HL Deb 16 December 1964 vol 262 cc464-527

3.47 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in his first effort to reply to this Amendment, met my arguments with serious arguments of his own. I quite see the difficulty of putting a landlord in danger of committing a criminal offence, albeit inadvertently, and therefore that he would do better to rely on the judgment of the court. On the other hand, I do not think that any sensible landlord would evict without going to the court unless he was quite sure that the person who had come to live with the deceased tenant shortly before his death had alternative accommodation. Of course this sort of information is known pretty well in the countryside; it is perhaps more difficult in towns, and particularly in large cities, to know where people come from and where they go to, and so on. I appreciate the difficulty. On the other hand again, I think that if an Amendment of this sort were to be accepted it would act as rather useful guidance to the county court when such a case came before it.

The noble Lord relied heavily, as did his colleagues in another place, on the fact that the court is to "have regard to all the circumstances". But of course, the generality of the circumstances is rather weakened by the particular instances in paragraphs (a) to (e) which follow thereon, because the court would pay most particular attention to the circumstances listed in Clause 2(4)(a) to (e), and all the other circumstances would tend to come afterwards in the court's consideration. Therefore, I should rather like to see the wording in this Amendment taking its place in this clause of the Bill, or even later on, as a particular circumstance which should be considered, and not left under the general heading of "all the circumstances".

But having said that, I see the force of the argument of the noble Lord. I would only say to him that I am sorry that he was just a little facetious when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about married women in London. I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, had in mind was that the accommodation the good lady had, in which her father lived, was preferable to that in which she and her husband were living, and they would rather like to move and thus take advantage of the situation. But I think that a serious point was put by the noble Lord, and I hope that Lord Mitchison will treat our arguments seriously from now on. Having said that, I accept the difficulties of the case, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.50 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: Assuming that this Amendment will be thankfully accepted by the Government, allowing them gracefully to retreat from an untenable position, I ought perhaps to point out that after the deletion of subsection (6) in Clause 2 subsection (6) in Clause 1 will also become redundant. One would not guess this from the terminology of the Clause now under discussion—at least I should not have guessed it—because there is no reference in the earlier subsection (5), so far as I can discover, which has anything to do with agriculture. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, if he is going to reply, will be able to explain this to us, because I have not been able to explain it myself.

It is not my intention to speak at any great length to this Amendment which, in the light of our deliberations two days ago, and in particular the clarification given by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, should have a clear run. I start from the assumption, as always, that the hearts of noble Lords opposite are in the right place, even if their heads are permanently airborne during their new-found and temporary condition of euphoria. It would therefore be using up the time of the House unnaturally if I were to rehearse all over again the reasons I gave on Monday for leaving out agricultural tied cottages from the provisions of the Bill, in the general purpose of which the Opposition have co-operated so amiably. What I did on Monday was to demonstrate, by a process of reductio ad absurdum, that there was no conceivable need to include them for the sake of the present tenants of the tied cottages, only for the sake of propaganda and the Socialist image.

Before I had finished presenting full proof of this assertion, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, with typical generosity, intervened to agree with me, and I was able to draw my Second Reading speech to a fairly brisk conclusion, once that point had been conceded. No Government, I take it, is willing to be seen to be acting for purely Party political reasons, against the interests either of agriculture in general or of individuals in agriculture. I am thinking not only of the smaller farmer but also of the incoming tenant of the cottage and his family, and of the stock which may suffer grievously from lack of immediate care. I am not suggesting—it world be inaccurate and unjust to do so—that noble Lords opposite were leaving their interests out of account. Indeed, they were not. The argument was, if I understood it, that the interests of the outgoing tenant to some extent counterbalanced these other, and perhaps more evident interests.

Some reference was even made to cases already known, but these are not only anonymous but completely unstatistical. I venture to say, the hour being still reasonably early, that they are "unstatisticable". Certainly neither the N.F.U. nor the C.L.A. are acquainted with any impressive number of cases. Their existence would in fact be astonishing. Informal machinery has been functioning for many years between N.F.U. branches and branches of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, for the very purpose of resolving such difficulties and preventing such hardship. This is quite right. The proportion of cases where hardship has been caused by the unreasonable attitude of the farmer is so fractional, a fraction of a fraction, that no statistics have been kept by the N.F.U. and certainly no statistics have been presented by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. If the Government cannot justify this action by some sort of case history of the problem, then indeed how can they justify it?

In this context I ought to say to noble Lords opposite that the implication contained in the present measure—this temporary measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, called it—is self-evidently wounding to farmers in this country. It suggests that there are fanners who would turn out a tenant against his will, together with his family, into the cold before Christmas, which the headlong procedure applied to this Bill is ostensibly out to prevent. I must say, firmly and even sharply, that such an action would be unimaginable to me and, I hope, unimaginable to noble Lords opposite. There is, in fact, in our contention, no reason whatever for including tied cottages under rent control, and no real case has been presented in favour of it. This is something which could reasonably be argued at greater length in the wider legislation to follow. What is abundantly clear is that there can be no possible requirement for this hasty and temporary measure, in its application to agriculture.

It is furthermore clear that the Labour Party itself did not see any such tearing need before the Election. I have here an official Labour Party pamphlet from which I will read an excerpt. The pamphlet is entitled The Tied Cottage: Labour's Solution, and it says: Labour will end the injustices of the tied cottage system.

We agree that any injustices should be ended. The number of tied cottages and service houses will be reduced. They will be divided into two groups. Houses that must remain 'tied' because of the nature of the tenant's job. And houses that can be 'untied' as it is not necessary for the tenant to live on the job. Where job and house go together, the owner will have to register with the local council. He will have to bring the house up to modern standards, or the council will do the work and recover the cost. Labour believes tied cottage tenants have as much right to a bath, adequate lighting and proper sanitation as any other householder. If a tenant has to leave a tied house because of age, poor health, or through no fault of his own, then the council must find suitable accommodation.

There is nothing in this pamphlet to distinguish tied cottages in agriculture from any other tied cottage.

There is, however—and I am sure noble Lords opposite take a great joy in having their own propaganda quoted to them—something pertinent in another pamphlet, enitled The Britain We Want, a reference to tied cottages in agriculture. Labour will remove the fear of eviction hanging over four out of every ten farm workers.

I said that there was no statistic, but I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would prefer to forget that statistic in so far as it is a statistic, for I think they would have a very hard time in substantiating the claim that four out of every ten farm workers lived in lively fear of eviction. If, indeed, that is the case and they can prove it to the House, then of course I will withdraw my remark; but I feel it would be indeed very difficult for them to do so. Noble Lords opposite familiar with those two pamphlets will not, I think, consider the excerpts to be conveniently or unfairly selective from their point of view or selected to suit my case. In the light of this, I cannot see that the Government need feel any embarrassment whatever in accepting the Amendment in the names of my noble friend and myself, in all its simplicity and logic. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord St. Oswald.)

LORD HASTINGS

I think it might be convenient if I were to continue this discussion before a Government spokesman, whoever it may be, replies. I do not want to rehash old arguments of Monday, but we got into a bit of a tangle, I think, on a rather legal interpretation of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, which was followed up later by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, about the difficulty of drawing a distinction between tenancies and licences in respect of tied cottages.

