Lords Sitting of 14 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the dock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MARINE SOCIETY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PETROL RATIONING
2.34 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to make a considered statement indicating the petrol stocks in this country on the 1st of May, 1957, and whether this statement will give all the relevant considerations which prevent the immediate removal of patrol rationing.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, with the permission of the noble Earl and your Lordships' House, I should like to make a statement on petrol rationing after the noble Earl the Leader of the House has made his statement on the Suez Canal.

TROOPING FLIGHT CASUALTIES
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Service personnel and members of Service families have been killed or injured in trooping flights in (a) 1956, (b) 1957; and whether they will now permit B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to tender for trooping contracts.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, in 1956, 51 passengers were killed and 4 injured in accidents to Royal Air Force transport aircraft engaged on trooping or to aircraft on charter to the Air Ministry. In 1957, 61 have been killed and I injured. The policy of Her Majesty's Government has always been that the Corporation should be concerned primarily with the operation of scheduled services and should not maintain aircraft solely for charter operations. This does not prevent them from tendering for ad hoc trooping contracts.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as I understand the policy to be that the Corporations are not allowed to tender for trooping contracts, would the noble Lord explain what is meant by "ad hoc trooping contracts"? How do ad hoc contracts differ from any other contracts?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, roughly, that form of contract is a short, individual and abnormal journey that does not come in any routine trooping programme.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not time that the Government permitted the Corporations to tender for contracts in competition with individual and independent contractors? What is the reason for this refusal on the part of the Government to permit the Corporations to attempt to contract, if they so desire?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the reason is that which I have already given; and it is also a reason which was elaborated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the Air Estimates debate in another place a short time ago. I am quite prepared, if the noble Lord wishes, to explain it in much greater detail and to defend and justify the policy of the Government, but, with respect to the noble Lord, I should find it difficult to do this in supplementary answers across the Floor of the House. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Motion on the subject, or, indeed, to raise it when we debate the Air Estimates, I shall do my best to be of service to him.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether any particular aerodrome has been conspicuous in the number of fatal accidents which have taken place? For

631
example, would it be right to say that Blackbushe Aerodrome is a rather bad example?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer that important question without notice. I was not aware of the fact that Blackbushe Aerodrome had a particularly bad record.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while I am quite willing to debate this matter at some length, if the noble Lord so desires, I should have thought that it was possible for him to give a short answer to the question why the Government do not permit the Corporations to tender. It does not need a debate to answer that; there must be a reason in the Government's mind. Is it that they do not like the continuing success of the Corporations and do not want to encourage them to do more business?
LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the two nationalised airlines should concentrate on the scheduled services. I know that when the noble Lord and his friends were sitting on these Benches a contrary policy was pursued, but I think I am right in saying that, even then, both the nationalised airlines were always beaten on price.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is it not also a fact that at least one of these lamentable disasters was probably due to sabotage?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the two questions bear out the wisdom of the policy I was begging leave to suggest. We are now getting two totally different matters hopelessly confused, and I think it would be better, if we possibly can, to keep them separate.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of fatal casualties per million passenger-miles flown in Service trooping in each of the last four years.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, a record of passenger-miles flown by aircraft on trooping flights is not maintained centrally. I can, however, give the number of passengers carried in aircraft on charter to the Air Ministry and on
632
Transport Command scheduled services in each of the last four financial years: in 1953–54 there were approximately 141,000; in 1954–55 170,000; in 1955–56 155,000; and in 1956–57 143,000.
Figures for passengers carried by Transport Command on ad hoc trooping flights and by overseas transport squadrons moving troops within the Middle East and Far East Commands are not available. Over all these flights, both scheduled and ad hoc, the number of passengers killed was 3 in the financial year 1953–54; 4 in 1954–55; 45 in 1955–56; and 14 in 1956–57. In the two accidents since March 31, that to a Valetta of Middle East Air Force near Akaba resulted in the death of 24 passengers, and that to a Viking on charter to the Air Ministry in the death of 29.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, is he aware that the right honourable gentleman in another place last week said:
" Let me say emphatically that the Government completely rejects the suggestion that our trooping policy has, directly or indirectly, endangered life unnecessarily."
If that is the attitude of the Government, may I suggest that they start forthwith taking adequate figures by which the respective safety of the two methods of flying, Service and civilian, can be assessed?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it is easy to draw evidence from some of these figures which does not bear out the sentiments the noble Earl has in mind. I quite agree with him as to the need for maintaining the highest possible degree of safety.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question that has puzzled me for a long time? As I said on the previous occasion, I would not charge the noble Lord with complacency in this matter; but to what figure has the death roll to amount before this question is treated as something of major importance?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the whole question of the safety of trooping is, of course, treated as a question of major importance. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that it is impossible to say at what figure any conclusions can possibly be drawn.

THE SUEZ CANAL
2.38 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, although the Prime Minister made a statement in another place yesterday of which your Lordships are aware, I think that it is desirable and that it would be the wish of the House that when important statements on policy are made they should be made in both Houses.
Your Lordships will recall that a few weeks ago Her Majesty's Government, together with the Governments of the United States, France and Norway, made certain proposals designed to lead to an interim agreement for the use of the Canal, which would, at the same time, safeguard the interests of users for the future. Shortly afterwards, the Egyptian Government put forward counterproposals. These were made informally to certain Governments, including that of the United States.
Since it seemed that these proposals were not in a final form, the Government of the United States undertook a detailed negotiation in an effort to secure improvements before the proposals were formally communicated to all the Governments of the user countries. As a result, certain modifications were secured, particularly with regard to arbitration procedures. On April 24, the Egyptian Government published, as a unilateral declaration, the terms on which it proposed that the Suez Canal would be open to shipping. This position was reported to the Security Council, which was, of course, as it still is, seized of this whole problem. Although the improvements were acknowledged, objection was still strongly taken to the unilateral character of the Egyptian declaration.
The next step was to ascertain the views of the member Governments of the Suez Canal Users' Association. The Council of the Association met on April 30 and has since held a series of discussions which ended in the issue of a statement last Thursday. It was the virtually unanimous view of the Suez Canal Users' Association that the unilateral Egyptian declaration was insufficient and fell short of the six requirements for a settlement of the
634
question which were embodied in the resolution of the Security Council of October 13, 1956. The member States have reserved all their rights with respect to the operation of the Canal and do not accept the Egyptian declaration as a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the question. We share this view to the full.
Meanwhile, your Lordships will wish to know the latest position with regard to the actual use of the Canal by the shipping of the user countries. The great majority of the foreign lines in the shipping conferences serving the principal trades east of Suez have indicated that they will henceforth route their ships through the Canal, as many of them have already done. The shipowners' associations in West Germany and the Scandinavian countries have officially informed their members that the Suez Canal Users' Association statement should be interpreted as meaning that every country and every shipowner is now free to use the Canal at their own discretion.
In these circumstances, and with the reservation of their rights which, as I have already said, has been stated on behalf of the member countries of the Suez Canal Users' Association, Her Majesty's Government can no longer advise British shipowners to refrain from using the Canal. Payments made in connection with the Canal—for Canal dues and other purposes, such as port dues, or water—will be made in sterling.
Your Lordships will wish me to give an outline of the financial arrangements. A new Transferable Account, to be known as the No. 1 (Special) Account, has been opened by the Bank of England in the name of the National Bank of Egypt. So far as payments by residents of the United Kingdom are concerned, this account can at present be used only for Canal dues and other shipping disbursements. Since, of course, non-resident holders of transferable sterling will be able to make payments to the account in the normal way for current transactions, Her Majesty's Government will examine the possibility of extending its use to British residents also for such transactions.
Her Majesty's Government will not interfere with the free disposal of the No. 1 (Special) Account. The existing No. 1 Account, of course, remains blocked. Removal or modification of the existing

635
restrictions must naturally depend upon satisfactory arrangements covering all financial claims against Egypt. Discussions will be held on this basis in a neutral centre. In addition, it will be possible to consider favourably allowing payments to be made by Egyptian traders from the existing No. 1 Account in respect of certain contracts entered into before July 28, 1956. One result of this would be to enable British exporters who had entered into these contracts in good faith and have been prevented by our own restrictions from receiving payment to recover their debts.
The necessary Statutory Instrument to enable the new Account to be opened has been made, and has been laid before both Houses.
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving here to-day the statement which was made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday. It is not surprising, perhaps, that the great majority of the Press this morning described the position as humiliating. That does not give any joy or satisfaction to anybody in this country. The end of what the Prime Minister called this stage of the situation is as deplorable for the country as was the adventure from which it arises. We are now, I think, bound to do what we can to keep the Government up to the mark in the further steps which apparently the Prime Minister and the Government hope to take to achieve some improvement in the terms at present made public. It seems to us that the terms at present made public are certainly not better, and probably are worse, than the terms which could have been obtained in October, 1956.
There are certain omissions from the Prime Minister's statement to which attention was called in another place yesterday, and perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House may have had an opportunity of consultation since the statement was made and will be able to let your Lordships know what is in the Government's mind: for example, as to what is to be done about the six points which were agreed to by the Security Council many months ago. What steps are the
636
Government taking actively now to see that those very important points, dealing not only with our situation but also with the general rights of all the users of the Canal, are safeguarded? And what is the present attitude of the Government towards the question of the free passage through the Canal of ships of all nations, including, especially, the shipping of Israel?
There is the matter of compensation for the gross breaches made by Nasser in his method of taking over the Canal last July and, therefore, the considerable claim for compensation that arises in that connection. On that, and certain other cognate matters—I do not wish to delay your Lordships too long—I would ask whether it is the intention of the Government to make some appeal to the International Court and have these subjects thoroughly threshed out. I feel that the people in the country, as well as the Members of the two Houses of Parliament, are entitled to immediate guidance by the Government on what steps are being taken in these directions. I hope perhaps that the noble Earl the Leader of the House may be able to give some indication as to what progress is intended to be made in that direction.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the questions that he has put to me. I do not wish to turn this occasion into a debate—that would be wrong. He will not expect me to accept his interpretation of events; indeed, I would say that there is no evidence whatever, looking back over events, that we should have obtained better terms in October last than we are able to get now. The noble Viscount asked me about the Six Principles. We have always made it perfectly clear that we think that a settlement of this problem should be within the Six Principles laid down by the Security Council. As I said in the original statement, this matter is still before the Security Council, and we will pursue by every means in our power the objective of getting Egypt to agree to a permanent agreement within the Six Principles.
So far as free passage of ships through the Canal is concerned, we have always held that under the 1888 Convention there was freedom for all shipping of all nations, including Israel, through the Suez Canal. So far as compensation is

637
concerned, I have indicated that talks are to be opened with Egypt, and all these economic questions including the question of compensation, will be considered then.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement with regard to the implications of all this matter so far as it affects rationing of motor fuel in this country?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I was not in my place at the beginning of Business, but I understand that my noble friend Lord Mills indicated that he was going to make a statement at about half-past three. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Howe will possess himself in patience for another fifty minutes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House most warmly for repeating here the statement which was made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday. This was far too important a subject, I think, for a statement not to have been made to your Lordships. For many of us, of course, the gist of the statement must have been received with a feeling of very deep regret. It goes far too near complete capitulation to Colonel Nasser than many of us would have felt palatable—I was almost going to say endurable.
The Leader of the Opposition, in the remarks he has just made, asked a number of questions. I quite expected that one of those questions would be: is there to be a debate on the subject? He did not ask for a debate—I do not know why. Possibly he thought that his own Party had not a completely clear conscience on this particular question. But, at any rate, I should have thought it very desirable to have a debate, not merely because questions of this moment should be discussed in Parliament but also because there are, no doubt, numbers of questions about the future which all of us, in every part of the House, would wish to ask. The noble Viscount himself has asked some of them to-day. I really rise to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government would be disposed to give time for a debate on this subject. If so, I should be happy to put down a Motion which could be discussed, and possibly all these matters could be properly explored.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps I ought to intervene to say that it is by no means without precedent that the Opposition in this place, to whichever Party they belong, often withhold a decision about a debate until a full-dress debate on the matter has taken place in another place. I do not think that that is an unexceptional rule. But the attitude of our Party and our views upon this matter are fully explained by the Motion of censure which is already down for discussion in another place.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not know that I find the noble Viscount's explanation quite convincing. Like the noble Marquess, I was a little curious to know why the Opposition had not on this occasion asked for a debate. On the whole, I think that this matter probably should be debated by your Lordships, if that is the general wish of the House, I think there will be quite a lot to say under a number of headings. As the Prime Minister said in another place, this is really one chapter of a pretty long story; but it is the end of one chapter, and it would be appropriate that we should debate this matter before we began another. If the noble Marquess will put down a Motion, although we are very tight for time, I will try to find time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE:My Lords, there is one question which stands out and does not concern the broader issues that have been raised by the noble Marquess, and that is the question of the Israeli ships. It would appear to most people in the world that for eight years the Egyptian Government have been in breach of the Treaty of 1888, yet no-one appears to have done anything effective or taken any steps to put that to rights. I was reading the whole of the debate elsewhere yesterday and I was amazed that so little had been made of that point.
I should like to ask the noble Earl who leads the House: has this matter been discussed in the Canal Users' Association? Are we in favour that Israel should be made a member of the Canal Users' Association? Are we prepared to ask Colonel Nasser under what section of the Convention of 1888 he is acting in excluding the Israeli ships? This is a specific matter which does not raise Party issues as all. It is a matter of straightforward

639
dealing, and it concerns an organised and international effort to extinguish a State which was established by the United Nations. I was going to say that I think it is a pity that we should have been congratulating King Hussein at about the moment when he was announcing that he was campaigning for the life of the neighbouring State of Israel. I leave that—that is a matter of passion; this is a matter of straightforward dealing.
Under the Convention of 1888, provision is made for the meeting of what are called "agents" to examine breaches of the Convention. I imagine that those agents are now represented by the Canal Users' Association—I do not know. I would therefore ask the Leader of the House specifically what is his opinion about membership of the Canal Users' Association by the State of Israel and their right to raise this question in that assembly.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I should like to support the request which the noble Viscount has just made for a discussion on, among other matters, this question of the rights of Israeli ships to pass through the Canal, a discussion which, as he said, is many years overdue. But is there not another question closely related to that which ought also to be discussed—I refer to the right of Egypt (a right which I could never agree to recognise) to declare that she is in a state of war against another member of the United Nations? Are the Government going to allow the United Nations to stand meekly aside while Egypt declares that she is at war with another member of the Organisation?—I am told I should have said, more accurately, in a state of belligerency?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I said earlier, the view of Her Majesty's Government on this matter has been made clear—namely, that, like many noble Lords, we have always felt that Israel had a right to send ships through the Canal, as indeed any other country has, under the 1888 Convention. I should like to see on the Paper the question which the noble Viscount has asked me about the membership of the S.C.U.A. I would say this, however. First, it is for Israel to decide how she proposes to tackle this question of the right of Israeli ships to go through the Suez Canal.
640
Secondly, I should have thought it was a question for the United Nations to grapple with and to settle.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, these are answers which have been given from time to time before. They have led to no action at all. I would venture to point out to the noble Earl that if Egypt has the right unilaterally to declare that she is in a state of belligerency with this or with any other country, and therefore to exclude her ships from the Canal, it means that she has torn up all the guarantees that the Convention of 1888 is supposed to provide.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I also ask whether this latest announcement on the part of Her Majesty's Government gets us any further forward with another question which is of great interest in your Lordships' debates: that is, the question of the refugees from Egypt, who have been six months without any compensation. Surely something should be done for them.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, we are at the present moment compiling the claims. We shall shortly have reached a point, in about ten days, I think, when the claims will be in. The situation has been slightly altered by what the Prime Minister said yesterday, in that discussions will be opened with the Egyptian Government on all these economic questions, including, of course, the question of compensation for the many refugees who had property in Egypt. All these questions seem to me only to underline what the noble Marquess has said, that it would be as well if we debated these points. So perhaps we might return to these problems in debate.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I have one pertinent question to ask at this moment. Will the noble Earl say whether the Canal Users' Association is still in being, and also whether its members are going to work collectively to get an arrangement or an agreement in harmony with the Six Principles of October 13? Otherwise, we are leaving the Canal in the unfettered control of a single nation. As my noble friend has just remarked, although the Egyptian Government say that they intend to abide by the Suez Canal Convention of 1888, they have

641
already broken it in two respects: for eight years they have denied the right of Israel to use the Canal, and then, during the recent troubles, they blocked the Canal, although they are specifically prohibited from doing that, either in peace or in war.
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes. It is because the unilateral declaration by Egypt was unsatisfactory in these respects that we were unable to regard it as a satisfactory basis for a permanent agreement. I understand that the members of S.C.U.A. are agreed that it would be a good thing to keep themselves in being and available to act as a collective body representing the users. So far as the Six Principles are concerned, they were laid down by the Security Council, and the Security Council is at present seized of them. They are on the Security Council agenda. Therefore, it is through the Security Council, I think, that we should endeavour, in every possible way, to secure the Six Principles, so that a unilateral declaration may be turned into a permanent agreement.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Are the Government in favour of Israeli membership of S.C.U.A., and, if so, will they take some steps to secure it?
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not think that I can answer a question on behalf of the Israeli Government. I do not know what the view of the Israeli Government is, and therefore I asked the noble Viscount whether he would put that particular Question on the Paper.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was not speaking about the Israeli Government. I asked the Leader of the House what was the view of Her Majesty's Government: are they in favour of Israel being a member of S.C.U.A.?
THE EARL OF HOME: I asked the noble Viscount to put that Question on the Paper, and I hope he will do so; then I will give him an Answer.
VISCOUNT THURSO: May I ask the noble Earl whether the Government refuse to recognise any claims by the Egyptian Government, in the Suez Canal or in the Gulf of Akaba, or elsewhere, which are based upon the alleged existence of a state of belligerency between the Egyptian Government and Israel?
THE EARL OF HOME: That is a matter of International Law and a matter eventually, I suppose, for interpretation by the International Court. But it has always been the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that Egypt does not have the right to claim this state of belligerency and to act under it.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to bastardy, with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949; and I move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PETROL RATIONING
3.3 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should now like to make my statement. Petrol stocks in this country are at a satisfactory level, and now that interim arrangements have been made for the resumption of traffic through the Suez Canal, the Government have decided that petrol rationing can now be brought to an end. I have to-day made an Order giving effect to this decision from to-morrow.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his statement, which I am certain will be received with great satisfaction in all quarters of your Lordships' House, as well as throughout the country. May I ask him this question: will he forthwith, now that he has deemed it expedient to bring petrol supplies back to normal, have an inquiry made into the price build-up of petrol to see that all the uplift and price increases in petrol that were brought about by petrol rationing and the reason for petrol rationing are reduced as soon as possible?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that matter already

643
has my attention and that the petrol companies know my views on the matter. I hope that a decision will be made very shortly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Might I ask the noble Lord whether, if a Question is addressed to him at his convenience in a reasonable space of time, he will be prepared to answer?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not quite understand that question. Of course I will answer any Question that is addressed to me. On this subject of prices I have already assured the noble Lord that the matter has my attention.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should not like the noble Lord to be under any misapprehension. It was not a trick question, but experience has proved that imposts and surcharges which are put on the prices of commodities such as petrol in time of emergency have an uncomfortable habit of "staying put".
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I can say that I am hopeful that he will have further information this week.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord very much.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL
House in Committee on Re-commitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

RENT BILL
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill. Before the Motion is put by the Lord Chancellor, I should like to say, on behalf of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, and, I believe of noble Lords in all parts of the House, how much we shall miss the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was to have taken an active part in our deliberations this afternoon. As most of your Lordships know, the noble Lord is now in hospital. We all hope that his stay there will be of very short duration, and that he will return to us at an early date fully restored to health. In whatever part of the House noble Lords may sit, I think we should on this occasion send to Lord Silkin our best wishes for a complete and speedy recovery.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kindly reference to our colleague Lord Silkin. I am glad to say that, although he was obviously very poorly indeed last week, when he had to go home from the House, we are hoping that he will not be in hospital longer than perhaps the remainder of the week, although we cannot yet be sure of that. He is then ordered a period of rest, and I hope that none of us will try to persuade him to give up that rest until he is thoroughly fit for duty. We shall miss him very much on this Bill, and upon other Bills and Motions connected with his activities in the House. We join with all the other Members of the House in sending him our best wishes.
Before I look to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to see if he is putting the Question, I should like to ask a question of the Government: that is, whether, in the state of the developing political circumstances, the Government have reconsidered the question of proceeding further with this Bill. The agitation against it proceeds apace. My postbag grows day by day. I have

645
had two further communications to-day from very large associations, not political associations but tenants' associations, protesting against the process which is going on, which I think ought to be taken note of. Moreover, the continued growth of losses of Independent and Conservative members in the urban and municipal elections, elections which have this time been fought very largely upon the rents issue, show clearly, in spite of some extraordinary statements made with regard to the issue in these elections, that on this Bill the Government have not got the country behind them. I should have thought that in the political circumstances now revealed to us in by-elections, and in the municipal and urban district council elections, it was high time that the Government considered withdrawing the Bill altogether.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should not like this corner of the House to be left out of the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has done so much good work in this House. I have had the opportunity of calling at the hospital, and my own information in regard to the noble Lord is such that we hope to see him back soon. On the later point mentioned by the noble Viscount, who has just sat down, I cannot entirely agree with him. Whilst I feel that the country is not behind this Bill, I feel that it is not entirely against it, and I would say that it is the duty of your Lordships' House to try to put the Bill in a better condition than it is at present.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would my noble friend remember that at the last General Election Mr. Aneurin Bevan was charged with having said something quite wrong? He said that the Government would introduce a Bill of this kind. The intention to do so was stoutly denied by the Conservative Ministers and propagandists at the last General Election. Here is the Bill before us, with all its iniquities.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows very well, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue with this Bill and to pass it into law at the earliest opportunity. I am not really concerned one way or the other with what Mr. Bevan has said in the past or, indeed, with what he will say in the future. But I am aware of the gains which have been made by the Conservative Party in the last
646
local elections in the large towns and cities, and that result would seem to us to be eminently satisfactory.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Rent limit of controlled houses]:
3.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to add to the clause:
" (5) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this section no increases of rent (other than increases under subsection (1) of this section or under section five of this Act) shall at any time exceed in the aggregate fifteen shillings per week."
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will know, the object of Clause 1 is to limit the rent to which controlled tenancies may be assessed. This is the most important clause in the Bill and its object is to increase the permitted rent under a controlled tenancy to an amount "equal to the 1956 gross value of the dwelling multiplied by two." Our object in this Amendment is to limit the maximum increase which can be obtained under Clause 1, except in those cases in which the tenant agrees to a reasonable sum or to an increase for certain specified reasons, such as the improvements mentioned in the Bill.
We have had a look at the number of dwelling-houses which are likely to be affected by this clause, and at the way in which they will be affected. According to the Government's own table of statistical information, published in November last year (Command Paper 17), the facts are as follows. There are 4,250,000 houses which are at present controlled, and they are split up into various categories of houses; of those with a present net rent of up to 5s. a week, there are some 983,500; from 5s. to 10s., there are 2,062,500; from 10s. to 15s., there are 835,200; from 15s. to 20s., some 325,400, and over 20s., 43,400. Those figures give the Committee some indication of the rentals which are paid now by controlled tenancies. In other words, except for 368,800 premises, all the remainder of the 4,250,000 premises are paying rents of 15s. or under. The vast majority are paying rents of from 5s. to 10s. a week. On that basis, even a maximum increase of 15s. is a very substantial sum.
When we analyse the figures still further, we find that, taking the excess of twice the 1956 gross values over the net rents, the figures are these. The houses for which twice the 1956 gross value will exceed the present weekly net rent are as follows: up to 5s., 963,000; from 5s. to 7s. 6d., 954,000; from 7s. 6d. to 10s., 1,109,000; from 10s. to 15s., 897,000; and over 15s., 327,000, again making a total of 4,250,000. So there we see that, as assessed by the Government, there will be only 327,000 tenancies which under the Government's proposals will have an increase of more than 15s. In fact, as I understand it, having come somewhat late on the scene, for the unfortunate reasons which have already been given, our Amendment really applies to only these 327,000 houses—as I think the Government agree. That is, assuming that all the landlords who own these 327,000 houses decide to give the notice of increase, or, by virtue of the state of the premises and so on, are entitled to give notice of the increase. We are asking the Committee to fix at 15s. the maximum increase which a landlord can claim.
I should have thought that that was a most reasonable and, indeed, proper Amendment. In this instance, it seeks not to destroy the principle of the Bill—it is not in any sense of the word a wrecking Amendment, as I think the Government will agree; it is an Amendment by which it is intended to try to remove from those who are likely to pay the most under Clause 1, the harshness of the top limits. I might perhaps say here that I have an interest—not necessarily in this clause but throughout the Bill—which happens to be in the other direction to that in which I am speaking, because for years past I have been a landlord. I am happy to say that I am now to a much lighter extent than I used to be a landlord. I do not know whether one ought to divulge a sort of contrary interest to the one in regard to which one is speaking, but if, in accordance with the rules of procedure, it is necessary to do so, then I do so. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships, as I feel it is a very reasonable one which will temper the wind to the lamb that
648
is going to be most heavily shorn. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, at end insert the new subsection.—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill, and I should declare an interest which is just the reverse of that declared by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, in that I am a tenant of a controlled flat in London and I have no doubt that when this Bill is passed into law my rent will increase. In that sense I have a financial interest in this Bill. Nevertheless, I very much hope that, like any other member of the Committee, I shall make an effort to see that my personal interest in no way affects my judgment on the Bill.
I should like to support the Amendment put down by my noble friend because I believe it is both important and reasonable. It is reasonable because it is so limited in scope. It deals with a certain category of houses that are already controlled and will remain so after the Bill has passed into law; and it will not affect rent increases due to such factors as local rates, cost of services or improvements made by a landlord to his property. Clearly, these are variables which cannot be taken into account. But surely if we disregard these factors, it is not unreasonable to say that the increase in the rent of a controlled tenancy should be anything up to, but not more than, 15s. a week. I am sure that that provision would prevent a great deal of very real hardship.
My noble friend has given the figure of 327,000 dwellings in England and Wales of which the rent is likely to be increased by more than this amount. Though this is a small proportion of the total number of controlled dwellings in the country, there are living in these houses a large number of tenants, such as pensioners, people on fixed incomes, people with small salaries or those at the lower end of the wage scale, who will suffer real hardship if they have to pay a rent increase of more than 15s. a week. I hope therefore that Her Majesty's Government will look at the Amendment from that point of view and will see it as a moderate and reasonable effort to mitigate the hardship which otherwise will be caused to a certain number of tenants with small incomes.
LORD WISE: Before the noble Earl the Minister replies, I should like to call attention to the country aspect of this particular Amendment. The noble Lord who moved it referred to a total of 327,000 houses as being affected, but if noble Lords will look at Table IV supplied with the White Paper they will see that there are 4,000 houses of a gross value between £21 and £26, and 210,000 houses of a gross value of between £27 and £40. These 214,000 houses in country areas, apart from London and Scotland, are affected by this particular clause, and we must bear in mind that some of these houses of a gross value of between £21 and £40 are let at comparatively low rents—perhaps as low as 15s. a week. Thus by this one particular clause the rent of those people is being doubled. We must bear in mind that those who live in houses of these gross values are, in many cases, retired people living on fixed incomes or pensioners who cannot bear this big increase in rent.
Noble Lords will remember that when I spoke on Second Reading I made a suggestion that rateable value should be used as the basis instead of gross value. That would have had the effect of taking out from this particular increase many thousands of the 210,000 dwellings shown as being of a gross value of between £27 and £40. Apart from that fact, it must be remembered that as the years have gone by landlords have had, in addition to the standard rents of years gone by, increases of rent to the tune of 15 per cent. or 40 per cent., or whatever the figure may be, and have also had a certain amount of tax relief in respect of repairs. I hope, therefore, that in this particular instance Her Majesty's Government will consider not only the landlords but the tenants who will have to find this particular increase in rent.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore pointed out very clearly in moving this Amendment, its intention is to prevent the landlord of a house which remains in control from increasing the rent of that house by more than 15s. a week. The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, drew attention to Table IV of the White Paper which shows the number of houses where a rent increase of over 15s. a week would be needed to bring the rent up to twice the gross value. In fact there are 327,000
650
such houses. If noble Lords will study that Table carefully, as no doubt the mover and other noble Lords have done, they will realise that dwellings in respect of which the rent increase would be over 15s. a week (apart from the 4,000 houses in the £21 to £26 category) are only those whose gross value is over £26. All the other cases are those in which the 1939 market rent of the house was between 10s. and £1 per week. They are, therefore, as the Committee will see at once, the larger houses among the controlled group—those on which we believe a higher rate increase would be more justifiable.
Since the increases permitted by the Bill are not percentage increases but increases to bring the rents up to a uniform level, the greater the rent increase the lower must be the rent as compared with the present rent of other similar houses. In other words, the rent increase in respect of any particular house will be over 15s. a week merely because the present rental is low, even compared with the 1939 values. I am told that, for reasons for which I am never quite clear in my own mind, it often occurs that the rent which was being paid in 1914 or 1939 can be described as a more or less nominal one. It may be that the house was let to a relative of the landlord, and that therefore the rent was kept at a very low figure. But whatever the rent may be, the effect of control has been to "freeze" the rent, ever after, at the level at which it happened to be in 1914 or 1939, when control was first imposed. That, I think, in these modern days, is fundamentally wrong, and it is one of the main purposes of this measure to try to put that matter right.
Furthermore, any arbitrary limit to the total amount of rent increase would be bound to work, in many ways, extremely unfairly. I believe, therefore, that what we have decided to do within this Bill provides a very reasonable rent level. The noble Lord will remember that under the Bill protection is afforded to the tenant against an increase in rent of more than 7s. 6d. during the first nine months. I should have thought that that would be adequate to safeguard his personal expenditure on rent for his house and at the same time to enable him to adjust his financial situation accordingly. I could quote—but I do not wish to weary noble

