HL Deb 03 July 1958 vol 210 cc529-45

3.12 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, I rise to move that the Bill be read a second time. I shall not need to detain your Lordships for long in introducing this Bill, for it is short and reasonably simple, and its scope is limited. It brings no great new principle to the Statute Book; it is a transitional measure, designed to ease the passage from rent control to a free market. It will, I think, be helpful if I first set the Bill against its historical background.

Rent restriction was introduced in 1915 to meet the emergency of the First World War, and was extended in 1939 to meet the emergency of the second. The legislation was never designed as a permanent code; it may surprise some of your Lordships to learn that the whole of it is due to expire six months after such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date on which the emergency came to an end—that is provided for by Section 1 of the 1939 Act. For years past it has been clear to disinterested critics of the housing scene that rent restriction as we knew it was having a most pernicious effect on the condition of the nation's stock of houses and on the use made of them. Frozen rents meant that houses were falling into decay for lack of the means to repair them. Security of tenure meant not merely that the tenant could not be forced to move, but also that he had great difficulty in moving if he wanted to do so, while it became almost impossible for anyone outside the charmed circle of protected tenants to find unfurnished accommodation to let. The result was a gross waste of accommodation, because many tenants whose children had grown up and who would gladly have moved into a smaller dwelling found it impossible to do so. It will be within the knowledge of many of your Lordships that the proportion of old people living alone in controlled houses is very high.

In the Rent Act, 1957, the Government tackled both halves of the problem. First, they provided for raising the rents of controlled property to a level more nearly approaching present price levels, and so made it possible for such property to be put and kept in a proper state of repair. Secondly, they took the first step towards a free market in housing, in which individual needs and preferences would have full play, by decontrolling, subject to safeguards, houses with a rateable value above £40 in London or £30 in the remainder of England and Wales, and above £40 in Scotland. It is with these decontrolled houses, or, to be more accurate, with a small proportion of them, that the present Bill is concerned. I should at this stage declare a very small personal interest in the Bill. It so happens that I am the owner of a house which is in the decontrolled "slice" and shall to that extent be affected by the Bill.

I mentioned just now that decontrol was subject to safeguards. The most important of these was that an owner of a decontrolled house wishing to recover possession of it must give not less than six months' notice to quit, and this notice could not in any case take effect earlier than fifteen months after the Act came into force, in other words, earlier than the 6th October next. This "standstill period", as it is sometimes called, was intended to give time in which tenants could negotiate with their landlords or find alternative accommodation.

Circumstances since the Rent Act became law have not been favourable. Credit restrictions, essential as they are in the national interest, have deprived many who might otherwise have bought their homes of the means of doing so. Threats of municipalisation of rented property made by the Labour Party, with only the vaguest of references to compensation, have frightened many owners, who might otherwise have been willing to re-let, into trying to sell. Despite all this, a great many new agreements have been made, and more will be made between now and next October. Nevertheless, it has gradually become clear that there will be a hard core of cases in which hardship would result if time were not allowed. These cases will be found mainly in the large cities and in a few areas with a particularly high proportion of retired people, and those concerned will be predominantly persons who are handicapped by age, disability or lack of means in finding some other place to live. It is with these hard cases—people who have received notice to quit and have not been able to make other arrangements—that the present Bill is concerned.

I regret that I cannot give your Lordships any closely quantified estimate of their number, but I can say with confidence that they will be only a very small proportion of the 800,000 decontrolled tenants in Great Britain. Many inflated figures have been quoted—in the manner of political human nature, those mentioned before the recent municipal elections being noticeably higher than those mentioned afterwards—but whenever in a particular area a serious attempt has been made to arrive at a considered estimate the problem has been found to be of relatively small dimensions. A survey made by the Birmingham City Council in April of this year suggested that roughly 5 per cent. of decontrolled tenants expected to find themselves without accommodation, and that figure included not merely those who were being forced to leave, but also those who could not afford what was in many cases quite a reasonable rent for the property. I mention that figure, not as being typical of the whole country but as illustrating the position in a great city with a most serious housing problem. In many areas there will be practically no problem at all.

