HL Deb 21 May 1957 vol 203 cc1010-53

3.8 p.m.

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)

My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I think it would be appropriate that I should make some brief observations on various questions which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and I promised to look into during the course of the Committee stage. On the question, That Clause 2 of the Bill stand part, my noble friend Lord Broughshane asked whether the prescribed form would afford an opportunity to the landlord to disclaim responsibility for internal decorative repairs. In point of fact, this Bill works in exactly the opposite way from the 1954 Act. Under the Bill, the landlord will be treated as not responsible for internal decorative repairs in the absence of any specific provision in the contract. He will, however, have an opportunity, if he so wishes, to elect to be responsible under paragraph 2 (1) of Part 1 of the First Schedule. As I have said, the 1954 Act worked the other way round—the landlord was treated as responsible, and had to elect not to be responsible.

Then a question was raised on Clause 17, dealing with the exchange of tenancies, by Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Ridley, who asked whether something could be put into the clause to prevent a landlord from unreasonably withholding consent to an exchange of tenancies. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack undertook to look at this point. There has been consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but the Government feel on this occasion that they cannot agree to the suggestion which was made by both noble Lords, which would in fact involve an appeal to the county court.

Now I come to the First Schedule to the Bill, on which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, asked whether the abatement of rent would be retrospective to the date of application for a certificate. I am informed that the abatement of rent comes into force immediately a certificate of disrepair is issued or, if the landlord has given an undertaking, six months after the undertaking was given. Secondly, when the abatement of rent takes place it will be retrospective to the date on which the certificate of disrepair is applied for by the tenant or an undertaking was given by the landlord, whichever is the earlier. It is not retrospective to the date on which the tenant first served his notice of defects on the landlord. Then the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, also asked whether the existing right of the tenant to apply for a certificate whereby he can withhold rent will continue. On this occasion, any certificate obtained by a tenant under previous legislation is treated as a certificate of disrepair under the Bill, but the tenant cannot invoke the right to apply for a certificate under previous legislation once this Bill is in force.

Finally, my noble friends, Lord Ridley and Lord Conesford, asked whether the interpretation of "landlord" in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule would include a previous landlord. Here again, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack undertook to look into this matter. It has been considered, and our advice is that the wording of the proviso could apply only to the landlord at the time when the local authority proposed to issue the certificate. I hope that I have dealt with all the principal points which were raised on Committee stage of the Bill and which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack undertook to look into. I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Munster.)

3.13 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I understood from the noble Earl that he was referring, in part of his remarks, to the proviso in the Bill which deals with exchange of tenancies. He quoted the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and gave them an answer. But, in fact, of course, this puts a rather surprising slant on the matter, because the Amendment of which he spoke was one that I put down; and the only way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, came into it was that they supported me. I make no complaint about the support, but I think it is rather odd now to find the noble Earl, Lord Munster, replying to them and not to the person who moved the Amendment. I suppose it is a classic case of "Save us from our friends "—because they may agree to what he said while I do not.

However that may be, the point is that on an Amendment on the Committee stage, I asked the Government to look at this point, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack promised to look at it—I quote from col. 728 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of May 14. This is what the Lord Chancellor said: 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. Then I said: 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 Government have never told us anything about it until this moment. We have been waiting. Time has been very short and we have many other things to do. We have been waiting to hear the result of their consideration on this very important point. We now find that their consideration is that nothing can be done. All I am saying is that we shall put down an Amendment on Third Reading and shall press it to a Division.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, is there no answer to that? I suppose we ought to have some apology from the other side.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I do not know what the necessity for an apology is. All I endeavoured to do was to explain to the House the points raised by my two noble friends and mentioned an Amendment which was, it is quite true, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I think that, if he will recall correctly what transpired on the Committee stage of the Bill, he will remember that the Government did not accept his Amendment or any portion of it. But there was a suggestion made by my two noble friends behind me that something could be put into the clause to prevent a landlord from unreasonably withholding his consent. That was the question which either my noble and learned friend or myself promised to look into. Any idea that we were going to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, does not really make sense, because I think we said so quite definitely on that occasion.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I do not want unnecessarily to prolong this argument, but the fact is that that was the whole point of the Amendment—to ensure that a landlord or a superior landlord could not unreasonably hold up an exchange of tenancies to which both tenants and the other landlord, and the other superior landlord, if there was one, agreed. That was the whole object of the Amendment. It is quite a common practice in this House for the Lord Chancellor or whoever is replying to say, "I see there is perhaps some force in this; I will look into it, and will consider it. But I cannot make any promise." In Committee, the noble and learned Viscount said, "I cannot make any promise but I will look into it and I will consider this matter", and I should have thought the normal practice was that we hear something about it, giving us time to put down an Amendment on Report stage so that the House, on Report, could consider it. All I am saying is that the first we have heard about this from the Minister is now. We have had no communication from the Government between the Committee stage and now which would enable us to put down an Amendment if we knew that the Government were not going to acept what we proposed.

On Question, Motion 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 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 relating (if it is so provided by the order) not only to future but to past rental periods:

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.

LORD OGMORE moved to add to subsection (3): and (b) the consent contained an acknowledgement (however expressed) that the rent could be increased on account of the improvement.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage I put down an Amendment in similar terms to this, though not in exactly the same wording. The Government said they felt inclined to accept it, provided that they had an opportunity of looking at it and, perhaps, of altering the wording a little. I understand that they are going to accept it in these words. That meets the point I have in mind. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11:

Release from control under Rent Acts Release from Rent Acts and Furnished Houses Rent Control

11.—(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.

3.19 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "forty", where that word first occurs, and to insert "fifty". The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I proposed in a similar Amendment to exempt from decontrol in London dwellings of between £40 and £60 rateable value. The effect of this Amendment, as I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor pointed out, would be to retain this control over about half the 190,000 dwellings in London that would otherwise have been decontrolled under the provisions of the Bill. The Government objected to this because they said—and there was obviously some substance in this argument—that this was too large a number of exemptions to be acceptable and to enable rent decontrol to work in the way the Government intended it to work in the London area. To meet this objection, I have tabled the Amendment which I am asking your Lordships to consider this afternoon. I hope that the much smaller number of dwellings, flats and houses, in the category of £40 to £50 in rateable value which I am proposing to exempt by this Amendment may be more acceptable to the Government.

I am not going to repeat to your Lordships the speech I made only a short while ago in Committee. The arguments in favour of this Amendment are the same as those I used on the Amendment I moved on the Committee stage of the Bill, but there are just two points that I should like to emphasise—and perhaps this will serve to refresh your Lordships' memories about these arguments. The first is this. I cannot conceive how anyone can maintain that there will be an adequate pool of alternative accommodation in London when the tenants of decontrolled dwellings can be forced to leave their houses, as will be the case, fifteen months from the date when this Bill becomes law. The second point I should like to emphasise is this. It is the people in the lower range of the wage and salary scale who occupy the flats and cottages at low rateable values, so that the raising of the exemption limit by even a matter of only £10 would prevent a great deal of avoidable hardship—hardship which otherwise will be inflicted by this Bill. With those few words I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 32, leave out (" forty ") and insert (" fifty ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I regret, as no doubt the noble Earl contemplated, that the Amendment which he has put down on this stage of the Bill is no more acceptable to the Government than the one which he promoted on the Committee stage. As he said—and it is quite true—the present rateable value limit of control in the Metropolitan Police District is £100. The new limit of £40 which is inserted in Clause 11 has the effect, as he rightly said, of decontrolling some 190,000 houses in London. This question was dealt with at some considerable length by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who pointed out that that figure represents one in four of the 700,000 houses in this rateable value group in London, and is comparable with the figure for the provinces, where 560,000 houses out of 2,050,000 will be decontrolled. That, again, is approximately one in four. It has been said that there is a justification for a higher limit for London, for the reason that in London the Bill would decontrol 190,000 houses out of 800,000, of all rateable values, which are at present controlled, whereas in the provinces the proportion is somewhat lower.