651
Lords—many instances of houses which have a gross rateable value of £40, and yet the present rent is something under 5s. per week. The noble Lord will realise as well as I do that to continue in that position would be quite ludicrous. At the same time, to lay down that a house in that category shall not have its rent increased by more than 15s. is really not of much value. I hope that in these circumstances, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: Just as a matter of elucidation I should like to ask this question. Did I hear the noble Earl aright? Did he say that he could quote many instances of houses of £40 rateable value—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Gross value—
LORD OGMORE: Many instances of houses of £40 gross value and £30 rateable value for which the rent paid is less than 5s. a week? Where on earth did he find those houses?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I can tell the noble Lord of two offhand—perhaps he would like to go and live in one of them. One is at Portsmouth and the other is at Basingstoke.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should imagine that those are cases in which the rates have been constantly increasing on the houses, and it would have been wholly within the power of the landlords to raise their rents according to the increase in rates. These must be examples of extraordinary benevolence on the part of landlords. I must say that I am not very much impressed by examples of that sort. On the other hand, I have read reports of some parts of the Committee stage debates in another place, and I found mention of cases where houses with gross assessments of £30 to £40 are lived in by working class people. The case of one such house, which is situated in the East End of London, was quoted by Mr. Charles Key. A man who has several children and who earns £7 a week lives in it, and his rent by this Bill will almost certainly go up to 30s. a week or more. How that sort of thing can have anything else but a bad effect on the workers as well as a
652
general inflationary effect I cannot see. It must have a general inflationary effect on the whole of our costs of production throughout the country. If you look at the particular categories you will see a large number of such cases coming within the limits which we want to avoid. I think this is a much more important Amendment than the noble Earl seems to consider it to be. I am not satisfied with his answer and I shall ask my colleagues to divide.
LORD OGMORE: Before the Chairman puts the Question, may I say, with all respect—for I like the noble Earl—that if the Committee stage is going to be conducted with the sort of arguments to which we have just listened, it is not treating Parliament seriously. Out of a total of some 4,250,000 houses, or whatever it is, to instance the case of two houses, one at Portsmouth and one at Bermondsey as having rents of less than 5s. a week with gross value of £40 and rateable value of £30 is fantastic. I have no doubt that if the noble Earl says that there are two such cases they do in fact exist, but they are so highly exceptional that they must be due to some very peculiar circumstance—such as a father permitting children to live in a house—and they can have no bearing on this problem as a whole. I ask the Government to treat the House seriously and to give us arguments upon which we can base reasonable conclusions. I do not regard that as an argument that should be put to this House. It can do no good and can only be frivolous and misleading.
LORD MESTON: Really this matter is within a very tiny compass. The test is twice the gross value. If someone's rent has to be increased by more than 15s. a week to come up to that limit, it means that they have been paying a very small rent indeed. Therefore there is no injustice in the matter.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but, having been a Member of this House for over twenty-five years, I think, if I may say so with respect, that I do know how to treat the House—at least I hope I do. I have quoted two cases, one of a house at Portsmouth and one of a house at Basingstoke. According to the advice I have been given there are literally

653
hundreds of houses in a similar category. The noble Lord knows in his heart of hearts as well as I do that that is really the position.
Clause 1 agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think that it would be appropriate for me to move that the House do now resume in order that my noble friend Lord Mancroft can make a statement to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR LOCAL OFFICES
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement similar to that
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Ammon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Listowel, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darwen, L.

Ogmore, L.

Faringdon, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stansgate, V.

Henderson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Hastings, L.

Ridley, V.

Hawke, L.

Sutherland, D.

Templewood, V.

Hayter, L.

Thurso, V.

Killearn, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Leconfield, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Aberdare, L.

Lloyd, L.

Reading, M.

Amulree, L.

Luke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Meston, L.

Albemarle, E.

Broughshane, L.

Monson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Chesham, L.

Moyne, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Conesford, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Dynevor, L.

Salter, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Savile, L.

Perth, E.

Dowding, L.

Sinha, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Crookshank, V.

Glyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonport, V.

Grantchester, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Falmouth, V.

Gridley, L.

Teviot, L.

Gage, V.

Hacking, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service about the proposed changes in the local office network of his Ministry. Your Lordships may know that Her Majesty's Government have recently undertaken a comprehensive review of the network of local offices of the Ministry of Labour, which number 1,144 full-time and 129 part-time offices. This network has been esablished over the years in response to the needs of particular times. There has been no similar comprehensive review since 1921. Meanwhile, changes in the level of unemployment, in population and in public transport, both generally and in particular areas, have considerably affected the pattern of needs.
It has been the aim of Her Majesty's Government in this review to maintain a convenient and efficient service. After

655
giving careful consideration to the local circumstances of each office concerned, including both the long-term and the immediate employment situation, my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that it should be possible to amalgamate some offices which are close together in areas where transport facilities are good and to close a number of offices where the volume of work is now very small. He is now referring proposals to the local employment committees for their consideration. One hundred and eleven full-time offices and 46 part-time offices are in the field of consideration for closure, and 39 full-time offices for conversion to a part-time basis. I wish to emphasise that no decisions will be taken in advance of these local consultations. Her Majesty's Government will give tomorrow a list of the offices affected.
To maintain a more flexible organisation in the future, the need for individual part-time offices will be kept under periodic review, and, in addition, there will be comprehensive reviews of the whole network at somewhat longer intervals.
Further consideration is being given to the best means of providing a satisfactory and efficient service to the public in the light of modern methods; for example, by making use of mobile vans. It is the Government's intention to introduce a limited number of experiments of different methods and different patterns of organisation in suitable areas.

RENT BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 2:
Procedure for increasing rents
(2) Subject to the provisions of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, the rent may be increased as aforesaid by the service by the landlord on the tenant of a notice of increase in the prescribed form specifying the amount of the increase; but—
(c) except so far as may be necessary for giving effect to an adjustment under section three or five of this Act, a notice of increase shall be of no effect if given at a time when—
(i) the dwelling is within a clearance area under the Housing Act, 1936, or is or forms part of premises with respect to which a demolition order or closing order under that Act or a closing order under section ten or eleven of the Local Government
656
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, has been made and has not ceased to be in force, or
and (except as aforesaid) if the date specified in a notice of increase in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection falls at a time when the condition specified in sub-paragraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph is fulfilled, no increase shall be recoverable by virtue of the notice for any rental period beginning at any such time.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (2) (c) (i) after the first "is" to insert "unfit for human habitation and for that reason is". The noble Lord said: As everybody appears to be unburdening his bosom and declaring an interest, I should say that for the past seventeen years I have been a landlord of some rent-controlled houses in Aberdeen. During that period I have either made 2s. 6d. or lost 2s. 6d. out of the property, so that no one can suggest that I have been leading a double life as a result of the proceeds of property owning.
So far as the Amendment is concerned, your Lordships know that a house which is unfit for human habitation may be included in a clearance area, and a house which is fit for human habitation may also be included in a clearance area for a number of reasons, one of which is that, owing to the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, the houses in that area are injurious to the health of the inhabitants. I appreciate that it is not in order to refer in detail to what has been said in another place, but I have been carefully watching this Bill from its inception and I understand that this is the view of the Government. If a house which is fit for human habitation is at any time—and I underline the words "at any time"—included in a clearance area, then the landlord of that house is entitled to take advantage of the proposals of this Bill with regard to increasing the rent. If that is the correct view, I am very glad to hear it. However, the Bill makes it perfectly clear in ordinary English that if a house—without specifying whether it shall be fit or unfit—is included in a clearance area, then the landlord will lose his right of increasing the rent while it is in that clearance area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, after (" is ") insert the said words.—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord has fully described the purpose of his Amendment. As I think he is well aware, Clause 2 (2) (c) prevents the landlord of a controlled house from serving a notice of increase of rent if the house is within a clearance area under the Housing Act, 1936. If such a notice of increase has, in fact, been served, and the house then comes within a clearance area before the notice takes effect, then the notice cannot take effect at all. The noble Lord went on to describe the reasons which might prompt a local authority to declare a particular area a clearance area, and, indeed, he was correct in his description and I need add nothing to it.
Going into this Amendment with care, I find there are two reasons why it is difficult to accept it. The first is that houses of the kind described in the Amendment which are in a clearance area are, in general, likely to share the general run-down character of the whole area and, therefore, will probably not be in good repair. Nor, I am told, is any landlord likely, once the Bill has come into force, to incur expenditure by putting them in repair if he knows that as soon as practicable or reasonable they will, in fact, have to be pulled down. The second reason is that the period of time which such houses will be allowed to stand will be relatively short, and most of the houses will be of the smaller and cheaper kind. Therefore, I venture to suggest that little is at stake for the landlord in the amount of extra rent which he might otherwise receive.
In these circumstances, to make special provision for any house which may happen to be in repair seems to me not to be justified. Generally speaking—and I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of this—Clause 2 (2) (c) is aimed at preventing an increase for houses which are in an area which the local authority has already decided, by taking appropriate action, should be cleared. Therefore, power to discriminate between particular houses in that area on the ground that one may be in somewhat less disrepair than another is something which I should not like to see inserted in the Bill, because I think it would complicate it a great deal. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to support what the noble Earl has said on this Amendment. I have some experience of this matter, because I am a member of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, who often have to deal with areas in London which have been scheduled for clearance. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, in a block of houses that has been condemned and scheduled for clearance there may be one or two houses which are still technically fit for human habitation; but it seems to me, not merely, as the noble Earl said, undesirable, but unjust that a landlord should be able to increase the rent of these particular houses. In the first place, they are in a bad state of repair, even though they may not be uninhabitable; and as they are going to be pulled down, in any case, the landlord is not going to spend money on improvements and repairs. I am glad that the noble Earl has taken the line he has in resisting this Amendment.
LORD MESTON: I do not want to waste time when there is so much work to do, but the noble Earl does not appear to have appreciated what I said. A house which is in absolutely first-class order can be put into a clearance area because, for example, owing to the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, houses in that area are injurious to the health of the inhabitants. That is the position. I understand (and here again, if I am out of order, kindly correct me) that the answer given by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in another place is totally different from that given by the noble Earl to-day. I understand that the right honourable gentleman in another place said, in effect, that if a house was in a fit condition, the landlord would be entitled to increase the rent under the provisions of the Bill. I hope the noble Earl will look up Hansard and see precisely what was said by the right honourable gentleman in another place. I must confess that I find the position a little confusing. Obviously I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division, because I doubt whether anybody would vote on my side. But, apart from that consideration, I think the position at the present moment is somewhat confusing, and I hope the noble Earl will look into it. In the meantime, so as to save time, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I wonder whether I might raise a small point by way of seeking information. In subsection (2) of this clause reference is made to "the prescribed form" giving notice of increased rent. I should like to know whether this form will afford an opportunity for the landlord to disclaim responsibility for internal decorative repairs. I think it is implicit in the Bill that an opportunity will so be given to a landlord, as indeed it was in the 1954 Act. In the case of this Bill, a prescribed form is to be afforded where an affirmative election has been made—that is to say, where the landlord wishes to assume responsibility for internal decorative repairs. But I cannot find in the Bill any explicit reference to the contrary circumstances, and I wonder whether the noble Earl could explain.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I could not at this stage of the proceedings explain to the noble Lord exactly how the prescribed form will in fact be drawn up, but I will certainly let him know.
LORD WISE: May I draw attention to one point? The noble Earl, in regard to Clause 1, referred to the period of nine months before an increase of 7s. 6d. a week can be made. In Clause 2 a period of nine months is similarly mentioned, and I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government, before the Bill becomes an Act, would consider increasing that period of nine months? It is a little difficult for people of fixed incomes to rearrange their financial arrangements and pay extra rent. I therefore hope that, in order to ease the situation somewhat, that particular period of nine months might be increased.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I regret that I could not possibly give the noble Lord that guarantee. It is one of the purposes of this Bill to maintain that period of nine months, and certainly without very close consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister I could give the noble Lord no opportunity whatever for believing that I could bring In an Amendment to suit his requirements and to meet his purpose.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Adjustment as respects rates borne by landlord]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out the first (" in ") and insert (" for ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Adjustment as respects services and furniture]:
LORD MESTON: As the clause is drafted, I am not quite clear whether the word "services" includes non-contractual as well as contractual services. I think I am correct in saying that, under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, the landlord is entitled to take into consideration the non-contractual services in arriving at the figure which the services cost him. I am not quite clear of the position under the present Bill. I think that in all fairness to the landlord he ought to be entitled to the benefit of non-contractual as well as contractual services. I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, after (" services ") insert (" whether contractual or non-contractual ").—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If my noble friend will refer to Clause 1 (1) (b) he will see that the words are
"…a reasonable charge for any services for the tenant provided by the landlord or a superior landlord…"
Those words clearly include non-contractual services, as well as contractual services. In fact, what the noble Lord wants put into Clause 4 of the Bill is already incorporated in Clause 1.
LORD MESTON: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. I confess at once that he is much more clever than I am, and I am sorry that I wasted his time in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Increase for improvements
(3) A tenant on whom a notice specifying an increase authorised by this section is served may, not later than one month after the service

661
of the notice or such longer time as the court may allow, apply to the county court for an order cancelling or reducing the increase on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or that a greater amount was expended on it than was reasonable, and the court may make an order accordingly:
Provided that no application shall be made on the ground that an improvement was unnecessary if an improvement grant has been made in respect of the improvement under section twenty of the Housing Act, 1949, or if a tenant under the controlled tenancy consented in writing to the improvement.
4.6 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "ten" for "eight" [per cent.]. The noble Lord said: Before moving the Amendment which stands in my name, it is my duty to declare an interest, in as much as I am connected with a property company owning controlled property in London. This Amendment is designed to increase from 8 to 10 per cent. the income which a landlord is entitled to derive from improvements which he may do in respect of property owned by him. The things to which this clause will ordinarily apply are appliances, such as sanitary appliances, cooking, heating and the like, which, ordinarily speaking, have a life of no more than about twenty-five years. That is to say, the cost of such improvements would fall to be written off over such a period. To amortise this over a period of something like twenty-five years, with taxation at 8s. 6d. in the £ and with the sinking fund of 5s., would absorb, so I am informed—although the mathematics I cannot explain in detail now—some 3 per cent. of gross income, to which would fall to be added a charge of 1½ or 2 per cent. in respect of maintenance. Thus, the 8 per cent. allowed, by existing legislation and by this Bill, to landlords in respect of improvements done to property is in fact little more than 3 per cent. The Amendment which I put forward to increase that 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. will result in giving a landlord a real income of little more than 5 per cent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out (" eight ") and insert (" ten ").—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment, as the noble Lord has explained, would increase from 8 to 10 per cent. of the cost of the improvements the amount by which a landlord may
662
increase the rent. Clause 5 repeats in a slightly revised and different form the longstanding provisions which enable a landlord to increase the rent by an amount equal to 8 per cent. of the cost of improvements which may have been borne by the landlord. This provision came in the very first Rent Restrictions Act which was ever approved by Parliament—that which was passed in 1915, when the percentage was 6 per cent. It was increased to the figure of 8 per cent. in the year 1920 because of the increase which had occurred in interest rates since the passing of the original Act.
Between 1920 and to-day, as we all know, interest rates have fluctuated to a considerable extent. Nevertheless, this figure of 8 per cent. has stood the test now for a period of over forty years. As we all know, interest rates go up and down, and it would be practically impossible to reproduce in any legislation a figure which would correspond exactly to the true conditions which might be met in one year and which might be quite out of date in the next. It therefore seems reasonable to my right honourable friend that he should take this figure at 8 per cent., which has remained for so many years, and reproduce it in this clause.
There is little further that I can add. If we were to give a very close examination to the matter, I believe that we should, in point of fact, find that the interest rates to-day were generally lower—I do not say appreciably lower, but generally lower—than those which prevailed in 1920. If, therefore, I were to follow the proposal of the noble Lord and suggest to my right honourable friend that he should accept an Amendment of this sort, my immediate reaction would be to suggest to my right honourable friend that he should delete "eight" and substitute a lower figure. But, in view of the fact that these rates fluctuate so frequently, and that the present figure of 8 per cent. has stood the test over many years, I would suggest to my noble friend behind me that it might be advisable to leave the clause as it stands in the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: We on this side are glad that the Government are taking this attitude. We feel that the contention of the noble Earl is the proper one: that this percentage has been in existence for forty years, has stood the test of time and has

663
not changed with fluctuating circumstances of interest, and that there is no reason at all to increase it. In fact, of course, for many people, even an 8 per cent. charge is heavy, especially for those with small and fixed incomes. Also, as my noble friend behind me points out, with higher costs it means very often that the charge is much greater than it would have been ten, twenty or even fifty years ago. However that may be, we feel that the Government are right. We support them and, if the noble Earl decides to go to a Division, we shall be in the Division shoulder to shoulder with the Government.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I entirely support the attitude of the Government in this matter, but for reasons quite different from those brought forward. The noble Lord who introduced this Amendment brought it forward in such a way as to imply (though I do not suppose for a moment that it was his intention) that all improvements to property are merely the provision of better cooking facilities. Far more important improvements are the provision of extra rooms, baths, better sanitation, sculleries and the like. These are permanent recoupments, on which a return of 8 per cent. is entirely adequate. I do not think it would be fair to suggest that, where these new extra mere cooking facilities and the like are provided, 10 per cent. should be charged, because surely, when those facilities come to be renewed at the end of twenty, twenty-five or thirty years, or whatever it may be, a great deal of such renewal will count for maintenance and would not, therefore, fall heavily upon the owners. It is for that reason that I think Her Majesty's Government are entirely justified in resisting this Amendment.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: The noble Earl replying for Her Majesty's Government did not say whether or not he admitted the exactness of my arithmetic. It may be that there are certain improvements which are for a period longer than twenty-five years, but I took twenty-five years as being a reasonable average. If my arithmetic is right, and the real income to the landlord is no more than 3 per cent., I claim that the law, as it stands to-day, will not serve as any inducement but will discourage the landlord from carrying out improvements. However, I
664
I do not propose to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at end insert (" relating (if it is so provided by the order) not only to future but to past rental periods ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to add to subsection (3):
" and such consent contains an agreement by the tenant to pay the increased rent provided for in subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the consent by a tenant to pay the increased rent provided for in subsection (1) of this clause. In this case, we feel that when a tenant consents to the improvement for which he is going to be charged, he should be fully aware that he will be charged with an increased rent and that there should be no doubt about it. Not all tenants—nor for that matter, all landlords—are able to understand these questions, which are very complicated, and it may well be that the tenant does not appreciate that he is going to be charged with the additional 8 per cent. which we have just been discussing. We feel that in such a case it must be made quite clear to the tenant, and the tenant should be fully aware, that he will have to pay the 8 per cent. on the improvement. We on this side feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. I am not going to argue much about the exact wording—it may be the Minister can think of better wording—but, if the Government could meet us on the principle, which, I suggest, is a reasonable principle, then we could consider before Report stage whether the wording meets the views that we on this side have in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord has put up a case on this Amendment which I think is one that my right honourable friend would certainly like to consider. If the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment

665
which stands in his name to-day, I will bring forward an Amendment on Report stage, or else ask the noble Lord to bring one forward in his name, so that we can meet the point which he has in mind.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for meeting us in this matter. I will certainly do as he suggests. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: On this Motion, there is a point covering the general policy of subsection (3) in regard to which it is not very easy to put down an Amendment, but I thought it would be convenient to take this opportunity to ask what could be done about it. So far as I can see, Clause 5, in general, follows the same shape as earlier Acts of this kind. The position must, however, be different, in the sense that, under the Act of 1949, repairs and improvements can be done with a grant—and, indeed, the proviso to Clause 5 (3) refers to that. Cases where improvements are done by grant from local authorities under the 1949 Act seem to be covered. If it is likely that many improvements will be done without grant, as must be envisaged if this clause is to operate, there comes the very difficult question as to what powers the owner may have or should be given to enable him to effect improvements which are desirable for the sake of the house in which the occupier lives—and, indeed, are very often desirable for the sake of his neighbours.
This is quite an old question. I remember its being argued at considerable length before the Committee which sat on this matter in 1945. The Committee recommended that some form of steps should be taken so that an unreasonable tenant who objected to an improvement which would be of mutual benefit to his neighbours as well as to himself could, by some means, be made to agree. There must, of course, be very careful safeguards and the right of the tenant to appeal, and so on. Suppose such a tenant does, however, object to an improvement, it would seem to be that a landlord would never be in a position to carry out an improvement, because he would
666
have no right of entry to the house. I agree that the Amendment: which has just been discussed is certainly a help on this point, but I should like to ask whether something could be done or has been considered in these cases where joint improvements may be held up by the objection of one occupier.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this matter again, and I am also grateful to him for having let me know that he was interested in this point. If I might divide what I have to say into two sections, I should like to say one word about the clause itself. The clause provides for an increase in rent if improvements are carried out, and the tenant can ask the court for an order cancelling or reducing the increase on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or too much was spent on it. He cannot go on the first ground if he has consented in writing. As my noble friend is aware, this has been Rent Act law since 1920, and it is essentially a rent provision and gives the landlord no rights not otherwise given in the law of landlord and tenant.
But, quite apart from the rent issue, my noble friend Lord Ridley is arguing that a landlord should be given the right to enter and carry out works against a tenant's wishes; and he argues that for some work, such as the provision of a sewer or electricity supply or other service to a row of houses or block of flats, the refusal of one tenant can prevent the service from being supplied to the others. There are really two answers, and I should like my noble friend to know that this matter has been considered carefully by my right honourable friend the Minister, both before and after his letter. The first is on the practicalities of the situation: that it is seldom that a case will arise where it is impracticable to provide the service to all the houses but one in a terrace. For example, arrangements can be made so that a connection could later be made to the odd house if and when the tenant moves or changes his mind. What is most likely to weigh with the landlords is the fact that the difficult tenant can probably avoid paying the extra rent, and that would make the work uneconomic. An Amendment which gives the landlord an additional right of entry would not affect the rent provision.