It is not the purpose of the present Bill to reintroduce rent control in another guise; considering the difficulty of the circumstances, decontrol has, in the Government's view been justified by the results. The purpose of the Bill is simply to avert hardship in the small proportion of cases to which I have referred by providing more time in which those concerned can find other accommodation. It will help only those who genuinely need help and who have done their best to help themselves, but without success, both in the matter of reaching agreement with their landlord and in looking for somewhere else to live. In this limited field the Bill will be a great help; and it will, I am sure, help in another way by giving both landlords and tenants a fresh incentive to come to an agreement on reasonable terms. Indeed, it would hardly be too much to say that the success of the Bill will be measured primarily by the number of potential cases which do not come to court.

I propose now to give a brief explanation of the contents of the Bill, which consists of only five clauses. It is a Great Britain measure, with some modifications to adapt it to differing conditions North of the Border. Clause 1 provides that the owner of a house which has been decontrolled under Section 11 (1) of the Rent Act, 1957, who wants to gain possession of his property on the expiry of a notice to quit must do so by proceedings in a competent court, which in England and Wales will normally be the county court and in Scotland the sheriff court. If he tries to get possession by "self-help," or if he tries to render the premises uninhabitable by cutting off services without reasonable cause, he will render himself liable to a penalty. The clause defines the class of person entitled to the benefit of the Bill (he is referred to as "the occupier") and, secondly, the circumstances in which the Bill will apply. If the occupier voluntarily gives up possession of whole or part of the premises, or takes a tenancy of the same for a term of three years or more, then the Bill will cease to apply to the premises, or to that part of them, as the case may be. If he retains possession as a monthly or quarterly tenant, or as tenant under a tenancy for less than three years, then the Bill will not apply while that tenancy endures, but will apply as soon as it comes to an end.

Clause 2 sets out the conditions with which the occupier must comply if he remains in occupation after the notice to quit has expired, pending the hearing of the landlord's application for an order for possession. The rent payable during this period will, in England and Wales, he on the same basis as for a controlled house in the normal case; that is to say, twice the gross value of the property, plus rates where these are paid by the landlord and a reasonable charge for any services provided. In Scotland controlled rents are not related to the gross value of the premises for rating purposes, because of the absence of uniform and up-to-date valuations, and a different formula has, therefore, to be employed—it is set out in subsection (5). The result, however, is broadly similar: the occupier will be expected to pay an increase in rent equal to the maximum increase he could have been asked to pay if the premises had remained controlled. The occupier will be treated as responsible for internal decorative repairs, and the landlord as responsible for all other repairs. Apart from this the terms of the previous tenancy will continue to apply, except that the occupier will be treated as entitled to the enjoyment of any services previously supplied, even though not supplied under contract. In exceptional cases, where the rent already being paid is higher than that assessed on the formula I have mentioned, the existing rent will continue to be payable. In such cases the existing division of repair liabilities will remain unchanged.

Now I come to Clause 3, which deals with the hearing of the landlord's application for an order for possession and with the order which the court makes. It starts in subsection (1) with the four points on which the occupier must satisfy the court if the order for possession is to be suspended under the Bill. First—and this appears in paragraph (a)—he must show that he has not unreasonably refused or failed to accept an offer from his landlord of a new tenancy of the premises, for a part of the premises, for a term of three years or more. If, however, the tenancy was offered at a premium, or required a retrospective increase of rent, then the occupier does not have to justify his failure to accept it. The second point on which the occupier must satisfy the court is that he has failed, after making such efforts as were reasonable in the circumstances to obtain other appropriate accommodation. I mentioned earlier in my speech that many of those seeking the protection of the court would be persons handicapped by age, disability or lack of means, and the court are expressly required by subsection (3) to take these factors into account in assessing whether these first two conditions are satisfied. The third thing which the occupier has to show to the satisfaction of the court is that he is up to date with his rent, and that completes what I may call the preliminary tests.

If the occupier satisfies the court on these three, then the court has to consider whether making an order for immediate possession, to take effect in four weeks or so, would cause greater hardship to the occupier than a limited postponement could cause to the landlord. This provision is in very wide terms, and the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including, of course, hardship to anyone else affected, in addition to the occupier and the landlord. If satisfied that an immediate order would cause greater hardship than a limited postponement, the court will suspend the order for possession for such period between three and nine months as it thinks fit. In addition, the court has a discretion to make an order, if it thinks fit, if the occupier satisfies it on all points except as to his being up to date with the rent. Any such order will be conditional on payment of the arrears within twenty-eight days. The extra time granted to an occupier by suspension of an order for possession may not always be sufficient to solve his problems, and provision is, therefore, made for suspension for a further period of not more than six months at a time at the discretion of the court on the application of the occupier, and that is set out in subsection (4) (a).

