perfectly honest when he was before the court and did intend to develop, as he said he did, or whether he never intended to develop at all and that the facts are that, without any change in circumstances at all, he never has developed. I realise the logical distinction between the two—they are poles apart; I admit that at once. It is difficult for the courts to tell which is the truth.
Would the Lord Chancellor consider a clause—I am not attempting to draft it at the moment—on these lines. Suppose that where the clause says
"… the court may order the landlord. …"
we put
"… the court may order the landlord in the absence of special circumstances"
or
"in the absence of some excuse"—
or something of that sort. Because I quite agree it would be unfair to make this order if there had been some real change in circumstances such as the Lord Chancellor suggested. But if the circumstances remained exactly the same and the gentleman changed his mind, then I think there is a case to consider whether or not it would not be fair to say that he should pay compensation. The facts are then that he got the tenant out, asserting that he wanted to develop. Two years have passed and he has not developed, and the liability of the landlord to pay compensation depends now, as this Bill is drafted, upon the question, which is difficult to determine, as to whether or not his change of intention was a genuine subsequent change of intention or whether he said he was going to develop but really never meant to develop at all.
636
I suggest that the Lord Chancellor might consider whether it is possible to frame some form of words to guard against the sort of case which he has in mind where there have been subsequent circumstances which make it impossible for the man to do what he genuinely anticipated he would do at the time: in that case he ought to be protected. If, on the other hand, the circumstances remained the same and the landlord, having got possession of the premises on the ground that he intended to develop, says: "I have thought it over and have changed my mind," I should have thought there might well be a case for considering whether it would not be right to give the tenant some compensation. It would be difficulty to find a form of words on the spur of the moment—I could not attempt to do it now—but there is an obvious distinction there, and it may be that, if the Lord Chancellor looked at it, he would be able to find a form of words which would meet such a case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is one aspect of the case which the noble and learned Earl has ignored. It will not be a matter of course to satisfy the court under Clause 13 of the Bill that the landlord desires to resume possession in order to redevelop. If the noble and learned Earl will remember, the landlord has to satisfy the court that he
"has made such preparations (including the obtaining, or if that is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances preparations relating to the obtaining, of any requisite permission or consent, whether from any authority whose permission or consent is required under any enactment or from the owner of any property) for proceeding with the re-development as are reasonable in the circumstances. …"
He may, of course. There is a possibility that a man may change his mind; but, if he has made up his mind to develop and has gone through all these motions, making preparations which will satisfy the court that he intends to develop, it is very unlikely that he will then change his mind unless there are such compelling circumstances as I have mentioned. I think the case is a very unlikely one, and I repeat what I said before: refinement upon refinement, complication upon complication, may be good for the legal profession, but they do not, I think, help the body politic. One is bound to legislate on comparatively broad lines. There are, goodness knows,