667
There is the other aspect: in so far as the problem is purely a matter of getting right of entry, then a more fundamental issue than rent is involved. To give the landlord such a right would affect a basic principle in the landlord and tenant relationship. It is commonly put in the words that "an Englishmen's house is his castle ", and that is not without force. My noble friend may remember that it was put even more graphically by the elder Pitt. I think before he was Lord Chatham and a Member of your Lordships' House, in that graphic passage which is not irrelevant to my noble friend's thoughts on this matter, where he says that the wind and the rain may enter but all the king's horses and all the king's men may not come in. That is a basic idea, although we all hope that after this Bill the wind and the rain will not enter so frequently as they have done before. But it is a difficult matter, as my noble friend realises. There may be many good reasons, apart from the unpleasant state of mind which my noble friend has put before us, why a tenant may not want work done in his house at a particular time which may seem so desirable to others. There may be sickness continuing for a long time in the house, or an elderly relation or something of that kind, which removes the matter from the general sphere of ordinary "cussedness".
For both those reasons we have thought that it would not be practicable to comply with my noble friend's suggestion. But I should like to assure him again that we have considered it and given weight to the immense knowledge and experience of my noble friend in this section of activity. I am sorry that we cannot help him any further, but I have tried to-day to give him the reasons; and if, after he has considered it, he has anything further to put before us, I shall of course be happy to look at it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said and the information that he has given about the discussions and thoughts the Government have had on this point. I entirely agree that there is difficulty. I mention the matter because I remember being forcibly impressed by the large volume of evidence on this point before the Committee in 1945. I think, however, it must be of much less importance now, because of the 1949 Housing
668
Act; the situation is to that extent largely different.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble and learned Viscount is perfectly correct in saying that there are often good reasons why a tenant refuses extra amenities, not merely out of ill-nature or a desire to be a nuisance. I have known several cases where, for example, the provision of new baths has been refused simply because the tenant was a person of small income and stated frankly that he could not possibly afford the extra rent which would be required for the 8 per cent. charge. I think we must be perfectly fair to the tenants in that matter.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Variation of rent under contractual tenancy]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after (" served ") insert (" by the landlord ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Increase of controlled rents]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE) moved in subsection (1), to leave out "two" and insert "three". The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment preparatory to the next following Amendment, No. 10, on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GREENHILL: I am not moving any Amendment to this clause, but I should like the Government to consider whether the increase of controlled rents in Scotland is an increase that cannot be compared wholly with the increase allowed by Clause 1 of the Bill, because I think it has been admitted in another place that this is a temporary measure so far as Scotland is concerned and another Bill will, of necessity, have to be introduced later when the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act begins to operate in 1962. As the noble Lord will be

669
aware, the rents from the 1st May of this year have not been the rents as Hitherto calculated, because they no longer carry with them that portion which is owner's rates. The tenant now pays a reduced rent, reduced only in the sense that what he formerly paid by way of owner's rates is now part and parcel of the total amount of rates he has to pay as occupier, the owner being no longer responsible for his portion of the rates. I am wondering whether the Government would not consider postponing the operation of this clause until the coming into operation in 1962 of the Rating and Valuation Act.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: What the noble Lord has said in relation to the situation in Scotland is quite correct; but your Lordships will understand that houses have to be maintained, and it is essential that even this modest increase should be granted for that purpose. In fact, as the noble Lord no doubt knows, the increase granted by the 1954 Act is exactly the increase which has taken place in the cost of repairs since the passing of that Act.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
4.31 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
Rents of subsidised private houses in Scotland
" .—(1) The conditions which are mentioned in any of the enactments specified in the next following subsection or which have effect by virtue of any undertaking or agreement entered into in pursuance of any such enactment shall, in so far as they relate to the rent to be charged in respect of any dwelling-house in Scotland, limit that rent, and if imposed before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if they limited that rent, to an amount equal to the rent which might properly be charged in respect of that dwelling-house by virtue of those conditions together with any sum recoverable in respect thereof by way of repairs increase under the Act of 1954 or by way of 1957 Act increase.
(2) The enactments referred to in the foregoing subsection are—

(a) section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act. 1924;

(b) section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926;

(c) section one hundred and one of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950;

670

(d) sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and fourteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950."

The noble Lord said: This new clause is moved to make it clear that the repairs increase under the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, or the 1957 Act increase under this Bill, can be charged—of course, subject to the conditions laid down in the 1954 Act and in this Bill—in respect of certain houses which were built or improved with the aid of Exchequer subsidy under a number of statutory provisions. The rents of these houses may in some cases have been fixed as long as thirty years ago. Your Lordships will appreciate that there is no reason why owners of houses in the categories referred to in the clause should not be entitled to the repairs increase or the 1957 Act increase if the conditions laid down in the 1954 Act and in the Bill are observed, and that it is as important that these houses, as well as other houses, should be maintained in a reasonable state of repair. The new clause clears away all doubt on that score. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot say that we on this side of the Committee fully support the noble Lord in moving this Amendment. He is including a new category of controlled houses in Scotland that will be liable to rent increases under this Bill. The consideration that I should like him to bear in mind is this. These are all privately owned houses that have received assistance out of public funds. Subsection (2) of this new clause specifies the different Acts—the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and two more recent Acts under which these grants have been made towards improvements in these dwellinghouses. I cannot help feeling that at the time this public money was spent there must have been an understanding with the landlord that a certain rent would be charged. What this Amendment does is to release the landlord from this bargain so as to enable him to increase his rent, in spite of the fact that he has received this substantial contribution—a more or less substantial contribution, as the case may be—from public funds under previous Acts of Parliament. We shall not oppose this

671
Amendment in the Division Lobby, but we do not like the idea of this new category of houses in Scotland being included among the houses where rents will be increased under this Bill.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I think it would be only right to say to the noble Earl that I am not quite sure that he is correct in saying that this is a new category of controlled houses. The reason I say that is that the matter has never been tested in the courts. The matter is in doubt in the minds of some people, and it is to remove that doubt that we introduce this Amendment. But surely the noble Earl will agree with me that, if the rent was fixed some thirty years ago, the landlord cannot possibly maintain that house on a rent fixed so long ago. The object of the Amendment is to see that houses are properly maintained and we want to see that the necessary funds are there to maintain them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Release from control under Rent Acts
10.—(1) The Rent Acts shall not apply to any dwelling-house the rateable value of which on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, exceeded, in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London forty pounds, elsewhere in England or Wales thirty pounds, and in Scotland forty pounds.
(3) The Minister may by order provide that the Rent Acts shall not apply, as from such date as may be specified in the order, to dwelling-houses the rateable value of which, ascertained as on such date as may be specified in the order, exceeds such amount as may be so specified; and an order under this subsection may be made so as to relate to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas in England and Wales or in Scotland as may be specified in the order, and so as to apply generally or only to, or except to, such classes or descriptions of dwelling-houses as may be so specified.
The power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall have effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
4.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "forty" and insert "sixty". The noble Earl said: We regard this Amendment as of special importance, and I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite on the Front Bench will take the same view. Our
672
object in putting down this Amendment is to prevent the decontrol under this Bill of dwellings in the London area if their rateable value is less than £60 a year. Of course, as it stands at the moment, the clause will affect the London area by releasing from control all houses of not less than £40 a year rateable value. I think there is a very special case to be made out for London, which is harder hit by this Bill than any other part of the country. I should like to give the Committee some figures which substantiate this proposition.
In London no fewer than one in four houses will be decontrolled as the result of this Bill; in England and Wales generally, the proportion will be one in seven, and in Scotland about one in ten. Therefore I think there is a particularly strong case for reducing the number of dwellings that will come within the scope of the Bill and for allowing these dwellings in the London area to remain controlled. What this Amendment does is to retain control for dwellings of between £40 and £60 per annum rateable value, which will be decontrolled under the clause as it stands. The number of dwellings affected would be considerable—in fact, it has been estimated that about half the flats and houses that would otherwise be decontrolled in the London area would remain controlled if this Amendment were accepted. But this, I think, would bring the proportion passing out of control in London somewhat nearer to the figure for the rest of the country.
There is another consideration that I think is of especial importance in regard to this Amendment. The people living in flats and houses where the rateable value is between £40 and £60 per annum are clearly people of small means—they are people of smaller means than the tenants of houses of a higher rateable value. These people, therefore, will be less able to afford the higher rents they will have to pay when landlords are authorised to increase their rents under the terms of this Bill. Here we have a question of fairness to London and a question of fairness to tenants—people of small means, possibly people living on fixed incomes, but certainly people in the lower range level of wages or salaries; people who, in many cases, will suffer great hardships if their present rent is substantially increased because they no longer have the

673
protection of the Rent Acts. I do not pretend that I expect the Government to accept this Amendment—it goes right to the marrow of the Bill—but from our point of view it is a vastly important Amendment affecting thousands of tenants in the London area, many of whom will experience really acute hardship if the Bill is passed in its present form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 45, leave out (" forty ") and insert ("sixty").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that this is an Amendment of great importance and that, with the two concomitant Amendments, it deals with one of the most important aspects of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords who are especially concerned with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 will not take it amiss if I devote my general arguments to this Amendment, because it is on these general arguments that the case of Her Majesty's Government stands or falls. I shall, of course, be very happy to consider other points when I come to those other Amendments.
The effect of the three Amendments would be to substitute higher rateable value limits for control than those in Clause 10 (1) of the Bill. The present rateable value limits for control are £100 in the Metropolitan Police District, £90 in Scotland and £75 elsewhere in England and Wales. On the basis of those figures, the Bill will decontrol 190,000 dwellings in London, 560,000 elsewhere in England and Wales and 60,000 in Scotland—that is, 810,000 in all. The reason why I have dealt with all the categories is that Her Majesty's Government believe it is necessary to decontrol a considerable "slice" at one time so as to create a considerable market of accommodation for letting unfurnished.
The number of houses in each rateable group increases very considerably as one goes down the scale. To make the limits £65 and £45 would be to keep controlled a large proportion of houses which Clause 10 (1) will decontrol. The result would be to concentrate the demand for unfurnished accommodation on the smaller number of houses that were decontrolled. Her Majesty's Government are sure that, by spreading the demand over the 800,000 houses which will come out of control,
674
the transition to a free market can work smoothly without landlords being able to obtain excessive rents. But if the demand were concentrated on the relatively small "slice" which the Amendment would decontrol, there would be a danger of a rise in rents, possibly to an unreasonable level. That is the real difference between us; we firmly believe that the danger will be that which I have stated.
In the view of Her Majesty's Government it is in the interests of landlords and tenants alike to return to a free market for unfurnished accommodation for letting as soon as possible; and it is only by this means that the drain of houses from the unfurnished letting market will be stopped, and that landlords can be encouraged to make available the maximum amount of accommodation for letting unfurnished. If the scope of decontrol were to be limited in the way proposed in the Amendment, it would postpone the full creation of a free market and, therefore—apart from the possibility of a concentration of demand on too limited a sector—the achievement of the Government's aim.
Your Lordships may conceivably have in mind that the control limits at present are based on the 1939 rateable values and that decontrol would be in terms of 1956 rateable values. We have taken that fact into account and have faced up to that position. In spite of that, we have come to the conclusion that, if we are to give the free market a chance of bringing down the general level in rates, this is necessary. As I want to deal with the argument as a whole, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will not object if I concentrate on the Scottish figures in defence of my general argument. He will know that they are very striking and point to the difficulty in this matter.
In Scotland, the estimated number of houses at present let under controlled tenancies, which will be decontrolled under Clause 10 (1) of the Bill is of the order of 60,000. That figure appears in one of the tables before your Lordships. That represents only about 8 per cent. of the estimated total of 700,000 rent-controlled houses in Scotland. To be absolutely frank, the corresponding percentage for England and Wales is about 14 per cent. If the figure of 60,000 were to be substituted for 40,000 as the new limit of control the number of houses in Scotland

675
to be decontrolled under Clause 10 (1) of the Bill would be reduced to about 6,000, That illustrates most acutely the point that I am making. If there is to be decontrol of an upper band or "slice" of houses—and Her Majesty's Government have fully explained the reasons why they regard this step as necessary—it is important that the number of houses to be decontrolled should be sufficiently large to encourage reasonable market conditions and to give the opportunity of a free market. How can it be argued that if the number of houses in Scotland to be decontrolled is to be reduced from 60,000 to 6,000, there is any hope of testing the market under free conditions?
Those are our arguments. We hope that the result of what I have tried to put before your Lordships, in a period when there will be continued activity in municipal housing and slum clearance, will be to make more accommodation available; and we believe that to reduce these figures as strongly and forcefully as these Amendments would do, would cause that hoped-for situation completely to fail and be defeated. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, this is the basic difference of view between us. I am sorry that it should exist, but I have tried to show the reasons why Her Majesty's Government take this view. I realise that noble Lords opposite do not agree, but I hope that they will feel that I have tried to state with complete frankness the reasons why we differ from them.
4.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I cannot help feeling that this is a doctrinaire approach on the part of Her Majesty's Government. So far as I can see, there is no reality in it. This Government have become increasingly doctrinaire in all fields of their activities. They will not allow the Air Corporations to tender for air contracts because they do not like the Air Corporations. We always allowed them to tender and the best man got the contract. They are trying to kill the Colonial Development Corporation because it is a State Corporation. They forced commercial television on the country, much against the wishes of many of their supporters, purely for doctrinaire reasons. Here is another doctrinaire step.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just put forward
676
what is, in my opinion, a specious argument, to the effect that you cannot decrease the number of houses that are to be available in a free market because if you do there will be more people for them and thus prices—and rents—will go up. Of course the two things are not relevant. In fact, if you decrease the number of houses that are decontrolled, there will not be the same number of people for them, because there will be a larger number of houses still under control, so that people in controlled houses will not need houses that are decontrolled; they will stay where they are. As I say, I think the Lord Chancellor's is an entirely specious and misleading argument. I have already said that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was misleading. I do not accuse him personally, but I say that those who briefed him made his brief a misleading one. I stick to that. Whether the noble Earl has been in the House twenty-five years or twenty-five minutes does not make the slightest difference. Either a thing is misleading or it is not. What difference does it make how long the person who makes the statement has been in the House?
We shall divide on this Amendment because we feel very strongly about this matter. To some extent the next Election will be fought on this. The Liberal Party seem to be getting more and more reactionary as the Bill goes on. In fact, already the Government have suffered severe electoral—not defeats as yet but severe electoral casualties, because of this clause. And who can wonder? If the Government would only accept our Amendment quite a number of Conservative candidates would save their deposits. It may be that they would have cause to bless the Opposition in this House. They will do much better at the by-elections which are pending—and certainly very much better in the General Election—if they listen to the words of wisdom from the Opposition. We are, in fact, talking against our electoral interests because we are speaking in the interests of the country as a whole.
This situation, as I see it, has been put very clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He knows very well the London scene; and so do we. We know that there are comparatively few houses in London which have a rateable value of under £40 a year. We know that a large

677
number, at all events, especially in the residential parts of Greater London, are of more than £40 rateable value. When you get out into suburbs like Wimbledon and Putney, you will find houses with rateable values of £80, £90 or £100, which in the country would be only £30 or £40. The clause is going to catch a vast number of people who are already being hit badly by the Government's inability to stop inflation. The professional classes, the middle classes, have been hit, and there is very little doubt that there is revolt on the part of the middle classes—it is a revolt in a mild way, and carried out in a respectable manner; but it is still a revolt.
Many of your Lordships may have had a copy of a letter which has been sent to me from Hampstead. It has been sent by an organisation entitled the Hampstead Anti-Rent Bill Committee. So far as I am aware, Hampstead has never been regarded as being in the "Red Belt". It has always been the home of respectability and has with monotonous regularity returned Conservative Members to another place. It may be regarded as significant that the Minister himself not only represents Hampstead but is an alderman of the Hampstead Borough Council, and has long been connected with its municipal life. I will read just a portion of what is said by the Hampstead Anti-Rent Bill Committee, representing a number of residents' associations which I imagine normally are all of a Conservative flavour, showing what they think about this particular Bill and this particular clause of the Bill. The letter states:
" My Committee, which is strictly non-Party, was formed in consequence of the widespread anxiety aroused among controlled tenants living in Hampstead by some of the provisions of the Rent Bill.
" Hampstead may reasonably claim to be a ' key area ' as it has almost certainly a higher proportion of tenancies with rateable values between £41 and £100 than any other London borough. This fact, coupled with the high amenity value of the district, means that the impact of full decontrol is a matter of the gravest concern to the vast majority of the tenants affected.
" Hampstead's concern is shared by other London boroughs, where similar organisations to our own have emerged in reaction to the Bill. Nor is apprehension felt only among tenants. Some property owners, twenty out of twenty-nine Metropolitan boroughs and the Association of Municipal Corporations have spoken against the Bill, while severe criticism has been levelled against it not only by the
678
official Opposition but by Government supporters both on the Floor of the House of Commons and in Committee, where some crucial issues were decided by a margin of only one or two votes."
I will not read any further.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: I do not know why the noble Viscount says: "Hear, hear!"
VISCOUNT THURSO: If the noble Lord wants to know, it is because we have all had copies of this letter, and I thought we might take it as read.
LORD OGMORE: I said that no doubt other noble Lords had received copies of the letter. A House of Parliament is not a club, and what we do here goes out very widely to the country. It is just as well that not only noble Lords in this House but the country as a whole should know the arguments for and against this clause. I think this is a very relevant letter, and if I want to read it I shall read it. If necessary, I shall read the whole lot of it. Is this a House of Parliament or is it not? We come here unpaid, unhonoured and unsung; and unless we are entitled to do our duty I, for one, will not come here. We are not paid for this. I have taken on this job at very short notice, owing to the illness of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I must be allowed to put forward my arguments in the way I think fit.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Why did the noble Lord turn on me when I said: "Hear, hear!"?
LORD OGMORE: Because it was a sardonic, "Hear, hear!"—not a genuine one.
LORD TEVIOT: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I, like other noble Lords, have also had this letter. What I am anxious to find out, and what I am not quite clear about is what the noble Lord is going to do. He has made what I would call a very strong Party political speech—a speech, in my view, almost irrelevant to the Amendment. It would be very interesting to hear what the vote is going to be on—whether it is going to be on a technical matter relating to a part of this Bill and the administration of it, or whether it is going to be on the question of how people are going to vote in the next Election. I should be glad of enlightenment.
LORD OGMORE: AS I have pointed out before, this is a House of Parliament and we are entitled to know here what the public think. The public have expressed a view in no uncertain terms about this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is entitled to express his opinion. He can express it as often as he likes, subject to the Rules of Order about saying the same thing over and over again. I am entitled, as this is a House of Parliament, to point out that this has been, and is, a major issue. Suppose that a letter to the reverse effect, a letter supporting the Bill, had been received from an important trade union, would noble Lords opposite not have quoted it? I guarantee that they would. We are quite entitled to make our case. We have not occupied any more time than has been necessary. After all, we are on Clause 10 and it is only five o'clock: and I must ask for as much time as I think necessary without getting out of order.
In the Daily Telegraph to-day there is a letter which I want to quote to your Lordships, because it is relevant to this clause. The letter reads:
" You rightly note the ' special relevance ' of the Rent Bill to the political trend revealed in the municipal elections. Is this not mainly due to the serious consequences of Clause 9 of the Bill, removing all protection against dispossession, as against excessive rent, from nearly a million middle-class tenants, who face not ' immediate financial loss ' only but eviction?
" As an owner of controlled property, though fortunately not dependent on it, I know the necessity for a legitimate, controlled, rent increase. But I am shocked by complete decontrol in a period of continuing housing scarcity, and by the acute misery already arising from the threat and by the greater hardship yet to come.
" Should Clause 9 become law. I shall feel myself unable to support the Conservative Party at the General Election. I prefer even Socialist nationalisation of houses to Conservative eviction of their tenants into acute scarcity, though neither is necessary.
" As a landlord I think I understand the situation. It is that complete decontrol is yet premature. Cannot this folly be stayed even yet on the Third Reading in the Upper House? "
That is an appeal to us here to take action, and I think that I am entitled to ask that the notice of the House should be drawn to this letter in the Daily Telegraph from a Conservative and a landlord. What he says is, in fact, our argument on this clause. We certainly do not like decontrol. I do not like any
680
decontrol at this stage, in the manner proposed by the Bill; but if we are going to have decontrol, then in ordinary justice to London and Greater London, I say, fix it higher, so that the majority of householders will not be affected.
This provision is causing the greatest concern. I know the type of people who are living in the houses which are going to be affected: they are most upset and anxious. For some years I was a member of another place for half of the Borough of Croydon, which is typical of the areas which are going to be affected by the provisions of Clause 10. There are thousands and thousands of property holders in Croydon living in difficult circumstances, coming up to the City every day, living on fixed incomes and unable to charge expense accounts, trying to educate their children in a proper manner to the best of their ability—in fact, having an extraordinary hard time to live at all. It is not a question of their being faced merely with a rent increase; they will also be faced with the possibility of eviction on a large scale. If I were one of these people I should feel—and I guarantee the same is true of any noble Lord opposite—that I was in a very hazardous position indeed. I say, as a landlord, that the Government have no right at this stage to plunge the country and many honourable people into this state of uncertainty.
5.5 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: With customary frankness and clarity, the noble and learned Viscount has explained his attitude towards the Amendment which I have ventured to put down. Looking at it from the point of view of Scotland, I can only say, first of all, that the figure in Scotland has always been higher than in England and Wales, excluding London, because of the peculiar make-up of the figure for rent in Scotland which, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, includes an element of rates. Secondly, in the noble and learned Viscount's own admission, we are facing here a phase of decontrol, and the only question is whether the extension of the present phase should be increased or reduced? Our answer is perfectly clear. We think that the present control should continue over as many people as possible, because it is protecting them from a hardship which is contained in this Bill. It would

681
be untrue to pretend, of course, that we approve of the Government's intention to make what is called a free market. We think that to give a certain section of the community freedom to impose the conditions they wish to impose, without some definite control by the Government over their actions, is a bad principle to follow, particularly in these days.
I also would venture to quote from the letter which has been criticised. My reason for doing so is this. We all receive a great many letters, many of which, we should all agree, are exaggerated in tone and make claims of which many of us would not approve; and what struck me about this letter was the reasonable terms in which the whole case was stated by the writer. It does not emanate from one political Party; it is composed by the Secretary of what is called the Hampstead Anti-Rent Bill Committee, which apparently is composed of tenants' associations. Here I must declare that I have no interest in one of them, which is called the Greenhill Tenants' Association. I think that what they say here is convincing, because it is based upon fact. I now quote one sentence which my noble friend Lord Ogmore omitted to quote:
" The Minister himself found it necessary, while the Bill was still in Committee—and this is surely without precedent—to warn tenants against unscrupulous landlords already trying to anticipate its passing. Moreover, he tacitly admitted that the decontrol provisions of the Bill in their present form are at best a gamble when, in a speech to the Institute of Chartered Surveyors, he said that the Bill could be either ' a triumph or a disaster ', depending on the behaviour of landlords."
Later on in the letter, the writer says this:
" The general consensus of opinion among municipal housing officers, public health inspectors and the more reputable estate agents (as well as data from surveys carried out by local tenants' associations) confirm my Committee's conviction that there will be no pool of unfurnished accommodation at reasonable rents available in London and the larger cities for a considerable time to come."
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, are also aware that in Scotland spontaneous representations have been made to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Scottish T.U.C. that there has been an unusually large amount of opposition to this threat to the people of Scotland. I would seriously ask the noble and learned Viscount, even if he finds that the figure I have suggested in
682
my Amendment is not wholly acceptable, not to insist on adhering to the figure in the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I feel that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. I believe that there is a prospect of hardship in London and in South Eastern England, but what: completely weakens the argument of the Opposition, so far as I can see, is the suggestion that this Bill has been put forward purely for doctrinaire purposes. I thought the main purpose of the Bill was to endeavour to keep these houses from going into decay. I have often listened to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has made most impressive speeches showing the extent to which houses are going into decay at the present time. I had hoped that on Second Reading some member of the Labour Party would expand their own policy for a solution of this question, but when I asked the question I was told that it was an inappropriate moment to ask it; and the information then given by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, differed in some degree from the explanation given by other members of the Labour Party. I feel that, if we are to consider this matter seriously, some reference ought to be made to the main purpose for which this Bill was introduced.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: There are one or two points I should like to make on this clause which, so far as I know, have not yet been made. I am sorry that I was not present to hear the opening words of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but in so far as I did hear him, he gave no evidence in support of the supposition of the Government that the result of this decontrol will be the lowering of rents. I have not heard in this Chamber, or anywhere else, any evidence, only surmise, that that will be the result; and, in fact, this morning I happened to hear of a case which seems to me to point the contrary way. It related to a flat in a semi-luxury block in North London, let at £500 a year, with the lease running out shortly, where the tenant has been invited to renew the lease at £800 a year. That does not look as if rents generally will respond to this rather drastic treatment that the Government are giving them; in fact, it seems to me, as the Hampstead Tenants' Association, said, "one enormous gamble."