Where an occupier remains in occupation under a suspended order, he will do so subject to the same terms as pending the hearing—except in the one matter of rent. If the court grants a suspension, then the rent payable will be whatever is asked by the landlord, unless the occupier can show that this is beyond his means and those of any members of his family residing with him, in which case the court may reduce the rent asked, but not below the rent payable pending the hearing. Subsection (5) makes special provision for cases where the owner had contracted to sell or lease the premises before the Government announced their intention to introduce this Bill, and the purchaser or tenant requires them for his own occupation or that of a member of his immediate family.

Clause 4 gives me power to make rules of procedure for the purposes of the Bill, and in particular to provide for the proceedings to be conducted in private where desirable. Noble Lords remember that is a point to which the Opposition in another place attached great importance. It also extends the jurisdiction of the county court, and provides that any landlord who chooses to proceed in the High Court shall not be entitled to recover any costs. Clause 5 is mainly interpretation, but also limits the life of the Bill to three years. The Government believe that the problem with which it seeks to deal will have been solved within that period. It will be obvious to your Lordships from this outline of the Bill that it will place a heavy responsibility upon the shoulders of the county court judges and the sheriffs. I have every confidence that they will be more than equal to the task, and will administer the Bill with the humanity and the common sense which is essential to its success, and I am sure that they will cheerfully undertake the extra work involved. With those words I would commend the Bill to your Lordships and invite you to give it a second reading. I beg to move.

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

3.30 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I could have dealt with this matter very briefly but for the background to which the noble and learned Viscount treated us in introducing this Bill, and I am bound to say that I regard his background as most challenging and highly controversial. For instance, he referred to the fact that as the result of the threats of the Labour Party as to their policy landlords have hastened to sell their property. That is certainly not so—indeed, the action of the present Government has made it difficult, as the noble and learned Viscount said, for landlords to sell their property, because of the credit restriction. He also said that one of the reasons for introducing the Bill was the gross waste of accommodation that exists at the present time when families have grown up and left, with the result that the older people are occupying more accommodation than they need. That is a statement which has been frequently made, but there is no evidence for it, and it is grossly exaggerated. Obviously there is a certain amount of that sort of thing, but there is very little in it in relation to the size of the problem, and it would certainly have constituted no justification for introducing the original Rent Act.

The noble and learned Viscount also told us that the reason for introducing this measure was that there was a hard residue of cases in which great hardship would be caused if something were not done. In my view, the true reason for introducing this measure is that October 6 is now rapidly coming upon us, the date when notices to quit expire and when it would have become possible, without this measure, for considerable evictions to take place. The Government have now realised that their sins are coming down to them, and that unless something is done immediately this fear that large numbers of people will suffer eviction at an early date may prove well-founded.

This Bill would have been wholly unnecessary if the Government had taken the advice not only of Members of my Party in the other place and noble Lords on this side of the House but also of their own friends. Many of their friends warned them of what would happen: that the loss of security of tenure would be a very great hardship to large numbers of people, particularly in view of the fact that accommodation was so scarce, as the noble and learned Viscount has pointed out to us. It is virtually impossible for anybody to-day to get two-bedroomed or three-bedroomed accommodation at a reasonable rent, a rent that the majority of people can afford. One has only to look at the advertisements in the newspapers to see what is being asked for accommodation of that kind. For a two-bedroomed or three-bedroomed flat or small house people are asking rents as high as £500 a year. The number of people who can afford to pay that sort of rent is strictly limited, and certainly the people who were living in accommodation which was formerly controlled and which has now become decontrolled are, generally speaking, quite unable to pay such rents.

The truth of the matter is that the Rent Act should never have been introduced, with people being deprived of security of tenure, so long as there was this great shortage of accommodation and people have no opportunity of getting alternative accommodation. The sins of the Government and the obstinacy of the Government have now come down to them. The time is drawing near and they have bought time under this Bill. They are buying six months, nine months, fifteen months, presumably sufficient to tide them over the next Election and to leave the baby on the doorstep of the next Government. Those are, I think, the purposes of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount himself gave certain other background, and I thought I ought to do the same.