I looked up what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said about this in another place, and, of course, as we might expect, the noble and learned Lord was quite right: he had mentioned this aspect of the matter. What the Minister said was: The issue is whether agricultural tied cottages should be expressly excluded from the legislation. A number of them are in fact tenancies, and unless we expressly excluded them they would automatically come within the provisions of the Bill."—[Official Report, Commons, Vol. 702 (No. 15), col. 510, November 18, 1964.1 I need not read any further for the moment, but the general impression, from listening to and reading the discussion in another place, was that a a large number of these tenancies exist in regard to our agricultural tied cottages. But I was glad to see that on Monday the noble and learned Lord did say: As your Lordships know, some of them are tenancies, but most of them are licences."—[Official Report, Vol. 262 (No. 21), col. 343, December 14, 1964.] I would say that comparatively few, or even very few, are tenancies. But why should they not be left in the Bill?

Let us consider for a moment the people who live in these agricultural tied cottages. The assumption has been made that they are agricultural workers, but in three cases out of four I would say they are not: they are retired agricultural workers, or their widows. The cottages may be surplus to the requirements of a particular farmer on his farm, and he has let them, at a low rent, to old-age pensioners. I have come across cases of this sort on the estates about which I happen to know. Perhaps I should apologise for not having declared an interest: I am, of course, a landowner. I own estates and I am a farmer. Therefore, I do know a little of what I am talking about. These people have proper tenancies, and the farmer has either let to them at a low rent, in which case he clearly has No 1ntention of ever turning them out, or he has let them at a full rent, in which case I say that, if he finds himself in difficulties later on, it is his own fault. Why should not these people be included under the general heading of tenancies? There is no reason at all. They are so few in number; let them be included. We have no objection to it.

Again, considering this point more thoroughly and in detail, how many of these tied cottages which are let as tenancies are not already controlled? How many of the people in them are not statutory tenants? There are precious few cases where the old rateable value was over £30. Therefore, by leaving them in the Bill very few extra ones would be caught; and why should they not? I see no objection to it at all. What has happened is that 80 per cent.—more, probably—of the balance of tied service cottages which are licences only, are going to be brought arbitrarily into the Bill.

The Minister went on to say, in the same paragraph that I quoted a moment ago: I can say with perfectly good faith that this Clause 1s not drawn in its present form because of anything to do with the Labour Party programme". Really, all I can say is "Ha, ha, ha!" Because later on in Committee stage he came out very strongly, saying that action had been promised and it had to be done; and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said this twice yesterday. So the Government cannot have it both ways. But I think the argument which says: "It is a terribly difficult legal position. We had to choose.", is really blown sky-high. There was no difficulty at all. The Government could have left these few agricultural tied cottage tenancies in the Bill, and nobody would have objected at all.

If I may, I will refer to the matter of statistics. My noble friend mentioned something about them later on in Second Reading. Again, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said: I was looking the other day at some figures which we obtained from the union side."—[Official Report, Commons, Vol. 702 (No. 21), col. 1570, November 26, 1964.] So there are some figures. Are we not going to be told anything about these figures, and told what they are? I should very much hope we are. I do not see why they should be concealed from your Lordships. What are these figures? Between now and major legislation, surely some figures can be produced.

For example, what proportion of evictions from agricultural tied cottages have taken place before the Bill, compared to the total number available; and what proportion of cases will come into the courts between now and the main legislation compared to the total number? I think that would be very interesting to know, and I feel that we should have some figures and some evidence on these matters before the Government launch themselves on a path which is irrevocable and really disastrous for agriculture. I hope we are going to get a decent answer this afternoon, because I think the Government have a very weak case. They did not answer the argument in another place, and they did not answer it on Monday here, and we shall gladly give the noble Lord an opportunity to answer it properly to-day.

LORD MESTON

May I support the Amendment before the noble Lord replies? No one ever seems to get to the point about anything, so far as I can make out. We all know that the care of an animal involves watering, feeding and looking after it in every way. It does not matter whether it is a sheep or a pig or a cow. How can the care of that animal be suspended for 14 or 21 days when an application is made by the landlord to the county court? The care of that animal will not wait for 14 hours, let alone 14 days. I do not mean to be offensive, because I trust that that is not part of my composition, but if any animals are injured or die through lack of care, it will be directly attributable to the Bill as it is at present drafted.

LORD WOLVERTON

I should like to support this Amendment, because I think it is one of paramount importance to the Bill. I do not have to declare an interest because I do not own any large estate at all, and I have no tied cottages, but I have served for the last nine years on a county council so I know something about this problem. If cottages of nationalised industries, local government houses for standing joint committees and police houses, in particular, as well as houses for district nurses and for those running the railways and the mines are vital and are excluded from the provisions of this Bill, I should like to ask: why are agricultural houses not excluded? On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said that he thought there were probably more tied cottages in nationalised industries than there were in agriculture, and he was disappointed that they had not been brought under the provisions of the Bill. I think they have not been brought under the provisions of the Bill because the Government know that they are vital for running the police forces, the railways, the mines and so on. I do not want to see houses for agriculture brought into the Bill, either, because I think they are absolutely vital.

I know, from my experience, that we have had to build a lot of police houses, and when a police officer retires he has to get out of the house. He is given a reasonable time for that by the police force authorities, and then he has to get alternative accommodation. That is sometimes difficult to find, but they manage to do it. But it strengthens somebody's case if he goes to a local authority and says, "I have to get out of my house. If I do not get out I shall have a court order against me. Will you do your best to rehouse me?". The local authority have a duty to try to rehouse people like that, and sometimes these people have to jump the queue because they would otherwise be homeless. I press Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment and bring agriculture into line with the nationalised industries and with local government houses, as, of course, all council houses are excluded under the Bill, too, and I think rightly so. With those few words, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will allow us to have this Amendment.

4.10 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

I venture to think that we might consider rather carefully what the exact point is that this Amendment raises; but, before we do that, may I say two things? The first one is slightly out of order, but it is that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did not think that I was being frivolous in relation to him or in relation to his hypothetical lady in Manchester. I certainly had no such intention. The next one is as regards these farm animals which are going to die a sad death at the hands of the Government unless the Government accept this Amendment. I would only point out to the noble Lord that a lot depends on the nationality of the farm animal. In Scotland, they have had provisions to this effect since 1550, and the mortality rate among stock in Scotland does not differ much from that in England, so that it does not seem to depend on this difference in legislation.

I turn from that to the particular effect of this Amendment The present position is this: that all former tenants are dealt with in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Their successors, those tenants who hold over—sub-lessees, and so on—all depend on tenancies for the Bill to bite on them at all. Consequently, we are not considering the question of whether this, that or the other effect of the Bill will follow when there is a tenancy of a farm cottage. There is no doubt whatever that if the person in the cottage is holding over from a tenancy, being the widow or the member of the family who succeeds to a tenancy, or being a sub-lessee from the tenant, this Amendment makes no difference whatever to the position. The only case affected by this Amendment is where the person dealing with the owner succeeds a person who was in law not a tenant but a licensee. That is the only case we are considering.