683
It has been pointed out by other tenants' associations that Clause 10 gives the Minister power to act only in one way; that is to say, to release further houses from control. What I should like to ask the Government is: have they no thought that in some areas, some of these provisions may not work out quite as well as they expect? Should not the Minister have powers to reverse the trend, for a limited time or in a limited area? I have in mind, particularly, some of the London boroughs, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, expressed doubt about the effect of the Bill on London. In the Borough of St. Marylebone, out of 22,000 houses we have 8,500 that have a rateable value between £40 and £100. I think the Lord Chancellor said something about a smooth performance of this operation, but I can conceive of nothing less smooth: it is like using dynamite to restock a pond to do this tremendous operation covering the whole country. Will not the Government think again? Remember that the Minister has powers under the Act as it is to extend the decontrol at any time, at any place, by as much as he likes, by Order. Why not moderate the extent of this blow that the Government are inflicting on the country?
LORD MESTON: I should like to draw attention to one erroneous observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He said that he did not think there were many houses in London with a rateable value of less than £40. The truth is that there are a large number of dwellings in London with a rateable value of less than £40.
LORD OGMORE: May I correct the noble Lord? What I said was that there were comparatively fewer; that, on the whole, rateable values in London are much higher than those in the country.
LORD MESTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord; the last thing I want to do is to misinterpret him. However, as your Lordships know, there are a considerable number of houses which are let out unfurnished in single rooms, and, on an apportionment, the rateable value of those dwellings—that is to say, of those single rooms—would be much less than £40. Therefore, I think on that point
684
the fears of the noble Lord are not justified.
LORD WISE: Before the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, replies, as I understand the discussion is taking place on three Amendments, I want to say a word or two about Amendment No. 12 and the 560,000 houses that will be affected by this Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that conditions outside London are much different in regard to rating generally. It is likely that, owing to there being a lack of uniformity in regard to rating matters in the country, houses in some districts will be decontrolled, while similar houses in other districts will still be controlled. That would make matters most awkward. The Lord Chancellor said that the Government believed that they should take a good slice at one time. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has just referred to the question of moderating the blow, and I share his view.
I think the figures shown in the Bill are too drastic. It must be remembered that the present control is on houses of a rateable value in the Provinces of £75 and under, and the Bill brings it down to £30 which is a difference of £45. Those living in houses with, rateable values of between £30 and £75 are generally middle-class people, and I am certain they will feel hurt at the suggestion of decontrol in their case. The figure we set is £45. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill threw out an idea in regard to Scotland that, if the Government were not committed entirely to their £40, and refused to accept £60, there might be some compromise. I think there might be some compromise in regard to the figure for the country areas, too. I hope that the Government on this occasion will be inclined to meet us. I cannot agree with the Lord Chancellor when he says that the greater decontrol of houses will open the free market and lower the rents. I am sure that when these houses are decontrolled the rents will go up by leaps and bounds and the people who will suffer are those 560,000 householders who are faced either with the payment of a much higher rent or the transfer to other houses, which may be well-nigh impossible. I hope that in regard to Amendment No. 12 whatever the Government may see fit to do in London they will help us a little in the country.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their views. I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has trailed his coat with delightful vigour. It is with the greatest of difficulty that I restrain myself from treading on it, but I shall try, in the interests of relevance to the general Amendment, to get as far away from it as I can. I would give him only one piece of advice as an old friend in a non-political sense—I will not compromise him by calling him "my noble friend," in case anyone might think his politics had become less well dyed. But, at some time, at a convenient stage of the Division, I should be grateful if he would ask his noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who carries all these things in his head, what Oliver Cromwell said to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is always well to remember that when one is being rather dogmatic on the strength of one's own views.
With regard to the general position, noble Lords opposite have asked me two things; first, for an alteration in the general phasing of the decontrol, and, secondly, whether I have considered sufficiently the special position in London. With regard to the general phasing, I will not go through all these figures, which are well known to noble Lords, but I just remind your Lordships once again that if you will look at Table I you will see that the number of houses let unfurnished at controlled rents is given there as 5·7 million. As I have said, we are taking a slice, from the top of that, of 800,000. I do not want to go into general politics, but I would ask noble Lords, who I am sure feel genuinely on the point, to consider that as our suggestion—800,000 out of 5·7 million—and consider the effect of decontrol as it would be under the scheme to which noble Lords opposite are committed, if the houses are municipalised and the local authority is entitled to possession and to put up the rent. That would apply to the whole number of these houses, and any general insecurity, I think, would be infinitely greater.
I am not going into the general argument, because this is an Amendment to the Bill. I am afraid I am not greatly impressed by the letter from that delectable borough of Hampstead. It is now
686
thirty-three years since I fought my first election, and if in these circumstances it were not possible to produce a letter against his Bill from a Minister's own constituency, I should think that politics had greatly declined in energy at the present time. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, brought us back to the London problem. It is easy to call it a gamble and, indeed, any prophecy has an uncertain element in it; but I should like the noble Earl to consider not only the number that I mentioned, not only the other houses that are being built and the question of the slum clearance which is going on, but also the number of houses in London that are not now let under a controlled rent but are similar to the houses which are being decontrolled and which we are discussing in this Amendment. That gives some idea of the field available to the tenant who has to move.
As I said, in London 190,000 houses will be decontrolled. The total number of houses in that group of rateable value is 700,000. If my arithmetic is right, four nineteens are seventy-six, so it is just under 1 to 4. In the Provinces, the figures are 561,000 to be decontrolled, and the total in the similar rateable group is 2,050,000. So there again approximately 1 to 4 in the rateable value group are decontrolled houses. I think that that is an answer which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will consider on the point which he made with considerable force. From that point of view, the figures in London and the Provinces are much the same. May I take another aspect, which I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, had in mind? The number of houses in London below the £40 rateable value is 1,550,000, and the number above somewhere over 800,000. So two out of every three dwellings in London are below the £40 rateable value. I think these are relevant figures.
On the general point may I say this? No-one that I have heard discuss this problem has denied my major premise that something must be done in this country if we are to maintain the great national asset of existing houses. We have tried to find the right number, and I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that we have taken this step only after every political Party has said for seven years that this problem ought to be dealt with. If, after seven years, we

687
come forward with that relatively small movement in the way of decontrol—I have given the figures: 800,000 out of 5·7 million—I find it difficult to believe that we are going at an excessive pace. That is the major point, and that is the step. As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has pointed out with great frankness and accuracy, after that, one can consider not only whether there should be a next step or how big the next step should be, but where the next step should be. One has complete flexibility to consider the step that is to be taken. To say that you should take a lesser step than the small percentage we are taking at the present time to deal with a problem that is so universally stated to exist is, I think, quite unthinkable.
I would answer the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—I will just allow myself this one answer. He and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned the local elections. In 1949, the Labour Party lost not 233 but 1,300 seats at the local elections. Yet they came back with a majority of six in 1950. But when from 1950 to 1951 they decided that they would not take any political action that was controversial and would just sit down, then in the 1951 Election they lost even that small majority and have been out of power ever since. I believe that in politics nothing strikes so hard, nothing is rewarded so badly, as inaction. I believe that if the Government had not dealt with this problem, then indeed they might well have been rejected on the simple ground of cowardice.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have not, of course, the slightest objection that the noble and learned Viscount has ranged widely over the three Amendments, referring to London, England and Wales and Scotland, or to the fact that other noble Lords have responded to his invitation so that the debate has taken place on all three Amendments. My only grievance is that my case was made slightly the weaker, because I feel that London is a special case and that the arguments for reducing the amount of decontrol in London are even stronger than the arguments for doing so in other parts of the country. I am replying now on the first Amendment, which deals only with the Metropolitan Police District
688
and the City of London—that is to say, the Greater London Area. I should like to answer what I think were the two main arguments used by the noble and learned Viscount in regard to London.
The first of these was that, by the decontrolling of a smaller number of houses, the rent of those houses would be likely to go up even higher than it will do in any case under the provisions of the Bill. That argument, of course, according to the classical economist is unanswerable. When demand exceeds supply, then prices go up. I should like to assume that the noble and learned Viscount is right. I should like to remind him that the people who occupy these houses, if their rents go up, are, after all, in a far better position to pay a higher rent than are the people who occupy houses in London where the rateable value is £40 to £60 per annum. These are the people by whom the real hardship will be felt. I would remind your Lordships that this measure has been more unpopular I think in London than in any other part of the country. There have been protests against it from the local authorities, from associations of tenants and from ordinary householders. These protests and this unpopularity are due to the great hardship which this measure will impose on people living in the lower level of rateable values in the London area.
If I might criticise the noble and learned Viscount's reply, my criticism would be this. I think it perhaps omitted a little the human element. It omitted perhaps to evaluate the effect on many families who are to be decontrolled in London as a result of the passing of this Bill into law. These are the people we are thinking of in the lower rateable values of between £40 and £60 per annum. They will be placed on the horns of a really cruel dilemma: either they will have to pay a higher rent, which may be double the existing rent, or they will have to face eviction from their homes at the end of a period of fifteen months from the passage of this Bill into law. Imagine the distress, imagine the insecurity and anxiety, which this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will cause in the minds of many thousands of householders in this category who will be decontrolled.
The other argument of the noble and learned Viscount was that there will be

689
a reasonable pool of alternative accommodation in London for people who find that they cannot afford the higher rents. I always disagree with much hesitation when I am contradicting an argument of the noble and learned Viscount, but I honestly think that he is wrong when he assumes that in the next couple of years there will be a substantial pool of alternative accommodation in London. Private building is very expensive. The flats, houses and cottages that go up in London built by private builders are available only to a very small number of people, of substantial means.
I know something about municipal building, and can tell your Lordships of the appalling position with which the London County Council, which is the largest municipal authority building for London, is faced. We have a waiting list of 165,000 applicants. Of those, 50,000 are urgent cases where applications have
been made on the ground of ill-health or overcrowding. We have had to tell them that we can re-house only 2,000 of them in the next two years. Does that mean that there will be an adequate pool, whether or not decontrol is right? It may be right, but, if it is right, it should be done gradually over a longer period of time. Does this mean that there will be an adequate pool of alternative accommodation in London when this Bill comes into effect? Because it is within fifteen months of the passage of this Bill that people, if they cannot pay the higher rents, will have to leave their homes. On these grounds, we ask those of your Lordships, who have no Party position on either side, Liberal or Conservative, to support us in this matter in the Lobby.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Jowitt, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Margesson, V.

Hylton, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Ridley, V.

Killearn, L.

Thurso, V.

Lloyd, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Mancroft, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Merthyr, L.

Reading, M.

Birdwood, L.

Meston, L.

Brocket, L.

Middleton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Broughshane, L.

Monson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Chesham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Colyton, L.

Rea, L.

De La Warr, E.

Conesford, L.

Remnant, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rockley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Savile, L.

Morley, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sinha, L.

Munster, E.

Dovercourt, L.

Somers, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Grantchester, L.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hampton, L.

Teviot, L.

Crookshank, V.

Hastings, L.

Teynham, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hawke, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gage, V.

Hayter, L.

Waleran, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: As we have had that discussion I formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 46, leave out (" thirty ") and insert (" forty-five ").—(Lord Wise.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Jowitt, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ridley, V.

Hylton, L.

Thurso, V.

Killearn, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Lloyd, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Luke, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Birdwood, L.

Mancroft, L.

Reading, M.

Brocket, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broughshane, L.

Merthyr, L.

Albemarle, E.

Chesham, L.

Meston, L.

Bathurst, E.

Colyton, L.

Middleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Conesford, L.

Monson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Rea, L.

Morley, E.

Croft, L.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Dynevor, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Savile, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller]

Sinha, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Somers, L.

Selborne, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crookshank, V.

Hampton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hastings, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Gage, V.

Hawke, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hayter, L.

Waleran, L.

Margesson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wolverton, L.

LORD GREENHILL: Since the appeal on behalf of Scotland has not been satisfied, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 46, leave out (" forty ") and insert (" sixty ").—(Lord Greenhill.)
Wise. I have adduced my general arguments on the last Amendment, and I do not think that I ought to take up any further time of your Lordships.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 66.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the noble Lord's consent, I adduce the arguments on the other point, and I have nothing further to add.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 59.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Thurso, V.

Lloyd, L.

Luke, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brocket, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Broughshane, L.

Merthyr, L.

Reading, M.

Chesham, L.

Meston, L.

Colyton, L.

Monson, L.

Albemarle, E.

Conesford, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rea, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Remnant, L.

Morley, E.

Croft, L.

Rennell, L.

Munster, E.

Dynevor, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Savile, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Sinha, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Somers, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crookshank, V.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hampton, L.

Gage, V.

Hastings, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hawke, L.

Waleran, L.

Margesson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ridley, V.

Hylton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
" (2) Where a dwelling-house was lawfully sublet on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, and the tenant was en that date in occupation of the part of the premises not so sublet, the rateable value of the dwelling-house for the purposes of the aforementioned subsection shall be the rateable value of that part so occupied by the tenant."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will have noticed that this is almost a duplicate of Amendment No. 49 on the Marshalled List. It has been slightly altered and removed to a different part of the Bill. I am moving this Amendment owing to the illness of my noble friend Lord Silkin, as it was he who drafted it and had discussion upon it. I believe that I am right in saying (I speak subject to correction by the noble and learned Viscount) that if a house is sublet in a number of different dwellings, it may mean that each of those individual dwellings is of such a rateable value that it will still be controlled. If, on the other hand, a tenant decides to keep half or three-quarters of the building for himself and lets off only a small part, then his share of it may be larger and may take him within the decontrol limits. This Amendment, I understand, seeks to avoid that situation. Other noble Lords know much more about this point than I do, so without saying any more I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 47, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has raised an interesting and difficult point. I hope he will not take it amiss if I try to put the arguments both ways, because I understand the position in which he finds himself in view of the much-regretted illness of Lord Silkin. The effect of the Amendment, which deals with the position of a tenant of a house which is above the rateable value Limit for decontrol, would be that if the tenant has sublet part of the house, and what he retains to live in is below the rateable value limit for decontrol, he would be kept in control as respects the whole house. It should be noted that what the Amendment would achieve would be in line with the decontrol provisions of the Act of 1938. But there is a difference. Under that Act, sub-lettings of any part of a house were controlled so long as the tenancy of the whole house remained controlled. The position under Clause 10 is that any part of a house—controlled or decontrolled—which is sublet will come out of control on a change of sub-tenant.
We have very carefully considered this point, and I should like to weigh up the arguments which we are disposed to put against it. I will try to put them as objectively as I can. I think the main argument in favour of the Amendment is that the tenant who sub-lets parts of his house and retains only a part having

695
a rateable value below the control limit, is often the same sort of person as his sub-tenants and for that reason should remain controlled, because the object of rent control is to protect a tenant in respect of his home. If, therefore, a tenant who rents, say, a £35 rateable value flat in London is to continue to be protected, so should a tenant who lives in a fiat of the same rateable value, even if he rents the whole house and sub-lets the rest. I think these are the arguments for the Amendment.
Now as to the arguments against the Amendment. The first is that it would reduce the number of dwellings that would be decontrolled, and, therefore, would limit the free market that would be created in the higher rateable value group. To the extent that houses of this kind were not decontrolled, the pressure of demand would increase on the houses that were decontrolled, and the result might be to increase the rent that could be claimed for the decontrolled houses. That is the general argument which I have advanced on the last group of Amendments. The second point against the Amendment is that we are advised that it would, in practice, be unnecessary, since the tenant is not likely to be in any real danger. Assuming that the parts sub-let would also be below the rateable value limit for decontrol, the sub-tenant would continue to be protected. If the landlord—that is, the main landlord—therefore, gave the tenant notice to quit, that main landlord would still find himself with the controlled sub-tenants. The only part of the house, therefore, of which he could obtain vacant possession would be the part actually retained by the tenant.
I hope that I have made that point clear. I am looking at it from the point of view of the main landlord and of the main tenant. The main tenant has subtenants, and, on the basis that the subtenants are protected, the main landlord cannot get rid of the sub-tenants. The only bit he could get possession of would be the main tenant's flat. In those circumstances, he would either let the tenant continue as tenant of the whole house, but ask him to pay a higher rent, so as to obtain a market rent for the part
696
he actually occupies, or grant him a new tenancy, at a market rent, of the part which he was previously occupying. In either event, it is unlikely that the tenant would have to leave, provided, of course, that he was prepared to pay a reasonable rent in respect of his own part of the house.
I want the noble Earl to appreciate the difficulties, because this is a case where the balance is rather difficult to see. Let me go back to my original scheme about the main landlord and the main tenant, on the basis of the Amendment that the tenant is to be protected and allowed to remain on. If one of the sub-tenants left, the tenant would be in the position of a landlord vis-à-vis that part of the house, and would be able to let at an uncontrolled rent the part occupied by one of his subtenants. In other words, he might be in the position of occupying his own part as a controlled tenant yet being able to get uncontrolled rents for the other parts.
I hope that this is not a Party argument at all. This, according to what I am advised by the Ministry, and as I have tried to work it out for myself, is just what happens. So if the Amendment were accepted, the tenant would be able to let at a free rent the part of the house which he did not require, while remaining protected in respect of the whole house as against his landlord. That is the difficulty. I have tried to put both sides very carefully. We have considered the matter, not in any sense of a Party plea, and we feel that it is batter to keep to the general simplicity of the Bill and not break into that simplicity by bringing back into control houses outside the control limit. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for taking so long, but I wanted the noble Earl to appreciate that I was not advising the Committee against the Amendment for any Party reason, but only after due consideration of his point.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I can only say that I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the attempt he has made to explain this Amendment to the less legally instructed brains on this side, and I now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.21 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is an extraordinary subsection. It provides for delegated legislation of the widest possible kind. I imagine that there can be few examples of a clause which gives wider delegation powers to the Government. It seems an odd provision to come from the Party opposite, who, while we were in power, always strongly opposed the policy of delegation of power, however necessary it might have been. In his case, the Minister has power of the widest scope put into his hands. Can noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite regard this as a proper subsection to put in the Bill? I should like to hear what they have to say.
The Donoughmore Report, which deals with this subject, says at page 58:
" …we venture to express a hope that in the future Parliament will be more conscious both of the principles at stake and of the safeguards needed, that whenever legislative power is delegated, the limits of the power will be clearly defined in the statute by which it is delegated; that Parliament will not depart from the normal into the exceptional type of delegated legislation without special need, nor without conscious consideration of the special grounds put forward as constituting the need; and that it will grant delegated powers of the exceptional type—e.g., powers to legislate on matters of principle or to impose taxation—only on exceptional grounds."
On page 21 the Report says:
" …the precise limits of the law-making power, which Parliament intends to confer on a Minister, should always be defined in clear language by the statute which confers it."
I cannot imagine anything which departs more widely from the recommendations of the Donoughmore Report than subsection (3) of Clause 10.
As I understand it, delegated legislation should apply only in three cases: first of all, where it is a matter of great complexity; secondly, where the subject of legislation is of a technical nature, and thirdly, where it is desired to have flexibility owing to the fact that unforeseen circumstances may arise. I would suggest that in this case none of these principles applies. Yet what do we see? If your Lordships will look at subsection (3), you will find that it says:
" The Minister may by order provide that the Rent Acts shall not apply, as from such date as may be specified in the order, to dwelling-houses the rateable value of which, ascertained as on such date as may be specified in the order, exceeds such amount as may be
698
so specified; and an order under this subsection may be made so as to relate to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas in England and Wales or in Scotland as may be specified in the order, and so as to apply generally or only to, or except to, such classes or descriptions of dwelling-houses as may be so specified."
The Minister has to come to both Houses of Parliament for an Affirmative Resolution, I agree, but the fact is that he makes the order and himself decides what its contents shall be. This subsection puts the whole of the Rent Acts into jeopardy. The Minister can make an order to apply to such premises as he wants. He can decide on the rateable value of the premises to which an order applies, and make an order to cover the whole of England and Wales or some part of them. In short, by one administrative act, the Minister can upset the Rent Acts and create an entirely new situation in the country, so that all we are now doing and have done, and all that has been done in another place, will be so much wasted time, labour and paper.
I do not know what your Lordships think, but surely this is the sort of delegated legislation which should never be permitted to any Minister in these days on a matter like this, which affects the homes of so many millions of people. The Rent Acts have not had any great measure of delegated legislation attached to them. The original Act and the series of amending Acts have stated the law and the amendments to the law; but, so far as I know, there has been no body of delegated legislation. Now, however, we have to consider the question of giving the Minister this enormous power, which goes right against the recommendations of the Donoughmore Report and conflicts with everything that the Party opposite said upon this when they were in Opposition.
I should like to hear what the noble Viscount the Minister of Education, for example, would have said, not only when he was in Opposition in another place but also when the present Government were in power and he was on the Back Benches. I imagine that his comments on this subsection would have been as virulent as they were against the Government's television measure, to which I have already referred. I cannot imagine that the noble Viscount would have supported a subsection of this nature, which goes contrary to everything he has ever maintained on the public

699
platform, in this House and in another place; yet when he enters the Cabinet, he, as a Cabinet Minister, is partly responsible for the inclusion in the Bill of this obnoxious subsection. This is 1957, not 1657, and in this Year of Grace, I would ask the Government to look at this again and try to import into this Bill some modicum of modern legislative practice and not go back several hundreds of years to the time of the Stuarts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD MESTON: I confess that I feel a little uncomfortable about subsection (3), but I am a psychologist and can see deep down into the bosoms of the human race, and I can see that in the bosom of the Government spokesman there is the observation that this can be done only after an Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. That makes very little difference. We cannot deal satisfactorily with the subject of rent restriction by means of an Affirmative Resolution. Not only that, when we come to deal with rent restriction we have all manner of ancillary matters to consider, such as services, furniture, subtenancies, transitional permission and so forth. I feel that the Government do not really require subsection (3). I do not want anyone to think that I am opposed to the Bill. I am a keen supporter of the Bill in every way, but at the same time I have been surprised from my first sight of subsection (3).
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: AS my noble friend Lord Ogmore has said, this Amendment raises an important constitutional issue—namely, the proper use of delegated legislation. I think this is an issue that can be properly discussed by your Lordships, because it is a matter that we can consider on its merits, without Party bias. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, had to say. Although I agree with his argument about the practical difficulties of discussing these orders on Affirmative Resolutions, because they have to be accepted or rejected—they cannot be amended—I think the more important point is the constitutional one, of whether or not the Government are trying to do
700
by administrative order what should be done by legislation. What this subsection does is to allow this process of decontrol, which is only begun, and in a comparatively small way, in the present Bill, to be continued by administrative orders made by the Minister—subject only, so far as Parliamentary control is concerned, to an Affirmative Resolution of each House. This tremendous power of decontrol by order for which the Government are now asking, is far more substantial than the power that the Government are seeking in the present Bill to effect a very limited measure of decontrol.
Let me substantiate that proposition. The number of dwellings let unfurnished that will pass out of control when this Bill becomes law has been estimated by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor at about 800,000, for England, Scotland and Wales. This will leave nearly 5 million dwellings of this type (I think the precise figure is 4·9 million) which will still be subject to the Rent Acts. An order, or a series of orders, made under this clause can free any or all of the remaining 4·9 million controlled dwellings in England, Scotland and Wales, for such orders can be made to apply either to the whole of England and Wales, or to the whole of Scotland, or to any part of this area. This tremendous power of abolishing control—because that is what it amounts to; it is the power to continue and ultimately to abolish control—is surely not one that should be exercised by the Executive without further legislation. There is no precedent in earlier Acts for decontrol by administrative order. This is a matter that goes back some forty years, when the first measures of control were introduced during the First World War. There have been small doses of decontrol since 1914, but these doses have always been administered by Act of Parliament and never by order. My noble friend Lord Ogmore referred to the Report, which is the locus classicus on this subject, of the late Lord Donoughmore, and we all know what a great authority he was on Parliamentary procedure. I am certain that this proposal would make him turn in his grave.
I very much hope that the Government will reconsider asking for this tremendous and drastic power to act independently of

701
Parliament by administrative order. There might be a case for some further measure of decontrol by order, but to be able to sweep away the legislation of the past forty years and to decontrol every house in this island by administrative order is, surely, power that no Government should ask for. I hope the Government will see whether they cannot ask for a more limited power that they might reasonably wish to exercise within the next year or two. I support my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: AS the noble Lord who moved this Amendment pointed out to your Lordships, Clause 10 (3) enables the Minister of Housing and Local Government to bring new groups of houses out of control by order. I agree with him that the subsection is drafted in wide terms: it can relate to the whole of England and Wales, or it may relate to the whole of Scotland, or to particular areas of the country at large; and it may apply to houses over a certain rateable value, or to particular classes or descriptions of houses. I feel sure the noble Lord will agree with me at once that it is certainly based on flexibility of the highest order. There is really nothing new about this. Although it is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, that it has not yet appeared in housing legislation, it was recommended in 1937 by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in the first Report of his Committee. He recommended then that a scheme for progressively reducing rent control by order on a geographical basis, area by area, should be included in the housing legislation.
It is true that when the 1938 Act came along this recommendation was not implemented, but the Government at that time stated quite clearly that they were giving further consideration to the proposals for relaxing control by order. I can claim, therefore, that the proposals which were put up by Lord Ridley in 1937 are now to be implemented. I think all your Lordships know that the view of the Government is that it is in the national interest to abolish rent control progressively, as and when conditions permit. The first step in that direction is taken under Clause 10 (1) of this Bill. We shall have to see how this clause operates, and then to decide at a suitable time what use can be made of this subsection.
702
The argument has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and others that giving power to decontrol by order is, to all intents and purposes, by-passing Parliament. The order, as it says in the clause, will be subject to Affirmative Resolution, and therefore will be debated in this House and in another place, and at all times we should still be preserving the control of Parliament over the question of the decontrol of house property. I cannot see that there is any fear or danger that the Minister might work in a manner which would be singularly inappropriate in the particular circumstances. Do your Lordships really wish the Government to leave out this subsection, and to say in place thereof that, whenever there is one small area which the Minister thinks should be decontrolled, special legislation, with all the complications and ramifications which will follow it, should be introduced in this House or another place?
We believe that it is absolutely necessary here to keep the whole clause and the whole purpose of reducing rent control as flexible as possible. It is also required because from time to time the Minister may decide to advance at quite a different pace, according to local circumstances. The provisions in this subsection have been framed with that point in mind. I would say this, in conclusion. I do not think it would be right to ask my right honourable friend to leave out this subsection and to put the burden upon him of introducing special legislation on any and every occasion when he thinks it is necessary for some small portion or area of the country to be decontrolled. I would suggest to the Committee that, in these special circumstances, and in view of the fact that this was recommended a long time ago by the Ridley Committee, your Lordships would be well advised to leave subsection (3) in Clause 10 of the Bill.
6.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I make one point? The noble Earl referred to the Committee which sat in 1937. My recollection is that this decontrol by order was on the basis of the overcrowding statistics for each area at the time. In those days, twenty years ago now—I have not looked at this Report for some time—overcrowding statistics were of importance because

703
they related to the building by local authorities. My recollection is that the plan we proposed then was that as the overcrowding statistics in any particular area showed that there was not any bad shortage, then that area should become decontrolled. I do not think that that could be applicable now, because the statistics are not kept and, at any rate, the standard of housing is entirely different. I like the flexibility of this system, and I have wondered whether some variation might not have been included in the earlier part of Clause 10. I share the view that some people would probably be much happier to feel that while there is this flexible and adaptable system operated by order, there might be some limit to the rate at which the decontrol could go under this part of the clause.
LORD MESTON: If everything is as simple as the noble Earl makes out, why did he bother to have a Bill with twenty-four clauses and eight Schedules? Why not simply make an Order and send us all home to bed? Does the noble Earl really think that, in practice, the flexibility of this clause is attractive? Does he suggest for a moment that, in a few years' time, the Minister is going to make an order saying that the rateable value in Wigan is reduced to £25 but in Cornwall it is reduced to £15? Nothing of the sort is likely to be done in modern times, and I submit that there is little, if anything, to support the noble Earl's case.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I reply to one point? I do not think we should object if the Government were asking for power to exercise a limited extension of decontrol in the next two years. That is logical. The Government will have the authority, and if they want to do it it is not unreasonable that they should do it, and do it by order. But the principle here is that they should not ask Parliament for more power than they want to use, and they are asking Parliament for power to abolish rent control altogether. That is what we object to.

CONTENTS

Listowel, E.

Grantchester, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Rea, L.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Darwen, L.

Meston, L.

LORD OGMORE: We are not at all satisfied with the answer of the noble Earl. We feel that our objections have not been met in any way. I must say that I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. I think he is absolutely right. I cannot conceive of the position which the Government have envisaged of little bits and pieces; of altering the Rent Acts here and there up and down the country. From a practical point of view, I feel myself that it is going to be difficult to work by order, and from the point of view of constitutional practice it would be a bad precedent to insert into the Constitution at this stage.
Maybe we shall have to recall the words of the noble Earl on this matter, because on this occasion he has made a defence of delegated legislation which I should think has rarely been made in the whole history of Parliament, when he says that it is much more convenient to come here and push through an order which cannot be amended. Every totalitarian Government has at some time or other claimed this power, and it is the start of totalitarianism. I am not suggesting that the Government are going to do that, but it is a bad precedent. I am not supposing that we on this side, when we are in Government, should want to do it either. The time may come when we should want to do something like this and then, of course, we shall be able to quote the noble Earl in strong support of our arguments for the imposition of a clause of this kind. If you wish to amend a matter like the Rent Bill, I think you should bring in a fresh Bill. Nothing the Government has maintained has altered my mind, and in those circumstances I must ask your Lordships to go to a Division. I hope that many of the Back Benchers opposite who, I feel certain, agree with me, will join me in the Division.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 48.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Hawke, L.

Ridley, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Hylton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broughshane, L.

Merthyr, L.

Albemarle, E.

Chesham, L.

Monson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Conesford, L.

Remnant, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Morley, E.

Croft, L.

Rockley, L.

Munster, E.

Digby, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Somers, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Selborne, E.

Gifford, L.

Stratheden, and Campbell, L.

Glyn, L.

Waleran, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Gridley, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gage, V.

