HL Deb 14 December 1964 vol 262 cc281-300

2.47 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is not a Housing Bill or a Rent Bill. Subject to one comparatively minor provision, it has one purpose only; to protect certain classes of people with little or no other protection from being turned out of their homes during the period before, in the words of the gracious Speech, control of rents "can be restored". An extension of rent control obviously implies more security of tenure. If it were not for this Bill, landlords whose thoughts for their own pockets overrode their sense of social justice might hurry to turn out some occupier before he could get the protection of the major measure which we expect to bring forward next year. The minor provision which I have mentioned is that Clause 5 of the Bill continues, until the end of 1966, the existing control of buildings which were formerly requisitioned. All the rest of the Bill will remain in force only until the end of 1965.

Owners of houses are much like the rest of us: their views of the right balance between their own money interests and their duties to those who live in their houses vary all down the scale. I think that with any decent house-owner there is little need for the protection offered by this Bill; he would be no party to the mischief which it is intended to prevent. But, with the intensified demand for houses in London and other great towns and with some shortages here and there all over the country, the tempt-+ ion to make profit by being hard on present occupiers is considerable; and I suppose that the Bill will have the good effect of protecting some owners from yielding to that temptation. One cannot measure the success of a Bill of this kind by the number of prosecutions under its penal provisions; its effect as a deterrent is likely to be even more important.

I now turn to the provisions of the Bill which protect, as I have indicated, only limited groups of people. The people so protected are described in the Bill as occupiers, and the person against whom they may require protection is called the owner of the premises. This is because, as appears from Clause 1 (1), there must have been a tenancy and the tenancy must have ended when the protection of the Bill is sought. With significant exceptions, the protection applies to an occupier holding over after the end of the former tenancy. It also applies to someone to whom the premises have been let by the former tenant if the former tenant was entitled to sub-let in that way. The former tenant's tenancy is at an end, he is out of the picture, and his sub-tenant can seek protection against the owner of the premises. Next the protection applies to the widow or widower of the former tenant, or to a member of the family of the former tenant, assuming that the widow or widower or the member of the family was residing with the former tenant when the former tenant died.

I mentioned significant exceptions, and the most important of them is that protection is not given under this Bill in cases where the former tenancy was subject to rent control. This is in paragraph (b) of Clause 3 (1) of the Bill; and so are certain other exceptions—namely, in paragraph (a), houses in England and Wales of a net annual value of more than £400; premises let partly as a residence and partly for business, such as the common case of a shop with a flat over; and some premises where the former tenancy was a long lease—that is to say, of 21 years or more. The £400 I have just mentioned is the limit of the jurisdiction of the county court in proceedings for the recovery of land; and it is not necessary to make similar provision in Scotland, partly because there is no such limit for the appropriate Scottish courts, and partly because very few houses of high value are let in Scotland. The two last-mentioned groups of cases have other arrangements for protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and in the same way there is protection under the Rent Restriction Acts for rent-controlled premises.

A person will not in general be evicted after the expiration of a controlled tenancy, unless that tenancy has been terminated on grounds permitted by the Rent Restriction Acts. The exceptions to protection in Scotland are broadly similar, and they are stated in paragraph (d) of the subsection 1 have been talking about. Certain rights are left under other legislation mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of the same clause. The most important of them leaves intact the power of local authorities to recover council houses under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, and there are reasons for this.

Your Lordships will have noticed that a former tenancy, ended by the time protection is sought, is an essential condition of any protection under the Bill, Tenancy means tenancy and, subject to the exceptions I have just mentioned, any tenancy. It therefore includes tenancies where, as part of the bargain, the tenant also has a right to furniture or services. These are sometimes called furnished lettings, and there is, of course, some measure of protection already for the tenants in these cases. In general, however, as regards security after the tenancy has ceased, the protection for furnished lettings is more limited than the protection which is given under the Rent Restriction Acts by way of restraining the termination of unfurnished and controlled lettings. One more difficulty is that, in order to secure the protection given by rent tribunals, the tenant must apply before the notice to quit is served; and so the landlord, if he is so minded, may get in first.