Now let us see for a minute what the difference between: these two farm workers is in practice. I am not for the moment talking about the legal position: I am talking about the effect of the Bill. Suppose a farm worker occupies a cottage under a tenancy—a tenancy which is to end, as it may end, at the conclusion of his employment there—and then holds over afterwards. In those circumstances, the farmer, the owner, has to go to the court if he wishes to evict that occupier. If, on the other hand, the tenant is not a tenant at all but is a licensee—let us say that his licence was to occupy the cottage during the term of his employment, which is a very similar case to the other—if he holds over at the end of his employment, then the farmer can, under the provisions of the Bill if this subSection 1s omitted, turn him out without going to the court, but he must still do so without undue violence and at the risks which were indicated during the course of the Second Reading. If, of course, he has made a mistake as to whether the occupier was in fact a tenant or was merely a licensee, he may find himself again involved in criminal proceedings because he mistook the character of the former occupation.

Now it was said on Second Reading that the protection offered to the occupants of tied cottages was not part of the Labour Party's published programme. I must say that surprised me. I was a Member of another place for a good long time, and I had been a Labour candidate before that. I cannot remember how many years it is since this has been clear Labour Party policy, known, I should have thought, to everybody in the countryside. I sat for a constituency which contained a considerable area of country, and if I said this once in the course of going round at Elections I must have said it scores of times. I therefore turned up the obvious thing to look at entitled British Farms and New Security. This is, I think, the pamphlet which had the widest circulation in the country areas and among people engaged, whether as farmers or as farm servants, in the agricultural industry. There is not the least doubt about it. Paragraph 30—these are all quite short paragraphs saying various things—says: … and there must be security of tenure for all. It has been talking about the position of farmers. It goes on: We will ensure that no occupant of a tied cottage is evicted until alternative accommodation has been provided". Then, in the summary at the end—this time it is No. 11—it says: … ensure that no farm worker is evicted from a tied cottage until alternative accommodation is provided". With great respect to noble Lords, that is perfectly clear. They must—some of them, at any rate—have seen this document if they were at all interested in the last Election; and the same thing has been said time and time again. There is, therefore, absolutely nothing in the point that the promise, if made, was not widely circulated. It was widely circulated. The Party of which I am a member no doubt cannot afford as much in election literature and the like as may be afforded by other people concerned in Elections; but whatever we did spend on this matter included statements about agricultural policy, and on this particular point there is not the faintest doubt that that was said and was as widely circulated as we could manage.

Next, it was said that I had invented a point of my own—none the worse for that, incidentally—by saying that there was a very difficult distinction between a licensee and a tenant. That is not true. I looked at the debates below, and saw that the Minister himself, though he put it slightly differently, quite clearly made the same point. It was made on Second Reading.

Having got those two little matters out of the way and tried to say what the point is, may I add that I quite agree with the noble Lord who spoke last that these cases will be few. The trouble about the information available is this. The National Union of Agricultural Workers can give us the cases within their knowledge, but the best estimate the Ministry can give of this is that these are probably somewhere about one-third of the total number of cases. If your Lordships will consider the map of England for a minute, the degree to which agricultural workers are organised in that Union varies very widely locally. They are strongest up where Joseph Arch was heard originally, in Norfolk and that part of the world; and, as one comes down in a line towards the West of England, the extent of oganisation varies. So one knows only the number of cases of eviction which have come to the attention of the Union; and most of them, if not all, will probably be members. But one does not know the other cases; and it may well be that the other cases contain considerable elements of hardship, too.

But, so far as the Union is concerned, and with all the reservations I have made, the figure I was given was about twelve a year. That is about what I should expect. This is simply a number of evictions but, of course, it does not say whether they were evictions of people who were tenants and whose tenancy had terminated, whether they were evictions of licensees, what the grounds of the eviction were, whether it was right, whether it was wrong or anything about it that is of very much use. All one can say is that on any showing the number of cases to be affected by this Amendment one way or another is not very large.

On the other hand, having said that, one has to notice another fact. These are cases which attract a very great deal of public attention and a great deal of deep feeling, and I think the Committee will appreciate the reasons for it. They really are obvious. I noticed that the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who was speaking the other day with great experience—and, if I may be permitted to say so, with great sense—about these matters, took the difficulty of hardship in the case of a stockman. He said that if you let the stockman be turned out the farmer will suffer very great loss. I think the reason he said that was that in Scotland the position is rather different and you could not compare properly the hardship of the cow against the hardship of the family. I am not being frivolous about this cow—it really is a point.

But if that is the position, and if those are the two things that we must compare—the loss to the farmer, on the one hand, and the possibility (I will put it no higher) of the wrongful eviction of a man and his family, on the other—then I wonder which way the Committee's feelings would go. I venture to believe that all of us in your Lordships' House, as in another place, would feel that, after all, we must give first place to the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of wrongful eviction of a man from his home with his family into the road, with the furniture, as the newspaper photographers come along and show us afterwards. At the end of it, this is a human problem.

Now I turn back to the gruesomely legal side of it; and, again, there is really no doubt about this. I disagree with the noble Lord who said just now that we have a strong case to meet. I do not think we have. I will readily say that it was put with great vigour. But when you look into it, it is a poor case indeed. However, I must not say that before the Committee has had an opportunity of considering it fully. I think I will take from a quite well-known textbook a couple of sentences. It is better than quoting judges. This is supposed to be the test of distinguishing between a licensee and a tenant; and this is something which has become suddenly of great practical importance; although I must say that it always has been under the Rent Acts. The test is as follows: No one can be a tenant unless he has exclusive possession of the premises; but the fact of exclusive possession is not conclusive evidence of intention to grant a tenancy. However, a person who has exclusive possession of the premises is a tenant unless there are special circumstances negativing an intention to create a tenancy. There then follow references to fourteen reported cases in one footnote; and, speaking with very great respect to the authors of this book and to the judicial decisions from which that test has been arrived at, I think I might be allowed to say that to the ordinary farmer, considering whether he is committing a crime or not, it would be, in the common phrase, "as clear as mud". And, really, that is the point in this case.

The fact of the matter is that in this limited number of cases you are anyway going to include in the Bill the people holding over after a tenancy, the relatives succeeding after a tenancy; and the only question to consider in this Amendment is whether you are going to say that protection from eviction is not to be given to them if there was a licence instead of a tenancy. That is to say, if they were on one side of the singularly lucid line which I have just indicated by reference to this textbook. A farmer's business is to grow crops and to practise agriculture. If he is to be confronted with this kind of question, and is then to be asked to decide whether he will take a certain action—because in one event it will be criminal, and in another not—it really is being very unfair to him. I do not believe the ordinary farmer is ever much likely to be affected by these cases. I do not believe that all farmers, landlords, tenants or agricultural workers are either good or bad; they are a mixture like the rest of us. The number of farmers in practice, who after this will take the risk of trying to turn out a licensee with just the right amount of force, and with sure knowledge that he is a licensee and not a tenant, will be singularly few and far between. In fact, the Amendment would muddle what ought to be a simple Bill.