Hastings, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (3), after "date," where that word first occurs, to insert:
" not being earlier than three years from the date of: he coming into force of this Act ".
The noble Earl said: We get back again to the subsection which your Lordships have just voted to retain in the Bill. As this subsection of the clause now stands, the Minister would be able to start further measures of decontrol, decontrolling more dwellings immediately this Bill is passed into law. I do not say that he would do it; I do not suppose for a moment that he would; but he would have the power to do it. What we are proposing in our Amendment is that there should be a period of respite from decontrol; that no further decontrol should take place for three years after the passage of the Bill.
I think it will be generally admitted that any further measure of decontrol that is at all substantial, removing dwellings from the protection of the Rent Acts while there is a serious housing shortage, is bound to cause hardship to the tenants affected. So long as there is a housing shortage, it is obviously difficult to get alternative accommodation, and a landlord is in a position to drive a hard bargain. It has been said in another place—and I rather think that this was the view that the noble and learned Viscount took this afternoon—that the housing shortage will, if not be over, at any rate be very much less within quite a short period of time, perhaps a couple of years from now. I have already said that I do not agree
706
with that point of view—I wish I could. I do not feel that either private building or local authority building will fill the gap between demand and supply for a long time. I must say that I should be surprised if the Government really believed that its programme for slum clearance could be carried out within the next two or three years, at the present annual rate of clearance.
Our case on this Amendment for the maintenance of control for another three years—and that, of course, will affect the 4,900,000 dwellings which will remain controlled if this Bill is passed into law—is that it will take at least that amount of time for the supply of new houses to get at any rate a little closer to demand than it is at the present time. It is all very well to talk about a free market in accommodation, but a free market of this kind is bound to be unfair to a tenant who has nowhere to go if he is evicted from his home, so long as there is a housing shortage and he is forced either to accept a hard bargain from his landlord or to lose his present home.
The Minister in another place on the Third Reading of this Bill said that he did not propose to take a further measure of decontrol for at least a year. I have not his exact words, but I think that was the sense of what he said. We do not feel that this period of one year is by any means sufficient, but perhaps the noble Earl (if he is going to reply to this Amendment) would say whether, if the Government take the view that a year is a reasonable period of time before a further instalment of decontrol should take place, he would be willing to include something to that effect in the Bill.

707
Because, as this clause now stands, the Minister would be able to start the next instalment of decontrol the day after the Bill came into law. I hope that this process of decontrol will be as gradual as possible, because that is the only way to lessen the hardship on the tenant, and that the Government will go some distance towards meeting our plea that there should be a respite of three years after the passing of the Bill before any further decontrol takes place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, after (" date ") insert (" not being earlier than three years from the date of the coming into force of this Act ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD WOLVERTON: There is a very important provision in the same clause just below that passage, where the Minister: is taking powers to vary the areas if he thinks necessary. He can take off control for the whole country or area by area. I think that is a very important provision, and if there are areas which give some difficulty he need not take control off those areas; he has powers to leave it on.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment, as the noble Earl pointed out, would prevent the Minister for a period of three years from making an order for further reducing the rateable value limits for decontrol. I think my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing, certainly my noble and learned friend behind me, and myself, in the course of the discussions we have had on this Bill, have made it clear again and again that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abolish rent control progressively, and, naturally enough, after we have taken the first step to decontrol outlined in Clause 10 (1) we shall wish to see what progress has been made under this clause before we decide on the next step.
It is quite true that, as the clause is drafted at the present moment, my right honourable friend the day after the Royal Assent was received could present to another place an order for Affirmative Resolution, but that is very unlikely; indeed, it is an impossibility for the Minister to consider presenting an order before he has had any opportunity of seeing how Clause 10 worked and functioned
708
when it was in operation. My right honourable friend does not think it would be desirable to introduce into the Bill any precise date by which the next step should be taken, or before which the next step should not be taken. At the same time, my right honourable friend could not possibly tell Parliament when he would consider taking the next step, but obviously some time must elapse to see how the clause works as a whole before my right honourable friend would contemplate asking Parliament to approve an order.
I think, therefore, that it would be very unfortunate if we should insert in this particular subsection the time limit before which the Minister could not operate the order if he so wished. Indeed, the very fact that we had put a time limit into this subsection would, I venture to think, lead a number of people to believe that the next order for decontrol would automatically take place the moment the three years were up. Here, again, we feel strongly that we must keep that flexibility which we discussed on the previous Amendment, and we must, at the same time, give my right honourable friend the opportunity to decide upon the timing of the next step and, indeed, its adjustment to certain areas, as is laid down in the subsection. For those reasons I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment, because it is one which, with the best will in the world, I could not ask the House to accept.
LORD OGMORE: I support my noble friend on this Amendment and for the reasons he has given, which seem to me to be the natural and logical consequences of our previous argument on the subsection as a whole. My noble friend, I think, has put the case quite clearly and quite distinctly, and there is no need for me to go over it again. But Lord Listowel did refer in the course of his speech to a promise or undertaking or statement by the Minister in another place with reference to the period within which he would not make any decontrol order. As I understood the noble Earl who has just spoken, he said to your Lordships that there was, in fact, no period decided upon; they might make an order at any time and the Minister had not decided, or at least had not announced his decision, and that the whole matter was, so to speak, at issue. If I

709
understood him correctly, what he said is quite contrary to what was said by the Minister in another place, because on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, Mr. Brooke, the Minister, said this:
" I have no intention whatever of bringing in any decontrol Order at all within twelve months."
So the Minister has categorically stated in the House of Commons that he will not bring in a decontrol order within twelve months. Yet, here to-day the noble Earl gets up and says the Minister may bring in an Order at any time.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord really must not misrepresent me like that. I said that, as the clause stood at the moment, my right honourable friend could bring in an order at any time, but that it was absolutely out of the question that he would conceive of doing such a thing until he had had an opportunity of seeing how Clause 10 worked.
LORD OGMORE: In fact, having made that statement when the Bill is going through, he cannot possibly bring an order in within twelve months. Therefore, I ask the Government why do they not put that in the Bill? What is the objection to putting it in the Bill? When we were on that side, noble Lords then on this side, who have a conveniently short memory, were constantly telling us, "Put it in the Bill". Now you put it in the Bill. You were always telling us to do it. You do it. Here is a definite statement by the Minister in another place. Did he mislead the House of Commons? If he did not mislead the House of Commons, why do the Government not put it in the Bill? We say that three years is the proper time—though, of course, what is the correct period is a matter of opinion. We say: have a definite period in the Bill; and we say, in view of this commitment by the Minister in another place, that a definite period should go in the Bill, and that that period should be three years. We ask your Lordships to support us in the Division Lobby on this Amendment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: On this clause it seems to me that the arguments we have had have been that the Government policy of complete abolition of rent control should be carried out with maximum
710
ease for the Minister. The doctrine of making it easy for the Minister and making it flexible seems to be regarded as of much greater importance than the welfare of the 4,900,000 families who will still be left in rent-controlled houses after the Bill has gone through. If it is maximum ease for the Minister, it is maximum anxiety for the general public, and I think when we put this in the scale in this House we ought to come down against ministerial ease and for public happiness and safety.
The situation on this clause, simply, is that, after it has been passed, 4,900,000 families will not know what the future is for them, so far as their rents are concerned, or even the occupancy of their houses. I sometimes feel that a number of noble Lords do not appreciate sufficiently how important the element of rent is in the budget and the lives of working-class families. In regard to the 700,000 or 800,000 houses that have been decontrolled under the Bill, it is mainly middle-class families that are concerned. Bad as the consequences will be to them, in many cases they will not be as bad as the consequences of decontrol are likely to be among the poorer sections of the population, where, as I say, rent is a tremendously important element in their budget and in their lives. Where their means are limited and inflexible, the prospect of being asked for an increased rent may mean for them the upheaval of trying to find inferior and cheaper accommodation. It is that sort of fear which is going to hang over these millions of families if this clause goes through in its present form. What we are asking for now is little enough—a three-year period of grace. At least in that time there will be more houses built; the housing situation will be just that little easier. That will reduce the anxiety a little. But to put them under that anxiety for the sake of the doctrine of ministerial ease and convenience is, I think, completely unworthy of any Government.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, under this Bill the tenants have the protection of an Affirmative Resolution in Parliament. All these terrible fears that the noble Lord spoke about will be the fears of the tenants without any such protection if the Socialist

711
measure of municipalisation of houses is passed, because then the tenants will have no protection at all such as we are giving them in this Bill.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Is it not the fact that local authorities are elected, subject to popular choice, every few years? Is not that one good safeguard for the tenants?
LORD ARCHIBALD: I would only say that I would rather have the protection of having my house owned by an elected municipal authority than depend on the result of an Affirmative Resolution, with a Conservative majority in both Houses and with the Government Whips on.

CONTENTS

Listowel, E.

Darwen, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Quibell, L.

Kershaw, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Archibald, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Broughshane, L.

Hylton, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Chesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Conesford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cottesloe, L.

Merthyr, L.

Croft, L.

Monson, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Dynevor, L.

Remnant, L.

Morley, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Rockley, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Gifford, L.

Somers, L.

Radnor, E.

Glyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hastings, L.

Waleran, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hawke, L.

Wolverton, L.

Waverley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Before we leave Clause 10, may I ask a question concerning subsection (2)? This is drawn in a such a way as to condemn to non-occupation all houses and flats becoming vacant after the printing of the Bill, and thus the housing shortage has been considerably aggravated. Representations on this point were made to the Minister, but without effect; and not only without effect but without any explanation. I raised this point on Second Reading, and was invited
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Is the majority not the elected majority, representing the will of the people? And is not what the noble Lord is really saying that the people do not behave as the noble Lord thinks they should at elections, but are wise enough to return a Conservative Administration?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The people were assured by the Conservatives at the last Election that no such Bill as this would be introduced. The Government are passing the whole measure without mandate. I should be ashamed to raise that sort of argument.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 44.
to raise it again at this stage, which I now do. The matter has become largely academic, since it is hoped that the Bill will become an Act in the course of the next two months or so; but in view of the persistence of the official silence on this matter, perhaps I may be forgiven for my persistence in raising it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was not aware that any representations had been made to my right honourable friend the Minister concerning subsection (2) of this clause. I am sorry that I have no instructions whatsoever from my right honourable friend regarding this matter.
Clause 10 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-jour minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.]
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
Option for new lease for tenancy excluded from control under Rent Acts
" 11.—(1) The tenant of a tenancy excluded from the application of the Rent Acts by the provision of subsection (1) of section ten of this Act who immediately prior to date on which the Act shall come into force shall have been in occupation of the premises comprised in such tenancy for a period of not less than two consecutive years and who shall be given notice to quit such premises within a period of two years after the date on which this Act shall come into force may at any time before such notice to quit takes effect serve a notice on the landlord requiring a new lease of such premises.
(2) Where such a notice as aforesaid is duly served the tenant shall be entitled to a new tenancy of the premises for such period not exceeding three years and on such terms as shall be agreed between the tenant and the landlord or in default of such agreement as the county court shall determine to be proper:
Provided that the rent fixed by the county court as the rent payable under the new tenancy shall be such rent as the county court shall determine to be the rent which a willing lessee would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises having regard to the terms of the tenancy."
The noble Lord said: I hope that I should be one of the last to think the Government wrong in restoring freedom of contract between landlord and tenant as contemplated in Clause 10. Rather are the Government to be congratulated on their courage in tackling this problem. I believe it to be right to get rid of what is to some extent—probably more than many of us think—an artificially created shortage of accommodation, and I do not regard this Amendment as in any way in conflict with this principle of freedom. It is agreed by all in this House, I think, that a transitional period is required to allay unnecessary nervousness, and to avoid hardship and too much disturbance within too restricted a period. In the decontrolled houses sector, I think that the payment of a fair rent, and removal, or the giving of notice to quit, are two separate questions; and I feel that those two questions should be divided into two stages. First, get the rent right. If that is done, I think that in all the circumstances, recognising that a transitional period is unavoidable, landlords would not feel that the protection
714
given by this Amendment was entirely unreasonable. The Amendment which I am moving gives the option to a tenant who has been in premises for two consecutive years of a tenancy for a period not exceeding three years to tide over what might be a very awkward "general post," if too many notices to quit were given immediately. I think this Amendment would allay the fears of many tenants and so help the cause of freedom from control, which it is the aim of this Bill to achieve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Grantchester.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate entirely the spirit which has animated the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to move this Amendment, but I think I shall be able to convince him that there are considerable difficulties in its way. The Amendment would enable a tenant of a house decontrolled by Clause 10 (1), who had been a tenant for at least two years previously, whose tenancy was determinable by notice to quit and who was given notice to quit within two years after the time of decontrol, to claim a new tenancy. The terms of the tenancy would have to be agreed between the landlord and the tenant, or, in default of agreement, settled by the county court. The term of the tenancy could be any period not exceeding three years, and the rent, if it had to be determined by the county court, would be what the court found to be the market rent for the premises. Your Lordships will have noticed that under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Fourth Schedule the type of tenant with which the Amendment is concerned would be entitled to remain in possession of his dwelling-house for at least fifteen months at the rent he was paying immediately before the time of decontrol. If, in the interim, the parties agreed upon a new tenancy for at least three years, that tenancy would take effect at once, and the rent under it, which no doubt would be higher, would become payable.
Let us pause there to consider the difference between the Amendment and the provisions of the Fourth Schedule. The main difference is that the Amendment would give a decontrolled tenant of the class in question a right to a new tenancy, whereas the Fourth

715
Schedule merely enables him to agree upon a new tenancy with his landlord. Another difference is that in the case of the tenant protected toy the Fourth Schedule the rent has to be agreed between the landlord and the tenant, and there is no overriding limit, whereas under this Amendment the rent would be settled, in the last resort, by the court and would therefore be a controlled rent. There is also the difference that under the Fourth Schedule the tenant, if he can agree a new tenancy, can insist on a term of three years, whereas under the Amendment this is merely the maximum period which can be demanded.
There are two smaller and one larger objection to the Amendment. The first of the smaller objections is that the landlord may have good reasons for not wishing to grant a new tenancy to the decontrolled tenant. He may have been a thoroughly bad tenant. On the other hand, the landlord may want the premises for his own occupation or for the occupation of some member of his family. The second smaller objection, which is particularly my own, is that the Amendment would be likely to result in an excess of applications to the county courts, who would be in the difficulty of having this class of work put upon thorn, lasting for a relatively short period and then disappearing. The main objection, however, is, one of principle. If the Amendment were drafted in order to make its operation certain, it would substitute one form of control for another—the county court in place of the Rent Acts—and it would prolong control for three years or more, instead of, as the Bill does, bringing it to an end after fifteen months.
Then there is the general point, which I would ask my noble friend Lord Grantchester to consider, in view of what he said. His basic desire is to help towards freedom in this matter. We have considered what is going to help tenants to secure unfurnished accommodation, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that what is ultimately going to help them is the creation of a free market. A free market would carry with it all the advantages of bringing more accommodation into the letting market. The Government's objective, above all, is to stop the constant drain
716
of accommodation to let. The availability of this accommodation is shrinking all the time, for the reasons we have discussed, including those that make for over-accommodation at present. If this process is to be halted and reversed, we believe, and I think the noble Lord believes, that it can be done only by recreating a free market.
As I have stressed throughout my remarks, the decontrol provisions of the Bill are largely directed at the considerable amount of under-occupied accommodation existing in properties in the higher range of rateable values. In all the controversy we have had on the Bill, that point has never been seriously challenged. We find that it needs a free market to release all this under-occupied accommodation and bring it on offer for letting. I believe that if we were to put off effective decontrol for three years, as the Amendment proposes, it would postpone for that period the time when a free market can be created. To meet the anxieties of the noble Lord, which I fully realise, we have conceded the fifteen months' standstill period, and we believe that this is sufficient for new agreements to be negotiated and to bring new accommodation into the market. On the other hand, to postpone the operation of decontrol would be inimical to our major policy. I have tried to deal adequately and seriously with the important points raised by the noble Lord, and I hope that, in view of the difficulties that I have indicated, he will not press the Amendment.
8.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: We have listened with interest to the exposition of the new clause by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but I am bound to say, from this side of the Committee, that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, appeals to us and we come down on his side. I cannot understand why it is not possible to give this right, particularly that of going to the county court, to the tenants. The Lord Chancellor said that that would impose the court as the body to arbitrate, instead of the Rent Act. But, in fact, all business premises throughout the country now, by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, are in that position. At the end

717
of a lease of business premises, if there is no agreement between landlord and tenant, the tenant or the landlord can go to the county court and apply for a new lease, and the court, if it thinks fit, can give a lease of up to fourteen years, and assess the rent. That is the situation with regard to all business premises. I really cannot see why a modified form of such a provision—because that is all that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is proposing—cannot be imported into the Rent Acts.
I feel that this is the sort of case in which the Government could give way. That is why I call them doctrinaire. I think they are so much obsessed with this free market—which, in my view, in any case is largely a miasma; it does not really exist and will not exist in the way that they think—that anything which is thought by them to impinge upon the trademark cannot be considered, however desirable it is. I call that doctrinaire, but the Lord Chancellor does not agree. I feel it is doctrinaire if you are not prepared to be empirical; if you will not agree to an Amendment which does perhaps impinge on the theory, but which would help a large number of people if you agreed to it. We on this side do not want to take up time unduly, but we support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and hope that the Government will give way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I cannot take the line which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has suggested, for the reasons that I have given. I only want, in deference to his argument and because I was responsible in another place for the Landlord and Tenant Act, to point out to him that there we were dealing with the problem, which he will remember well from his professional work, set up by the original Act of 1927; that is to say, the immense technical difficulties that fell in the way of establishing a new lease. It was in the light of that background that I came to decisions and put forward the proposals in the Land lord and Tenant Act. I am not going to make a lawyers' holiday of this debate by going into the differences in detail, but I felt it was only due to the fair and proper argument advanced by the noble Lord that I should say that I think there are great and serious differences between the positions.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation. I admit that it is really a question of balance of advantage. I do not think the fixing of a rent by the county court should be called control quite in the sense in which he has used it. I think there is some fear on this point that a landlord may have good reason for refusing a new lease; but he has accepted a tenant, and the tenant may also have good grounds for expecting to be allowed to stay at a full and fair rent. I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I should like the noble and learned Viscount to look at paragraph 4 of the Fourth Schedule again, and see whether some little strengthening of that right of the tenant might not be desirable. May I withdraw the Amendment, and I will not move the consequential Amendment on Clause 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Premiums not to be charged for decontrolled tenancies
12.—(1) As respects grant, renewal, continuance or assignment at any time during the period of three years beginning with the commencement of this Act, a tenancy excluded from the application of the Rent Acts by the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) of section ten of this Act shall be treated as one to which section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, applies (which section prohibits the requiring of premiums on the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of tenancies to which the Rent Acts apply).
(2) As respects grant, renewal or continuance otherwise than for a term of more than twenty-one years, and as respects assignment of a tenancy granted, renewed or continued after the commencement of this Act, subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 (which excludes from the Rent Acts tenancies where the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value) shall be disregarded for the purposes of the foregoing subsection.
8.46 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1) to omit "three" and to insert "five" [years]. The noble Lord said: This Amendment to the clause extends the period within which premiums are not allowed to be charged for decontrolled tenancies from three years to five years. There is, of course, no virtue in any particular period—it may be two, three, four, five or six years, but we should prefer a longer period than three years.

719
We thought that three years is rather a short period, considering that there is bound to be, during the operation of what the Government optimistically call "the free market," a considerable amount of dislocation and hardship. Into that field, as we know, there will come the landlord who will try to get the maximum benefit that he can. I am not for a moment suggesting that all landlords are villains, because I know perfectly well that they are not: there are good and bad landlords. But there are some bad landlords and, unfortunately, the type of bad landlord we have in mind will undoubtedly try to take the utmost avantage of his rights under this Bill.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have been unfortunate enough to be without a residence in London in the last two or three years. If you have, and you have gone to the various agents in London—and I have no doubt that to a lesser extent the same applies to the larger towns in the country—you will find that enormous premiums are being charged for premises that are not rent controlled. It would be an interesting experience, if you have not had it, to go to any London estate agent and ask him for a list of unfurnished premises, and see the premiums that he or his principals will want for the letting of flats for a period. I have seen these lists, and I have a member of my family now who is in the unfortunate position of trying to get accommodation in London. As much as £8,000 is being asked as a premium. It is common for £4,000, £5,000 and £6,000 to be asked for premiums. They are not controlled tenancies—I am not talking about those—but uncontrolled, where what is called the "purchase of a short lease" may amount to many thousands of pounds. That is, in fact, a premium; it is the same thing called by another name. And very often you have to pay a heavy rent on top of that.
At other times the transaction is disguised by being termed "fixtures and fittings" which generally means a couple of dilapidated carpets, some tattered and frayed curtains, a few old chairs and a table. They are regarded as furnishings and the unfortunate tenant has to pay hundreds or thousands of pounds for such rubbish when a £5 note would probably
720
cover the lot, with a few shillings to spare. But that is the sort of thing which is happening now, and one is very much afraid that, as premises become decontrolled and available in the market, the unscrupulous landlord—I am not, of course, suggesting that they are all unscrupulous, by any means—may take advantage of the position and charge people heavily for the accommodation.
I am particularly sympathetic with the young people to-day. I should not have thought that there was ever in history a time when it was more difficult for young people to set up housekeeping than it is to-day. I do not think that this provision, unless there is some way in which we can limit the possibility of their being victimised, will help their case at all. I cannot see it. They will have great difficulties in getting accommodation in the future as at the present for some years to come, and they may well be charged large sums for vacant premises which have become decontrolled by reason of this Bill. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 41, leave out (" three ") and insert (" five ").—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The ban on premiums for three years which is mentioned in Clause 12 is intended, and indeed designed, to prevent landlords, when decontrol comes into operation, from requiring a premium for the renewal of tenancies to sitting tenants. At the same time, the clause prevents premiums from being charged to incoming tenants. This has been designed in such a way that it offers no incentive to a landlord to turn out a sitting tenant, from whom he could not obtain a premium, in favour of an incoming tenant from whom he could obtain a premium. The ban on premiums is related to a period of three years, which is the minimum period for a lease which, if agreed between the landlord and the tenant, breaks the standstill period of fifteen months after decontrol. By the end of three years after the coming into operation of the Bill a free market with reasonable rents, which we believe will not result in dislocation or hardship, should be restored for houses in the higher rateable value groups. The temporary safeguard of the ban should not be required. In those circumstances, my right honourable friend thinks it would

721
be undesirable to extend this period from three to five years. Accordingly, I would suggest to the Committee that we should keep the clause as it stands at present and not increase the period from three to five years.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next five Amendments which stand in my name on Clause 12 are all drafting. I beg to move the first.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, after (" by ") insert (" reason only of ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Amendment No. 20 is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, after (" Act ") insert (" or of those provisions and of subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 (which excludes from the Rent Acts tenancies where the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" Provided that this subsection shall not affect the assignment of a tenancy granted before the commencement of this Act and not renewed or continued thereafter, being a tenancy to which subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 applies.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THL EARL OF MUNSTER: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 12, leave out (" subsections ") and insert (" subsection ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 15, leave out (" subsection (1) of this section ") and insert (" the foregoing subsection")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Minimum length of notice to quit]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: May I say a word on Clause 15, merely to ask that it be confirmed that this clause refers to notice given by tenant to landlord, as well as by landlord to tenant? I understand that this is the intention, and although the meaning of the clause is clear to the legal mind, I have reason to believe that it has not such clarity in lay circles. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government will consider whether a useful purpose might be served by using, for the sake of clarity, some such words as "on the part of the landlord or tenant".
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will certainly look into that point and let him know in due course.
Clause 15 agreed to.
8.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
Provisions to facilitate exchange of controlled dwellings
".—(1) Where it is so agreed in writing between the tenant under a statutory tenancy of a dwelling and a person proposing to occupy that dwelling (hereinafter referred to as the ' incoming tenant '), the incoming tenant shall subject as hereinafter provided be deemed as from such date as may be specified in the agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ' date of exchange ') to be the tenant of the dwelling under that statutory tenancy; and the question whether the provisions of the Rent Acts as to the succession by the widow of a deceased tenant or by a member of his family to the right to retain possession are capable of having effect in the event of the death of the incoming tenant shall be determined according as those provisions have or have not already had effect in relation to the statutory tenancy.
(2) An agreement under the foregoing subsection shall not have effect unless the landlord is a party thereto, and if the consent of any superior landlord would have been required to an assignment of the tenancy on the coming to an end of which the statutory tenancy arose the agreement shall not have effect unless the superior landlord is a party thereto.
(3) An agreement under subsection (1) of this section may provide that the provisions of the Rent Acts mentioned in that subsection shall be capable of having effect in the event of the death of the incoming tenant notwithstanding that they had effect in favour of the tenant to whom he succeeded.
(4) It shall be unlawful to require the payment of any pecuniary consideration for entering into an agreement under subsection (1) of this section; and—

(a) the amount of any payment made which under this subsection could not lawfully be required shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was made either by proceedings for its recovery or, if it was made to the landlord, by deduction from any rent payable by the said person to the landlord;

(b) a person requiring the payment of any consideration in contravention of this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order the amount of the payment to be repaid by the person to whom it was paid:

Provided that subsection (4) of section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949 (which allows an assignor to charge the assignee for apportioned outgoings, improvements, and goodwill) shall apply with the substitution for the reference to subsection (2) of that section of a reference to this subsection, and for references to the assignor, the assignee and the taking effect of the assignment of references to the tenant, the incoming tenant and the date of exchange."
The noble Earl said: This clause is of some importance. It gives effect to an undertaking which was given in another place by my right honourable friend that he would consider the possibility of providing for a voluntary but not compulsory exchange of tenancies. The new clause is not in terms a provision for the exchange of tenancies, though that is its principal object. It has a wider application, since it enables a statutory tenant to assign his statutory tenancy, with the consent of the landlord and, if necessary, of any superior landlord as well, to any other person. It would thus make possible an exchange not only between two statutory tenants but also between a statutory tenant and an owner-occupier who was willing to let his house if he could obtain in exchange a controlled tenancy. It would also enable an exchange to be made between a statutory tenant and a tenant of a local authority I or housing association, or, in fact, of a housing trust.
The reason why power to assign a statutory tenancy is all the clause provides for is that it is unnecessary to confer power on a controlled contractual tenant to assign his tenancy with consent, because his landlord can always consent, whatever the tenancy may provide, and
724
the incoming tenant will have the rights of a statutory tenant when the contractual tenancy comes to an end. The incoming tenant under this Amendment will step into the shoes of the outgoing tenant as regards succession to a statutory tenancy. If the outgoing tenant was the original statutory tenant, then the incoming tenant will be able to pass on to a successor the statutory tenancy. I think the Committee will be well aware that a statutory tenancy can be passed only once by succession; and if the outgoing tenant had himself succeeded to a statutory tenancy, then the incoming tenant would not be able to pass the tenancy on to a successor. The landlord could, however, agree to regard the incoming tenant as the first statutory tenant.
It will also be unlawful, under subsection (4) of my Amendment, for landlords or tenants to require a premium in connection with any of these transactions. There is, however, an exception in the proviso, following the precedent in the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, to enable the outgoing tenant to charge the incoming tenant an appropriate amount for improvements or other items on which he has incurred a lawful expense. That is the purpose of the clause which, as I have said, is the result of an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place. Although it may appear at first sight to be a somewhat complicated matter, I hope that I have explained it in such a manner that the Committee will be prepared to accept it. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
9.2 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to add to the proposed subsection (2):
" Provided that if the landlord or any superior landlord refuses to be a party to such agreement the tenant may apply to the county court and the court may make such order in relation to such application as it may in all the circumstances consider to be proper."
The noble Lord said: Broadly speaking, we accept the principle behind this new clause moved and clearly explained by the noble Earl. As he says, it was put down as the result of a promise made in another place. I am sure that our