What I think matters here is the amount of alternative accommodation at the same rateable value group, and not the contrast between the number of houses which remain controlled and the number which are decontrolled. I am advised that if we were to accept this Amendment, and the rateable value were to be raised in London from £40 to £50, it would mean that we should be decontrolling only some 85,000 houses, instead of the 190,000 houses which will be decontrolled by leaving the word "forty" in this clause. That, I think, the House will see straightaway, would produce a situation which we have always thought it absolutely essential to avoid, it would concentrate the demand for unfurnished accommodation on the far smaller number of houses that would be decontrolled. The Government are sure that by spreading the demand over a large "slice" of houses coming out of control, the transition to a free market can work smoothly, without landlords being able to obtain excessive rents. If, however, the demand were concentrated on the relatively small "slice" which the Amendment would decontrol, there would certainly, in our view, be a danger of a rise in rent, possibly to unreasonable levels.

We also believe—and I think my right honourable friend has stated it before now—that it is in the interest of landlords and tenants alike to return to a free market in unfurnished accommodation for letting as soon as possible. It is only by this means that the drain of houses from the unfurnished letting market will be stopped, and landlords can be encouraged to make the necessary amount of accommodation available for letting unfurnished. If the scope of decontrol were cut down in the way proposed in the Amendment, it would seriously impede the realisation of the aims of Her Majesty's Government, which have been stated on more than one occasion. Although I quite appreciate the purpose for which the noble Earl has moved this Amendment, nevertheless, for the reasons which I have given, and for the reasons which were given on a previous occasion by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I regret that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I am a little confused about the figures, because I understand this time from the noble Earl, that if this Amendment were carried there would be 85,000 houses in control.

THE Earl OF MUNSTER

Decontrolled.

LORD OGMORE

Yes. That means that there would be a control in London of 105,000 houses. That is right, is it not? Putting it this way, under the terms of the Bill there are 190,000 houses in London which would be decontrolled—is that right? If our Amendment is now carried, 85,000 fewer houses will be decontrolled. Is that right?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

No.

LORD OGMORE

It is not easy to follow figures when they are given from the other side. I take it that the position is that if our Amendment is carried. 105,000 houses less than the number that the Government proposed in their Bill will be decontrolled. One or the other is bound to be right; I cannot be wrong in both, and I think I am right in the last one. In other words, if this Amendment of ours is carried, it will mean that 105,000 more houses will be controlled?

THE Earl OF MUNSTER

That is right—would remain in control.

LORD OGMORE

They would remain in control; that is to say, it would relieve the unfortunate tenants of the fear of being ejected. I would ask this question, because it is a most important one. In my view, this Bill—at least, this provision of the Bill—has its greatest impact on London. Around London, in areas such as Croydon, Wimbledon, Putney, Hendon, Finchley, Golders Green, Mill Hill and so on, there live the people who have been most heavily affected by inflation and by the trend of the rents of the last few years. As I said on the Committee stage, they are people who have no expense accounts to cushion them from the effect of inflation. They often try to educate their children in independent schools. They try to maintain the standard of living which their fathers had and are unable either to save any quantity of money or to live as some portion of the community—the business portion—can live, by having certain of their expenses and outgoings charged against income tax. They are civil servants, professional people, executives, senior employees in business and local government servants—all people who are a vital portion of the community. These unfortunate people, many thousands of them (for we are not talking of just two or three) who live in and around London, mainly in the outer suburbs (they cannot afford to live in the inner suburbs) with all the difficulties of transit and the troubles of trying to get lunch in the City, scrambling with hundreds of other people who are trying to do the same thing at the same time, are now faced with the possibility of eviction from their houses.

I want to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered what are likely to be the practical effects of this proposal. I am going down to Croydon on Monday. The new Mayor is being installed and I have the honour of proposing or seconding his health, which I shall be very pleased to do. People in Croydon know very well that this matter has been before your Lordships' House, and I am bound to be asked: "What is going to be the effect on us?" These are very law-abiding people and naturally they will want to carry out the law, harsh and oppressive though they believe it to be. What is the position? Here are 190,000 families who, perhaps on the very same day, fifteen months hence or whatever may be the period, may be faced with notice to quit, served by the landlord. They may be asked by their landlord to pay a much higher rent, perhaps four or five times more than they are now paying and which in all probability they cannot pay. Or they may be asked by their landlord either to purchase the house or to get out.

Can your Lordships imagine the position of a large number of these 190,000 families, suddenly faced with the necessity of getting out? Where do they go? There is really no free market such as Her Majesty's Government speak of. All other houses will be in the same position and all landlords will be demanding much higher rents or high prices for their houses. I took the trouble of asking one of the biggest firms of estate agents what was likely to be the effect of all this on rents in London. I was told: "I can only say that it is bound to put them up three or four times as much." That was their opinion. I was not given that opinion because they thought it would please me, because they did not know who I was. I was telephoning on another matter and just shot that question in; so there is no suggestion that I was being given an answer that I wanted.

Can one imagine these unfortunate people with their household goods and effects out on the pavement?—for that is what it will amount to. Who is going to do it? Will it be done by the bailiffs or the police? We may be faced with that situation. We have to face the consequences of our action and we are now to give 190,000 landlords in London the power to put on the pavement 190,000 families, some of them the most respectable and hard-working families in the country. On the Committee stage I gave what I thought to be the political effect of this Bill. I warned Her Majesty's Government of the effect in places like Croydon. But what of the human effect that I am stressing today? How are the Government to assist landlords to put large numbers of people out on the pavement—because the Government will have to assist them. If landlords are given the legal right to put people on the pavement, the courts have to do it; and I believe county courts and their officials and the police will be put in a most awkward and embarrassing position. For this is no case of people wilfully disobeying a law. These are the most respectable and law-abiding people one can find. They will not be able to go anywhere.

The only other thing that Her Majesty's Government can do is to establish rest houses, and one can imagine the Minister turning up in his Department in the morning and finding that two or three of his senior officials are not in the office because they have had to see their families to rest centres. When we pass these measures in this House we should have some regard to the probable consequences—the grave, harsh and embarrassing consequences—and we should also have from Her Majesty's Government some idea of how they propose to carry out measures which they ask us to approve.

3.36 p.m.

LORD MESTON

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I be allowed to say a few words on behalf of landlords? I am intimately concerned with two landlords' associations and I can assure your Lordships, quite clearly, that after this Bill becomes law there will be nothing at all in the nature of wholesale evictions. In fact, I doubt whether there will be any evictions at all. Probably landlords will have a talk with their tenants and come to some new terms on a friendly basis and there will be no extra work for the county courts. On that account I am very sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.

3.37 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, perhaps I might say a few words in reply to the remarks which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He made a simple mathematical calculation, which was correct: that if this Amendment were accepted 105,000 more houses would remain in control. The noble Lord and others associated with him on that side of the House, throughout this discussion and on the Committee stage of the Bill, have pictured to your Lordships a state of great antagonism between landlords and tenants. In certain circumstances and on certain occasions that situation may arise; but, so far as my knowledge goes, in the great majority of cases landlords and tenants live in the most amicable relations with one another.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, speaking of individuals who might be living in these 190,000 houses, tries to make their flesh creep by saying that they will all be given notice to quit on the same day; that rest centres will be opened, perhaps in parks in the West End, and that individuals may not be able to arrive at their offices, due to the fact that their families have been sent to rest centres. I do not believe a single one of those things will occur after the Bill has become law. The noble Lord asks: what are the practical effects? What will happen after the Bill has received the Royal Assent? I believe I can answer him in one sentence. In our judgment, the effects will be utterly different from those which the noble Lord and the Labour Party believe are likely to occur.