I know that it is easy to say, "Well, what about all the other cases, the caretaker, the schoolmaster and the rest?" Obviously, in practice it is a very much easier distinction to draw: a schoolmaster living in a schoolhouse, a policeman living in a police cottage and the rest. And it might appear to simplify the Bill if some section were omitted. But, in fact, what one would do would be to complicate it, and to complicate it to the confusion of the whole agricultural industry. And where the noble Lords opposite succeed in effecting their object, they would run the very serious risk of preferring some risk to the farmer against the far larger human risk of having a man wrongfully evicted.

I hope that I have not been too confused; I have tried to be quite clear. One ought not in matters of this sort to give expression too much to one's own feelings, but I must say that I regard this as a case where human feelings for a man in relation to his home ought to prevail. I hope the Committee will not think for a minute that I am suggesting that the Amendment has not been put forward from the best of motives and after most careful consideration: I say merely that if one looks into it closely it will not make much difference, because there are not many cases; but if it makes a difference at all, the odds are that it will make a difference the wrong way. Even if I am wrong over that, one would in fact be complicating, instead of simplifying, a Bill which ought to be simple.

LORD ST. OSWALD

Before the noble Lord sits down could he help me out of my confusion? He referred to the care which had been given to the composition of this Bill. Could he, in fact, help me in my confusion over the question of a reference back to subsection (5) in Clause 1? Because it really is meaningless to me at the moment.

LORD MITCHISON

I am not quite certain that we are discussing it at the moment but subject to that all I can say is this. I was given two minutes ago a complete explanation, but I am afraid that I cannot say in which pocket I have put it. When I can find it I will gladly tell the noble Lord; although I do not think it is a matter of importance.

4.30 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I think it is a matter of some importance that a Bill should be understandable; but what I have to say is really to express my astonishment, not to the point of being utterly tongue-tied, at the Government's lack of response to this reasonable Amendment which, as I have shown, conflicts in no way at all with the noble Lord's Party's reasonable requirements before the Election. We have never quarrelled with their reasonable requirements or promises. In view of this failure to respond, comparing rather miserably with the spirit of co-operation that we have shown over this Bill, it seems worth putting forward the proposal, academically at this stage, which I deleted from my speech on Monday. Even now, after the noble Lord has fired off such obsolete ammunition as remained—the noble Lord is going to explain something to me?

LORD MITCHISON

I have found it and the answer is that it was a printer's error and that it will be corrected. It was a reference to the wrong subsection.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am delighted to hear that it was no more than that. I was saying that, after the noble Lord has fired off such obsolete ammunition as there remained in his store, provided by the nimble powder monkeys of Transport House, we still do not know what are the cases on which they base this tear-away action. The noble Lord appears to have leaned his case rather unsteadily on "the others which are not known about." I must say that I would hesitate to rest a case against so flimsy a structure. He mentioned to my noble friend twelve cases a year, but with his normal honesty and open-mindedness he said he did not know how many of the twelve cases, in approximation, were in fact the result of an unreasonable landlord. They were evictions and he did not know whether or not after eviction the tenants had nowhere to go. If I am misquoting or misunderstanding the noble Lord, then I am sure he will let me know, but that is what I understood him to say.

LORD MITCHISON

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was asked a question by his noble friend: how many of these cases were there in a year? I explained that it was really impossible to say, but there were indications that the number was small. I can assure the noble Lord that these hypothetical powder monkeys know no more about this than I do. We cannot say, and I think that, if the noble Lord thinks it over, he will see why we cannot say.

LORD ST. OSWALD

There requires to be something better and stronger to lean the noble Lord's case against than twelve evictions a year, the exact circumstances and the outcome of which are not known, though perhaps in the noble Lord's mind there are a lot of others. It seems to me very, very flimsy. The noble Lord's task in this Bill is the protection from eviction—and, I take it, protection where hardship or injustice is entailed. That is his central purpose. We have shown how willing we are to assist him in this task, where injustice is concerned or where the balance of hardship is unacceptable; by that I mean in cases where the hardship caused to the outgoing tenant is not balanced or outweighed by the hardship of the incoming tenant and his family, the farmer himself—I mean occupant; the noble Lord is quite correct and I am grateful for the correction—hardship to the incoming occupant and his family, to the farmer himself or to the animals on the farm. But, in his reply just now, the noble Lord—I know that he may have thought it was implied in what he said—made no reference to these factors and showed (I do not want to be unfair) No 1nterest, though he must feel it, in the equity of this matter.

I am also here for the protection of agriculture and, as I implied on Monday, the Government do not appear to me to be showing full concern for this. On that occasion, the noble Earl the Leader of the House asserted—I am naturally happy to repeat it—that agriculture had never been so strongly represented in this House as at that moment. I was not sufficiently pedantic to point out that at that particular moment, wherever the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was, he was not in the Chamber. Moreover, in his assertion, the noble Earl's political memory clearly went back only over the two immediately previous years, and this was somewhat surprising since, in other respects, the political memory of his Party seems to have stopped dead somewhere in the 1920's. Noble Lords opposite must be aware that it was noticeable and noticed that during the whole process of the Bill in another place no Agricultural Minister took part and even their appearances during the debate were of the most fleeting nature. This is not the way to give confidence to agriculture.

Again, although the noble Lord is quite entitled to brush aside a little drafting error, the fact is that this drafting error has been there for some days suggests to me that no noble Lord opposite had read the Bill or that part of the Bill. I suggest that this would not have been possible if an Agricultural Minister in the Department had been responsible for agriculture on the Government Front Bench. Great as is the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, overwhelming as is his charm, the fact is that he is not in the Department and has not the time to do these things. However, I am leaving it.

To-day, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said that the farmer's job was to grow crops. He did not mention—I am not being intentionally pedantic—the feeding of animals, about which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was particularly concerned.

LORD MITCHISON

I said it was the farmers' job to practise agriculture.

LORD ST. OSWALD

Yes, which includes animal husbandry. This served to confirm, if any confirmation was necessary, that the noble Lord's heart was in the right place and that he hoped with this measure to prevent abuses and not create them. In that case, it would have seemed infinitely more sensible, even making allowances for the Government's need to satisfy some of the elements among their supporters, to tie this form of extra protection to farm workers being evicted to make way for non-agricultural workers. I was hoping, in the light of our discussions on Monday, that they might think of doing something like that. It would have meant drafting of which only a Government Department is capable. One of the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place stated, or strongly implied, that there were many such cases, where an agricultural worker was evicted from his house in order to make way for a stockbroker. I think, personally, that it would be hard to find them, but, if there are such cases, then they certainly are not assisting in agriculture, and we hold no brief whatever for them in this argument.