725
Amendment will commend itself to the Committee, because it in facts stops a gap or loophole in the new clause. As the Committee will see, by subsection (2) the exchange of controlled dwellings, which is the object of this clause, can take place only provided the landlord, and the superior landlord, if there is one, agree to it. If either or both of them do not agree, however desirable it may be—even if one agrees and the other does not—then this transaction cannot take place. I believe I am expressing the position clearly and rightly.
Our Amendment is designed so that in such circumstances the tenant may apply to the county court, which will hear the case and, if it thinks it desirable, will make such order as it thinks proper. In other words, if there is obviously a case where there should be a transaction of this nature, where it is desirable that the exchange of dwellings should be facilitated, then a landlord who, for some other reason nothing to do with the merits of the transaction, does not want to agree, cannot hold the thing up. This may well be the case particularly with superior landlords. You may get a superior landlord who thinks, "I am not going to have a person I do not want or of that type in my house. I do not want a person with a certain background in my house, and I am not going to agree to it." He may take a completely illogical and improper view, but, however improper and illogical his view may be, there is nothing that the tenant, or the two tenants, and the other landlords can do—he can prevent the whole thing from coming into operation.
What is wrong with the county court? The county court has more and more jurisdiction put upon it. In this Bill it has many important tasks, and I, for one, would feel entirely confident about leaving a matter of this kind to the discretion of the county court judge. If he thinks, that the objection of the superior landlord or of the landlord is well founded, then, naturally, he will not overrule the decision of the landlord. On the other hand, if he thinks it is for the general benefit that the transaction should take place, he will make such order as he thinks fit to give effect to his views. I would commend my Amendment to your Lordships because I believe it stops up a gap in what is, on the whole, the
726
desirable new clause put down by the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
At end of subsection (2), insert the said proviso.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I ask whether this Amendment to the Amendment would operate only during the fifteen months' transitional period?
LORD OGMORE: It would operate during the period of the new clause itself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be glad if, before making up his mind whether to press this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would consider certain matters. The Amendment would, as he says, enable a tenant to ask the county court to compel the landlord to consent to an assignment of his statutory tenancy, thus introducing an element of compulsion. The subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee which in 1953 produced a report on the general subject of exchanges of tenancies, stressed that, to be successful, exchanges must be arranged on a voluntary principle. It is quite true that the Minister was chairman of the sub-committee, but that body also included the chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee; and, in spite of the difference of political views on the sub-committee, its report was unanimous. It is therefore an important matter for consideration that the sub-committee stressed that, to be successful, exchanges must be arranged on a voluntary principle.
If we look at that a little further we shall observe that while at present a landlord cannot let his house free of control if the tenant leaves, he can at any rate decide who the new tenant should be. In practice—and this is one of the problems which we are facing by this Bill—since the landlord cannot let the house free of control he naturally tries to sell it. Under the Bill the landlord would normally be able to let a vacant house free of control and thus have an incentive to let rather than to sell. It appears quite reasonable to enable landlords to agree voluntarily to create what is in effect a new controlled tenancy to

727
facilitate exchanges; but if the Amendment to the Amendment were accepted the landlord could lose his choice as regards the new tenant. The two tenants wishing to exchange tenancies would ask the landlord to agree, and if he did not agree application could be made to the county court to compel him to accept the incoming tenant.
There is another important point. The noble Lord will remember that the Amendment moved in another place provided that this element of compulsion which it contained should not apply where the landlord was a local authority. This exclusion is not provided for in the present Amendment because the new clause does not apply to local authorities since their tenants are not statutory tenants. In considering this matter it is very relevant to know whether the sponsors of the Amendment would be prepared, as regards choice of tenants, to apply the same degree of compulsion upon local authorities as is provided for private landlords. This is an important point. If they are prepared to do that, I will consider it and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Minister. If they are not, I do not see how one can agree to an Amendment to force this compulsory exchange on to private landlords when it is not wanted for local authorities.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Would the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor consider a provision which appertains to many furnished tenancies, which is the inclusion of the words: "such consent not to be unreasonably withheld "? That would surely have some influence on the recalcitrant landlord, and he would hesitate before blocking a voluntary exchange for reasons of his own, because he would know that if he did so unreasonably the tenants would have recourse. I suggest that that is a half way course between the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and what is in the Bill. Would the noble and learned Viscount consider it?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I also feel that something might be done here. Perhaps, as the noble Viscount has said, this Amendment is too rigid and goes too far. But I think that, as the noble Lord has just said, something could be done to
728
prevent a really unreasonable landlord from stopping an arrangement which is in everyone's interest. There must be safeguards to see that a genuine landlord who does not want to let but wants premises for his own occupation or for his children has a reasonable chance of getting them. I hope that some sort of half way compromise can be found.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be prepared to discuss with my right honourable friend the suggestions which have been put forward by both my noble friends, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Viscount Ridley. I have not got it clear in my own mind how this could be worked out, but I will certainly have a look at it.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord on the other side of the House. I think that they feel as we do, that there is a gap here and that it is not beyond the wit of all of us to devise a way to fill it in a way which will satisfy us. If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will look at the matter between now and the Report stage, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps he could bring forward at the Report stage something on this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have said, I will certainly look at this point, but I always like to make it clear that, when I say I am going to look at anything and an Amendment is thereupon withdrawn, I cannot give any promise. However, I will certainly look into this very carefully.
LORD OGMORE: The noble and learned Viscount will realise, of course, that if, after looking at it, he cannot do anything about this matter, we shall put an Amendment down again at the Report stage and, if necessary divide the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Could the noble Lord help me about the local authority point?
LORD OGMORE: That is a completely different point and I am inclined to think that it is somewhat of a red herring. Local authorities are not concerned under this Bill at all. They do not deal with rent-restricted premises. The whole point about the clause, as I understand it, is that it provides for the

729
case of two premises which are rent-restricted and which are to remain so. It is merely a case of exchanging one tenant for another. Local authorities have absolutely nothing to do with this matter, so far as I can see. I think it is quite a subtle move on the part of the noble and learned Viscount, but it is one upon which we on this side of the House will not be drawn.
LORD GREENHILL: I should like to add a word here in connection with the position of local authorities. I have not carefully considered the point, but the implication of the word "compulsory" does not appeal to me in regard to this, though I know that situations often arise in which it would be very helpful if one could effect an exchange between a local authority owned house and some privately owned house. How that is to be embodied in this clause I do not know, but it would be helpful if it could be done.
LORD OGMORE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Jurisdiction of county court or sheriff and procedure]:
LORD GREENHILL LORD GREENHILL had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 16. The noble Lord said: Rather than move the Amendment in my name, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to say a word or two on the Motion that this clause stand part.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GREENHILL: I confess that I am a little perturbed about this clause. I am told that it deals with machinery, and machinery for the implementation of this Bill is very necessary. What I fear is that this Bill is so complicated a measure that no layman, however well informed he may be, can possibly become master of its contents without advice. If it be true that we pride ourselves on the law being the same for the rich as for the poor, I feel that the very complication of this Bill makes it difficult, if not impossible, to give to the tenant we have in mind the protection and care which it is intended to give him in the Bill. The county courts, and equally the sheriff courts, are satisfactorily manned by men well able to deal with the provisions
730
of the Bill; but when one considers the position of the tenants who are concerned, when one has met them and seen the difficulties with which they are faced, even in smaller problems than this, I feel that the noble and learned Viscount might consider the desirability of including in this procedure, in some way or another, an extension of the rent tribunals which have worked so successfully in Scotland. There we have a body, not necessarily of legal members, to whom the harassed tenant can come and state his case, without incurring the expense and difficulty of putting up a legal argument, and obtain the advice he is seeking. He may not always be successful, but I think that he would feel much more confident in approaching a tribunal of that kind than he would in having to go through this complicated and expensive procedure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has said, I think that it would be convenient if I first gave, to put on the record of your Lordships' House, a general sketch of the function of this clause, and then came to the Scottish position, of which the noble Lord has spoken. The clause gives to the county court, and to the sheriff in Scotland, jurisdiction to determine questions arising under the Bill. In this it follows the precedent of earlier rent control legislation, including Section 17 (2) of the 1920 Act. The clause goes further than this, however, inasmuch as it confers on the court and the sheriff general jurisdiction to determine any question on the application of the Rent Acts—and may I stress "application"?—the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, whether or not the question arises under the Bill. So far as the Acts of 1946 and 1943 are concerned, this is an entirely new jurisdiction. So far as the Rent Acts are concerned, this jurisdiction is new in so far as it enables the county court or the sheriff to determine any question as to the application summarily, and not merely in the course of other proceedings.
I now pass to the Scottish position, and, although I know my limitations in the matter, I am proud to be Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and, therefore, I assume this task with a modest

731
pride. The clause provides that in Scotland the sheriff shall determine questions arising under the Bill, or as to the application of the Rent Acts or the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943. In England and Wales the county court will have the additional power to determine questions as to the rent limit under the Bill, or as to the rent actually recoverable, but this additional power is not necessary for Scotland.
The noble Lord has in mind the power given to the sheriff to determine questions as to the application of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943. Clause 16 does not take away any of the present duties of the rent tribunal; it merely gives the sheriff power to decide whether a rent tribunal has jurisdiction in any particular case. The clause is, in fact, a simplification of the present procedure, because if under present law a rent tribunal acted outside its powers, the decision could be brought under review only in the Court of Session in an action of reduction; and the new procedure would be, and ought to be, simpler and less expensive, since the sheriff will be able to decide on any question as to the tribunal's jurisdiction. Your Lordships may remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, I am sure, has it in mind, that there was an Amendment to delete the Scottish subsection (2) of the clause in another place, and that was withdrawn on my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General for Scotland giving an explanation of the position. If the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has not got that in mind, it might be useful for him to have the reference. It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons Standing Committee, February 27, columns 1043 to 1045.
On the more general question, whether the tribunals under the 1943 Act should not be given increased scope, for example to decide disputes about rent increases under the provisions of the Scottish 1954 Act and the Scottish clauses of this Bill, I have considered the matter with my right honourable and learned friends, because, as the noble Lord knows, Amendments on this point were moved in the Commons Standing Committee. The view I have formed, after consideration, is that such questions as arise on
732
the Scottish rent provisions are essentially legal questions. The sheriff has always been the accepted arbiter under the Rent Acts, including the Scottish 1954 Act, and a great deal of experience has accumulated from extensive litigation. Again, I have tried to put it shortly, but if the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, would like to consider that matter, he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons Standing Committee, February 7, columns 609 and 610. I think I have covered the point and I hope that that information will be useful to the noble Lord. I have not gone into the English provisions, but I can if necessary, and if he would like the English provisions and communicates with me, I should be pleased to give them to him. I thought it would be mainly the Scottish aspect he had in mind. At any rate, that would be useful for him to consider, so that he might form his view before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GREENHILL: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the trouble he has taken.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Rents of subsidised private houses
17.—(1) In so far as the conditions mentioned in any of the following enactments, that is to say,—

(a) section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act. 1924;

(b) section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. 1926;

(c) section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938;

(d) section twenty-three of the Housing Act. 1949;

(e) section three of the Housing Act, 1952,

relate to the rent to be charged in respect of any dwelling they shall limit that rent, and if imposed before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if they limited that rent, to the amount of the rent limit; but if the conditions were imposed before the commencement of this Act and then limited the rent to an amount exceeding what would be the rent limit if ascertained under subsection (1) of section one of this Act, the rent limit shall be that amount, subject however to the provisions of subsection (2) of that section.
(3) Where any such condition as aforesaid limits the rent under a tenancy which is not a controlled tenancy then, subject to the next following subsection.—

(a) subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, in relation to that tenancy, as if for the reference to the amount of the rent limit

733
there were substituted a reference to the amount which would be the rent limit if the tenancy were a controlled tenancy; and

9.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), after the first word "limit" to insert:
" or to such higher amount than the rent limit as the local authority may decide; "
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to try to find out precisely what the position is. It refers to houses which remain in control and houses which are known or called in this part of the Bill "subsidised private houses." I am concerned mainly here with those which have been the subject of improvements and improvement grants under the 1949 Act. It has been suggested to me that, as the clause is drafted, houses which are referred to do not have with them the provisions in Clause 5 which refer to increases in rent for improvements. That may be entirely wrong. I must say that I am doubtful if in fact they are controlled by this clause. I should have thought that this Amendment was redundant, and I would apologise to your Lordships for having moved it. I merely ask that question and formally move so that it can be answered.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, after (" limit ") insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I take it that my noble friend would have no objection if I dealt with both his Amendments together?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should be grateful if I could move the second Amendment, because it is an entirely different point.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I hope the answer I shall give the noble Viscount will satisfy him on both. Clause 17 enables the landlord of a house which has been provided or improved with the aid of a subsidy to increase the rent of that house to the Clause 1 (1) rent limit, notwithstanding the fact that the subsidy was granted on conditions limiting the rent to a lower figure. If the rent fixed under the subsidy conditions is higher than the rent limit of Clause 1, that higher figure remains applicable.
This Amendment would enable the local authority, when approving a house
734
for subsidy, to fix a higher figure than the Clause 1 rent limit. For practical purposes, the effect of the Amendment would be limited to improvement grants made after this Bill comes into force. As I think the noble Viscount is well aware, when making an improvement grant under the Housing Act, 1949, either for the improvement of an existing house or for the provision of a new dwelling by conversion of existing premises, the local authority is required to fix the rent. In future, after the passing of this Bill, if a house is improved with the aid of an improvement grant, the rent will be the normal rent limit (for instance, twice the gross value) plus the 8 per cent. of the cost of the improvement borne by the landlord—that is to say, the part which is not borne by the improvement grant. If a landlord obtains an improvement grant to convert a house into flats, then the rent of each of the flats will be limited to twice the gross value which is given to the flat. I believe it is true to say that in recent years a number of local authorities have, when making improvement grants, fixed rents for flats produced by conversion which are above twice the gross value. On the other hand, other local authorities have fixed them below this level. The Bill is based on the view that twice the gross value is the general fair level of rent. It should, therefore, apply where new dwellings are produced by conversion with the aid of grant, and the landlord has to accept some limitation of rent as a condition of receiving a grant.
It must also be remembered that the landlord will get not merely the rent of twice the gross value but also the benefit of having probably half the cost of conversion paid for by an outright grant. I am aware—and I am sure that my noble friend is, too—that it could quite easily be argued that some local authorities would be prepared to allow the landlords more than this, and that they should be entitled to do so. But it could equally be argued that those local authorities who would like to give the landlord a lesser return should equally be entitled to do so. What we have tried to do here, then, is to steer something like a middle course between these two possibilities, by fixing the rent limit for new dwellings produced by conversion on the same basis as that for all other controlled dwellings. The noble Viscount has, as I said, raised an

735
important point, and I hope that the somewhat lengthy answer which I have given him will meet his inquiries.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Earl has exactly the point on the first Amendment. What we wanted to be sure of was that in the wording Clause 5 would operate in the case of houses which had received improvement grants after the passing of the Bill. The noble Earl has told me that that is so. That is important because one of the things about this Bill is that it should lead to and encourage improvement wherever possible. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (3) (a) after "controlled tenancy" to insert:
" or to such higher amount than the rent limit as the local authority may decide, as the case may be; "
The noble Viscount said: This is a rather different matter. The intention of this Amendment is to see that houses which are not subject to control are looked after in the same way. Houses which have come out of control, as I understand it, are dealt with in subsection (3) (a). I think that rents fixed before the passing of this Bill will provide that whatever return is fair to the landlord for improvements done under the 1949 Act is incorporated in the rent. But what will be the position of those houses which are outside control? I take it that this paragraph brings them in again, at least partially. When they are brought in in this way, will Clause 5 apply, or will it mean that supposing the owner of a house goes to a local authority and applies for an improvement grant and gets it, his rent is therefore fixed at twice the gross value of the house without any reference to the expenditure he has incurred on the house?
May I leave out for the moment the more complicated question of a house divided into two, but take a similar case of a straight improvement to a house. If this house had been within the Rent Restrictions Acts, I take it that Clause 5 would apply, and the landlord would be entitled to add to the rent 8 per cent. in respect of the cost of the improvement he has done. But as these houses are, I
736
assume, out of control, will Clause 5 apply to them, or does it mean that the owner will get no increase of rent after doing the improvements? That, clearly, would be a mistake, because to encourage people to do improvements to these older houses is one of the important things, and one of the means whereby the purpose of the Bill—which I take to be to prevent many older houses going out of repair and becoming obsolete and useless to the country as a whole—can be achieved. In the case of the houses to which I have referred, supposing Clause 5 does not apply, I imagine the increase of rent which the landlord might get would be due to the increase in the gross value of the property after the improvement. But if that is so, and if that is thought to be satisfactory, why is it that Clause 5 appears in the Bill at all? In the case of controlled houses, if it is right to use the criterion of increase of rateable value due to improvements, surely it is equally right to use it in the case of uncontrolled houses. I want to achieve here the position whereby the owner is not discouraged from improving his house with a grant by the fact that he cannot get what he thinks is a reasonable rent, and particularly related to what happens under Clause 5, which we have already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 21, after (" tenancy ") insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think, at least I hope, that I can set the noble Viscount's mind at rest in a very few words. This Amendment deals with almost precisely the same point as the previous one. The only difference is that the second Amendment applies only to decontrolled houses, because subsection (3) (a) of the clause deals only with decontrolled houses. The earlier Amendment applied to controlled houses, but in point of fact Clause 5 of the Bill applies to subsection (3) in the same way as it does to his previous Amendment, No. 27.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am puzzled by this. If a house is out of control Clause 5 cannot apply to it, can it? Is it brought in here by this subsection (3) (a)? It seems to me that is a contradiction. I do not know the correct legal form, but as soon as the house becomes decontrolled

737
it is decontrolled, and Clause 5 does not apply. Here you are saying that if a landlord gets a grant from the local authority and improves his property it is not put back under control so that Clause 5 applies, but is controlled in a different way.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I do not know the legal complications of this. All I know is that Clause 5 does apply to this subsection (3).
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It is beyond me, but I hope that perhaps the point can be looked into before Report stage. I think the noble Earl has the same intention that I have, and what he has said is what I want to see; but it is difficult for a layman to understand how it can be so. Perhaps he would look into it, and we might have some discussion on the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
9.39 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause:
" . The provisions of this Act permitting increases of rent shall apply to rental compensation payable in respect of requisitioned dwellings other than those to which section nineteen of this Act applies."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. With the Bill as drafted the owners of requisitioned premises who have not elected to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant under the Act of 1955 are not at present entitled to the benefits of Clause 1 of this Bill. There seems no good reason why this should be. In many cases the rent received by such owners of requisitioned premises is considerably less than the four-thirds of the gross value to which they would be entitled under the terms of my Amendment. I can see no reason why the owner of requisitioned premises who has elected to take the vacant possession of his property, instead of accepting the licensee as a statutory tenant forthwith, should be denied the benefits of Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My noble friend who has moved this Amendment has done it, presumably, to enable the owners of dwellings held under requisition to obtain an increase in their rental compensation comparable with that obtainable by landlords of controlled dwellings. I well remember introducing into this House the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, to which the noble Lord refers, and he will remember that that Act provided for the transfer to local authorities of dwellings which were held under requisition. Under Section 4 of the Act, owners: of these requisitioned properties have been invited to accept the local authority's licensees as statutory tenants. If they do so, they receive a capital sum as compensation for loss of vacant possession value. In addition, owners who have accepted, or will accept in the future, the licensees as statutory tenants will be able to get the rent increases given to other landlords by the Bill. Their houses will, however, not be decontrolled, unless the tenant leaves before 1965.
Owners whose houses are under requisition, because they have not taken advantage of or may have refused this invitation to take over the licensees as statutory tenants, should not complain. Generally, such landlords who have refused offers in the past may now expect to have a further opportunity to accept them and so get the benefit of the provisions in the Bill. My right honourable friend certainly hopes that landlords will accept such offers. There will, in all probability, remain some landlords who will not be given this invitation. Generally, this will be because their houses are in a slum clearance area or are due otherwise soon to be pulled down. Here also my right honourable friend does not think there is reason for increasing the compensation payable. As regards the minority of landlords who will not have the opportunity of getting the higher rent and the compensation, my right honourable friend again does not feel that an increase in rental compensation out of public funds is justified for four reasons, which I think I must repeat to the Committee.
First, the landlords of these houses incur no expenditure in respect of them. The local authorities, with the aid of subsidy,

739
alone incur expenditure in their maintenance and repair. The position of these landlords, therefore, is not at all comparable with that of landlords who get rent increases under the Bill, which will help them to pay for repairs or the other expenses of maintaining a house. Secondly, these houses to which the noble Lord has referred must be handed back in 1960, unless the local authority arrange to lease or purchase them. When the houses are handed back, the owners will be able to let them on uncontrolled rents, or sell them if they wish. Thirdly, many of these houses will not, in fact, be held right up to 1960; I understand that a considerable proportion will have been returned to owners in the next year or so. Fourthly, there can be no question of serious hardship in these cases, since the Act of 1955 provides specially for the owner of any requisitioned house who can show that he would suffer severe hardship unless enabled either to obtain vacant possession or to dispose of his interest in it, to ask my right honourable friend to direct the local authority to release it to him or to offer to purchase it from him direct. I have dealt at some length with certainly a rather complicated point, I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with my observations.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I am not only not satisfied, but I am a little confused by the extent of the information that I have been given on this matter, and I should like an opportunity of studying it after I have read Hansard. Is the noble and learned Viscount right in saying that owners of premises who have no responsibilities for repairs of any kind are denied any benefits under Clause 1? My recollection is that an owner of premises who has no responsibility for repairs is entitled to a rent equivalent of four-thirds of the gross value. I understood that the noble and learned Viscount, in addressing me, gave that as one of the reasons why he did not feel, in the circumstances which I adumbrated, he could give the owner of requisitioned premises what I asked for. In the circumstances, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would allow me to read what he has said and to defer the matter to the next stage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Concurrence of superior landlords to agreements as to 1956 gross value and rateable value]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 6, leave out (" this Act ") and insert (" the provisions of this Act relating to controlled tenancies and to the application of the Rent Acts ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation]:
"improvement" includes structural alteration, extension or addition and the provision of additional fixtures or fittings, but does not include anything done by way of decoration or repair;
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in the definition of "improvement," after "fittings" to insert, "and the making up of the road". The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I attach no importance to the wording of the Amendment, or to its position in the Bill, but if the idea behind it is sound perhaps Her Majesty's Government might care to look at the matter between now and the Report stage. I have never been able to understand why a landlord could not regard as an improvement money he has spent in causing the road outside his property to be made up. Many landlords have to spend considerable sums of money, under the Private Street Works Act, 1892, in having the road opposite their premises made up to the required standard. I believe I am right in saying that under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, a landlord is entitled to consider such expenditure as part of the amount which he has to expend in order to take advantage of the provisions of that Act, yet so far as the Rent Acts are concerned, money spent on making up the road immediately outside the premises is not regarded as having been spent on an improvement. For that reason I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 44, after (" fittings ") insert the said words.—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The advice which has been given me is that normally

741
a tenancy of a house includes the road up to the line down the middle of the road, and therefore improvement work done on the road might reasonably be regarded as work done "in a dwelling." The advice which I am given is that we intended by this particular clause to repeat the existing law back to 1920. That is certainly our intention. I should like to consider the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in introducing his Amendment, and to discuss the matter again with my advisers; and if the matter is not clear, I will put down an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MESTON: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his observations. I speak subject to correction, but I believe there have been definite decisions that money spent by a landlord on road improvement outside demised premises are not improvements in respect of which he is entitled to an 8 per cent. increase under the Rent Act. 1920. I am much obliged to the noble Earl for saying he will look into this matter again, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.49 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, to add to subsection (1):
" ' services ' shall include (in addition to the matters set out in subsection (1) of section twelve of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946) the maintenance of a lift, the cleansing and lighting of the common parts of a dwelling and its precincts and facilities for the removal of refuse."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954—the last Rent Bill to come before your Lordships' House—included no definition of the word "services", and, as a result, an enormous amount of time and money has been spent by the public and officials in arguing what does and what does not constitute "services". I have no doubt that the definition which I have put forward can be amplified and improved, and I hope that it will be. But if subsection 1 (b) of Clause 1 of this Bill is to be made at all workable without overwhelming the county courts, I think some definition of the word "services" is absolutely necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The problem which my noble friend has adumbrated has given us a lot of thought, but we have come to a different conclusion. I think it would be convenient if I stated why my noble friend might be good enough to consider our thoughts, and then perhaps we could have a word about it if he still so desires. I anticipated that the Amendment would be based on the suggestion that a definition of "services" is necessary because difficulties have been experienced from the absence of a definition for the purposes of Section 40 of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, but the Department who advise me in this matter have no knowledge that any such difficulties have been experienced.
If I might, I would remind my noble friend of the statutory history of this matter. He will remember that the word "services" was defined by Section 12 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. 1946, as including
" attendance, the provision of heating or lighting, supplies of hot water, and any other privilege or facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house, not being a privilege or facility requisite for the purposes of access, cold water supply or sanitary accommodation."
I do not suppose that my noble friend would, on consideration, think that that was the most elegant of definitions that had been put into a Statute. But that was how it went. Then, when the Act: of 1954 was being drafted, this definition was deliberately not applied, because it is not a comprehensive definition but proceeds by way of inclusion and exclusion, thus leaving arguable the question whether any particular privilege or facility not mentioned in the definition is, or is not, a service. As my noble friend may, or may not, know—I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will agree with me—one of the great difficulties that stand in unwritten letters over every lawyer's room is " Inclusio unius exclusio alterius ". That is one of the difficulties when you include something: that always there is a doubt as to whether you have not excluded something else. In that case, the definition excluded lifts, which are one of the most important services provided by landlords. It was therefore decided to leave the term "services" undefined and thus so general as to allow of agreements between landlords and tenants as to what any reasonable man