Moreover, rent tribunals cannot give security on any one occasion for the length of time called for under this Bill. So, whether or not, in legislation of a permanent character, it might be advisable to deal separately with furnished and unfurnished premises, for the temporary purpose of this Bill it is simpler and better to deal with all types of tenancy. Moreover, as was pointed out in the Economist of November 14, 1964, In some cases landlords have bought or attempted to buy the tenant's furniture so as to convert leases to furnished tenancies, Their hope"— adds the paper— presumably is that new legislation will not apply to furnished lettings". There seems to have been some misunderstanding about some types of occupation which have been thought to be included for the purposes of this Bill as furnished lettings. University students, for instance, in "digs", will usually be licensees, not tenants. Summer lettings at the seaside will not be within the Bill, because the occupiers, though they may be in occupation, will not be in residence, and the reference to residents has been included since the Second Reading of the Bill in the definition of occupier, in Clause 1 (2), so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Lets for a substantial period in winter, or, to take another instance, as a let to a brother officer by an officer who has gone for a time on service elsewhere, may be furnished lettings for the purposes of the Bill, but are unlikely to present much practical difficulty, because in such cases holding over at the end of the tenancy is unlikely; and, in any event, such cases can be dealt with in the exercise of the court's discretion, to which I refer below. Caravans again are not normally let as dwellings; their occupation is usually a matter of hiring or of a licence to occupy.

I turn now to one exceptional case in Clause 1 (6) of the Bill. As I have already indicated, the Bill protects in certain cases those who hold over after the termination of a tenancy. This subsection assimilates the occupation of farm cottages under licence to their occupation under a tenancy, so that what is often called a tied cottage is treated as having been held by the agricultural worker as a tenant, even though he was in fact merely a licensee. The effect is that after the agricultural worker's occupation as a licensee has been ended, if, for instance, he has left the employment for which his occupation was required, and if he then continues in occupation, he is entitled to the protection of this Bill. One reason for the Clause 1s that the distinction is a very fine one in many cases. It is to some extent dependent on whether the agricultural worker has exclusive possession of the cottage; hut in most cases he has that much, and yet he may be only a licensee, particularly where he is allowed to live in the cottage in order to do his work.

I need not trouble your Lordships with the numerous cases where courts have had to determine the distinction. It is of importance under the Rent Acts, for so long as the distinction exists and presents such difficulties of definition, it seems better to include farm cottages as a whole, without inviting what might well be a good deal of litigation in order to determine the distinction in various cases. After all, this is a temporary Bill. Since its purpose is to protect against hardship, it must be particularly concerned with cases where in practice hardship is likely. Those cases may not always be many. There are few cases of evictions from tied agricultural cottages; but where they do occur they are apt to cause particular hardship, and for that reason they rightly attract particular attention. They will almost always involve a balance between agricultural requirements, on the one hand, and, on the other, keeping a home for the farm worker and his family. This is the sort of point with which a county court judge can well deal under the provisions I have mentioned.

But, it may be said, if that is so, why remove the distinction in the case of agricultural labourers and leave it in the cases of other service occupants? There are very many such occupants—caretakers, teachers, policemen, perhaps the Prime Minister in Downing Street or my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his official residence. Another large group is the occupants of houses owned by the National Coal Board. In these cases there is far less likelihood in practice of evictions or hardship during the limited time for which this Bill provides. No doubt such cases are possible, but I think they are much less frequent, and the variety of circumstances to be taken into account would make it much more difficult than it is in the case of agricultural cottages to include in the Bill the special circumstances which the court ought to bear in mind. Moreover, as regards agricultural cottages, it has been possible to consult both sides of the agricultural industry and to amend the Bill to meet their requirements so far as it seemed practicable to do so.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It has not been necessary to approach other industries, because other industries have not been affected. The noble Lord speaks as if agricultural industry has been particularly fortunate in this respect of having been consulted; but no other industry needed to be consulted.

LORD MITCHISON

I appreciate the noble Lord's point. There was a special provision in the Bill with regard to agricultural cottages; and it is still there. It was in connection with that provision that both sides of the industry were consulted. I agree that other industries are less concerned, but they, too, have their caretakers. I do not know whether one can call policemen or teachers members of an industry but they are groups of people who are obviously affected. I hope I have answered the point the noble Lord made, but if I have not, perhaps he would like to try again.

LORD ST. OSWALD

Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord, but he seemed to use as one of his reasons for including agricultural cottages alone among other types of tied cottage, the fact that it had been possible to discuss the problem with their organisations. The discussions were left rather late, in point of fact, but I am not arguing that. What I am saying is that it is somewhat difficult to use that as an excuse—as a reason for including them, as they were the only industry affected by this particular inclusion and, therefore, it was totally unnecessary to consult with any of the others.