It was my intention on Monday to put forward to the Government an Amendment somewhat along these lines. I mention it purely academically now, but perhaps they might like to study it as a means of seeing how they could have approached this question:

Page 2, line 29, leave out from "shall" to "accordingly" on line 31, and insert— only be deemed to have been a tenant and the expressions 'let' and 'tenancy' shall only be construed accordingly if the court is satisfied that the owner intends to permit a person not employed in agriculture and not under the terms of his employment to be the next occupant of said premises or part thereof. I do not expect the noble Lord to digest that now, and certainly it is too late for him to do much about it, but perhaps he will be good enough to read it afterwards in the Record of to-day's proceedings and see how much fairer it would have been if the Government had said something like that. Due to the headlong pace at which this measure was, and is, being pushed through, as my noble friend stated earlier, the Government are the only people who could have done this, but they did not do so. It was the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in his intervention, who put that proposal out of court by voluntarily wrapping up the whole reason for this measure in the envelope of doctrinaire Socialism. He said: "We said we would do it, and we did it, and we did not need any more reason than that"; in fact, as my noble friend Lord Conesford echoed in yesterday's debate, "We are the Government now!".

LORD MITCHISON

May I just ask the noble Lord this question? Do I understand from him that carrying out Election promises is doctrinaire Socialism? It is an interesting view.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I think the noble Lord was present when I uninhibitedly, but unintentionally, also broke into what proved to be the peroration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to say that his Party, even in their wildest moments, did not undertake to do everything that any of them had ever said they would do and to do it all before Christmas without suitable time for debate. I am sorry to quote myself but this is the point I was making.

The narrowness of this purpose and the lack of any other requirement were underlined in neat and distinguished manner by the Lord Chancellor in one of his patient replies to an interjection from me. I had asked him to clarify whether one of his statements implied that some of his colleagues had at some time been evicted from a tied cotage. He replied that this was almost inconceivable, since the National Union of Agricultural Workers would have prevented it. It is unthinkable that he was suggesting that the National Union of Agricultural Workers would press a case, not on its merits, but on the political importance of the individual involved. What he must have meant was that in any case of genuine hardship and injustice the National Union of Agricultural Workers are able effectively to intervene.

The case for this Amendment rests securely on the noble and learned Lord's own confidence in the National Union of Agricultural Workers, as well as the good sense and humanity of farmers. The Government, it seems to me, have not a leg to stand on; and even if they had, there would be nowhere to put it, since the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has cut the ground from under their feet. If the noble Lord opposite opposes this Amendment, and continues to oppose it, as he has said, he will be withdrawing the confidence in the National Union of Agricultural Workers which was expressed by his noble and learned friend. If he wishes to do that—and I do not imagine he will—then he must do it; and if he threatens us with holding up the entire Bill, in which we know and have said there are good elements, then he will be putting a particularly clumsy blunderbuss at our heads. But we shall signify our disagreement without, we hope, doing too much harm to the Bill.

LORD CARRINGTON

I wonder whether I might intervene for one moment. It is entirely for my noble friends who put down the Amendment to decide what they are going to do on this occasion. But I have listened to the debate, and I hope I might be forgiven if I express a point of view which is not dissimilar from that of my noble friend behind me, but perhaps slightly less ebullient. I must confess that all of us on both sides know pretty well how we feel about this problem of the tied cottage, because it has been argued over the years. I must also say that I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that it does not come as much of a surprise to me to know that the Labour Government would like to do away with the agricultural tied cottage. We have known this for a long time now. But I think it is worth recording that when the Labour Party were in office for some six years they did not do it. I think this has some bearing on the matter. Nevertheless, it does not surprise me that they want to do away with them.

What my noble friends and I feel is that perhaps this is not the right moment to try to do it in this Bill, which was put before Parliament for a rather different purpose. We feel that, in a way, this is being done by the back door, without quite that discussion and full consultation which we might have hoped would take place, either with Parliament or with the National Farmers' Union. Nevertheless, the positions of both Parties are well known. It is also fair to say that cases of hardship can occur on both sides. Nobody on either side would want to see a man harshly evicted from his house; it would be the last thing that we should want. But certainly the last thing that we should want, also, is to see a farmer put to great personal hardship by reason of his inability to keep a house which he allowed a stockman to use while he was in employment as stockman. So there really is great difficulty in all this.

I think, on the whole, we on this side come down on a different side from noble Lords opposite. But, as we have been told this afternoon, this is a matter in which there are very few cases—twelve or something like that number are known every year. This is an argument which cuts both ways. Some may use it in favour of the Government's proposal, and it may also be used in favour of the views of the Opposition.

But the fact is that this is a comparatively small issue.

The thing that worries me is not so much this proposal—and I do not approve of it—as the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, read out in the course of his reply. What worries me is what will be in the substantive Bill rather than what is in this Bill, because, as I understand it—and I think I am right—this Bill is designed to last for only a few months, and in a few months' time we shall get from noble Lords opposite a Bill in which their final proposals are there for all of us to see. I very much hope that final Bill will not reflect the words which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, read out, because what he said in effect was that no farmer could get possession of a cottage until alternative accommodation had been found for the occupant of the cottage. Of course, this is not proposed at the moment.

This seems to be Holy Writ, as I understand it, on the forty questions in answer to the Labour Party's agricultural policy. I hope, however, that this is not Holy Writ, because if this is proposed, I am sure my noble friends and I would find it impossible to accept it, and we should have to take action accordingly. But I personally would advise my noble friends on this occasion, having made their protest, not to press the matter further today, but rather to hope that the arguments we have used—and we feel that some of them are good and important arguments—will be studied carefully by noble Lords opposite, and also that we may have a chance of seeing how the operation of this Act, when it becomes law, works; and we hope that the hardship on either side will be as little as possible. I would advise my noble friends behind me—although they may not wish to withdraw the Amendment—that on this occasion we should reserve our fire until we see the substantive proposals which the Government intend to put forward, and not waste our ammunition on what is, after all, a Bill to last only a few months.

4.48 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I should like to make one point in regard to eviction in Scotland. I understood the Minister to imply that we had nothing to get hot under the collar about in England regarding this Bill as it applies to tied cottages, as in Scotland, since the 16th century, owners have not been able to evict without going to the court. I have tied cottages both in England and in Scotland. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, knows that in Scotland we have been able to go to court far more quickly than can be done in England. I have never personally evicted anyone in Scotland, and I hope that I never shall do so. But I just want to make that point.

I am rather at a disadvantage here, because I saw these Amendments only just before I came into the Chamber. But if it is possible to go to the court in England as quickly as has been possible in Scotland there probably would not be any great objection to the inclusion of tied cottages in this Bill. I do not know whether that is going to be possible. From my point of view, I can foresee some rogue applying for a job as an agricultural worker, arriving in your house on Monday, telling you to "go to hell" on Tuesday, and going off a few miles away to a factory where he is paid better. He will then be in your house for three or four months rent and rate free. Probably there would be extremely few cases like that, but I think it is a danger. I have some practical experience in this matter.