This argument has been going on in another place, and now here again we reach another stage in the Bill when it is intended to try to alter the rateable value. As I said on the previous occasion, this is not an Amendment which is acceptable to us. We believe that the freedom of houses such as I have described—and I need not go into it again—will be more quickly brought about through the action we propose in this clause than by further amending it in the way the noble Lord asks. I would therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment at this stage.

3.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I must say I fail to understand the basis upon which the noble Earl has just made that speech. Since the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, I have received numerous communications from still other associations of tenants who are not by any means as complacent about the future as the Government appear to be. One organisation which has written to me is entirely a Conservative association of tenants, and one which would normally support a Conservative Government. They are exceedingly apprehensive as to what is going to happen to them. It is most significant that when one looks at communications such as those that I have been getting in the last few days one notes that they are nearly all from specially organised associations representing the occupiers of whole blocks of flats which are affected by this delineation in the Bill as to what is to be controlled and what is not to be controlled. They know very well that the kind of easy passage with the tenants which Lord Meston foresees with regard to this Bill is unlikely. It is not what they, as tenants, anticipate at all.

Many of them have already found themselves gravely handicapped by the revaluations of the last few years. Many of them have been having their rents increased constantly, equivalent to the increase of rates, an agreement to that effect being usually a part of a tenancy agreement in the case of a flat. They know that, having regard to the shortage of these dwellings which exists at the present time in the London area, the landlords, once they have got this class of flat decontrolled, and unless there is a very great addition to the alternative accommodation, will demand very much larger rents. What is the use of thinking that you are going to be able to get easy new agreements with the landlords?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Why not.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Why do you think so? But I will tell you why not: it is because of the amounts that are going to be asked. The provisions of this Bill, as it seems to me, provide even in the case of controlled houses for quite considerable additions to the rents, and this makes it clear to me that when it comes to settling the variation of the rents of houses and flats which are to be decontrolled they will run into considerable figures. I should say that a very large number of these tenants will be quite unable to afford these rents. What will they do? Either leave or be evicted. If they leave they will probably help to cause overcrowding somewhere. If they are evicted, then I think my noble friend Lord Ogmore is entitled to ask what sort of plans the Government have made, either on their own initiative or with the help of local authorities, to provide accommodation for them.

I think this is an iniquitous Bill, born out of breach of faith. It is a direct contradiction to the declaration issued by the Conservative Party Headquarters during the course of the last Election, and the Party are now breaking their pledges. I do not wonder that tenants' associations should be writing asking us to do all we can, even at the last moment in this House, to get them some relief. I, therefore, propose to divide the House on this Amendment.

THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL

My Lords, I regret as much as my noble friends the fact that the Government have shown no disposition at all to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. If I were not afraid of mixing metaphors I should be tempted to say that sometimes shorn lambs come home to roost. But I anticipate a possible answer to that statement, so I will not make it. I think the Government underestimate public opinion in the London area. May I tell the noble Earl

this story, to illustrate what I have just said? During the passage of this Bill through another place we had two meetings in the Town Hall of Battersea—the constituency I represent on the London County Council. One meeting was on Suez; the other was on the Rent Bill. The attendance at the meeting on Suez was very thin. It was a case of absolutely "Full house" at the meeting on the Rent Bill. Battersea is a mixed area—North Battersea is predominantly what you might call working class; South Battersea is predominantly middle or lower middle class—so it affords a cross-section of opinion in London. We, on these Benches, are few in number, but I am certain that on this Amendment we represent a large volume of public opinion in London. On that ground alone we are entitled to register our protest by asking your Lordships to vote on this Amendment in the Division Lobby.

LORD MESTON

Has the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, forgotten the fifteen months' standstill?

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Attlee, E. Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Listowel, E. Shepherd, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Henderson, L. Wise, L. [Teller.]
Ogmore, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor) Crookshank, V. Erskine, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]
Home, E. (L. President) Goschen, V. Fraser of North Cape, L.
Hailsham, V. Freyberg, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Leathers, V. Gisborough, L.
Lansdowne, M. Monsell, V. Hawke, L.
Reading, M. Ruffside, V. Leconfield, L.
Templewood, V. McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Albemarle, E. Thurso, V. Mancroft, L.
Bathurst, E. Wimborne, V. Merrivale, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Meston, L.
Gosford, E. Addington, L. Milverton, L.
Grey, E. Amulree, L. Newall, L.
Howe, E. Birdwood, L. Rathcavan, L.
Munster, E. Broughshane, L. St. Oswald, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.] Chesham, L. Sinha, L.
Selkirk, E. Conesford, L. Strathclyde, L.
Swinton, E. Craigmyle, L. Teviot, L.
Digby, L. Waleran, L.
Bridgeman, V. Dynevor, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD OGMORE moved, at the beginning of subsection (3) to insert: Subject to the next following subsection,

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments No. 5 and No. 7 together, because they are both the same point. Subsection (3) gives the Minister power to do as he likes with the Rent Bill. He can put it in cold storage; he can apply it to whatever part of the country he likes, or he can remove from its scope any part of the country. Of course, he must have an Affirmative Resolution, but, as your Lordships know, that cannot be amended in either House and can only be accepted or rejected in toto; therefore this provision is of immense scope. It nullifies to a large extent the work of Parliament, if the Minister cares to make use of this provision.

I do not propose to go into the lengthy and I should have thought unanswerable—at any rate they were not answered—arguments we on this side put up on Committee stage. This provision goes completely against the Report dealing with delegated legislation. In this Amendment we have tried to make the Minister less of a dictator than he will otherwise be able to be. We suggest that before making an order under this clause, the Minister should appoint a departmental committee to take evidence and report upon matters which would be affected by the order, such as the sufficiency and adequacy of housing in the area to which the proposed order was to relate, and so on. Then the Minister has to consult the local authorities. Only if, after the reports of such a committee and of the local authorities have been received, the Minister is satisfied, can he make an order under this clause.

I have no doubt that when the noble Earl comes to reply, he will say that, of course, the Minister will be satisfied before he makes an order; but we do not know how he has been satisfied and we do not know what evidence he will require before he makes up his mind. The Amendment provides certain steps which the Minister has to take before he makes up his mind, and I cannot think that your Lordships will feel that these steps that we have suggested are other than reasonable and common sense, and those which a reasonable Minister would want to take in any case. If he would want to take them in any case, why not put it in the Bill? Without more ado, I beg to move Amendment No. 5, and I ask for your Lordships' support.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the noble Lord, who spoke on this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 together will, I am sure, forgive me if I say at the beginning of my reply that the provision which he is endeavouring to have inserted in the Bill is something Which I could not contemplate, nor indeed could any Minister of the Crown contemplate it. What it would mean is that my right honourable friend would have to set up a Departmental Committee, which would have to take evidence and report on the housing conditions in areas which would have to be covered by the decontrol order. Then the report would have to be published, and a period of three months would have to elapse before the Minister decided to bring an order forward for Affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. In addition, my right honourable friend would be required to hold statutory consultations with all the local authorities for the areas which might be covered by the order. To inflict such a burden upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whoever he may be, is something which, as I say, I could not contemplate. It is obvious, and your Lordships know it well, that my right honourable friend, before he makes an order requiring this Affirmative Resolution, would have obtained all the available information about the housing problems generally in the areas which are likely to be affected by the order. If he can do that with the existing machinery—and there is no doubt that the existing machinery is adequate for, the purpose—then I venture to suggest that there is no need to have this Departmental Committee procedure, or to require these statutory consultations.