743
would regard as services provided for the tenant.
I think we get some support for this from the case of The Queen v. Paddington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Perry, because the courts have shown that there is no difficulty about giving the term "services" for the purposes of Section 40 of the Act of 1954 a wide and general connotation. My noble friend may or may not have been told, but it is a fact that in his judgment in that case the Lord Chief Justice said that there was no doubt that the following were services: lighting and heating of lounge, hall, passages and staircases, the maintenance of lifts, the cleaning of common parts and the provision of floor coverings for common parts. This decision is equally applicable for the interpretation of the term as used without definition in this Bill. My noble friend will see that when he considers Clauses 1 and 4.
What the Amendment does is to include in the definition of "services" in the Act of 1946 which it imports, some of the items expressly excluded by that definition—for example, lifts,—and some, but not all, of the items which have already been held in the Paddington Rent Tribunal case to be services—for example, the provision of floor coverings for common parts is not included. The very fact that my noble friend had to put forward the definition in that way illustrates the difficulty of trying to build up a definition by way of listing items to be included and excluded respectively, when one is dealing with a situation in which a comprehensive definition is not practicable. The conclusion we have come to is that the position can more safely be left as it is, with the assistance of the decision on the Paddington Rent Tribunal case and particularly the inferences to be drawn from it. So that I hope my noble friend will appreciate that his attempt, which I am sure is prima facie non possimus, is essentially beneficial for the point he has put forward and we will reconsider it on those lines.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I cannot pretend that I have followed every word that the noble and learned Viscount has spoken. I hold no pride of authorship in the definition I have put forward. The only point I wish to make is (I cannot
744
follow in the Latin in which he said it and would put it a little more simply) that "half a loaf is better than no bread." I should like to see some definition, however exclusive or inclusive it may be. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment and possibly, if I may, I will return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
First Schedule:
Adjustment of rent in respect of repairs
4.—(1) If, on the expiration of six weeks from the service of a notice under the last foregoing paragraph, any of the defects specified in the notice remain unremedied, then unless the landlord has given an undertaking in the prescribed form to remedy those defects or such of them as the tenant may agree in writing to accept as sufficient, the tenant may in the prescribed form apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 26, leave out (" subsections (1) and (2) ") and insert (" subsection (1) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 4 (1), to leave out all words from "unremedied" down to and including "sufficient". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent any unnecessary or unreasonable delay in urgent repairs that may be required for controlled dwellings. I think that delay may be caused by the procedure set out in this part of the Bill, which could be extremely dilatory. I do not say that it would be dilatory if a good and conscientious landlord were using it, but it could be if the landlord were not a good and conscientious person, and it permits sufficient delay for serious damage to occur to a controlled dwelling before the landlord comes under a legal obligation to do the repair needed for a structural defect.
May I ask your Lordships to look at the procedure envisaged in this Schedule? First of all, the tenant, who has noticed some defect in the structure of his house or flat—say, a hole in the roof, or something less serious—serves on his landlord

745
a notice stating the defect he wants put right. Then if, six weeks after the serving of the notice, the landlord has done nothing to remedy the defect, the tenant can apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. But—and this is the point of the Amendment—he will not even then get the certificate of disrepair if the landlord gives a written undertaking that he will do the work. I cannot see why this written undertaking should be included—it is not the start of the work, but merely a written undertaking to do the work—and my Amendment proposes to omit it.
Surely the tenant should get his certificate of disrepair if his landlord has failed to start the work within a reasonable period of time, say, six weeks, from the time of receiving the original notice. After all, if the defect is a serious one, such as a hole in the roof, great damage may be caused if the work is not begun fairly quickly, especially if that defect should arise during a typical period of our British summer. If the landlord has not given his written undertaking, as it is proposed he should under the Schedule, the tenant still fails to get his certificate of disrepair after six weeks. The local authority, after the tenant has applied for the certificate, has first to notify the landlord that it proposes to issue a certificate of disrepair. That is the next step. Then, after the local authority has notified the landlord, three further weeks pass; and if in that period of time the landlord has done nothing in the way of repair the local authority will issue the certificate of disrepair.
But even that is not the end of it. The landlord then has another six months in which to comply with the terms of the certificate. This means, in all, that the repair work may not be started until eight months have passed since the unfortunate tenant served his original notice on the landlord. Surely, this is unreasonable and opens the way to abuse. I am not saying that a good and reasonable landlord would take advantage of this procedure—I am sure he would not—but the wrong sort of landlord might. I feel that the Government should find some means of protecting the tenant, in the sense that he should be able to get the repair work done within a reasonable time from the original notification to the
746
landlord of what is required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 7, leave out from (" unremedied ") to end of line 9.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
10.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Earl, in explaining the purpose of his Amendment, has dealt accurately with the disrepair machinery contained in this Schedule to the Bill, but if I were to accept this Amendment it would mean that the landlord would have to carry out repairs within a period of six weeks; and that, if he did not do so, the tenant would be able to go to the local authority and ask them to give him a certificate of disrepair. The noble Earl will be as well aware as I am that there can be only a small number of cases where it would be physically possible for a landlord to inspect his property to see what required to be done, then find a builder and see that he did the work all within a period of six weeks.
I think that if my noble friend will consider this matter again, he will agree with me that such a proposition is really not feasible. It will not be possible to get the landlord to remedy the defects within a period of six weeks, and I think it is essential, without going into this matter in any great detail, to give the landlord an opportunity of undertaking to carry out the repairs within the six months' period, such as the noble Lord described. But, whatever else we do, let us leave these words in, and not decide that a landlord should carry out repairs in a period of six weeks.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl realises that the certificate of disrepair cannot be given except with the consent of the local authority. Surely, one can credit local authorities and their officers with a certain amount of common sense and reasonableness in dealing with these matters. The noble Earl, I noticed, has not offered an opinion on my noble friend's main point, which was that, under this machinery, it is possible for eight months to pass before work is started on a repair sufficiently serious for the tenant to consider it worth asking for a certificate. I think the Government ought to say whether they think it is adequate protection for tenants in the matter of repairs.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am sorry if I do not quite understand the full technicalities of this provision, but it seems to me that on the practical side of it the noble Earl's reply fell short of what was required. In fact, it might be described as rather perfunctory. The tenants would not, in the normal course of events, serve a notice if there had not been previous communication between tenant and landlord on the subject of repair. In the normal way, I think it is true to say that a notice would not be served until the tenant had exhausted every other possibility of getting the repairs done. In that situation, why should there be this special pleading by the noble Earl about the landlord's not being able to do it in six weeks? The situation I am dealing with is the situation where a recalcitrant landlord, having had ample notice, and having had ample opportunity to do the repair, has failed to do it. Why this undue sympathy for him and not for the tenant? I suggest that if a landlord puts himself in that position, it should not be the purpose of the Bill to give him further protection in being a bad landlord, which is what it amounts to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If the noble Lord had really read and understood the Bill, he would not have made a speech such as he has. I hoped we might be able to cut the discussion on this Amendment somewhat short by explaining what I think was clear to nine-tenths of the noble Lords in this House, that it was not possible. In fact, it would be a physical impossibility to get the landlord to repair his premises within six weeks. If he did not do so, then the tenant could go to the local authority to ask them to give him a certificate of disrepair. As the noble Lord is anxious for this to be discussed at length, let me see whether I can explain it in much more detail.
The disrepair machinery, which is set out in Part II of the First Schedule, enables a tenant to serve on the landlord a notice stating that the dwelling is in disrepair by reason of defects specified by the tenant in the notice, and requesting the landlord to remedy these defects. The landlord then has six weeks in which to remedy the defects or to give an undertaking that he will do so, or such of them as the tenant may agree in writing to accept as sufficient. The landlord then
748
has six months in which to carry out this undertaking. If the landlord neither carries out the necessary repairs nor gives an undertaking to do so, then the tenant can apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. If a certificate is granted, then the tenant can abate the rent. If we should leave out these words which the noble Lord seeks to exclude, there would obviously be a large number of applications to local authorities for certificates of disrepair, and in all probability the great majority of them would be quite unnecessary since the landlord would be willing to give an undertaking to remedy the defects if only he were given an opportunity to do so.
The object which my right honourable friend had in his mind, which seems to me to be an admirable one, was to get as many of these defects remedied by agreement between the landlord and the tenant without the tenant having to apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. If in every case where the landlord is unable to carry out the repairs within a period of six weeks the tenant has to go to the local authority for a certificate, the local authorities will be swamped by the applications which they will receive from the tenants—so far as I can see, many unnecessary applications. Moreover, the local authority in this case will have to spend so much time in inspecting the houses and dealing with the unnecessary applications that dealing with the cases of bad landlords will be very much delayed, to the detriment of the tenant of the particular house. I feel sure that if the noble Lord will consider again this Amendment, he will realise that it is really necessary to give the landlord some opportunity and some time to remedy the defects which may be found in any houses of which he is the owner.
10.11 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I started by saying that I did not claim fully to understand the technicalities, but I think I did understand the main purpose of the clause just as well as the nine-tenths of the Members of your Lordships' House to whom the noble Earl has referred. His reply has not convinced me to the contrary. He has not really met the substance; he has only met the technicalities. The assumption on which he is

749
arguing is that the serving of the notice by the tenant is the first stage in this procedure. I suggest to him that, in fact, that is the last stage in the attempt of the tenant to get repairs done, and that if the landlord were as willing as the noble Earl suggests, he would not need the six months which is provided here; that, in effect, what the noble Earl is doing in this clause is to put a premium on delay up to that additional six months and that, in fact, the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Listowel, is amply justified.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Looking closely at my Amendment, I must say that I was not very happy about the wording and felt inclined to say something much ruder about it than would have been said by the noble Earl opposite. On the other hand, I felt most dissatisfied by the noble Earl's reply. I could not help agreeing warmly with what my noble friend Lord Archibald said when he pointed out that the noble Earl was really paying more attention to the technicalities of the Amendment than to the substance of the case I have made.
The point is this, if I may repeat it briefly. Of course, we all should like the repairs to be done by agreement between the tenant and the landlord, without recourse to notices, certificates of disrepair and all the legal paraphernalia which are necessary if such agreement is not obtained; but we have to consider cases in which this agreement is not possible, in such cases, it seems extremely undesirable that as long a period as eight months should elapse before a landlord has to start the work of repair that may be required for a particular dwelling.
All I am asking the noble Earl to do is to try to cut down the period. Why not make it three or four months, instead of eight months? It seems to me that the period occupied by these various stages of procedure is in itself too long. I am not maintaining for a moment that the work can be done in three or four weeks, but I think it ought at any rate to be started, and that there ought to be a legal obligation to start it if no agreement is reached within a few months from the time the tenant notifies the landlord of the repair required. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I regret
750
very much that the noble Earl has not been more helpful about the substance of the case I have put.
EARL BATHURST: Does the noble Lord opposite realise that many of the small landlords are old-age pensioners, who have coming in, perhaps, only the rent of one cottage next door to the one in which they live? It is difficult enough to find the money to do an extensive roof repair, for example, in the six months specified. I should think the longer the time the landlord has to do the repair compulsorily, the better the landlord will be. Some of these small landlords are in a very bad way indeed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in paragraph 5 (c) to leave out
", or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority,".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The position is that the local authorities shall not issue a certificate of disrepair until the expiration of three weeks after giving a certain notice, and if within the said three weeks the landlord gives an undertaking to remedy those defects and serves a copy of the undertaking on the local authority the authority shall not issue a certificate. Then there is the proviso that where
" the landlord has previously given an undertaking under this Schedule in respect of the dwelling, or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority, and any of the defects to which that undertaking related remained un-remedied on the expiration of six months "…
" the local authority may refuse to accept the undertaking and may issue a certificate of disrepair."
I am not trying to defend bad landlords in any way whatsoever, but I am desirous of excluding the words "or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority." It occurs to me that if a landlord has not carried out his undertaking in respect of some other dwelling, that is to say some dwelling other than the dwelling which is for the moment under consideration, it is going too far to penalise him in this way. He may have some perfectly good defence or some reason why he has not been able to carry out his undertaking in respect of some other dwelling in the same area, and therefore I respectfully suggest that the words which I have indicated in the Amendment should be excluded in order

751
that the landlord should not be unreasonably penalised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 19, leave out (", or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority,").—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The proviso to paragraph 5 of this Schedule provides that in any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) the local authority may refuse to accept an undertaking from the landlord, and the proviso is aimed at landlords who have shown themselves to be unreliable. One of the tests of unreliability is that the landlord had previously given an undertaking under this Schedule in respect of the house in question, or any other house which he may own situated in the local authority's area, and had not carried out the undertaking within the statutory period of six months.
The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to omit the reference to any other house, so that the landlord is to be deemed unreliable only if he fails to carry out the undertaking in respect of the one particular house. My right honourable friend does not feel he could accept this. For instance, a landlord may own a row of houses and the local authority will know that he has given an undertaking which he has not honoured in respect of, say, the house next door, and therefore they must have discretion not to accept his undertaking in respect of the house now in question. I hope the noble Lord will accept my right honourable friend's view that, in all the circumstances, it would be better to leave this matter with the local authority, who ought to be in the position to know whether or not a particular landlord who owns a variety of premises within the local authority area is reliable.
LORD MESTON: I had an idea at the back of my mind that the noble Earl would not accept my Amendment. I thank him for his courteous reply, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 20, leave out (" subsections (1) and (2) ") and insert (" subsection (1) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is consequential on the substitution in another place for the original provision of a new paragraph 7 (4) of this Schedule in the form in which it now appears in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 17, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
" 9.—(1) If a certificate of disrepair is issued to the tenant of a dwelling, and the dwelling, or any part thereof which is in disrepair by reason of defects specified in the certificate, is subject to a sub-tenancy, being a controlled tenancy, then unless a certificate of disrepair in respect of those defects has been issued to the sub-tenant the same consequences shall follow as between the tenant and the subtenant as if a certificate of disrepair had been issued to the sub-tenant when the certificate was issued to the tenant, had specified the same defects as the certificate issued to the tenant, had been issued on an application made by the sub-tenant when the tenant applied for the certificate issued to him, and had continued in force for the same period as that certificate.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) of the foregoing paragraph has effect as between the landlord and the tenant, the foregoing sub-paragraph shall have effect accordingly between the tenant and the sub-tenant.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the power of the sub-tenant to obtain a certificate of disrepair or the effect of any undertaking given to the sub-tenant."—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the First Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I desire to raise a point or two in order to obtain some explanation from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I am not at all clear, in regard to this Schedule, when the abatement of rent begins in the event of the landlord not carrying out the repairs in respect of which a certificate is in force. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us that information. It is not at all clear. It appears in paragraph 7, which is headed
" Abatement of rent where certificate issued or undertaking not carried out."
Does the abatement date back to the date of the application for a certificate of disrepair, or does it begin at the end of the six months in the event of the landlord not having carried out the repairs, or what is the position?
Then, further, I ask, more or less on the same point: whether there will still remain in force the existing law, which in

753
my recollection provides for a tenant to be enabled to apply to the local sanitary authority and obtain a certificate whereby he can withhold rent if he obtains a certificate that the premises are not in a habitable state of repair; or does this Schedule or this Bill, when it becomes an Act, do away with that existing right on the part of tenants? Of course, if that law still remains in force it will presumably be possible for a tenant whose house was certified not to be in a habitable stale of repair, to withhold rent and not to await the passing of the period set out in this Schedule. I should be grateful for information on those two points which seem somewhat material to the Schedule.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think the answer to the noble Lord's question on the abatement of rent is that it will operate from the date when the certificate is issued and back: to the date when the application is made, or to the date when the undertaking was given. In regard to the noble Lord's question concerning the sanitary authority, I must ask him to let me have notice of that question.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Earl. Perhaps he will let me know what is the answer on the second point.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not quite clear about the noble Earl's reply on the first point. Does the abatement of the rent go back to the date when the certificate of disrepair is issued by the local authority, or does it go back to an earlier date? The noble Earl mentioned the undertaking given by the landlord to do the repairs. I am not sure whether he also mentioned the notice given by the tenant that the repair was required. These things are different in point of time, and I believe my noble friend would like to know at what point in time the landlord becomes liable for an abatement of rent.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a very complicated Schedule and I should like notice of that question; but I understand it dates back to the date of the application. I should like to check that matter and let the noble Lord know about it at a later stage.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should be much obliged if the noble Earl could make a report on the Schedule at the
754
Report stage of the Bill, as I do not think any of us are clear on this matter, which is of considerable importance, in view of the long period of delay admitted by the procedure laid down in the Schedule.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It has been suggested that in paragraph 5 of the Schedule the term "landlord" is capable of misinterpretation because of the definition in the Act of 1920, and that the present landlord, who may be perfectly innocent of the past misdemeanours of another person—his predecessor in title—might be liable to be caught under these two subsections, although that is not the intention. It is only a matter of interpretation, but we should like to have full information on that point.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will certainly look into that point although we had not heard of there being put on subsections (c) and (d) the interpretation of "landlord" made by my noble friend.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not myself wish to put that interpretation upon it. It is a legal point going back to the Act of 1920, but perhaps it needs clarifying.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to ask a question on the Motion that the Schedule shall be agreed to. This is a fairly complicated Schedule. Although these various formulæ are admittedly arbitrary, I understand that their object is to lay down how far the landlord can be the judge in certain varying circumstances, with the object of avoiding, as far as possible, unnecessary legislation. As a layman, I believe that that is a very good principle, although it does not always succeed in its object. It has been represented to me, however, and indeed it is obvious, that although we have these different formulæ—two-thirds, four-thirds, five-thirds, and seven-thirds—there will still be a number of cases not covered by them which will still have to be settled by the courts. It seems to my lay mind a somewhat untidy arrangement and I am wondering whether Her Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that there cannot be wording which is at the same time simpler and more comprehensive. I shall have to accept what my noble friend says, for I am quite incapable of suggesting any improvement on such a technical matter.

755
Nevertheless the whole effect of this seems very complicated and I am hoping that it can be simplified.
LORD CONESFORD: Further to the point raised by my noble friend, Lord Ridley, it has been suggested to me that should there be any doubt about this paragraph meaning what we all hope it means, the matter could be made clear beyond a doubt by the insertion, in line 30, after the word "undertaking" of the words "of such landlord."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I might revert to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ridley and taken up by my noble friend Lord Conesford, I ask your Lordships to look for a moment at the purpose of paragraph 5 (c) of the First Schedule. I think your Lordships will agree that this paragraph picks out certain types of landlord from whom the local authority have discretion in refusing to accept an undertaking to carry out works when a case has reached the stage at which a tenant has applied for a certificate of disrepair. It does this by reference to a landlord's default under other Acts requiring repairs to houses, or a default under this Bill in carrying out an undertaking to do work on a dwelling in the local authority's district; and also, to the fact that a certificate of disrepair has been issued against him in respect of the particular dwelling under consideration.
My noble friend Lord Ridley asks that it should be made clear that the reference to "landlord" would not apply to a new landlord of a house when his predecessor had defaulted. My right honourable friend is advised on this that the provision is open only to the construction which Lord Ridley wants. That is, the reference to "landlords" could apply only to the landlord for the time being at the time when the local authority are considering the landlord's application to give an undertaking. However, I yield to no one in my admiration for the ingenuity of my noble friend Lord Conesford. I will look at his suggestion and ask my right honourable friend to consider it. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that Lord Ridley's worries are ended and that we can negative them even more conclusively.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, he was good
756
enough to give me notice of it, and also to send me some Amendments which he had considered putting down. Again, I hope it may help him in the difficulty if I say one or two words on the general position. The basic rent limit provided for in this Bill, apart from the cost of rates and services, is a multiple of gross value. The multiples specified are 1⅓ if the tenant is responsible for all repairs: 1⅔ if he is responsible for all repairs except internal decoration; 2 if the landlord is responsible for all except internal decorations and 2⅓ if the landlord is responsible for everything. If, in any particular case, the respective responsibilities are different from any of these, the appropriate factor is to be settled by agreement or, failing agreement, by the court.
The proposal in the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, would give intermediate factors at 26/15ths if the tenant is responsible for everything other than fair wear and tear, 28/15ths where the tenant is responsible for internal repairs but not external repairs, and 31/15ths where the tenant's liability for internal repairs is limited to other than fair wear and tear. I am told that various other proposals have been put forward for intermediate fractions. The difficulty is, as I think Lord Gage realises, for the fractions already in the Bill, that any figure is necessarily arbitrary. The Bill allows for adjustment between the fractions it specifies, to meet the varying conditions found in contracts. If further fractions are inserted, this elasticity will be destroyed. While it will require extra discussion and negotiation between landlords and tenants in the cases outside those falling at the steps now in the Bill, the discussion will at any rate be able to take into account the actual facts of each case. It does not seem a good thing to tie people down to further arbitrary levels which may fit the cases which my noble friend has in mind but may not fit others of a similar sort varying in detail. As I have tried to show, we have given careful consideration to this point, and I feel that we ought to leave it where it is. If my noble friend Lord Gage, after doing me the honour of reading what I have said in answer to his point, has any further suggestions, I think he knows that I shall be only too delighted to consider them.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
Transitional provisions on decontrol.
2.—(1) Where immediately before the time of decontrol the dwelling-house was the subject of a statutory tenancy or of a controlled tenancy which would or might come to an end within fifteen months of that time by effluxion of time or notice to quit, the tenant under that tenancy shall be entitled until the date hereinafter mentioned, and subject to the following previsions of this Schedule, to retain possession of the dwelling-house in the like circumstances, to the like extent and subject to the like provisions (including in particular provisions as to recovery of possession by the landlord) as if the Rent Acts had not ceased to apply to the dwelling-house.
(2) The said date is such date as may be specified in a notice served on the tenant by the landlord, at or after the time of decontrol, being a date not earlier than fifteen months after the time of decontrol nor than six months after the service of the notice, but nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the execution of an order for possession obtained by the landlord before the time of decontrol.
3. Where sub-paragraph (1) of the foregoing paragraph applies the rent recoverable from the tenant for any rental period beginning after the time of decontrol shall, whether the tenancy continues or he retains possession by virtue of this Schedule, be the same as was recoverable from him for the last rental period beginning before that time.
4. If before the date specified under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule the landlord and tenant agree for the creation of a tenancy of the premises of which the tenant is entitled to retain possession by virtue of that paragraph, being a tenancy not expiring, or terminable by notice to quit given by the landlord, earlier than three years from the commencement thereof, the two last foregoing paragraphs shall cease to apply as from the commencement of that tenancy.
5.—(1) Where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies, then if the tenant gives up possession of the dwelling-house at the end of the tenancy therein mentioned, or on ceasing to retain possession by virtue of this Schedule, he shall be entitled, if he has made a claim for the purpose at any time before giving up possession, to be paid by his landlord compensation in respect of any improvement on the dwelling-house, not being a fixture which he is by law entitled to remove, which on his giving up possession adds to the value of the dwelling-house, being an improvement made by him, by any other person who retained possession of the dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule, or by any other person being a tenant under the said statutory or controlled tenancy, and completed after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five.
(4) No compensation shall be payable under this paragraph if the improvement is one of a kind for which a claim for compensation may be made under section one of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, or if the person by whom the improvement was made was under an obligation to make it in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, or if the improvement was made in breach of the terms of the controlled tenancy, or if before the completion thereof the landlord notified the person by whom it was made, in writing, that the landlord objected to the improvement.
10.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 2 (2), to leave out "fifteen months" and insert "three years". The noble Earl said: This is one of the most important Amendments we have put down at this stage of the Bill, but your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to speak to it at great length, because most of the arguments that could be used to support it have already been used in the course of discussion this afternoon and this evening. The object of the Amendment is to give the tenants of these dwellings—800,000 or so in all—which will be decontrolled when this Bill comes into effect a reasonable period of delay and security before eviction takes place.
The Government are proposing that if a decontrolled tenant fails to renew his lease by agreement with his landlord within fifteen months from the passage of the Bill, he can then be turned out. Of course, the landlord has to give six months' notice to quit before this can happen, but that will not be much consolation to a family who will find it extremely difficult to get alternative accommodation. That is why we are proposing a longer period of delay before eviction can take place. We propose to substitute three years for fifteen months. This would give tenants of decontrolled dwellings a far better chance of finding alternative accommodation. Within three years from the passing of this Bill some, at any rate, of the arrears of new building will have been made up. There will be more flats available and, therefore, more chance of finding alternative accommodation.
I do not want to emphasise again the gap between the demand and supply of houses and flats. I would only say that I think it is profoundly unfair that any tenant who is decontrolled by this Bill

759
should be faced with the grim alternative of paying what may be double the present rent or of losing his home within fifteen months from the passing of the Bill into law. If he cannot afford the higher rent, he should be given a longer breathing space. I am certain that that would mitigate a great deal of the hardship that would otherwise be caused to people of small means occupying these decontrolled dwellings when this Bill is passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 5, leave out (" fifteen months ") and insert (" three years ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I think that fifteen months is a very fair period. When the Bill first started, it was six months, and it was then extended to fifteen. Moreover, there is the other important provision that if landlord and tenant come to an agreement within fifteen months, as we hope they will, the landlord must give security to the tenant for a further three years. It is to the advantage of the tenant to try to get agreement within fifteen months, and it is also of advantage to the landlord, because he does not want to have a lot of empty places. I think fifteen months is reasonable and, as I say, added to that there is the security for three years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Earl who moved this Amendment indicated, it is one of those matters on which controversy has been joined, and he showed a benevolent brevity in dealing with it which I will try to emulate. I think one ought to say this with regard to the fifteen months' standstill period. Its object is to ensure that tenants of dwellings which are decontrolled have a reasonable time in which to agree new tenancies with their landlords or to make other arrangements. I should like to point out that, even where a decontrolled tenant is a statutory tenant or holds a contract expiring within fifteen months after the date of decontrol, no notice to quit can take effect during the period of fifteen months following decontrol, nor can there be any increase during that fifteen months unless the landlord and tenant agree on a new tenancy for a period of at least three years.
760
We have considered and reconsidered this matter, and we feel that fifteen months is an adequate period to enable landlords and tenants to carry out the necessary negotiations and agree upon new tenancies. Equally, if for some reason the tenant has to leave at the end of the standstill period, fifteen months will be adequate to enable him to make other arrangements. Of course, as we have said it is our belief that during that period of fifteen months more dwellings will have become available for letting unfurnished, since landlords will now have the incentive to let unfurnished on uncontrolled tenancies where previously they have kept their houses vacant for sale. The three years' period is longer than is necessary to enable this alternative accommodation to be made available, and it would have the effect of prolonging for almost two years longer than we think is necessary and so postponing the free market of which I have spoken.
Turning from the arguments to authority, I think there is an interesting point which I do not know whether the noble Earl who moved the Amendment has in mind. A standstill period of eighteen months was recommended in a memorandum submitted to the Minister by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute suggested a period of twelve months. The fifteen months' period adopted by the Government is, therefore, halfway between the proposals of these two leading professional bodies. For these reasons, which, of course, I could extend, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I think it might be said that the arguments on both sides are standard arguments, but when they are put by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, they are always rather higher than standard. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to paragraph 3:
" but increased or decreased by the amount of the difference between the amount of the rates (borne by the landlord) in respect of the