I will not speak any longer on this question, as I have not had time to read Hansard. I have read the Bill, but I have not had time to study fully the whole question. Of course, it is a technical Bill. I would certainly support the Amendment, because I do not know whether it will be possible to go to the court quickly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

Before my noble friend replies to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may I answer a point raised by the noble Viscount? This was discussed to some extent on Second Reading. I pointed out then, and informed the House, that special arrangements would be made by me for the early hearing of any urgent case. First, any urgent undefended cases could be heard by a registrar, apart from a judge, as the Bill provides. Secondly, a case may be transferred to another court; and, thirdly, as soon as it was ready it would be put into the next day's list, at the head of the list, what- ever was there already. So in any case of urgency it should be possible for a case to be heard in approximately fourteen days.

Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to add this comment, in reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, said. Your Lordships may remember that he said that proceedings in Scotland are very slow. He gave an example from a letter from his solicitors that it may take three months in Scotland. I said that this surprised me very much, because in another place Scotland had been held out, from the point of view of expedition, as an example to us in England. I have since made inquiries, and I am told that there are two forms of proceedings in Scotland. There is the ordinary defended action, which may take a little time to be heard, but in a simple eviction case—what is called an action for summary removal, where the period of notice is only two days—the case comes up on the next court day thereafter. In a rural sheriffdom it might cause a delay of a further seven days, but nine days should be the outside period.

The noble Viscount perhaps omitted to emphasise that this is not an Amendment to exclude agricultural tied cottages from the Bill, because the Bill applies to all tenancies that are not excluded. So it is conceded by the movers of the Amendment that the Bill ought to apply to some tied cottages, though it is sought to exclude those cases which, technically, are licences and not tenancies. That is all it does, whereas, rightly or wrongly, the Government are saying, as the Minister said below, that this is a very delicate and difficult borderline, and it would be silly to indulge in this in a measure that was intended to last for only a few years.

The sole point in issue is whether the landlord is to be allowed to use force. Your Lordships may remember the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. As my noble friend has already said, in Scotland the landlord has not been able to use force to get a tenant out since 1550, and that situation seems to work all right. All that those who are supporting the Amendment are fighting for is the right of a landlord to use force in evicting a holder of a tied cottage if it is a licence and not a tenancy, whereas the Bill would provide that, like everybody else when they are having a dispute, the landlord should have to go to the court.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I thank the noble Lord.

LORD MITCHISON

May I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for what he said? I say that, because I think that, so far as this Bill is concerned, very few cases will be affected. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has put the substantial point more succinctly and better than I could have done, and that is all there is to it. It is a very small matter indeed, but I should like to confirm that we do not regard this Bill as prejudicing, or affecting in any way, permanent legislation on this matter. This is a Bill to protect people from eviction in certain cases; to compel owners to go to the county court, instead of trying to strike this nice balance between the amount of force that may be used and the amount of force that the landlord must not use on his own, in what I believe is called "self-help". We do not want amateur Rachmans about, and people do not intend to be amateur Rachmans. It is much better that they should go to the court in these cases, and therefore I should like, so far as it falls upon me, to accept an olive branch with the more enthusiasm because it was put with such reason and force.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

4.57 p.m.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL moved, after subsection (7), to insert: ( ) for the purpose of this section the expression 'premises' shall not include a caravan as defined by section 29 (1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Developments Act 1960, or, ".

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the Bill and to make it simpler. During the passage of the Bill in another place, the Government spokesman admitted that, in so far as caravans are concerned, the position is confused. The Government spokesman then went on to say that he was sure that the Government would be grateful for any advice in considering the best way of tackling the matter. He further explained that Her Majesty's Government would certainly continue to look at the problem, but that they could give no undertaking that anything could be done in this Bill.

He concluded by stating that the matter was certainly for consideration in the longer term.

I am now taking this opportunity of giving that advice to the Government which they said they would be grateful to receive. The time, however, in which to consider how best to give advice to the Government has been very short indeed, as your Lordships know, and there has been little opportunity to consider the confused situation 10 which reference was made in another place because of the rather rapid way in which this legislation, for well-known reasons, is being rushed along. As your Lordships know, we had the Second Reading of the Bill only on Monday. I put my Amendment down yesterday and, at the same time, did my best to explain privately to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, what I was proposing in my Amendment and why I was proposing it. I thought that this was the best way in which to try to get on with the Bill as quickly as possible.

This Amendment is not meant to be a wrecking Amendment or, indeed, anything but a constructive attempt to make the Bill more workable and simpler. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is quite wrong that legislation should be enacted which is confused and uncertain, and that is what this Bill is at the present time in so far as caravans are affected. Such uncertainty is an open invitation to litigation. At present, it is not known whether caravans are included in this Bill or excluded from it.

It will be within the knowledge of your Lordships that the Rent Acts do not apply to caravans. On the other hand, caravans do come within the terms of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. Confusion arises over the definition of words such as "premises" and "dwellings". The wording in the Rent Acts and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act differs from the wording in this Bill. It may help your Lordships to appreciate the confusion that exists if I explain that the definition of a caravan in the 1960 Act referred to in my Amendment is as follows: … 'caravan' means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted, …

I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will agree that it is not fair to site owners and those who own or let a caravan to be faced with legislation which is as uncertain as is this Bill. These people do not know whether or not they come within the terms of the Bill. If they take certain action they do not know whether it is or it is not criminal action. It surely is quite wrong that legislation should leave this House in such a confused and uncertain state, and that people should be placed in such a position. We are not just dealing with a possible few hundred cases. At the present time there are, I believe, between 70, 000 and 80, 000 caravans used as permanent residential dwellings and hundreds of thousands of static caravans which are used for holiday lettings, as well as those which tour our countryside and cross the Border into Scotland or cross the Channel to tour on the Continent.

Housing legislation is, in any circumstance, by its very nature an extremely difficult subject with which to deal. It is probable that caravan legislation, for obvious technical reasons, is even more complicated. But to try to join the two together is really to create a paradise for lawyers and is an attempt to achieve the impossible. I was on the Standing Committee which considered the Caravan Bill in another place. I also attend meetings of the Parks Committee of the National Caravan Council and am concerned with a company that operates caravan estates, so I have some personal and practical knowledge of the very real difficulties that I greatly fear will be created by this Bill if it is not amended. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that when we pass legislation, be it temporary or permanent, anything to do with caravans should be separated entirely from housing. I would suggest that where protection is needed for tenants of caravans and where that protection is comparable with that needed by tenants of houses and flats, appropriate legislation ought to be enacted by amendment to the Caravan Sites and Control of Developments Act, 1960, and not be a part of housing legislation.

If it is accepted that this Bill ought to be clarified and uncertainty removed from it, then the question may well be asked: why leave out caravans, as proposed in my Amendment, instead of including them? The reason, I think, is that a caravan is mobile. If it is temporarily static, with wheels removed, such a structure can quickly be made mobile. It will be appreciated that this creates quite a different set of conditions from dwellings and premises which have foundations in the ground and are static.