I think the only point which is germane to this discussion is that the policy decision must be arrived at by the Minister himself; and before he arrives at that decision he will naturally have all the evidence which is available to him, which should be amply sufficient for finally deciding upon the order to be made. It is one thing to leave the Minister, whoever he may be, with discretion to appoint a committee to advise him, as, indeed, my right honourable friend, or any other Minister who follows him hereafter, may decide to do under the Bill as it now stands; but it is quite another thing to require him by Statute to do so, even though the course of action may be clear. I would suggest to your Lordships that there is ample provision in the Bill already for seeing that the functions of Parliament are maintained, because every order which is made by my right honourable friend requires an Affirmative Resolution not only of this House but of another place, and there will be ample opportunity, if the situation should warrant it, for this matter to be discussed at length on those occasions. As I say, I could not possibly accept in the name of my right honourable friend a provision such as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, wishes to insert, to set up a Departmental Committee and all the paraphernalia which is associated with that body. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment and Amendment No. 7.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, as I surmised, the contention of the noble Earl is that the Minister would do this, in any case, so why put this provision in the Bill? For the reasons that I have given, I think it ought to be in the Bill. I think that this is far too wide and important a power to give any Minister without laying down some principles upon which he should act. Then the noble Earl says it has to come to Parliament. Of course it has to come to Parliament under an Affirmative Resolution; but we cannot do anything about that order except accept it or reject it, and, from the point of view of the Opposition, especially in this House, it completely withdraws any power that we have. If every Bill in this House were simply a matter of an Affirmative Resolution, then we might as well go home, because the only thing we can do now is to try to get Amendments carried—I am speaking about this House, but, to a lesser extent, it applies also in the other place. To say that Parliament has full power because of the Affirmative Resolution is all moonshine; in fact, it means that the Opposition in Parliament is silenced by the provisions of this Bill.

LORD WISE

My Lords, I should like to ask one question to see whether I read this subsection aright. I conclude from this subsection that, having decontrolled the 800,000 houses, the Minister would have power by one single order to decontrol the remaining 4 million or 5 million houses which would still be controlled at that time. In other words, one order would be sufficient to decontrol the remainder of the houses not included in the first part of the clause. That would, in my opinion, and possibly in the opinion of the noble Earl opposite, be a tremendous power in the hands of the Minister.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I thought this subsection was quite clear. The Minister may, subject to an Affirmative Resolution, make an order which relates to the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas of the three countries concerned as may be specified in the order. I should imagine, although I have not discussed this with my right honourable friend, that if he intended to make an order which was to refer to the whole of England, then the order would refer to the whole of England. But as he has this right to do it for the whole country, or for smaller areas, I think it depends entirely on the line which he might adopt, given the special circumstances of a particular case. I should not like to dogmatise now as to exactly what sort of order my right honourable friend would bring in, or when he would bring it in, but, as I say, he has power under the subsection to make an order relating to the whole of England and Wales, the whole of Scotland, or such area or areas in the three countries concerned. I think it is wise to leave the matter flexible, as it is in the subsection, and not to try to tie it down to some specific order.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

4.10 p.m.

LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of the Scotland, or". The noble Lord said: This is another attempt by us to limit the scope of Clause 11. As we have just heard from the reply of the Minister to my noble friend Lord Wise, under the present subsection the Minister, if he so desires, can make an order which will affect the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland, or either of them. That seems to us to be a very bad constitutional principle indeed. I am sorry that no noble Lords on the other side have spoken on this matter, but it seems to us a serious infringement of the Constitution that a Minister can completely upset an Act of Parliament and make an order which will affect the whole of the country.

When the noble Earl, Lord Munster, spoke on the Committee stage, he quoted with approval from a Report made by the Ridley Committee before the war. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who had obviously not had notice of it, got up and said that, so far as he could remember, his Committee suggested that the Minister should have power to make orders in cases where there was overcrowding. There were certain areas in those days—Glasgow comes to mind; and no doubt there were others—where there was serious overcrowding. The Ridley Committee thought that it would be a good thing if the Minister could make special orders relating to that class of overcrowding. One can see that there might be a case for that, although personally I do not think so: I believe that any amendment of the Rent Acts should come before Parliament. But that is a different proposition from this, whereby the Minister can completely upset the whole of the Rent Acts and can, in fact, if he wishes, by a simple order, decontrol every house in the country.

Therefore, what we do in this Amendment is to limit the power of the Minister to make orders to the sort of cases which the Ridley Committee had in mind, and no longer to permit the making of orders affecting the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland. I should have thought that this was all the Minister would need. The Bill, as amended, would give him tremendous power—far more power than we think he should have, but, at all events, it would mean that he would no longer be able to make an order affecting the whole of England, Wales and Scotland, and thus put in jeopardy the Rent Acts and the work of Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 6, leave out from (" relate ") to second (" to "). in line 7.—(Lord Ogmore.) Vol. 203

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, it is quite true, as the noble Lord stated in moving his Amendment, that the Ridley Committee, which reported in 1937, recommended a scheme for future decontrol by order, area by area, according to the overcrowding position in each particular area. The Government of that day considered that an operation of this sort for an overcrowding formula would be too inflexible a test. They therefore announced in the debate in March, 1938, that the exact method and time at which such local control could be brought about were matters for further examination in due course. This Amendment goes somewhat further than the provision which was suggested by Lord Ridley's Committee, which was to deal entirely with a matter relating to overcrowding. This Amendment would prevent a decontrol order from applying to the whole of England and Wales or, for that matter, to the whole of Scotland as well.

Clause 11 (3) enables an order to be made to apply to the whole of England and Wales, and the whole of Scotland, or to such areas as may be specified in the order. It therefore gives the Minister what was mentioned on the Committee stage of this Bill—the necessary flexibility to enable him, when decontrolling, to apply the different rateable value limits for London, the provinces and, perhaps, the large provincial towns. If I accepted this Amendment—and I see the noble Lord's point very well—it would mean that your Lordships' House and another place might have a multiplication of small orders coming up for an Affirmative Resolution. The Amendment, as the noble Lord probably intended, introduces rigidity into the whole of subsection (3), whereas what my right honourable friend is desirous of having is flexibility. So long as he is anxious to maintain flexibility, and so long as the noble Lord wants rigidity, I am afraid that these two opposite poles could never meet.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I think the words "flexibility" and "rigidity" are purely abstract, and have no relation at all to the realities of the housing situation. It is these realities that we must bear in mind in considering the application of measures for further decontrol under this Bill. The Government have said (the noble Earl will correct me if I am mistaken) that decontrol would proceed step by step. If that is so, what can be the ground for taking a power to decontrol the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland? I think it is an important constitutional principle that the Executive should not ask Parliament for more power than it can justify by argument, and none of the arguments that has been raised by the noble Earl justifies the demand for this sweeping power.