I now want to deal with some of the clauses which, in my view, are quite objectionable. There are three of them in this attempt to remedy matters which I think should be improved. The first point arises under Clause 3 (2). A landlord can ask any rent he likes, and when the occupier goes along to the court and asks for further time, if he can afford to pay the rent that is being asked, however high, however extortionate, he will not be entitled to the extra time. There will be tenants who will be unable to take advantage of the provision in the Bill. They are not old; they are not without means, and they can pay a reasonable rent. But if, for the sake of argument, a landlord chooses to ask £2,000 a year rent for a dwelling-house that is worth £250, and the tenant does not pay, he ceases to get the benefit of this Bill. That, I think, is a major defect and makes the whole thing farcical. In those circumstances the landlord can avoid giving the tenant any advantage of this Bill.

The second defect is that where a contract has been entered into for the sale of a dwelling-house before the appropriate date—the date of the introduction of this Bill; I think it is in April—then the occupier to a large extent loses the advantages of this Bill. Whereas under the Bill he will be able to remain in possession unless the landlord establishes greater hardship, in the case of a sale the new owner need not prove greater hardship. All he need say is, "I want this place for my own occupation or the occupation of a member of my family". If he were to be permanently deprived of possession, I could understand that there might be an injustice. A man might buy a house because he wanted it for himself and then find he was landed for ever with the occupier. But this Bill does not do that. This is a limited protection, and I see no reason why a person who has bought a property should not be placed in exactly the same position as was the vendor before the property was sold.

The third defect in this Bill is that it involves constant application to the court. I would associate myself with the noble and learned Viscount when he paid a tribute to the county court judges and the sheriffs. I have no doubt that they will deal with this Bill with all the humanity that is proverbial of those courts—and it is true that they are human. But everyone who knows these courts knows that it is really desirable to be legally represented. There are some people who have no inhibitions about saying what they think, but there are a great many others who find themselves tongue-tied or inarticulate when they come before a court, and it is essential that they should have legal advice. All that costs money, and the poor occupier who comes to the court—he may have to come several times—will find himself in the position not only of having to pay his own costs, which might be considerable, but even running the risk of having to pay the landlord's costs. That may turn out to be a considerable hardship, and I should have hoped that something would be incorporated in the Bill by which this question of costs would be dealt with—at least that there should be no power to inflict the other side's costs on the applicant himself.

My Lords, this is not the time to discuss the original Act, but of course our objection to the original Rent Act remains absolutely unabated. The Government find themselves in the position in which we warned them that they would find themselves—that it would be quite impossible without inflicting the greatest hardship to enable these provisions to come into operation next October. Your Lordships will remember that it was only under the greatest of pressure from both sides in another place that even this extension was incorporated in the Bill. Originally, evictions would have begun to take place four months ago. However, for what it is worth—and I am not going to suggest that it is worth a great deal—this Bill does offer an advantage to some tenants. The noble and learned Viscount says they are very few, and I am inclined to agree with him, because a great number have been induced to enter into agreements which are harsh, in many cases through fear of this particular thing—fear of eviction. But there are a limited number of cases where this Bill may be of some benefit, and for this reason we do not propose to oppose the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

LORD MESTON

My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter. I am the owner of certain rent-controlled properties in Aberdeen. They are a long distance away, and I understand an even greater distance away from becoming decontrolled. I think the Government should be congratulated upon this Bill, and I hope it will soon be passed without any substantial amendment. There is no doubt that there are likely to be some cases of hardship on and after October 6 of this year, and those may occur in particular in the London area. This Bill makes an effective effort to deal with any such cases of hardship. I have a feeling that such hardship will probably arise through the tenant not having the necessary income to pay for accommodation elsewhere which in other respects might be appropriate to his requirements. Admittedly, this is most worrying for a tenant who is placed in such a position, and I think that the provisions of the Bill will help the tenant by giving him more time to look around for other accommodation at a rent which he can afford to pay. I am not for a moment suggesting that the housing position in this country is by any means solved, but in the course of the next three years it will become progressively easier. I am glad to see in the Bill the expression "other appropriate accommodation" in place of the former phrase "suitable alternative accommodation", which became so hedged around with cases as to create further complications, not to say to put money into certain pockets and not to help the public very much.