LORD MTTCHISON

With respect, I think the noble Lord misunderstood what I was saying.

LORD ST. OSWALD

It is possible.

LORD MITCHISON

There is no excuse about it. The point is that the Bill when first introduced contained a special provision affecting the agricultural industry in the matter of these tied cottages. It was in connection with this that, late or early, both sides of the industry were consulted. But if you are going to consult with all the industries who are concerned with having caretakers, you will have your hands full, and this Bill will not get through in time. I am not saying that both sides of industry are necessarily satisfied with the result, but it certainly goes some way to meet what they want; and further amendment of the Bill would alter the background against which those consultations were held.

The political point is a simple one. At the Election the Labour Party promised, not for the first time, that they would protect the occupants of tied agricultural cottages from summary eviction. No such promise has even been made to teachers, policemen and the other types of service occupiers whom I have mentioned. I took the liberty of telling your Lordships the other day that we carried out our Election promises, and the next line in Hansard reads Noble Lords: "Oh, oh! I trust that your Lordships will not propose now, so recently after an Election, to invite us to break this promise. It is one point upon which some votes, at any rate, may well have turned.

I now turn to the character of the protection offered by the Bill, including the amendment since its Second Reading, to which I have already referred. The protection differs slightly as between England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other, because of differences in the existing laws and procedure of the countries. I begin with England and Wales. At present a landlord may evict a tenant without going to the court for an order, if he can do so without undue violence. The landlord may be rash to do it, because if he goes too far he will be liable to proceedings. The late Mr. Rachman seems, however, to have been quite expert at using this form of self-help. In the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, it was made a criminal offence to recover possession of certain decontrolled dwellings except by going to the court, and there was a similar provision in other cases in the Housing Act, 1964.

Provisions to the like effect in Clause 1 (3) and (5) of this Bill are the mainspring of the protection now provided. In cases to which the Bill applies, it will be a criminal offence to recover possession without a court order or to withhold or withdraw services or furniture, and the penalty is the same as in the 1958 and 1964 Acts. The owner must therefore, in these cases, apply to the court for an order for possession, and an essential part of the Bill is in Clause 2, defining the powers and the duties of the court on such an application. The court may suspend possession for any period up to twelve months, and, since the Bill itself remains in force only until the end of the year 1965, and the fuller legislation to which I have referred will, we hope, have come into force by then, power of suspension will give the opportunity for full protection if the court thinks fit. There is at present an inherent power in the courts to suspend possession, but judicial practice has limited it to a matter of about four weeks, or perhaps a little more. That power is preserved.

Under this Bill, however, the court has extensive powers to impose such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable for any suspension, and those terms and conditions may of course include payments by the tenant, in respect not only of present occupation, but of past arrears. The court must do what it thinks reasonable in those cases, and must have regard to all the circumstances, including some which are particularly mentioned in Clause 2 (4) of the Bill. These particular circumstances are not unlike the circumstances which the court will have had to consider in cases about controlled houses. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the subsection are cases where the occupier has failed to observe conditions binding on him, where he has unreasonably refused a new bargain for the premises, or where he has not made reasonable efforts to find somewhere else to live.

Paragraph (d) has been introduced into the Bill since the Second Reading and calls the attention of the court particularly to the requirement of efficient agricultural management. It may be that the tied cottage is required for a new employee, and, if so, that is a matter which the court must bear in mind. It is clearly, for instance, an important matter where the premises are a cottage occupied by the cowman, near the farmer's cowsheds. I should have thought that, with this paragraph in the Bill, a farmer could rely on getting a fair deal as between the imperative needs of agriculture and the occupier's need of a home to live in. In a case of this kind who can ask for more than a fair deal? And the right thing to do seems to me to be to call the attention of the county court to the agricultural point and then leave it to them to weigh it up in connection with other matters. In the same sort of way, the remaining paragraph (e) contains a point about greater hardship, so phrased as to leave the question of where greater hardship lies to the discretion of the court.