Look at the realities of the situation. Housing conditions are bound to continue to vary enormously in different parts of the country. The large cities like London, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester will continue to be grossly overcrowded and to have an acute housing problem for many years to come, whereas the new towns in the Home Counties, and the expanded towns that are to be enlarged under the provisions

Clause 16 [Minimum length of notice to quit]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, this Amendment No. 8 meets a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Broughshane on the Committee stage of this Bill It now makes clear that this clause relates to notices to quit whether served by the landlord or by the tenant. I beg to move.

of the Town Development Act, will all have a much larger amount of fresh accommodation. These variations are quite obvious to anyone who considers what the situation is likely to be over the next ten years in different parts of the country. If this is so, and if the Government stick to what they said, and intend to proceed step by step, I can see no justification at all for this sweeping and drastic power to make an order which will decontrol all the remaining houses in England and Wales, or in Scotland, that are subject to rent control. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships on its merits, and I hope that it will be considered apart from Party considerations.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS
Attlee, E. Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Henderson, L.
Jowitt, E. Lawson, L.
Listowel, E. Faringdon, L. Ogmore, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Haden-Guest, L. Wise, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Bledisloe, V. Dynevor, L.
Bridgeman, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]
Home, E. (L. President.) Crookshank, V. Freyberg, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Gifford, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Goschen, V. Hawke, L.
Reading, M. Hailsham, V. Lloyd, L.
Salisbury, M. Mersey, V. Mancroft, L.
Monsell, V. Merrivale, L.
Albemarle, E. Ruffside, V. Merthyr, L.
Bathurst, E. Thurso, V. Meston, L.
Bessborough, E. Wimborne, V. Newall, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Rathcavan, L.
Gosford, E. Amulree, L. Rea, L.
Limerick, E. Birdwood, L. Remnant, L.
Munster, E. Broughshane, L. St. Oswald, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.] Chesham, L. Sinha, L.
Selkirk, E. Clitheroe, L. Strathclyde, L.
Swinton, E. Conesford, L. Teviot, L.
Craigmyle, L. Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 41, after (" notice ") insert (" by a landlord or a tenant ").—(Earl of Munster.)

4.29 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I take it that the intention of the Government in making this Amendment is that this should apply, whether it is in accordance with any existing agreement or not: that is to say, that this Amendment now makes a four weeks' notice compulsory on either landlord or tenant. In some cases it will be the landlord who has to give it—I quite see that. In other cases, perhaps not so often, it will be the tenant, who may be asked to pay an increase of 150 per cent. or 200 per cent. on the rent of his flat and who is not at present bound by a four weeks' notice. Why should he have to give the four weeks' notice to quit premises that he can no longer afford to rent? Has anybody considered that?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I think that is the most hypothetical case that I have ever heard in my life. The whole purpose of this clause, as inserted in another place, was to give to the tenant the benefit that he could not be thrown out under a period of four weeks. I have always understood, ever since the day that this clause was inserted, that it was accepted almost unanimously by all political Parties in the country. I cannot see that these fears which the noble Viscount is constantly expressing—these terribly grave fears—will ever mature. But a great deal is said in order to make the blood of the electors curdle in the hope of gaining a little political advantage. I maintain that this particular clause, Clause 16, is a great asset to both landlord and tenant, and I personally should regret seeing it altered or amended in any way other than that which I have moved this afternoon.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, this complacency is quite astonishing and astounding. One would think that landlords are all of such saintly character and that experience has been such that there has never in the past been need for any rent control at all. To hear these statements being made no-one would ever believe that, as recently as 1930, an additional restriction had to be imposed upon landlords. There just is not any sense at all in this sudden advocacy of the fine and good intentions and good will of landlords. It has never been so proved. It is not what the tenants think. I have here a communication from the South Anerley Tenants' Association. They say: May we point to the part of the Bill which, to the rent-paying tenant, is nothing less than horrifying? "— I quote this simply to show their view of landlords— First, no security of tenure; secondly, no ceiling of rents on decontrol "—

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Order, order! May I interrupt the noble Viscount? We are here discussing an Amendment. We are not here discussing the main parts of the Bill again. Do let us keep to the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am replying to the argument of the noble Earl, that landlords are going to be so wonderful to the tenants that none of our fears will be realised. That is not the view of the tenants on the general aspects of the Bill. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to quote them in support of my argument.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

It has nothing to do with the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am quite sure it is most unpleasant to the noble Earl to hear these things said about a Government which is running away, fast and furiously, from its pledges.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am only anxious to maintain some sort of order in this House. Here we are discussing an Amendment. Let us keep to the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Keep to the iniquities!

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.32 p.m.

LORD MESTON moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:

Private street works to count as improvements

" .—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of section five of this Act or, in Scotland, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920.

(2) Where works have been carried out on a street under—

  1. (a) section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1875, or
  2. (b) the Private Street Works Act, 1892, or
  3. (c) any of the enactments referred to in section one of the Local Government (Street Works) (Scotland) Act, 1956, or
  4. (d) the corresponding provisions of any local Act,
and any dwelling having access to the street is the subject of a controlled tenancy, the amount of any expenditure incurred after the commencement of this Act by the landlord or a superior landlord in the carrying out of the works, or of any liability so incurred by the landlord or a superior landlord in respect of the works to the authority by whom they were carried out (whether the liability is dischargeable in a lump sum or by instalments, but in the case of instalments exclusive of interest) shall (whether or not apart from this section it would be so treated) be treated as expenditure incurred by the landlord or superior landlord on improvement as mentioned in subsection (1) of section five of this Act or, as the case may be, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920:

Provided that if benefit accrues from the carrying out of the works not only to the dwelling but also to other premises of the landlord or superior landlord, the amount to be treated as aforesaid Shall be so much only of the expenditure or liability as may be determined, by agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant or by the county court, or in Scotland the sheriff, to be properly apportionable to the dwelling, having regard to the benefit accruing, from the carrying out of the works, to the dwelling and to the other premises.

(3) For the purposes of this section the amount of any expenditure shall be treated as diminished by the amount of any contribution made in respect thereof under any enactment.

(4) Subsection (3) of section five of this Act and the proviso to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 shall not apply to any increase authorised by virtue of this section."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Munster, and the Government, for kindly considering this matter which I mentioned on the Committee stage. The short point is that at present the amount of any expenditure incurred by a landlord in carrying out what are generally known as "street works" does not count as expenditure on an improvement, within the meaning of that term in the Rent Act. This Amendment reverses the position, and states, in effect, that after the commencement of this Act the amount of any expenditure incurred by the landlord in carrying out street works shall be treated as expenditure incurred by the landlord on an improvement, as mentioned in this Act and in the Rent Act, 1920. I do not feel that I can expand upon it any further. It is entirely a matter of opinion as to whether this should rank as an improvement or not. In my respectful submission, it should rank as an improvement, and for that reason I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Meston.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords my noble friend has correctly interpreted the purpose of the Amendment which stands in his name and which I told him on the Committee stage of the Bill, as I think he will recall, we should be prepared to accept.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I must say that after the debate we had on Committee I had no idea at all that the Government were going to accept this Amendment. I am most surprised to hear it, because I cannot believe that they have considered the serious effect that this Amendment may have on tenants. The works which can be comprised under this Amendment may be of great magnitude. I do not know, because we have had no explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is very quick to throw out allegations at other people, quite out of all context, but does not seem very quick at explaining the Amendment that he puts down. We have had no explanation from him as to the exact financial impact that it is going to have on the tenants, and we are entitled to know that. This may be a very serious matter.

This Amendment deals with works carried out under-the Private Street Works Act, for instance. I should like to know exactly what that means. Have the Government considered that? Does that mean the making up of a road? If it does, it might mean a charge of hundreds of pounds on the property. I do not know. I had no idea that the Government were going to accept this Amendment. But if they are going to accept it, and if it includes works such as that under the Private Street Works Act, where roads are dedicated, hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds might be involved in making up the road between a block of houses. It is quite common to have hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds involved, and the impact on an individual house may be several hundred pounds.

If that work is done it is going to mature to the benefit of the property. When the landlord bought that property, he bought it knowing that it might have to be done, and the price of the property would be reduced by the approximate or possible charge on the property which the Street Works Act might involve. Now you are going to have the position that the tenant will have to pay interest at 8 per cent. on money which the landlord has, in fact, never had to pay in the past. He has never had to pay it at all because, when he bought the property, it was bought subject to this possible claim. Before an important measure of this kind is passed through your Lordships' House I think we ought to have, either from the mover or from the Government an approximate assessment of the financial burden that is likely to be put on the tenant.