On two points I am not quite clear in my mind as to the actual practice which is to be adopted under the Bill. I followed the Report most carefully in another place and I should be grateful for any clarification on this matter. I speak subject to correction in your Lordships' House, but I understand that in every case (I emphasise the word "every") the landlord must serve a notice to quit on his tenant. This is necessary in law to put an end to the existing state of affairs; in order that one might start afresh with the new tenancy. Then I go a step further, and I understand that in every case the landlord must start the ball rolling by making an offer of a new tenancy for at least three years on reasonable terms. I have read the Reports on the Bill in another place, and I understand that it has been said that it is the duty of the owner—that is to say, the landlord—to make an offer of a new lease on reasonable terms, and I rather gather from reading the Reports, that the landlord must take the first step in every case.

The other point I wish to raise is a somewhat unusual one. I wish to draw attention to the position of landlords who have borrowed money on the security of the leased premises. A number of mortgagees throughout the country have already called in their mortgages upon decontrolled properties. There is nothing unfair about that. However, a landlord whose mortgage has been called in will want to sell the freehold with vacant possession in order to raise the necessary capital money to pay off the mortgage. If the landlord grants a lease of more than three years he loses the protection of the Bill and he also loses the protection of the Rent Acts, in so far as the mortgagees are restricted in increasing the rate of interest and in calling in the mortgage.

In these circumstances, the landlord may be pushed into the position of having to try to sell the property which is subject to a lease. Your Lordships know that the amount of capital money realised on the sale of a property which is subject to a lease is a comparatively small sum and will, generally speaking, be insufficient to repay the mortgage. This is a most unfortunate position for a landlord. It seems almost ridiculous to ask that landlords should continue to receive the protection of the Rent Acts. But landlords are in the extraordinary position in many cases, of being unable to find the necessary money to repay their mortgages if they lose the protection of this Bill and, consequently, the protection of the Rent Acts. Therefore, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the position of landlords who have to repay mortgages and at the same time do their duty by granting a reasonable lease of three years or more to their tenant. Subject to those two comments, I have nothing further to add, and I hope that this Bill will soon be passed into law.

3.50 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to intervene for a moment to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to say that we on these Benches do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in damning the Rent Act as a bad Act. It is an unpleasant Act dealing with a very unpleasant set of circumstances which had to be tackled; but I believe it has in it more good points than bad. But there are a number of bad points, and I should like to remind your Lordships that at the end of April I had on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House a Question which was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce amending legislation in respect of the Rent Act, in order to mitigate in particular the hardships involved in the authority given to evict tenants so soon as October of this year and in the lack of protection for tenants who are genuinely unable to find alternative living accommodation. It was thanks to the courtesy of Her Majesty's Government that I was told that this Bill was on its way, and I withdrew my Question from the Order Paper. The points which that Question sought to establish are not to be fully implemented, but this is indeed half a loaf, and we on these Benches will certainly support this Bill.

3.52 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his welcome to this Bill. I am glad that it does in part fulfil what he had in mind. With regard to what he has said about the Rent Act, 1957, I do not think I have ever before heard a more literal example of "praising with faint damns"; but there was some praise in what he said and I accept that also with gratitude. The noble Lord, Lord Silk in, very understandingly, dealt with the background from his point of view and, like him, I am not going to make this the occasion of a full-dress re-argument of the Rent Act. Nevertheless, I should like to deal with one or two of the matters he has raised.

All my information says that there is a great deal of waste of accommodation, and that is a point which I have had to consider very carefully with regard to both the Rent Act and this Bill. On the noble Lord's criticism of our motives in introducing this Bill I should simply say that it is always part of the philosophy of the Conservative Party that its measures should be empirical and flexible, and when we find that there is a hard core of distress—especially among those who are aged, suffering from ill-health or in a difficult financial position—we do not allow preconceptions of any kind to stand in the way of our solution of the practical problem. I will say no more.

I would just remind noble Lords that, though there is a shortage of accommodation, we should think what that shortage would be if during the last seven years, under the Government of which I have the honour to be a member, nearly 2 million new houses had not been built. It must be placed on record that if the policy which the Labour Party then favoured had continued, some 600,000 of these houses would not have been built; and that would have meant that approximately 3 million people who are to-day in their own homes would be swelling the numbers of those who are short of accommodation. That is a balancing point which ought not to be forgotten.