In England and Wales the appropriate court will be the county court, and the powers of the court may be exercised by a registrar, who is of course a legally-qualified person, already exercising limited judicial rowers. Clearly the success of this Bill will be impaired if shortage of judicial personnel or any other reason leads to delay in dealing with applications under the Bill, but I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may be able to give your Lordships some assurance on that point. In Scotland the court will be the sheriff court; and I need perhaps not trouble your Lordships with other applications to Scotland, beyond that, in Scotland, self-help is not allowed, and the owner of the house must apply to the court for possession. If he fails to do so, he is at present liable only in civil proceedings, and Clause 1 (7) adds criminal liability.

My Lords, for all its temporary character, this Bill is humane and necessary. Its purpose is to prevent the law, complicated as it is at present, being used with cruelty, whether unwitting or calculated. These matters cause constant concern to Members in another place, particularly Members for constituencies in London and other crowded areas. The Bill has been considered in great detail in another place through all its stages, and I trust that your Lordships will not only accept the principle and purpose of the Bill, but also hesitate to delay or amend it on points which have had full consideration elsewhere. As the Bill now stands, I do not believe that it will harm house-owners or their interests, and in some cases, if they are going to suffer from it, they will not be without responsibility for their own suffering. I hope and believe that it will operate as a warning, more than as the occasion for any criminal proceedings.

The most important Clause 1n the Bill is, perhaps, Clause 2; the particular importance of that clause lies in invoking the discretion of county court judges and registrars as to what is reasonable in the circumstances. In this country we have something to be proud of in the success with which similar discretion has been exercised in those courts in slightly different circumstances. May I add, before I sit down, that this is a temporary Bill; that it has to be a simple Bill, and that it does not follow that, because distinctions and similarities are dealt with in one way in this Bill, they will be dealt with in the same way in permanent legislation. I beg to move.

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

3.13 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for having introduced this Bill in such detail. I am reminded of what my noble Leader, Lord Carrington, said at the beginning of this Parliament, when he was opening the debate on the Address, and when he laid down certain criteria for the behaviour of the official Opposition. He said on that occasion that we on this side of the House should not oppose purely for the sake of opposition; that we should certainly criticise, but in a constructive and not in a destructive manner; and that we would try to judge Bills on their merit: if we thought they were in the interests of the country we should, of course, support them, but if we thought they were harmful or irrelevant, we should not hesitate to say so. I can but say that the Government have given me, and all of us on this side, every opportunity to need every one of those virtues outlined by my noble Leader, if we are to follow out the requirements and standards he laid down on that occasion. There is no doubt at all that we shall have to exercise considerable restraint if we are to agree in principle matters with which we have a great deal of fundamental disagreement.

We realise, of course, that the real objective of this Bill was set out in the Queen's Speech; that it formed part of the Manifesto of the Labour Party, and, therefore, however small their majority or mandate may be, we have to accept that fact. Therefore, we shall not, of course, oppose the Second Reading of the Bill because of the principle which lies behind it. On the other hand, there is plenty to criticise; and I propose to do that, but, I hope, in a constructive manner.

There is no doubt, I think, that the real purpose of this Bill is to ensure that pending the repeal of the Rent Act, 1957, bad landlords should not evict tenants without going through the due process of law, and in this case to the county court. We are prepared to accept that principle as something which may be even desirable in itself, but certainly desirable in view of the proposal to repeal the Rent Act and to treat the whole matter of tenant and landlord relationships in the near future. Therefore, we accept this temporary measure in the spirit in which it is intended, in so far as that basic principle is concerned. There are, however, one or two matters dealing with the general aspects of the Bill on which I should like to ask one or two questions and put one or two points for consideration.

To begin with, there is this question of the jurisdiction of the county court. We understand that all houses with a net annual value of up to £400 will be covered by this temporary measure. When pressed in another place, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that there was nothing particularly sacrosanct about the £400; that they were not tied to that figure precisely in the future; that it might well have been £300, but he wanted to make quite sure that everybody would be covered pending the main measure. Then he added: "But, anyhow, the figure of £400 is not outrageous." I cannot agree with that last opinion. I think the figure of £400 is outrageous when extended to the whole country. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that 83-5 per cent. of all houses in the country have a rateable value of under £100, and another 147 per cent. have a value of between £100 and £200. So a little more than 98 per cent. have a rateable value of under £200.