637
enough refinements in this Bill already, and therefore I do not think it desirable or wise to try to incorporate further qualifications in this provision. I understand that the noble Lord is not going to press this Amendment. If anything can be thought of which would meet the sort of case he had in mind, I should be happy to consider it. But I would utter this word of warning—and I am sure the noble and learned Earl opposite will appreciate what I am saying—one does get into endless difficulties by trying to provide for every case. I think, as a matter of comment (if I may make one on a Bill which in so many respects so admirable), that as there are complications in it already, it is not possible to do justice in each individual case.
LORD SILKIN: Of course, there is a good deal of force in what the noble and learned Lord has said, and one does not want to make this Bill more complicated than necessary. On the other hand, where one cart point to manifest injustices, we ought to make an attempt to deal with them. In my view, these injustices almost invariably occur on the one side and not on the other. Of course, we can simplify this matter very much if we allow the landlord always to have the benefit of the doubt. Cannot we for once give the tenant the benefit of the doubt? However, having said that, and the noble and learned Lord having very fairly kept the door open just a little bit—although it may be difficult to push one's way through—I will accept that and, in the circumstances, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Modification on grounds of public interest of rights under Part II]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments to meet points which were raised by the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association. They are, if not purely drafting Amendments, so little more that probably it will not be necessary for me to discuss them with the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 2, leave out from ("that") to ("for") in line 3, and insert ("it is requisite").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 5, after ("corporation") insert ("that the use or occupation of the property or a part thereof should be changed by a specified date,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) Where the interest of the landlord or any superior landlord in the property comprised in any tenancy belongs to the National Trust, and the Minister of Works certifies that it is requisite, for the purpose of securing that the properly will as from a specified date be used or occupied in a manner better suited to the nature thereof, that the use or occupation of the property should be changed, paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of this section shall apply as they apply where a certificate is given under that subsection."
The noble Lord said: In another place, representations were made to the Home Secretary on behalf of the National Trust. As I understand it, the position is that the National Trust have the ownership of a considerable number of buildings, which generally they are anxious to retain for residential purposes. It has sometimes been difficult, by reason of the nature of these premises, for the Trust to ensure that they are occupied for the purposes which they wish to secure, and they have let them for business purposes, or purposes other than residential. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable them, if they have the opportunity of letting the premises for residential purposes at the expiration of their tenancy, to get possession if they satisfy the Minister of Works who issues the certificate. Strong representations were made to the Home Secretary on behalf of the National Trust, and he promised in another place that an appropriate Amendment in this place would be acceptable. I believe that the Amendment I am putting forward is acceptable and fully carries out the undertaking of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is an admirable Amendment which I have great pleasure in commending to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 11, at end insert ("and in the last foregoing subsection the expression 'National Trust' means the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty.").—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Where a Minister or Board in charge of a Government department has certified under this section the landlord shall serve upon the tenant a copy of such certificate and if within one month from the date of such service the tenant gives notice to the Minister or Board as the case may be that he objects to such certificate then the Minister or Board shall arrange for the tenant to be heard by a person appointed by the Minister or Board and shall consider the report of such person and make a determination. Pending such determination the provisions of section 63 of this Act shall apply with the necessary modifications."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. This is an Amendment to Clause 56, which enables the landlord, where that is a Government Department, to obtain possession of premises after obtaining from the appropriate Minister a certificate that it is within the public interest that the tenancy shall not be renewed. The purpose of my Amendment is to secure that the tenant shall have the opportunity of making representations if such a certificate is issued. My proposal is that where a Minister issues a certificate a copy should be sent to the tenant, who should then have the right to make representations to the Minister and to be heard, either by way of a public inquiry or by way of a private hearing, by somebody on behalf of the Minister, in the same way as if he were objecting to an order made by a Minister in other circumstances.
In that way the tenant would have an opportunity of having his case put to the Minister as to whether his claims for renewal of the tenancy were capable of overriding the public interest—and, indeed, of making representations, if necessary, that the public interest did not require that the tenancy should not be renewed. It is, in short, in the interests of fair play and of providing the tenant with an opportunity of stating his case and raising an objection that I am moving this Amendment. If it is not accepted
640
the tenant will be obliged to accept without question the statement of the Minister, and will have no opportunity of raising any point on it. He will have no assurance that his point of view has been taken into consideration, and it is possible that injustices may be done. It is certain that tenants will feel a sense of injustice if such an order is made, if certificates are issued without a tenant having the slightest chance of raising any point on the certificate. Whilst I do not regard this Amendment as being the last word in procedure. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will see his way to provide some opportunity for the tenant to be heard in these cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The history of this clause has been rather curious, because in another place my right honourable friend was very much pressed, as he had been outside the House by deputations, not further to delay the taking of possession by the Department or local authority that required the premises, by requiring a certificate of the Minister, but (particularly by the local authorities) to allow the local authorities to give a certificate which would be sufficient to show that they did require possession in their own interests. And from both sides of the House he was pressed by those representing local authorities not to grant this appeal, as it were, to the Minister to give his certificate but to leave the giving of the certificate in the hands of local authorities. That pressure came from both sides. My right honourable friend resisted that pressure. He said that the certificate should be given by the Minister responsible to Parliament. He thought that that was right; but undoubtedly it must be recognised that that did, at least in the case of the local authorities, interpose some delay.
My right honourable friend was able to some extent to satisfy those who spoke for the local authorities by saying that he would use his best endeavours to see that that procedure was speeded up and that delay was as short as possible. As we all know, if we are to go a step further and the Minister is to institute the sort of inquiry—whether a public inquiry or a private hearing—which is