May I be allowed to illustrate my point by giving an example? A landowner has a caravan site licence. On this site he lets a pitch to the owner of a caravan, who, in turn, lets out his caravan to a tenant when he is not using it himself. Let us suppose that the lease of that pitch comes to an end and another caravan is due on that pitch. What happens if the tenant in the caravan that is already there will not leave the caravan? What then is the position? If the owner of the caravan tows this caravan away with the tenant in it, what happens then? Perhaps the site owner tows the caravan away. Who sues whom, and for what? Is it a criminal offence for the landowner to take action to have the caravan removed when it is no longer legally entitled to be on that pitch? What is the relationship of the owner of a caravan with his tenant under this Bill? Again, what are their separate and/or joint relationships with the owner of the site who, to make matters still more complicated, may also be leasing the land on which he has his licensed site from a landowner?

Again, take the case of the owner of a caravan who uses his caravan for a fortnight at Whitsuntide and then lets it out for the rest of the summer to others, perhaps by the week or fortnight, to be occupied by them for their holidays. There are tens of thousands of people who do this and have their caravans fully booked in the spring for summer lettings. What happens if the caravan owner lets out his caravan at a cheap rate throughout the winter months to a person who resides in that caravan because he badly needs residential accommodation throughout the winter—it is not a holiday letting throughout the winter, nor, surely, is such a person considered as occupying lodgings—and then, at the very last moment, just before Whitsuntide, the tenant says that he is not going to leave?

The owner misses his holiday and the other tenants who have already booked accommodation with him during the summer have to make last-minute rearrangements. The sitting tenant remains in the caravan at the cheap winter rate until such time as the courts can decide whether the case comes within the jurisdiction of this Bill. Then, presumably, when this point has been decided one way or another at considerable cost, further legal proceedings will be necessary and more expense incurred to deal with the occupation of that caravan by that tenant.

On Monday, during the course of his winding up of the Second Reading debate, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that this Bill should be kept simple. I entirely agree with him. As the whole purpose of this Amendment is to simplify and clarify this Bill, I know that I must have the noble and learned Lord's wholehearted support of it. I could go on for a long time giving various examples of what might happen under the Bill, but I do not propose to detain your Lordships any further. I hope I have said enough to show that as this Bill is drafted, in so far as caravans are concerned it is uncertain, complicated and will cause confusion if it is not amended along the lines that I have suggested. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government and your Lordships will agree to the acceptance of this Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)

LORD AIREDALE

It looks as though next year's holiday caravan holiday season is also going to be a holiday for lawyers.

LORD MITCHISON

i listened to the very interesting speech of the mover of the Amendment with great attention and, if he will allow me to say so, with particular interest, because I, too, see something of caravans at times. Be that as it may, I am afraid the answer to this Amendment is that it really is unnecessary. The trouble arose out of a Member in another place thinking that caravans had been brought within the scope of the Bill, that they had been added probably inadvertently. They have not—not the ordinary caravan; there are one or two odd varieties I should like to mention in a minute. The moving caravan was what the noble Lord had in mind; he told us so. If you have a moving caravan it will be first on one piece of land and then another. You do not let that caravan; it is not let to anybody. There is either licence or hiring of it. It is only when you come to dig it in, as it were, that any question of letting arises. Those are rather different cases.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, there are many thousands of caravans that are not dug in but remain mobile, but which, on the other hand, remain static in the same place year after year and are let on long lets and short lets to tenants.

LORD MITCHISON

Nevertheless, they are mobile caravans; the noble Lord himself so described them and it was a perfectly accurate description. It does not matter that they do not move perhaps for several years. They are not part of the ground; they are not let. "Letting" and "tenancy" are words which relate to the actual land; they do not relate to something that is lying on it and has the power to move about over it. That is the position as regards caravans; and this is clearly a case, if I am using proper language in your Lordships' House, of "no names, no pack drill". I think all this trouble has arisen from what I believe was a mistake by one Member in another place. I have no doubt that in any ordinary case, at any rate, the moving caravan—the kind of caravan that the noble Lord and I both have in mind, however often or seldom it actually moves—is not within the Bill because it is not let. The question, therefore, does not arise.

The trouble is this. If we put this kind of provision into a Bill it puts ideas into the heads of people; if we have put something in they wonder why we have not put something else in. We add confusion by putting in specific exceptions of this sort. I would point out that the caravan itself it not always wholly identifiable. There was the case that was much relied on by one Member in another place. This related to a very curious object. I do not know whether or not it would have been included in the definition of a caravan that the noble Lord has in mind. It. is worth looking at. This was a decision not of a court but of the Kingston-on-Thames and Area Land Tribunal. They described the caravan thus: An ancient converted horse pantechnicon, Scherzo, which after long and honourable service on the road is practically falling to pieces. I do not think you could let a Scherzo; it is rather doubtful whether you could move it. These things do happen. There was a case of an engineless motor chassis; that was one; and the other was mounted on what appears to be a farm waggon—and I am quoting from the decision of the tribunal: We are of opinion the caravans might with difficulty be moved from one position in the field to another, but could not be considered as ambulatory dwellings. If we are going to exclude caravans, what are we going to do about "ambulatory dwellings" of this kind and Scherzo in the other case?

If in a simple, short emergency Bill of this kind one tries to make specific exceptions one may get into considerable trouble as to what has been excepted. I know there is a statutory definition relied upon, but I can assure the noble Lord that, to the best of my opinion and belief, the ordinary caravan—not these somewhat exotic varieties—is not within the Bill simply, because it is not let.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

While thanking the noble Lord for that statement, it does not really take us much further, because, without any discourtesy to the noble Lord, he knows from his experience in another place and elsewhere that expressions of opinion on the law in this House or in another place count for nothing in the courts. So if the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment in what, after all, is temporary legislation, it may well mean next year a paradise for lawyers in trying to find out what is the meaning and what is the purpose of this Bill.

However, my whole point is that I do not think legislation ought to leave this House where there is any doubt or uncertainty at all. I hope at any rate that your Lordships' time has not been wasted by my having drawn attention to the very real difficulties which arise where housing and caravans are concerned, and hope that what has been said on this occasion may be taken note of by the Government when more permanent legislation is enacted in the near future, both for caravans and for houses. I should not like it to be thought that there need by any difference between houses and caravans where it may be necessary to see that justice is done for any tenant or owner of a caravan. I would suggest that anything of that kind should be done by means of different legislation when it comes to enacting permanent legislation; and, therefore, because this Bill is only a temporary Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

5.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I want to raise a point on Clause 1. I think it is probably the appropriate clause on which to raise it. This clause, after all, imposes these general restrictions on recovery of possession, and what is a very relevant factor in relation to that—and this is why I think it is probably the right clause on which to raise it—is the time which it will take to bring such cases before the courts. In the course of his reply on Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor touched upon this subject, and I want to invite his elaboration of what he said on that occasion. He said that it ordinarily takes about six weeks to bring a case before the courts, in some places five to seven weeks, and in some places six to eight weeks."—[Official Report, Vol. 262 (No. 21), col. 345, December 14, 1964.] I have not got the records available, but my impression was that in some parts of the country it might take considerably longer than that between the issue of a plaint and the hearing of the case. Then he went on to say this—and I agree with him: It is very important that proceedings under this Bill should reach the county court quickly". He then added: and there are various ways of doing this. Then he went on to say: I am proposing by administrative directions to see, first, that any undefended case is taken at the earliest date and is put first in the list and in front of anything else that may be in the list. I want to ask the noble and learned Lord what exactly is meant by "administrative directions" in this context. Does it mean that there are going to be rules of court which are available for everyone to see; or does it mean that the noble and learned Lord is going to tell county court judges in what order they are to try their cases? If the latter, is that not almost without precedent? Again, I have not looked into the history of this, but I should have thought it was unprecedented for a Lord Chancellor to say to a county court judge in what order he should dispose of the cases in his list. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would explain exactly what he meant by these "administrative directions". It is one thing to ask a county court judge to do certain things; it is, of course, another to direct him. I do not think—I speak with great respect—that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has himself any power to direct county court judges as to the manner in which they deal with the work and the cases they have to try. I may be wrong, but I cannot think of a precedent for this.