I should like to put it to the noble Lord that the Government, when they come to consider the main legislation, should consider these figures most seriously, and should not just take a "pot shot" at it, and give the whole situation, both for unfurnished and for furnished dwellings, a degree of inflexibility that is bound to make the Act a failure and ineffective. I take it that they will not lump together rateable values in London and outside. At the present stage, of course, the statutory tenancies in London are controlled for properties having a rateable value of up to £40; and for those outside London the corresponding figure is £30. Bringing those figures up to the present new rateable values of the 1963 Act, they would be equivalent to something like £110 in London, and £85 outside.

It may well be—indeed, I am sure it will be—that in the future rateable values in London that enable dwellings to qualify for control, in whatever manner the Government decide, will probably have to be a good deal higher; because that is where the real problem exists. But I would suggest that the difference between the rateable values to be caught by the main Bill should be much greater as between London and the rest than they are at present, because I believe that this will be found to be necessary. I would even suggest that it might be necessary to have three categories: one for London, one for the major cities outside London, and a third for the rural areas; because even now a modern rateable value of about £85 for the countryside covers the vast majority of country lettings, and if the figure goes much over £100 you very quickly run into what might be termed, if not exactly the luxury class, at least the; class that does not need protection. I would put forward those points for consideration at this stage to make quite sure that when the main Bill is brought forward these figures are gone into very thoroughly and that a rational solution is put before Parliament in due course.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, of course I note with respect and attention what the noble Lord is saying, but I think there is another aspect to the £400 limit. The old, pre-1957 limit of control was £100—rating was on rather different principles in those days—and, in fact, I think the £400 now more or less corresponds with it. It was a limit, if I remember rightly, all over the country.

LORD HASTINGS

I take that point; I might have mentioned it myself: I think that £300 would probably cover it, but, even so, that does not invalidate my suggestion that the difference between rating for London and the cities outside London and for the country outside the cities should be considered again very carefully, irrespective of the present position, because I think the differences will be found to be very much greater now than they were before, and I think that that should be taken account of.

My Lords, I should like to turn very briefly to one or two small points about which I should like some explanation. They are mostly legal points, with which, no doubt, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to deal when he winds up. There is, in Clause 2 (1), power for the court, if an order for possession is made "before the commencement of this Act", to suspend the execution of the order for a period up to twelve months. I do rather wonder why that has been put in and whether in fact it is necessary, because I should have thought that if a county court had already made an order the case would have been fairly considered and it was not very likely that on reconsideration there would be any difference in the finding of the court. I take it that it would be necessary for a person who did not wish to move out on the basis of an order already made to initiate the proceedings. It would not be the duty of the court automatically to review decisions previously taken. However, apart from there being no necessity to Lord the court with unnecessary work, it does smack of a degree, at least, of retrospective legislation. I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would say a word about that and the reasons for it.

I would tie that also to Clause 4 (3) where, as a result of an Amendment moved on the Report stage in another place—a Government Amendment, but instigated by the Opposition during Committee stage—if an order has been made by the High Court before the commencement of the Act, then that order is automatically recognised by the county court. It is realised that it would be illegal to evict even on a High Court order, because under this Bill eviction is within the jurisdiction only of a county court. To save time, very rightly, a High Court order which has been made is to be recognised by the county court, so it is not necessary for the parties to go through the procedure again. But then, if that is so, I want to know whether Clause 2 (1), which I have just quoted, will bite upon that High Court order which has been recognised in the county court, and whether then it will be possible for somebody to go to the county court and say that that is all very well but they want an execution of suspension of this order. I am not quite sure whether or not that is the intention of the Bill, and, if it is, whether it is really a good thing.

Finally, after very long discussions in the other place the Attorney General, I think, gave an explanation of how court proceedings could be speeded up, because it is most important for this Bill that in cases of emergency it is possible to get them through. Apparently, by administrative action it is going to be possible to enable courts to call special courts, to transfer proceedings from one court in the district to another for the convenience of the litigants, and even to get an injunction in cases of emergency where perhaps violence is being used. I hope the noble and learned Lord can say just a word about this matter, which is rather complicated, especially about the statement by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that apparently only undefended cases could be given priority in the court if it was agreed by the registrar that there was a definite question of urgency. Why not defended cases? Am I right that defended cases are not covered? Because sometimes urgency must be just as great—I would think greater—in cases which are being defended as in those which are undefended. I should be glad of an explanation of these matters.