641
entailed where there is a compulsory purchase order, there may be a very considerable further delay. After all, these certificates are given by the Department for and in respect of its own property, or in respect of local authority property, that they want it for their own purposes. No one knows except themselves whether they do or whether they do not. I suggest that if the certificate is given by the Minister who is responsible, that ought to be sufficient. Of course, I know the sort of arguments that can be used, particularly at this time. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is thinking very much the same thing as I am. I venture to think it would be difficult for me to make this concession in view of the representations that have been made, particularly by local authorities. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to press this Amendment. I hope that, closely connected as he is with local authorities, he will appreciate their point of view in the matter. I will, if the noble Lord wishes, have a further word with my right honourable friend about it, but I do not think from what he said, he having met the local authorities so far and resisted them so far, that he would be prepared to change his mind about it. The matter is nicely balanced, but on the whole I think it is better that the clause should stand as it is, without further amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I did not gather that the noble and learned Lord was resisting this Amendment with great enthusiasm.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I say it is nicely balanced.
LORD SILKIN: So far as I know, this is the only case in the whole of the Bill where a decision is made without a tenant being heard or having the opportunity of being heard. He loses his rights at the instance of a Minister, who may know nothing of the circumstances—at the request, if you like, of a local authority who may be in a great hurry and whose case may have little merit. And apparently the main reason is that it might be urgent. I cannot conceive circumstances in which it would be so urgent as to justify the depriving of a tenant of an opportunity to make representations. May I say, with respect to the local authorities, that my long association with them has taught me that
642
sometimes they can be unreasonable. I do not wish to pass this Amendment, but I am not really satisfied with the explanation. I feel that the balance should be on the side of giving the tenant an opportunity to have his say.
Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Lord that the administration of justice is not speedy. One of the justifications for the slowness of our procedure is that we try to do justice between the parties and give every party the fullest opportunity of stating his case and of knowing what the other side is going to say. It is because of that that we are slow, and speedy justice is not always justice. In this case, it is proposed to deprive the tenants of justice altogether. I think this point should be looked at again. While I withdraw my Amendment, because I have no alternative, I ask the noble and learned Lord to have another word with his right honourable friend to see whether something cannot be done to give the tenant the satisfaction of putting his case.
EARL JOWITT: I should like to add my plea, if I may. I do not pretend to have followed the details of this Bill, but what I have heard just now is to me a little disquieting, and I dare say a little disquieting to noble Lords on the other side. I understand that a citizen may be deprived of his rights without having a chance for his representations to be heard by anybody. If I have it right (and I am not sure that I have) I think, particularly in the face of some of the experience we have all had recently, that we should take steps about this matter. It is far better that we should be a little slow in our administration than that we should take from anybody anything which he thinks he has without giving him the right to be heard. I believe that that will find an echo just as warmly on the other side of the House as on this. I may be butting in and may have quite misunderstood the point, but, if I am right, and a man may be in some way prejudiced without having the right to be heard, I would ask the noble and learned Lord—he has already said he would do so—to look at the point again in conjunction with the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, who, I am sure, is the last person in the world to encourage that sort of thing, and see whether it would not be better, even at the cost of some little time, to see that such a thing does not happen.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I repeat what I have said before. It is not a question of anybody being deprived of his rights. The question is: what rights shall be given to him? Having said that, I repeat what I said before—that I will have another word with my right honourable friend. But I am a little apprehensive. I shall get into terrible trouble with the local authorities.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57:
Termination on special grounds of tenancies to which Part II applies
(3) Where the landlord's interest in the property comprised in any tenancy is held by statutory undertakers, nothing in this Act shall invalidate an agreement to the effect—
(a) that where the Minister or Board in charge of a Government department certifies that possession of the property comprised in the tenancy is urgently required for carrying out repairs (whether on that property or elsewhere) which are needed for the proper operation of the landlord's undertaking, the tenancy may be terminated by notice to quit given by the landlord of such length as may be specified in the agreement, if the notice contains a copy of the certificate; and
10.0 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER moved, in subsection (3) (a), after "undertaking" to insert:
"or for carrying out an alteration to or development of that undertaking."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, and in doing so I will declare my interest, being a member of the Port of London Authority. This Amendment sets out the purposes for which the Minister may give a certificate under Clause 57 (3), so that a decision may be obtained by a port authority at less than six months' notice for carrying out necessary or urgent alterations or development of the port undertaking. Port and harbour authorities in the United Kingdom have an exceptionally heavy programme ahead of them in the years to come, in order to make good the war damage and to overtake arrears of capital development of the harbours which are necessary in order to equip their undertaking to meet the modern requirements of the shipping
644
industry. We therefore envisage many occasions and many different circumstances in which recourse will have to be made to Clauses 56 and 57 of this Bill.
As the Bill stands now, the only purposes for which the authority can obtain a decision under short notice are those specifically laid down. There are three named: for the purpose of effecting repairs, in the interests of national security, or (thanks to the Amendment to Clause 56 moved by the Lord Chancellor this evening and accepted by the Committee) a change in the use or occupation of the property. We can, however, foresee many other reasons why it will be necessary, in the interests of port and harbour development, to make application to the Minister to act at short notice. One example is the case in which we wish to have a building pulled down so that the necessary development can take place. But under none of these heads have we authority to apply to the Minister for a certificate to do work of that nature. I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is just as anxious as anyone else to see that under proper safeguards there is no unnecessary restriction on the development work of the ports and harbours of this country, and I therefore trust he will give the Amendment favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 19, after ("undertaking") insert ("or for carrying out alteration to or development of that undertaking.").—(Lord Macpherson of Drumochter.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment has been very clearly explained by the noble Lord. He is quite right in saying that I have no wish whatever to stand in the way of the proper development of statutory undertakings. The difficulty I feel is this. In the ordinary way, the six months' notice is given to the tenant, and here (although I know the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will look at me with suspicion) I am anxious that justice should be done to the tenant. If six months is the usual notice that tenants should have, an exception should not be made in favour of a statutory undertaking unless there is some compelling reason. We have recognised a compelling reason where some form of repairs is necessary, but where what is