LORD MESTON

My Lords, I want to be as fair as possible about this matter. Suppose, for example, that the frontage of the demised premises is twenty feet. In this connection street works charges used to work out at about £1 per foot, but to-day I think they work out at about £3 15s. per foot. So, if you multiply £3 15s. by twenty, the answer is, I think, £75. "Eight per cent. of that would be about six pounds a year, that being about 2s., or just over 2s., a week added to the rent by way of an improvement: that is to say, the landlord is entitled to charge 8 per cent. of the cost of the improvement against the tenant. I think that when these properties were purchased and let to the tenant years ago, neither party had in mind at all the likelihood that street works might have to be done, and I doubt whether in fact the presence or the absence of that idea had any effect upon the cost of the property.

LORD OGMORE

But it has.

LORD MESTON

I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore that it certainly has to-day. But in the past I doubt very much whether it had the same effect on the mind either of the vendor or of the purchaser of property. At all events, that is the position. I want to be as fair as possible about it. I submit that it is a great improvement to the property, and a landlord should be entitled to the benefit of that improvement, just as much as he is entitled to the benefit of the cost of adding a new room on to an existing building.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to add a few words, although I thought it would save time if I reminded your Lordships that I dealt with this matter at some length on a previous stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord win refer to Clause 5 of the Bill, he will see that it re-enacts Section 2 (1) of the Rent Act, 1920, which already covers the case in which a landlord himself incurs expenditure in improving a road which forms part of a dwelling let to a controlled tenant. Thus, for nearly forty years the landlord who makes up the private road adjoining his property has been enabled to recover from the tenant expenditure up to 8 per cent. What this Amendment mainly does is to make clear that the law passed in 1920 will function after this Bill becomes an Act. There is nothing sinister about it: it mainly re-enacts Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1920.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I should like an explanation from the noble Earl on the position of cost mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. From my recent experience, I should have thought that the charge, if it is for complete road making, paving and channelling, would be a good deal more than £3 15s. 0d. per foot, so that the 8 per cent. likely to fall on the tenant might be in some cases much more than has been suggested. The noble Earl says that we discussed this matter previously, but my recollection is that he did not then seem to be very greatly in favour of it. Now here is a complete volte face, and Her Majesty's Government accept this Amendment. Perhaps I may know from the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, as I am just a layman in these matters, whether this is one of the matters that can be the subject of appeal by the tenant to the county court.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I should like to help the noble Viscount, but I am not sure what he has in mind as to the stage at which this matter would go to the county court. Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain his doubts to me further. I will then certainly look into the matter and let him know the position before the Third Reading.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19:

Rents of subsidised private houses

19.—(1) In so far as the conditions mentioned in any of the following enactments, that is to say,— (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.

4.43 p.m.

LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "In so far as" and insert "Nothing in this Act shall affect". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, if the noble Earl is agreeable, perhaps we might take Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together—they really deal with the same point, which is that they preserve the rent limits fixed for private houses to which improvements or additions have been made under the statutory provisions with the aid of housing subsidies. It is suggested that in cases where the landlord has had from public funds, by way of housing subsidies, some amount in order either to repair his house or to add to it, there is no earthly reason why the tenant should be expected to pay an additional rent. We therefore suggest that in that particular class of case the rents fixed should not be increased, for the special reasons that I have mentioned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 23, leave out (" In so far as ") and insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

It is quite true, as the noble Lord says, that this and his next Amendment are linked together. Here I find myself in something of a

difficulty. As I understand this clause, the effect of the noble Lord's two Amendments would be to prevent the Clause 1 rent limit from being substituted in accordance with the provisions of the clause for the rent condition applicable under the enactments which are mentioned in Clause 19 (1). This means that in existing cases the maximum rent chargeable under the rent condition applicable under any of these enactments could not be exceeded, even though it was below the Clause 1 rate limit.

The noble Lord further goes on to say that, where the house was subsidised in future under any of these enactments mentioned in the clause, the local authority will have power to fix a rent under the rent condition and it would be possible for them to fix a rent exceeding the Clause 1 rent limit. On the other hand, they might fix a rent considerably lower. So far as I can understand it, that is the case. Are the local authority to fix it higher, or are they to fix it lower? Or will your Lordships accept the view of Her Majesty's Government that it would be better for the rent to be fixed under Clause 1 of this Bill? I am quite prepared to admit that possibly this matter can be argued both ways, and in many others, but I beileve that, on the whole, it would be better to maintain the proposals which are found in Clause 1 of the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10: Not-Contents. 50.

CONTENTS
Jowitt, E. Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Lawson, L.
Listowel, E. Ogmore, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Haden-Guest, L. Shepherd, L.
Henderson, L. Wise. L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Buckinghamshire, E. Devonport, V.
Munster, E. FitzAlan of Derwent, V.
Home, E. (L. President.) Onslow, E. [Teller.] Goschen, V.
St. Aldwyn, E. Hailsham, V.
Cholmondeley, M. Selkirk, E. Mersey, V.
Reading, M. Swinton, E. Monsell, V.
Salisbury, M. Ruffside, V.
Bledisloe, V. Wimborne, V.
Albemarle, E. Crookshank, V.
Bathurst, E. Davidson, V. Addington, L.
Amulree, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.] Rathcavan, L.
Birdwood, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Rea, L.
Broughshane, L. Hawke, L. Remnant, L.
Chesham, L. Lloyd, L. St. Oswald, L.
Clitheroe, L. Mancroft, L. Sinha, L.
Conesford, L. Merrivale, L. Strathclyde, L.
Craigmyle, L. Merthyr, L. Teviot, L.
Dynevor, L. Meston, L. Waleran, L.
Erskine, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

. Clause 21 [Statutory tenancies of requisitioned houses]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, this Amendment and the one immediately following it are drafting, and they go together. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 7, after (" increase ") insert (" applying to rent for any rental period beginning before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-five, ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 15, at end insert (" for any such rental period as aforesaid. ")—(The Earl of Munster.)

Clause 24 [Interpretation]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3) (a) (ii), to leave out "fifteenth day of March," and to insert "first day of April ". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is of some importance: noble Lords will recall that it was a matter which was raised in the course of the Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are associated, and they alter from March 15 to April 1, 1957, the date before which a proposal must have been made in order to affect the rateable value or gross value for the purposes of the Bill. An alteration in the rateable value will have effect for deciding whether or not a house stays in control; an alteration in the gross value will have effect, if the house remains in control, for determining the controlled rent. The date at present in the Bill is March 15 for both purposes. That was put in because it was the date on which the relevant Amendment was put down in another place. It was considered essential to pick a date already in the past at the time the Amendment was put down, otherwise proposals might have been made, not because the ratepayers were genuinely concerned about their assessments for rating purposes but because, as tenants, they wished to get their assessments reduced for the purposes of the Bill. Landlords, on the other hand, might have wished to get them increased. As was explained to your Lordships at the Committee stage of the Bill, these proposals, whether genuine or not, would all have had to go through the valuation appeal machinery and would have put an intolerable burden and strain upon it.

This Amendment extends the period by a further fortnight, and it means that there will be a complete year from April 1, 1956, when the new assessments came into force, during which there would have been an opportunity to make proposals to get the lists altered, which might result in the alteration of values for the purposes of the Bill. This Amendment brings the Bill into line with the existing valuation law under which an alteration in value resulting from a proposal made on the ground that the value assigned to a hereditament is wrong during the first year of the new lists relates back to April 1, 1956. The importance of seeing that the year for making proposals for altering the list for the purposes of the Bill should correspond with that for rating purposes was put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who drew attention to this point on Committee stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 44, leave out (" fifteenth day of March. ") and insert (" first day of April, ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I think that we can welcome this Amendment by the Government, because it removes the anomaly of having different dates applied to alterations in rateable value and to claims under this Bill. I should like to take up one thing which the noble Earl said. He spoke as if there were something reprehensible in a tenant's applying for the review of his rateable value in the light of the effect that it would have on his position under this Bill. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in a tenant claiming his rights under this Bill, and it was for this reason that on Committee stage I moved that a long period should be allowed after the introduction of the Bill—I suggested six months—in order to allow every tenant ample time to size up his position under the Bill and, if necessary, to claim if he thought that he had grounds for complaint. The Government did not go so far as to meet us, but this small concession is something that we can welcome.