If the Government had set down what the Bill was supposed to do and had confined this Bill to emergency measures, I should now have come to the end of my speech and we should all happily go ahead to approve the Second Reading; but, unfortunately, they have introduced extraneous measures into this temporary Bill and, as a result, have found themselves in trouble in another place, as they are going to find themselves in trouble in this place, too.

When we come to the inclusion of agricultural tied cottagees in this Bill, it is quite beyond our comprehension to find why that matter should be dealt with in an emergency measure. After all, even if it were the intention of the Government to put it into the main Bill on landlord-tenant relationships and rent control next year, and if they had not said they were going to do that, it would not be necessary to introduce it into this emergency Bill at all, because as the noble Lord opposite admits, land owners and farmers do not evict from agricultural tied cottages except in very small numbers, and then only for sound farming reasons. There is no reason to suppose that there would be a sudden rush of evictions before the main Bill comes in if nothing has been said. Even if it had been said, I do not think one would have found any difference. It was quite unnecessary to put it into this emergency measure; there is no emergency at all.

I was quite interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to-day introduce an entirely new reason for putting in these agricultural tied cottages, a reason which had not been thought of, let alone mentioned, during the whole proceedings in another place: the difficulty of drawing distinctions between tied cottages, distinctions so fine that I could not myself understand them, and I do not think many other noble Lords in this House did, either; for example, the distinction between a licensed tied cottage and an unlicensed one. But I do know that one of the reasons or excuses (because no valid reasons have even been given in another place) was that about half of the agricultural workers live in cottages with direct tenancies. To say that, therefore, the other half should be on the same footing and in the same boat, so to speak, is, of course, a quite hopeless argument, because of the other half who live under direct tenancies, some may own their own houses and some will be renting private property, but the majority will be in council houses; and, of course, as we know, council houses are local authority owned houses which are not subject to the same kind of restrictions, not merely in respect of rent but more particularly in respect of evictions, as are privately owned houses. They also are to be excluded from the operations of this temporary Bill.

So this will put the occupants of tied cottages privately owned into a more secure position than is actually enjoyed by those living in council houses. Of course the reason half the workers live in tied cottages is precisely that they are key workers. So to put forward an argument like that shows an extraordinary degree of ignorance, and it is really a completely futile excuse.

The real reason was given—and it has been repeated by the noble Lord to-day: that this was an Election promise. It is true that Mr. Harold Wilson (who was not then, of course, the Prime Minister) made a speech in Norwich and said that it was his intention to do this. But I would remind noble Lords that it had no place in the Labour Party's Election Manifesto—although the Minister of Housing made that mistake in another place and had to withdraw it; it was not part of the Manifesto, and to that extent the Government have not got a mandate. They were very fond of telling us when we were the Government that we had not got a mandate. If the Prime Minister were to be held to every promise he made in speeches at the Election, my goodness me! what a mess he would be in. Even I could not wish him such a sticky end. I think that is an invalid reason for doing this, and particularly at this stage.

Then why, people ask—and the noble Lord tried to anticipate this question—have other service cottages not been included? The most extraordinary reason was given for that again in another place—it seems to be the main idea of the Government Party: that because there were so many different owners in agriculture they had to be controlled, and because there was only one in the nationalised industry, or monopoly or whatever it may be, it was less necessary to control them. But I should have thought that precisely the opposite is true. The more employers there are, especially in view of the shortage of agricultural labour, the easier it is for a man to get a job. If he is sacked by the railways, or by a firm in nationalised transport, how on earth is he going to get another job? That is exactly what a lorry driver said to me. I happened to meet him during the Election campaign, and he said "I am going to vote Conservative. I am earning a thousand a year. If I lose my job and transport is nationalised I cannot get another. Now, if I do not like my boss I can go elsewhere." That is absolutely analogous with the position in agriculture. To exclude other service cottages is simply to be doctrinaire. No evidence why it should be done has been produced. We are going to require a lot more evidence when we come to Committee stage, because naturally the noble Lord cannot expect us not to move an Amendment on this subject.

I turn to the other extraneous matter, the question of furnished lettings. Again this had nothing to do with the Rent Act before. A number of rent tribunals were set up to arbitrate on what is a fair rent for a furnished letting, and here again noble Lords have given no reason for putting these lettings into this temporary Bill. They have not considered thoroughly the problem of the people who are going to be inconvenienced and who do not offend in any way the principles which noble Lords are trying to stake out in this Bill and for the future. I am glad to hear that the position in respect of students is all right because they occupy under licence and not under tenancies.