645
intended is "alteration to or development of" the undertaking it is difficult to be convinced that six months' notice could not well be given. It is difficult to suppose that any alteration or development will not be sufficiently foreseen to give six months' notice to the tenant, who will be unduly prejudiced if he has less than six months' notice.
I must therefore say this to the noble Lord. As he knows this matter has been considered departmentally. Unless some more cogent reason than has yet emerged can be advanced for giving to statutory undertakings a special privilege which is not given to ordinary landlords, I find it impossible to concede the Amendment for which he asks. We do not think it right, in the absence, as I say, of compelling evidence, that such an exception should be made. I hope that if the noble Lord has any further evidence which he can give he will put it before the Department, although I have no doubt that this has already been put forward with all the force that they can command, by the powerful body which he represents. The proposal having been considered and rejected, I think it unlikely that the position will be reconsidered. At present I can only say that, regretfully, I must refuse the Amendment, and I ask your Lordships not to support the noble Lord.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: At this late hour I do not wish to quarrel with either the Department or the noble and learned Lord, although in the opinion of my friends in the port and harbour industry there will be occasions when the six months will be a hardship. However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62:
Jurisdiction of court for purposes of Parts I and II and of Part I of Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.
(6) Where in any such proceedings an assessor is summoned by a judge under the said subsection (1),—
(c) the remuneration of the assessor shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (6) (c), after "assessor" to insert:
"shall be at such rate as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Treasury and."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns something quite different—namely, the payment of assessors whom, as your Lordships will remember, the county court judge can summon at various stages in the proceedings contemplated under this Bill. The Bill as it stands says merely that the assessors are to be paid out of public funds, but it does not say expressly who is to settle the rate of payment. The result will be that the County Court Act, 1934, will apply, and this provides for the remuneration of assessors to be "at such rate as may be prescribed," and the Act goes on to define "prescribed" as meaning prescribed by County Court Rules. The position, therefore, is that the rate of payment is to be settled by the County Court Rules Committee. That is all right where the cost of the assessors is borne by the parties to the proceedings. As, however, in proceedings under this Bill the assessor is to be paid from public funds, it seems right to the Government that the rate of payment ought to be settled by a Minister, with the consent of the Treasury. This seems both reasonable and proper, and I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 4, after ("assessor") insert the said words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Supplementary Provisions as to Payments for Accrued Tenant's Repairs]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 11, leave out ("such greater number of instalments") and insert ("instalments of such smaller amounts").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second to Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Provisions for purposes of Part I where Immediate Landlord is not the Freeholder]:
10.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a somewhat long Amendment, but I can state the effect in a few words. It is simply a procedural Amendment to enable the tenant to apply in proceedings after they have started. It is an Amendment to paragraph 9, which provides relief for the occupying tenant where a superior landlord enforces a right of forfeiture for breach of covenant against the immediate landlord. The tenant is obviously interested in that, and this will enable him to apply after the proceedings have started. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—