761
dwelling for the last rental period aforesaid and the amount of such rates for the rental period first mentioned in this paragraph."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is simple and self-explanatory and merely serves to pass on to the tenant any increase or decrease in rates which may occur during the transitional fifteen months of which we have been speaking. It would surely be inequitable if, during this transitional period, the landlord, who is still receiving only controlled rent, should be put in any worse position than he was before the passing of the Act. The Amendment provides equally that the tenant shall get the benefit of any decrease in rates, so the effect is to put both landlord and tenant, during these fifteen months, in exactly the same position as they were before the passing of the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 28, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is probably much in what my noble friend has said, and if he could see his way to withdraw his Amendment at this stage of our proceedings, I will see whether it is possible for me meet the noble Lord by putting down another Amendment—I am afraid much longer than his—at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I am obliged to the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, to add to paragraph 4:
" Provided that in default of agreement the county court may determine on the application of the tenant made at any time not later than three months before the expiry of the tenancy the terms upon which such tenancy shall be continued."
The noble Lord said: This particular clause is a difficult one to follow. I do not think any of us would claim that the Rent Acts or this Bill are of crystal clarity, and this particular provision is an extraordinarily difficult one. Before going on with the Amendment, may I say that a report has gone out that I am looking for furnished or unfurnished accommodation in London. If I had been I would have declared it. I am not looking for accommodation in London of any kind. One of my family and at least two of my friends are. It was because
762
of that that certain circumstances came to my notice. I say this in order to avoid being bombarded by estate agents, embarrassment all round and a waste of postage stamps by estate agents.
To get back to the Amendment: the point here is that as we understand it—although at this late hour our understanding is not perhaps as dear as it was four or five hours ago—if an agreement is made between the landlord and the tenant, then the other provisions of this, particular section of the Fourth Schedule do not apply, and the agreement between the parties takes the place of the period which my noble friend has just tried to extend. If that is so, then at the end of three years, or whatever the term may be, there is, so to speak, a vacuum. To fill that vacuum, we have suggested that the county court should have the power of making a new tenancy, or a further tenancy, or an extension of the tenancy, for such term as it may decide.
I am the first to agree that, as put down—and I did not see this Amendment before it went down—it obviously will not do. If the Government are prepared to meet us, then I presume they will want to look at it, and possibly put it down in a better form. If they could agree to the principle that I assume is enshrined in this Amendment, then their own draftsmen could easily draft something which would carry the purpose out. I am afraid that my explanation of the Amendment is not as clear as it ought to be. The reason is that this paragraph is, to my mind, not nearly as clear as it should be. But perhaps the Lord Chancellor would give his views on the clause and on the effect of the Amendment which I have tried to explain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 47, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Ogmore.)
10.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gladly respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. May I first give what I understand to be the effect of the Amendment? The Amendment would enable the tenant who had obtained a three-year tenancy to apply to the county court to settle the terms on which he could get the tenancy continued. Paragraph 4 provides that if during the fifteen months' standstill period

763
after decontrol the landlord and the tenant agree upon a new tenancy for a period of at least three years, that tenancy can come into force as soon as it is agreed. Landlords, therefore, have an incentive to grant these new tenancies in order to get an increase in rent, whereas, if the tenancy were not granted, the rent would be frozen for the whole of the fifteen months' standstill period.
Our difficulty with regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord is that, if the landlord knew that when he granted such a tenancy for a period of at least three years he would be faced with the possibility at the end of the tenancy of having it prolonged, he would be much less likely to grant it. It would, in fact, be equivalent to the reimposition of control, and if he were faced with that prospect the landlord would merely allow the tenant to retain possession only until the end of the fifteen months' standstill period. We feel that this would be contrary to the tenant's own interest in the great majority of cases, because it is in his interest to get out of the standstill period into a period of at least three years so that he will have the anxieties of which we have heard removed from that period. It is a question of psychology, of how it would appeal to the parties concerned. I think that, on consideration, the noble Lord will feel that there is much to be said for the Government's point of view. I do not think that this is one of the straight Party points that we have had. It is a question of considering which would be most likely to have the most beneficial result. Those are the reasons why we take this view. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider them before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: I think there is a good deal in what the noble and learned Viscount has said. As a matter of fact, what he said is exactly what I imagined to be the effect on the clause of the Amendment. I certainly was very doubtful about this, but I thought that perhaps I did not understand the clause, which is not at all clear. How some of these old ladies are going to manage to interpret it I cannot imagine. However, I see the force of the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, and in the circumstances I propose to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in paragraph 5 (1), after "improvement made" to insert, "with the consent in writing of the landlord". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the next two deal with the paragraph in the Fourth Schedule which concerns the right of a tenant to compensation for improvements. This is a very difficult question, I think, not from a technical or legal point of view, but from the point of view of what is really fair. It is one of these things involving the balance of advantage and of the greater and lesser hardship, and so on. I think it is an innovation that the owner of a house will, on the passing of this Bill, become liable for compensation in respect of improvements made some years earlier, without his knowledge or consent—I think that is the strongest way to put it, from that point of view.
It is also, I think, in that sense retrospective. To many owners of property it may be an advantage to have had their property improved, and it is improvement of property for which we are looking all through this Bill. An owner may well be better off and should properly pay for it, and there should be no criticism on that score. On the other hand, he may be a person of very small means and may have the greatest difficulty in finding the means of paying the tenant his compensation. It is curious to note that, under paragraph 4 (4), if the landlord had objected to the construction of the improvement there would be no claim. But I think the practical point is that very often the landlord does not know that such improvement has been made. He has not had notification. Rent collectors very often do not go all through a house to find out if there is an improvement of this kind. The fact that this Schedule recognises the right of the landlord to object if he has not been notified of the improvement would seem to be some argument in favour of requiring notification in cases where he has not known about it and has not had the opportunity to object.
I agree that it is rather hard that a tenant who has carried out improvements he has not enjoyed for long should receive nothing for them. This Amendment and the two which follow it are different ways of suggesting some easement of this

765
position. It would certainly seem that an improvement carried out by a tenant which increases the rateable value of the house, perhaps even to the extent of taking it out of control, would be one for which he deserves, and should get, compensation. It does seem, however, rather hard, if I may for the moment speak on the next Amendment, that improvements made since 15th August, 1945, can be brought into account in this way, even though the landlord knew nothing of the improvement and has to pay money to the tenant who goes out.
I do not think that either of these Amendments I have put down really meets the case, but I feel that something should be done to make it a bit easier, particularly for the landlords who have not the necessary resources In fact, my object is to meet the case of the landlords who have not got the resources to meet these compensation payments. One cannot, in the Bill, separate them from those who have the resources, but that is the point I have in mind. Having said that, I will formally move the first Amendment, No. 43, to see whether something can be done—probably not what I have suggested here—to make it easier for those who are going to get into difficulties over this part of the Bill, which I think is entirely new.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 5, after (" made ") insert (" with the consent in writing of the landlord ").—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think these Amendments, Nos. 43 and 45, are linked quite closely; and No. 44 deals with almost the same subject by another method. As I understand my noble friend's proposals, his object is to prevent the tenant from obtaining compensation for an improvement which was made by him if it was not made with the consent in writing of the landlord before the improvement was carried out. If my noble friend will look at sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 5—he did refer to it—he will see that it precludes the payment of compensation to a tenant who makes an improvement in breach of the terms of his tenancy. If, therefore, the landlord's consent to the improvement is required under the terms of the tenancy, the tenant will get no compensation, unless that consent was obtained. If the tenancy does not preclude the
766
making of an improvement by the tenant, and this would not otherwise be a breach of any of the terms of the tenancy, compensation will be payable unless, again under sub-paragraph (4), the landlord has notified the tenant in writing before the improvement is completed that he objects to it. This is as far as it is possible to go.
The whole purpose of paragraph 5 is to ensure that tenants who have already made improvements before their houses become decontrolled at the commencement of the Act, as it will be, will get the benefit of them by way of compensation if, as a result of decontrol, they have to leave them. I appreciate the point which the noble Viscount made in the course of his remarks. I will certainly look at it again, but I am bound to say that I do not think it will be possible to meet what he has in mind.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look into it. I would rather agree to withdraw this Amendment and perhaps say something on the next one. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should particularly like to draw attention to this point, because this is where the retrospective effect comes in. I think many people dislike legislation which penalises one for things which happened some time ago. If there were any choice in the matter, I think I should prefer to have this Amendment rather than the previous one. At least everybody starts level—everybody starts as from the date of the Act, knowing what the law is, and the owner has an opportunity to say whether he wants the improvement done. I appreciate that conditions in the agreement would be welcomed, but I think there are probably a good many houses which are not subject to agreements at all, let alone to any conditions in them. To that extent. I think that part of the thing is weakened. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, leave out (" fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five ") and insert (" date on which this Act comes into force.")—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As I was saying on the previous Amendment, this

767
is a point which we have carefully considered. Paragraph 5 of this Schedule enables a tenant who has to give up possession as a result of decontrol to claim compensation for improvements that he may have made. The effect of this Amendment would be to preclude the payment of compensation in respect of improvements made before the commencement of the Act.
I should like to consider this point under two heads: first, in relation to houses decontrolled by Clause 10 (1), and secondly, in relation to houses which may be decontrolled by an order under Clause 10 (3). In relation to houses decontrolled by Clause 10 (1), the Amendment would mean that no compensation for improvements made by tenants between the end of the war and the commencement of the Act would be payable. These are, of course, the main class of improvement in question. I think it is true to say that they were made at a time when it was alleged that landlords were not looking after their property, and that, if anything was to be done to keep them in repair or to improve them, it would not be done unless it were performed by the tenants themselves. That is the basis upon which paragraph 5 proceeds. To accept the Amendment in relation to that class of property would therefore defeat the whole object of the paragraph.
This same paragraph will also apply if an order is made under Clause 10 (3), and the improvements which will be within its scope in relation to houses thereby decontrolled will be improvements which have been made not only since the commencement of the Act but in fact since the end of the war. It ought not to be forgotten that if the tenant has improved the value of the property the landlord will undoubtedly obtain the benefit of the improvement in the rental which he may obtain or in the selling value which the house will command when the tenant quits at the end of the standstill period permitted to him by the Fourth Schedule on the decontrol of the house.
Again, the landlord will also be better off in these respects than the landlord of a similar house which the tenant has not improved; so that the tenant can claim compensation only if the landlord has
768
failed to grant a new three-year lease, and the tenant therefore has to give up possession at the end of the standstill period. From what I have said, the noble Lord will at once appreciate that in fact the landlord would be in a more fortunate position if he had a tenant of his premises who did some degree of repair to them rather than a tenant who in fact did nothing to the premises during the time of his tenancy. In view of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not press the Amendment, but in view of the noble Earl's last few words I am not quite sure that he has the point. It is not a question of the tenant's doing repairs but of whether improvements were done. Another point which might arise is that an improvement or addition made to a house which, in the eyes of the tenant, might be a great benefit and improvement might be held by the owner of the house and by many prospective tenants not to be such an advantage; yet that might have to be paid for. If the noble Earl will be good enough to think about the point in general before the next stage of the Bill, and perhaps think about the long period from 1957 back to 1945, in so far as the retrospective part of the paragraph arises, I shall be very glad to leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after paragraph 8 to insert:
" 9.—(1) Where a tenancy which immediately before the time of decontrol was a controlled tenancy not falling within sub-paragraph (1) of paragaph 2 of this Schedule contains a provision (however expressed) whereby the landlord is entitled, on or after the Rent Acts ceasing to apply to the dwelling-house, to increase the rent otherwise than in respect of rates, the provision of services or the use of furniture, and the amount by which the rent may be so increased is not specified by the terms of the tenancy, the tenant may by notice in writing served on the landlord not later than three months after the time of decontrol elect that as from the service of the notice the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall apply as if the tenancy had been such a tenancy as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule.
(2) Where a notice is served under this paragraph the tenancy to which it relates, and any sub-tenancy thereof (whether or not an immediate sub-tenancy), shall come to an end on the service of the notice; and if any such

769
sub-tenancy was one falling within the foregoing sub-paragraph, then as from the service of the notice the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall apply as if the sub-tenancy had been such a tenancy as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule.
This sub-paragraph shall not prejudice the power of a sub-tenant to serve a notice under this paragraph where no such notice has been served by a superior tenant.
(3) No notice of increase served after the time of decontrol shall have effect, in the case of a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, earlier than the expiration of three months after that time.
10. For the purposes of this Schedule the power of a tenant under a tenancy for a term of years to terminate the tenancy at a specified point during the term shall not be treated as a power to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the case of a decontrolled contractual tenancy which will not come to an end until after the end of the fifteen months' standstill period, but which contains the provision entitling the landlord, in the event that premises become decontrolled at any time, to increase the rent without limit. The fifteen months' standstill period during which a tenant has security of tenure and cannot have his rent increased applies only to a statutory tenancy or a tenancy for a term which expires or can be determined by a notice to quit during the fifteen months' period. The Amendment is tabled to meet a case which has been brought to the attention of my right honourable friend and which he believes is typical of others. The tenancy is a controlled tenancy, having many years to run, of a house which will be decontrolled under Clause 10 (1), which entiles the landlord to give three months' notice of increase of rent, and it gives the tenant the option, if he is unwilling to pay the increase, of surrendering the tenancy. He would thus, if he did not agree to the increased rent, be subjected to the full rigour of decontrol almost immediately after the commencement of the Act, instead of at the end of the tenancy which has many years to run.
It is not considered that this type of case can go unprovided for and the Amendment deals with it accordingly. It gives the tenant three months after the time of decontrol in which he can elect to have the protection of the fifteen months' standstill period. If he serves a notice so electing, any decontrolled sub-tenancy of the same type as the mesne
770
tenancy will automatically be similarly protected. If the landlord seeks to increase the rent under the terms of the tenancy, the increase will not become effective before three months after the time of decontrol, during which the tenant has the right of election conferred by the Amendment. If the tenant obtains the protection of the fifteen months' standstill period, his rent, under paragraph 3 of the Schedule, will be frozen. The last paragraph of the Amendment is little more than drafting and I do not think on this occasion I need weary the House with it any further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 43, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL moved to leave out paragraph 11. The noble Earl said: Let me say first that I should be deeply distressed if the Government were to accept this Amendment. I do not know whether it is necessary to say that. As the Government have not accepted a single Amendment from this side since we started work on the Bill at three o'clock, the risk is not very great. I am not reproaching them. This Amendment was tabled on the assumption that subsection (3) of Clause 10 which we proposed to omit from the Bill, would be omitted, but that subsection has been retained. Therefore, the effect of omitting this paragraph 11 of the Fourth Schedule would, I think, be that a tenant decontrolled by order under subsection (3) of Clause 10 could be evicted without any period of notice at all.
But what I should like to do is to ask the noble Earl a question regarding this paragraph and to make one rather important point. This paragraph differs from the Bill in one extremely important respect. The Bill gives what has been called a standstill period of fifteen months before decontrolled tenants can be evicted. This paragraph proposes that any order that is made by the Minister for further decontrol of tenancies after the Bill has passed into law may specify a much shorter period, not shorter than six months, before decontrolled tenants can be evicted. There is a big difference between fifteen months and six months. I believe that when this Bill was first introduced the standstill period was only six

771
months. Why is it that if further decontrol takes place by order, the decontrolled tenants will only have six months if they fail to reach agreement for renewal of their tenancy before they can be turned out?
The other point is this. The period of six months is a very short period indeed to give the tenants a reasonable time to make further arrangements, either to go elsewhere or come to an agreement with their landlord. If an order is mad and an Affirmative Resolution is introduced by the Government, it is not possible for us to amend the order by extending the period of time; we shall be obliged to accept the shorter period specified in the order. This is extremely unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Government will consider giving a longer period, not necessarily fifteen months but something longer than six months, for decontrolled tenants who may lose the protection of the Rent Acts under orders that would be made by the Minister after this Bill is passed into law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 11, leave out paragraph 11.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl who moved this Amendment has concentrated his remarks on what I may call the six months' point. Therefore, may I deal with that primarily? The noble Earl will appreciate that this relates to any possible order making a new "slice", and it may be an order many years ahead when we are dealing with a larger "slice". We have to provide sufficient elasticity for that position. In taking the period of six months, we had in mind that decontrol took effect under the 1933 Act just over three months after the Bill received the Royal Assent, and a notice to quit could be served which took effect in one month. In 1938, the position was the same, except that decontrol took effect after four months. Therefore, the minimum standard is much longer than the period provided under the 1933 and 1938 Acts. That is the general position and, as my right honourable friend has made clear, there is no intention of using this for sudden and unexpected action.
The noble Earl made the point, which, of course, is technically accurate, that we cannot amend an order in this case. But
772
I think that the noble Earl would agree that if an order is produced by the Government which obviously requires amendment and there is general consensus on the point, it is not difficult to get the Government to withdraw the order and substitute another making the amendment. I have known this done in another place, and although my experience of your Lordships' House is much shorter, I see no reason why it should not be done should occasion present itself. Therefore I can give the noble Earl certain solace in the matter. I assure him that the period of six months which worries him has been put in to deal with a possibly different situation in what must still be a matter of futurity. I hope that I have assuaged some degree of his worry.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said about what the position may be in the distant future in regard to decontrol. The time may come when there will be no hardship because there will be enough houses to go round. But I am thinking of the immediate future, and I can only say that I very much hope that, if and when orders are made bringing about a further number of decontrolled dwellings, then the Minister will give real consideration to the position of the tenants and give them as much time as possible—certainly more than six months, if possible, because that is the minimum period—in which to make alternative arrangements. I merely express that wish and hope it is shared by other noble Lords.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Ascertainment and adjustment of rateable value and 1956 gross value]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 22, leave out (" sub-paragraph ") and insert (" sub-paragraphs ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in paragraph 2 (2) (a), to leave out
" fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven;"

773
and insert:
" expiration of six months from the date on which this Act comes into force; "
The noble Earl said: The date to which this Amendment refers was originally the 7th November, 1956, which was the date of the publication of the Rent Bill, while in another place an Amendment was passed substituting the 15th March, 1957, that being the date, I am told, when the Amendment was published. My Amendment seeks to give a clear six months after the passing of this Act for people to appeal against their rating assessments if they think they are unjustly being brought within the scope of decontrol.
There is no particular merit in the term I suggest, six months; but what I think is not appreciated, particularly by politicians, and probably also by civil servants, is that the ordinary member of the public does not study White Papers and Acts of Parliament. And he does not, get the Order Papers of the two Houses, and the Parliamentary news of events that are likely to affect him occupy but a small space in the newspapers, unless he is a reader of The Times or Manchester Guardian. Therefore, to expect tenants to apprise themselves of the risk to their tenancies, so that they may take the necessary steps to examine their rating assessment and to appeal against it in a period of weeks or a month or two, is quite unrealistic and undoubtedly imposes hardship on them.
This is illustrated by a case or two that I feel I must quote to your Lordships. A tenant with a valuation of £41 found that this was based on an incorrect figure in the records of the valuation department. Eventually, the tenant made her point, and the rateable value was reduced to £38; and the proposal for reduction was on 27th March of this year. A similar case was where a valuation of a flat of £44 was found to be incorrect. The matter could be cleared up only after visits to the neighbouring flats and comparing rents, and after a visit by the valuation officers to inspect the flat. To cut a long story short, that is another case of a tenant who had every right to a reduction of rateable value which would have kept her within control. But because this arbitrary date of March 15 is in the Bill, there was another case where the tenant lost the
774
right she should have had. Do not forget that these cases arose and came to the notice of tenants' associations. If there had not been this tremendous upsurge of tenants' associations for the precise purpose of assisting tenants to secure their rights, thousands of people, I am quite sure, would never have become aware of their rights or of the dates of any of the processes involved in this Bill. Therefore, I hope most sincerely that the Government will give this small concession. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out (" fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven ") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Bill provides that the normal test of whether a house remains in control is its rateable value on November 7, 1956. It may be, however, that a proposal for altering the value had been made before that date, or was then contemplated, and the rateable value may thus be altered at some later date as a result of that proposal. The Bill accordingly provides that such a proposal will be given effect to, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a dwelling is decontrolled, if it was made before March 15 this year. That date was chosen, as the noble Lord said, because it was the date on which the relevant Amendment to the Bill was put, down. The present rateable values came into force on April 1 last year, and a person who wished to make a proposal therefore has had virtually a year in which to make it. If it were possible to get the rateable value altered for the purpose of decontrol resulting from a proposal made after March 15 in the way the noble Lord has suggested by his Amendment, then I have not much doubt that innumerable tenants could make proposals between now and the six months from the date on which the Bill comes into force. Equally, landlords might also make proposals in the hope of getting the rateable value increased.
While it is not likely that many of these proposals either way would be successful, they would all have to go through the valuation appeal machinery; and, as the noble Earl will probably appreciate, would put an intolerable strain upon that machinery. The provision that a proposal must have been made before March

775
15, 1957, therefore excludes all proposals except those genuinely made to alter the valuation list on the ground that the assessment was too high from the rating point of view. When the proposals were made, it was not known that alteration in the assessment would necessarily affect the position as regards decontrol, and the proposals were therefore genuine. I think it would therefore be right that we should maintain this date of March 15 and wrong to insert the words which the noble Earl proposes, which might cause all the difficulties and troubles which I have briefly outlined to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl realises that it is an anomalous position that March 15 is the date for these proposals, as appeals against the rating can be made up to March 31. It seems that the Government are not considering the interests of the type of tenant who does not become aware of Government action and Parliamentary action as soon as people probably think. I am sorry that the noble Earl is not more sympathetic to our proposals.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 35, leave out from (" made ") to (" on ") in line 36.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 45, leave out from beginning to (" bears ") in line 46 and insert ("(d) what proportion his contribution, if any ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule:
Minor and Consequential Amendments and Application of Enactments
22. Section two of the Housing Act, 1936 (which implies, in contracts for letting at rents below specified limits, a condition as to fitness for human habitation), shall have effect, as well in relation to contracts entered into before as in relation to contracts entered into after the commencement of this Act, as if for the words "forty pounds", "twenty-six pounds" and "sixteen pounds" there were substituted respectively the words "eighty pounds", "fifty-
776
two pounds" and "thirty-two pounds"; and in relation to statutory tenancies current at the commencement of this Act the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall be deemed always to have had effect.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 38, after (" Act ") insert (" (including any sum irrecoverable by virtue of section fourteen thereof) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to delete paragraph 22. The noble Lord said: The purpose of my putting down this Amendment is to obtain an explanation and justification of a paragraph which I think did not have the advantage of a discussion in another place. I do not doubt for one moment the excellent intentions behind this paragraph, but I wonder whether, in its wording, it may not go too far. The paragraph amends Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1936, which was, as your Lordships are aware, a consolidating Statute. Section 2 laid down certain conditions to be implied in certain contracts, and this paragraph amends the figures in that section of the 1936 Act by doubling them.
I think there will be general agreement—and, in particular, I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will agree—with two general propositions. The first is that it is not generally wise to write into contracts terms which the parties did not think fit to put there. The second proposition is that it is not generally desirable to do anything of that kind retrospectively. I concede at once that to those rules there are quite properly certain exceptions. For example, we are all familiar with the conditions implied in contracts for the sale of goods under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. But in that case the section concerned embodied the wisdom of the Common Law. Because of those two general rules to which I have referred, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will be good enough to let me know, first, how far this implied condition laid down by Statute has proved useful in practice; and, secondly, if, as I assume, it has proved useful, whether he thinks that it is right not merely to amend it and to make it apply in its

777
amended form to future contracts, but also to apply the new form to existing contracts and tenancies where it has not hitherto existed. For those exploratory purposes. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 23, leave out paragraph 22.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do my best to give my noble friend my interpretation of the effect of the paragraph to which he has referred. He was good enough to tell me about the difficulties which he has found. Paragraph 22 has no retrospective effect, in the sense that a tenant of a house to which it applies, who has not previously had the benefit of Section 2 of the Act of 1936, will be able to hold the landlord responsible for things that happened before the paragraph applies at the commencement of the Act. But the paragraph will apply to contracts which were entered into before the commencement of the Act at a time when Section 2 of the Act of 1936 did not apply to them.
In such cases, first of all, the parties will have contracted on the basis that the landlord had no such implied liability for repairs as is put on him by Section 2 of the Act of 1936; and secondly, the repairing obligations of the parties will have been agreed on this basis. If Section 2 of the Act of 1936 is now applied to such a contract, it will, of course, upset those obligations, and any repairing obligations put upon the tenant by the contract will have to be treated as being modified so as to exclude any repairs which are necessary to make the house fit for human habitation, for which the landlord will hence forward be responsible under the condition implied in the contract by Section 2. As my noble and learned friend will appreciate, that applies, notwithstanding anything in the contract. This may lead to difficulties in determining what is the appropriate factor for the purpose of Part I of the First Schedule, which governs the ascertainment of rent limit under Clause 1. If I have correctly anticipated the sort of point which my noble and learned friend has in mind, I shall be pleased to consider it, but by noble friend must not take that as an undertaking to introduce an Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I am much obliged for my noble and learned friend's explanation. I shall be grateful if he will give the matter the consideration he suggests, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Clause 15 of the Bill provides for a minimum period of four weeks' notice to quit any house. There are, however, certain Scottish statutory provisions which provide for periods of less than four weeks—one of them as short as forty-eight hours. This Amendment will bring these other provisions into line with Clause 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 1, at end insert:
" 28. Section five of the Removal Terms (Scotland) Act, 1886, shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added the following:—
" Provided that in no case shall notice of removal be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect."
29. Section thirty-eight of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added the following:—
" Provided that in no case shall notice of removal be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect."
30.—(1) The House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be amended as follows:
(2) In section four for the words "the next payment" in the first place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "a payment", and for those words in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "that payment", and in paragraph (b) of the proviso for the words, from "except" to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words "so, however, that in no case shall the notice be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect."
(3) In section five for the words "forty-eight hours" there shall be substituted the words "twenty-eight days".—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 34, after (" 1 ") insert (" Paragraph 1, ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [General Transitional Provisions]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 25, leave out (" subsections (1) and (2) ") and insert (" subsection (1) ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TAMAR BRIDGE BILL ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (BARMSTON—COXGREEN FOOTBRIDGE) BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on the 6th February last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before twelve o'clock.