Then there is the question of holiday lettings, which caused so much debate in another place, at all stages of the Bill. I was interested to hear the noble Lord come forward with something completely new, something that was not said at all in the other place; that holiday lettings at seaside resorts, the ladies who let rooms and flats, will not be included because the people who take this accommodation, although they will be in occupation will not be in residence. This is most interesting, because, as I say, this argument was not adduced in the other place. It could not have been thought of. I am very anxious to know who has thought of it now.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will assure us absolutely that this is the correct legal interpretation, because of course it makes a great deal of difference and is most important. I am not, I am afraid, willing to take that as fact from a brief provided for the noble Lord by the Ministry of Housing or the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. I shall certainly require a definite legal assurance from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that this is indeed a correct interpretation, and that the words "in residence" in an earlier clause will, in fact, exclude holiday lettings from the effects of the Bill.

What amused me—it was a "bit much", and I could hardly keep my seat—was when the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, claimed that this had been the case all along, and said that an Amendment had been moved to put into the Bill the words "in residence", and that this made all these holiday lettings quite all right. In point of fact the words "in residence" were put in at Committee stage by the Opposition and had nothing to do with holiday lettings at all. This is a purely fortuitous outcome of it, if it is the outcome, and credit is entirely due to the Opposition; and I do not know why it was not pointed out at Report stage in another place.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, of course I knew that this Amendment was introduced by the Opposition, who often do not know what they are doing. I was told by the Ministry of Housing, and I accept it, that it has that effect. Of course I shall bow to the superior legal opinion of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

LORD HASTINGS

I am glad to know that the noble Lord has no objection to my referring matters over his head to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Winter lettings are not likely to be affected. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will say something about them. I am sorry if I did not follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. He was reading rather quickly, and I did not get the purport of what he was saying. It is a matter we are very anxious about and we may raise it on Committee stage. I will not mention caravans, because they are a very complicated subject and, I think we all agree, require separate legislation.

That is almost all I have to say, apart from one thing that I must end with. The noble Lord rather indicated that we should get on quickly with this Bill; that the fewer Amendments, the better—in fact, he hoped that we should not move any Amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary in another place, in his Third Reading speech, said something about, "Let us give this an unopposed Third Reading with a message to the House of Lords that we want it by Christmas". Rather peremptory, I thought. The first Notice noble Lords had of the Second Reading of this Bill appeared on the Order Paper on Thursday, and that was the last Sitting Day before to-day, Monday; so not much time has been given for noble Lords to get here to speak, and in the circumstances I think that the list of speakers before us to-day is not a bad one.

But when it comes to the Committee stage I am given to understand that we are to have only two days, that there will be a Committee stage on Wednesday. I never forget the observations made on the other side when we were the Government, if ever the Committee stage was less than a week ahead. Seldom was it so. I can only remember one or two occasions when the period had to be cut to five days. There was a terrible hullabaloo about it. It is difficult to get Amendments put down, and the noble Lord will find it most inconvenient because he will get the Amendments that we are going to put down only on Wednesday morning, the day of the Committee stage. I wish him good luck!

This is not really the way to treat your Lordships' House. We agree in principle with the necessity for the really urgent part of the Bill, the security against eviction except by due process of law—going to the county court. We do not agree with putting in these extraneous matters to which I have referred. In principle, we agree with the Bill and we are willing to be constructive and to help. But to push your Lordships in this way is not good enough. I would say that if the Government wish to get through their legislation in the summer they will have to treat your Lordships' House a great deal better than this, because we are going to look at that legislation through a microscope and we shall need time to amend it and improve it. Pretending that everything that comes up from another place is perfect is just not true, as we have learned in the past. That is what we have two Houses of Parliament for.

I now have an apology to make. I did not know that the debate was going to take place to-day until it was put down on the Order Paper a day or two ago. I have a most important engagement which I really cannot possibly miss, at 4 o'clock. I am afraid I shall have to leave, but without any disrespect to the noble Lord—it is not his fault—or to the House, and I will endeavour to come back before the end of the debate. Having said that, I think it needs "rubbing in" to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and to the Cabinet in general that your Lordships' House does not like being treated in this way, and that if we let it go on this occasion it does not mean that we shall do so in the future.