FIFTH SCHEDULE
Page 60, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 61, and insert:—
("(c) the court makes an order for the recovery by the superior landlord of possession of the property comprised in the tenancy,
the tenant shall not be required to give up possession of that property unless he has been a party to the proceedings or has been given notice of the order; and the provisions of the next following sub-paragraph shall have effect where he has been such a party or has been given such a notice:
Provided that where the tenant has been a party to the proceedings the said provisions shall not apply unless he has at any time before the making of the order made application in the proceedings for relief under this paragraph.
(2) If the tenant within fourteen days after the making of the order, or where he has not been a party to the proceedings, within fourteen days after the said notice, gives notice in writing to the superior landlord that he desires that the following provisions of this sub-paragraph shall have effect and lodges a copy of the notice in the court—

(a) the tenant shall not be required to give up possession of the said property but the tenancy mentioned in head (b) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph shall be deemed as between the tenant and the superior landlord to have been surrendered on the date of the order; and

(b) if the term date of the tenant's tenancy would otherwise fall later, it shall be deemed for the purposes of Part I of this Act to fall at the expiration of seven months from the making of the order.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth to Eighth Schedules, agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment, which is really a machinery Amendment, only substitutes a new paragraph for the present paragraph 2 of the Ninth Schedule, which is defective. It deals with recovery by the landlord of expenditure incurred by him on essential repairs under Section 6 of the temporary Act of 1951. This is a very long and complicated Amendment, and I do not think your Lordships would wish me to embark on it at this time of night. Even if your Lordships did, I do not think I could explain it correctly at all, I am happy to be in a position to assure the Committee that it is non-contentious and purely a machinery Amendment. I beg to move.

NINTH SCHEDULE
Page 66, line 42, leave out Paragraph 2 and insert:
("2.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the recovery from a tenant who retains possession of a dwelling-house by virtue of section six of this Act of any amount due under section six of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, in respect of work executed on the dwelling-house; but where any such amount is recoverable by the landlord (as defined by subsection (1), and the proviso to subsection (4), of section twenty-one of this Act) it shall be recoverable in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph but in no other manner.
(2) The amount shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a payment for accrued tenant's repairs, and accordingly the question whether any and if so what amount is due as aforesaid shall be deemed to be included in the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act.
(3) Sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 4 and paragraph 12 of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply in relation to the amount as they apply in relation to expenses incurred by the landlord in ascertaining what initial repairs are required in consequence of failure by the tenant to fulfil his obligation under the former tenancy.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment adds a new provision to the Ninth Schedule, "Transitional Provisions." Its effect is that where the tenant is entitled to compensation under the Bill and also under the terms of his lease he has a choice between the two, but he is not entitled to both. This Amendment applies only to tenancies current at the

649
commencement of the Bill. In practice, the result of the Amendment will be that the tenant will receive whichever compensation is the greater. I think the Committee will agree that it is simpler to give him the choice than to provide expressly for his receiving whichever is the greater. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 32, at end insert—
("(2) Where a tenant under a tenancy which was current at the commencement of this Act would but for this sub-paragraph be entitled both to—

(a) compensation under section thirty-seven or section fifty-eight of this Act; and

(b) compensation payable, under the provisions creating the tenancy, on the termination of the tenancy,

he shall be entitled, at his option, to the one or the other, but not to both.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home I should like to say that it is not proposed to move the Third Reading of this Bill until July 14.
Order discharged accordingly.

ROYAL WAREHOUSEMEN CLERKS AND DRAPERS' SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
TEES CONSERVANCY (DEPOSIT OF DREDGED MATERIAL) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.

HARTLEPOOL PORT AND HARBOUR BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.