I would now say a word on the specific points made by the noble Lord; and I am grateful to him for raising them on Second Reading for, of course, everything the noble Lord says is worthy of consideration. His first was with regard to the rent—namely, that if the tenant was financially able to pay the rent then, he bad to pay the rent which the landlord asked. I made it perfectly clear that the Bill is not, either in intention or in result, an attempt to reimpose control by a back door. But I should say, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the example of a protected tenant who has been occupying a house as a statutory tenant at the low rent permitted by the Rent Acts and has notice to quit from his landlord, and who (to take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin) can pay a rent of £2,000 a year, is not one for which I can get my heart to bleed excessively. For if the tenant is in that position, then to suggest that he cannot find another house is living in a world of shadows and dreams.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I am afraid that I did not make myself plain. I did not suggest that this hypothetical man could pay £2,000 a year, but that he was only a person who could pay a normal rent, and that the landlord could defeat the whole purpose of the Bill by demanding a fanciful figure like £2,000 a year.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

My Lords, the noble Lord went on—and his argument forces him to go on—to say that where the tenant can pay, and is in a financial position to pay, the large rent he cannot rely on the provisions of the Bill and say he is unable to pay. I say, with the greatest respect, that that is a purely fanciful case; for the noble Lord is in the dilemma that if the tenant is able to pay a ridiculously high rent then he does not need the protection of the Rent Act and can get another house: if he is not in a position to pay the rent, then he is safeguarded under the Bill and can bring that point to the court. So at the moment I do not feel very impressed by that point.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I ask whether that does not mean, in effect, that Her Majesty's Government do nothing at all to prevent a wholly unreasonable rent from being not only asked but paid, because it is said that a man can afford to pay it? This is not a case of willing landlord and willing tenant. An enormously high rent is being fixed and the unwilling payer has no protection at all.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Viscount is completely wrong. I would ask him to read the Bill again. The position is that there has been an Act passed by Parliament to decontrol. That means that landlords can ask the rent that is right and they will get it from a tenant who is willing to pay.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Hear, hear!

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords. It is not so long since noble Lords on that Bench were reproaching me with not standing by the rights of the parties' contracts, but that is the position; and in that position the tenant can, if he is able to pay the rent, stay on in the house by paying the rent. If he does not want to stay in the house, but is in a position to pay the rent, he will in the vast majority of cases be in a position to get another house. If he has any difficulties of age or disability he is protected by this Bill; and, equally, if he is in any financial difficulties.

But the noble Viscount must be fair concerning people of reasonable means. What he is saying is that a person with plenty of money—and this is necessary to the case he is putting and to what we are discussing—who can afford to pay a large rent should be, for some reason which he has not made clear, able to continue in possession of a house at an artificially low rent, which would prevent the landlord of the house from doing repairs and safeguarding the property. That is a position that I am quite prepared to argue with the noble Viscount on any occasion, but he has completely failed to wring my withers on that point.

The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made was with regard to the position where a contract has been entered into. There again, it is a very difficult point, and one upon which, as I recalled a moment ago, both sides of the house take different views, according to the political question that comes before them; that is, sanctity of contract. It is not so long ago, as I have said, since I was reproached on sanctity of contract; to-day the noble Lord reproaches me for standing by the sanctity of contract. The position which the Bill deals with is that where a contract was made before there was any question of this Bill being brought before Parliament and certain rights have been acquired. It is, broadly, a bad thing to interfere retrospectively with rights that have been created, and that is the line which the Bill takes.

On the third point, I am glad that I am not being wholly controversial. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised a very important and, he will agree with me, difficult point as to costs. He and I have been brought up to believe that leaving the costs to the discretion of a judge is usually the right way to act. This is a difficult situation, because the landlord goes to court and then the tenant makes a request. I am giving that point full consideration, and I shall communicate with the noble Lord as to how that consideration is going, so that he can deal with the matter on the Committee stage. It is, I think, a very important point which deserves great attention.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Meston, with all his experience of this branch of the law, for his welcome of the Bill. I must say that it is interesting, unexpected and altruistic to find anyone in 1958 who can, like my noble friend Lord Meston, drop a tear over the position of a landlord. I thought that the landlord ex hypothesi was someone over whom no one wept. I must say that I cannot see an easy answer to his question about the mortgages, because it is difficult, when one has removed a control, to put it on for that particular purpose. All, therefore, I promise him is that I will consider the words he has spoken, though I should not like to raise his hopes. I am very grateful to your Lordships for the care with which this Bill has been considered and I hope that now your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.

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