First Schedule:

Adjustment of rent in respect of repairs

(2) Where an application under this paragraph is made to a local authority and the local authority are satisfied that the dwelling or any part thereof is in disrepair by reason of defects specified in the said notice and that all or any of those defects ought reasonably to be remedied, having due regard to the age, character and locality of the dwelling, they shall issue to the tenant a certificate of disrepair accordingly and any such certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the defects as to which the local authority are satisfied as aforesaid, stating that the local authority are so satisfied.

8.—(1) If on the expiration of six months from the giving of such an undertaking as is mentioned in paragraph 4 or 5 of this Schedule any defects to which the undertaking relates remain unremedied the same consequences shall follow as if a certificate of disrepair had then been issued and had continued in force until the remedying of the defects, and (where the undertaking was given before any application for such a certificate had been made) as if such an application had been made when the undertaking was given.

5.2 p.m.

LORD OGMORE moved in paragraph 4 (2), after "defects," where that word first occurs, to insert "whether or not." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important Amendment. Under the First Schedule, where premises are in disrepair the tenant has a right to give notice of disrepair to the landlord, and if the landlord does not remedy these defects, on the expiration of six weeks from the service of the notice of disrepair the tenant has the right to appeal to the local authority. Under the Bill as it stands, if the local authority are satisfied that the dwelling or any part thereof is in disrepair by reason of the defects specified in the notice and feel that they ought to be remedied, they can issue a certificate specifying the defects which have to be made good.

Our Amendment extends that power to allow the local authority to list defects which do not appear in the notice. We feel that this is reasonable. In the normal way tenants will not have the benefit of professional people like surveyors and architects, because they cannot afford it, and in all possibility the notice they give will be in their own handwriting, brief and by no means a comprehensive or accurate description of the defects of which they complain. If the local authority surveyor finds other defects or the real defect which is the cause of the trouble and which the tenant may not have specified, these could not be included in the certificate, because the only certificate which can be given is in respect of the defects of which the tenant has given notice. This is a simple point but I think that it is important. If the Government could meet us on this matter, I think that it would satisfy the real objective which they have in mind. I cannot think that the Government mean to bind tenants, who possibly do not really understand the technical meaning of the words which have to be used, by prohibiting a local authority from specifying certain other defects which may be the cause of the trouble. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, after (" defects ") insert (" whether or not ").—(Lord Ogmore)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly said that this Amendment is of some importance. He has explained that its purpose is to allow a local authority, in issuing a certificate of disrepair, to add any items which they see fit to a tenant's list of defects. I think it is utterly wrong to put the local authority in that position. I am well aware that it may be argued that a tenant may not appreciate all the defects in his house, and therefore if we could insert in the Schedule the power to the local authority inspector, who is probably trained in appreciating the hidden defects which might be found in the house, it would be a good thing. What we have done in the Schedule is this. The tenant himself specifies the defects that are apparent to him and which interfere with his enjoyment of the house. If he is not satisfied, he has an unlimited right to draw the landlord's attention to additional defects and, if the landlord declines to do anything about them, to put in motion the disrepair procedure.

On the other hand, it might be argued—I do not think that the noble Lord argued on this basis to-day—that there might be something in the house not complained of by the tenant which is detrimental to public health. I am advised that there is nothing to prevent a local authority whose inspector discovers anything seriously wrong with a house, about which the tenant has not complained, from putting in force their statutory powers. If what is wrong is so injurious as to justify the application of the nuisance provisions of the Public Health Acts, then it is their duty to put those provisions into operation. On the other hand, if what is wrong is something less than can justify the exercise of those powers, the local authority can revert to the powers they have under the Housing Act, 1936. Your Lordships will see that the law to-day enables a local authority to enter on to premises if they are concerned about the public health aspect of a house. On the point of whether a local authority should visit a house and draw up a list of defects which they think should be put in order, after having discussed the matter with a tenant, that seems to us To put the local authority into an impossible position.

5.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl takes that view. He has

said, confirming what my noble friend said, that the matter is of considerable importance, and indeed it is. You have to remember that there will be all classes of tenants in the houses referred to, in different occupations, different stages of education and with a different appreciation of what is disrepair and what is not. I should have thought that whether a tenant got a certificate of disrepair might sometimes well turn on whether the actual representations he made were sufficiently impressive to justify a certificate. But the local authority inspector, under the procedure, has to go and look at the places complained of. He may see with a trained eye, not something which is hidden, but something which is not observed by the tenant but which is equally a part of the disrepair. With the aid of his observation, plus the items mentioned by the tenant in his application for a certificate, there may then emerge a true justification for the issue of the certificate of disrepair. As the Schedule stands, it is apt to put tenants of different standards of education into a position in Which they would not be able to take advantage of the view of the local authority inspector, who was coming in quite rightly and normally under the procedure regarding an application for a certificate of disrepair. I should hope that the noble Earl would think about this matter again, but if he cannot promise to do that, we shall have to divide.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment Shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS
Listowel, E. Haden-Guest, L. Shepherd, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Lawson, L. Wise, L. [Teller.]
Ogmore, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Munster, E. Margesson, V.
Onslow, E. [Teller.] Mersey, V.
Home, E. (L. President.) St. Aldwyn, E. Monsell, V.
Selkirk, E. Ruffside, V.
Cholmondeley, M. Swinton, E.
Salisbury, M. Broughshane, L.
Davidson, V. Chesham, L.
Albemarle, E. Devonport, V. Clitheroe, L.
Bathurst, E. FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Conesford, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Goschen, V. Craigmyle, L.
Morley, E. Hailsham, V. Dynevor, L.
Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.] Merrivale, L. Sinha, L.
Fraser of North Cape, L. Merthyr, L. Strathclyde, L.
Gridley, L. Meston, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Hawke, L. Newall, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Lloyd, L. Remnant, L. Waleran, L.
Mancroft, L. St. Oswald

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.19 p.m.

LORD OGMORE moved, in paragraph 8 (1), to leave out "six months" and insert "one month". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also enshrines an important principle. As your Lordships will remember, the landlord can, if he so desires, when a certificate of disrepair has been served upon him, give an undertaking that he will remedy the defects complained of, and provided he serves a notice of the undertaking on the local authority, then the local authority shall not issue a certificate. That is the situation. It is the right of the landlord to say, "All right, I will do this."

Now this provision in the Bill in those circumstances says that If on the expiration of six months from the giving of such an undertaking … any defects … remain unremedied the same consequences shall follow as if a certificate of disrepair had then been issued and had continued in force until the remedying of the defects. In other words, it means that if he does not carry out his undertaking it is as if there had never been an undertaking, and the certificate relates back to the original date before the undertaking was given. We think that six months is too much, and that one month is enough for him to carry out the undertaking that he has given. It may be said, of course, that this is obviously unfair, because in certain cases the landlord could not possibly do it in a month. There now comes Amendment No. 17 which, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak upon at the same time as this Amendment. In that case, Amendment No. 17 comes into play, and if there is an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant made at any time during this period of one month, then that period may be extended to the period stated in the agreement, not exceeding six months.

This provides that the good landlord, the reasonable landlord, can agree with the tenant and can obtain an extension if he so desires. It also means that the landlord who is dilatory or does not want to carry out the work anyway, cannot spin the matter out for six months before the tenant can have anything done about it. These defects may be serious. They may be of considerable nuisance value to the tenant, and it seems hard to us that a landlord can arbitrarily spin out the period for six months before he is required to do anything about it. We think that the one month which I propose to substitute for six months, together with the proviso in Amendment No. 17, will adequately meet the case and will, in fact, give justice to both landlord and tenant. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 1, leave out (" six months ") and insert (" one month ").—(Lord Ogmore.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord took this and the next Amendment standing in his name together, for they are dependent upon one another. The proposal here is that, instead of the six months for the carrying out of a landlord's undertaking, there should be substituted a period of one month which could, under the proviso, be extended by agreement between the landlord and the tenant to a period not exceeding six months. There is no proviso here to say what might happen if the tenant disagrees with the landlord and declines to reach any agreement whatever about extending the period of one month to a period of six months.

We have put in this period of six months so as to allow what we thought would be a reasonable time for the landlord to complete the necessary work. In our judgment, we think the period of one month would be far and away too short—too short, in fact, at any stage of the proceedings, but particularly at the beginning, when the landlord has to get the work surveyed, estimates prepared and accepted, and the actual repairs carried out. I feel somewhat between the devil and the deep blue sea. The noble Lord has said that six months is too long. Various supporters of Her Majesty's Government, as the noble Lord will well remember, have suggested that the period is too short and should be extended to a period of fifteen months. The Government in their wisdom, have decided that six months would be the better period and would, they hope, suit everyone who might be affected by this particular Schedule of the Bill.

There is little more that I can say. The proviso, as I have mentioned, does not say what should occur in the event of disagreement between landlord and tenant. The tenant might indeed frustrate the object of the whole of the procedure by refusing the landlord more than one month, even knowing perfectly well that the landlord could not possibly get the work done in that particular period. As I have said, we have tried here to meet all parties, not only those who oppose Her Majesty's Government, but those who support them. I would therefore suggest to the House that the period of six months should remain in the Schedule to the Bill.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I think the noble Earl is overstressing this point. Most of the defects to which the tenants are likely to take exception are defects of a sanitary nature, or maybe a window pane out or something of that kind. They are not likely to be major structural defects at all, but small defects which cause a considerable nuisance. In these days, the average jobbing builder ought to be able to deal with the work well within the month. If he cannot, and there is good reason for it, one believes that the tenants would agree with the landlord. Once you start putting periods in the Bill, as the Government have done, then to some extent you take away the bargaining power of landlord and tenant.

I am a landlord in a small way—much smaller than I was, I am glad to say—and I occasionally get notices from the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board. They do not give me six months; they give me forty-eight hours. Very often, by the time I get the notice the period is up. There is no question of six months, and if I had notice of one month from the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board—a rather "sticky" authority, I may say, in my experience—I should think I was very well off. But in fact it frequently happens that the time has almost run out, and if I want to get in touch with them I have to do it by telegram. As I say, I do not think there will be the difficulties that the noble Earl expects. In most cases, the month will be sufficient for the landlord to complete the work.

May I point out that this is not one month from the day when the landlord knows about it; it is one month from the time that the notice is served. It is one month after he has had the notice of disrepair. He has been aware that the tenant is claiming a notice of disrepair from the local authority, so that in all probability he will have known for a considerable period before this that the defect is present in the premises. I should have thought that a good landlord, where there was a defect of that kind, would want to remedy the defect at the earliest possible opportunity.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS
Jowitt, E. Burden, L. Lawson, L.
Listowel, E. Fraser of North Cape, L. Ogmore, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Haden-Guest, L. Shepherd, L.
Henderson, L. Wise, L. [Teller.]
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Perth, E. Broughshane, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. Chesham, L.
Home, E. (L. President.) Selkirk, E. Clitheroe, L.
Cholmondeley M. Swinton, E. Coleraine, L.
Salisbury, M. Colyton, L.
Davidson, V. Conesford, L.
Albemarle, E. Devonport, V. Craigmyle, L.
Bathurst, E. FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Dynevor, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Goschen, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]
Morley, E. Hailsham, V. Gifford, L.
Munster, E. Margesson, V. Gridley, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.] Monsell, V. Hawke, L.
Lloyd, L. Remnant, L. Strathclyde, L.
Mancroft, L. Rennell, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Merrivale, L. St. Oswald, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Newall, L. Sinha, L. Waleran, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Transitional provisions on decontrol]:

5.38 p.m.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

My Lords, the effect of this Amendment, which is a very simple one, is merely to pass on to the tenant any increase or decrease of-rent which may occur during the transitional fifteen months following decontrol. The Amendment remedies what I think must have been an oversight in the original drafting of the Bill. It places both landlord and tenant in the same position as they would have been before the passing of the Bill. I am indebted to the noble Earl for the wording of this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 1, leave out from ("as") to end of line 3 and insert "would have been recoverable if section one of this Act had provided in all cases for a rent limit equal to the rent recoverable from the tenant for the last rental period beginning before the time of decontrol, that rent limit being subject to adjustment under section three of this Act but not to any other alteration ".—(Lord Broughshane.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, this is an Amendment to implement a promise which I gave to the noble Lord on the previous stage of the Bill, that we could meet him on the question which he raised then and which he has aptly described in the course of moving the Amendment. I may add that Amendment No. 20, in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, is the Scottish adaptation and deals with the same point. As I say, we are quite prepared to accept this Amendment in the name of the noble Lord.

THE Earl OF MUNSTER

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 32, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert— (" (3) In the case of a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the rent shall not in any case be increased under the terms of the tenancy as respects a rental period beginning before the expiration of three months after the time of decontrol.").—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE)

My Lords, this is essentially a drafting Amendment- Its object is to retain for Scotland the present wording of paragraph 3 of the Schedule, since the Amendment of paragraph 3 by Amendment No. 18 on the Marshalled List, which my noble friend has just accepted, is not appropriate for Scotland against a different background. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, line 20, at end insert— (" (a) in paragraph 3 for the words from ' be the same as' to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words ' be the same as was recoverable from him for the last rental period beginning before that time '; ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)

Fifth Schedule [Modifications, in special cases, of 1956 gross value]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 14 on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 38, leave out (" fifteenth day of March,") and insert (" first day of April,").—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 19, leave out (" fifteenth day of March,") and insert (" first day of April,").—(The Earl of Munster.)

Sixth Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments and application of enactments]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, the next three Amendments in my name deal with the same point. They give effect to a promise made at the Committee stage by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when he promised to consider the point raised by my noble friend Lord Conesford about the application of Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1936, to contracts entered into before the commencement of the Act. The effect of the Amendment is that the revised rental figures inserted in Section 2 of the Act of 1936 by paragraph 22 of the Schedule will apply to a house to which Section 2 does not already apply, where the contract is entered into after the commencement of the Act. The matter is a little complicated, but I have endeavoured to explain it to the House as best I can. I therefore beg to move the first of these three Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 22, leave out from (" effect ") to (" in ") in line 23.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, these three Amendments completely meet the criticism of paragraph 22 of the Schedule which I ventured to make on the Committee stage, and I thank the Government for them.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 25, leave out ("' twenty-six pounds ' and ' sixteen pounds ' ") and insert (" and ' twenty-six pounds ' ").—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 26, leave out from ("' eighty pounds' ") to end of line 30 and insert (" and ' fifty-two pounds. ' ")—(The Earl of Munster.)

Seventh Schedule [General transitional provisions]:

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1, which your Lordships have already agreed to. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 7, at end insert "and that paragraph (b) of the proviso to the said subsection (3) shall not apply."—(Lord Ogmore.)