But of course if that is done—and I certainly am not objecting to steps being taken for the prompt hearing of these cases—I think one must have some regard to the position of the ordinary litigant. If the effect of this is going to be that the cases of ordinary litigants are going to be deferred, postponed and will take much longer to hear because of the accelerated treatment given to these cases, then I must say that I regard this as serious. I know that county court judges are at the present time heavily engaged. Many of them have to travel a great many miles to sit in their courts, to sit all day and motor home in all kinds of weather. Others have extremely heavy lists. I know that this is a temporary Bill, but does it really mean that for the currency of this Bill there will be a material delay in hearing the cases of ordinary litigants? I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would deal with this, because frankly I feel anxiety about it.

I have not given the noble and learned Lord notice that I was going to raise these points. I am sorry I have not found it possible to do so. If he is not in a position to reply now to the points I am raising—I am sure he will appreciate that I am not raising them in a controversial sense, but because I feel really anxious about them—I hope that he will at least in the course of the passage of this Bill explain in more detail how this is going to be done and what its effect will be, or is likely to be, on the ordinary litigant. I know that he says that the registrars will have power to try these cases. Registrars have the power to try a great many cases. But they, too, at the present time, without the burden imposed by this Bill, are heavily occupied. At least that has always been my impression. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appreciates that I am raising these matters out of concern for general administration.

In column 346 the noble and learned Lord went on to say: where it is merely an argument about how long the occupier is to stay on and on what terms, then such a case, I hope, ought to be before the county court within, say, fourteen to twenty-one days—and, I would hope, fourteen. He went on to add: A county court judge would have power to transfer cases from his court to another if there is another more convenient court which is meeting earlier. I doubt whether, if the test of the more convenient court is applied, that will be made use of to any extent, because the plaint will be started in the most convenient court from the point of view of locality.

I have not looked this up, but in regard to this power to transfer a case to another county court where the case might be dealt with earlier, even though it is less convenient—and where such transfer takes place it normally will be to a less convenient court than that in which the plaint was first issued—it may be that the noble and learned Lord was using the phrase "to a more convenient court" in the sense that it would enable the case to be disposed of more rapidly. I do not wish to put too much weight upon that. But I am really concerned about the nature of the administrative directions that it is proposed to give. Will they be in rules? Will they be made public so that we can see them? Secondly, I am concerned about what is going to be the effect on the position of the ordinary litigant in the county courts, which, as the noble and learned Lord knows, are quite fully engaged at the present time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

These, of course, will be matters for the consideration of the county court judges. But naturally, before I said what I did, I had made inquiries as to both the present volume of work in those courts and the sort of volume of work which was likely to result from this Bill. The attention of the county court judges would be drawn first to the fact that under this Bill there might be urgent cases: not every case will be urgent; and what I said on Second Reading should be understood as referring to cases in which there is some reason, either from the point of view of the landlord or from that of the tenant—probably the landlord—why the case should be heard at an early date. Their attention would be drawn to the fact that the Bill itself enables such proceedings to be heard by the registrar. They would be reminded of their existing powers, both as to ability to transfer cases from one court to another to abridge the time in a case where it is necessary or desirable to abridge the time, and in the arrangement of their lists. I am satisfied that the volume of work which is likely to flow will not prejudice the hearing of the cases of other litigants.

It must be remembered, of course, that this is a Bill which is intended to operate for only a matter of months. This is a question of holding up eviction until a proper Rent Bill is ready. I feel sure that, if the relevant considerations are pointed out to learned county court judges, they will make use of the powers which they have. I did add—and I will repeat—that if it should prove necessary to give them any further powers by rule, I should certainly be prepared to do it. After all, so far as I am aware, outside London there is no authority which has any homes for evicted families which can take a whole family, and until recently that was the case in London. Out of 9,000 children in care in London 1,000 are children, not who have anything wrong with them or whose parents do not want them; they are simply and solely in a home as a result of evictions. Once a family gets broken up, none of us can really ever say whether or not it will come together again. It is to stop this, until the permanent legislation is ready in the spring or whenever it may be ready, that this Bill is before your Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I was not, of course, dealing with the merits of the proposal. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of what he meant when he spoke on Second Reading. He has now made it clear that when he referred to administrative directions, the word "directions" was not quite the accurate word to use; that in fact he is going to remind or inform judges of the county courts of the position, and I am sure, as no doubt he is, that they will co-operate to the best of their ability. But he will also appreciate that there is a very great deal of difference between drawing matters to the attention of county court judges and giving them directions. I make no apology for raising this technical point, and we shall watch with interest to see whether this does lead to delay in ordinary litigation. I hope the noble and learned Lord will keep his eye on this and not hesitate to take steps to avoid such a result should it appear likely to come about.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Before we leave this point, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, whether he has yet had time to consult his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the possibility of taking similar steps in Scotland?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I understand it, Scotland is more fortunate and it will not be necessary. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was here when I said something on this point before. The position in Scotland is, as I stated a little time ago, that if the short form of proceedings is used one would have to give only two days' notice, and the case then comes on on whatever is the next day on which the court is sitting. I have communicated with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am informed that that is the position in Scotland. If that is so, it is very much more expeditious than the situation in England.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Suspension of execution of order for possession

2.

(2) Where the court by virtue of this section suspends the execution of an order for the possession of any premises it may authorise the withdrawal from the occupier of any specified services or furniture and impose such terms and conditions, including conditions as to the payment by the occupier of arrears of rent, rent or mesne profits and otherwise, as the court thinks reasonable.

(4) In considering whether or how to exercise its powers under this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, to the following, that is to say,— (a) whether the occupier has failed (whether before or after the termination of the former tenancy) to observe any terms or conditions thereof; (c) whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation;

5.33 p.m.

THE EARL OFKINNOULL moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that so long as this Act applies to a dwelling, the occupier and the owner thereof shall, except so far as the court may otherwise order or direct by virtue of this subsection, be required to observe and be entitled to the benefit of all the terms and conditions of the former tenancy; but so that the acceptance by the owner of rent or other payment made by the occupier shall not be evidence of the creation of any tenancy nor shall any notice to quit be required prior to the recovery of possession of the dwelling when this Act has ceased to apply to it.

The noble Earl said: Although this Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper is rather lengthy, it is both simple and constructive in character. The purpose is to make perfectly clear what are the rights between the landlord and tenant under this Bill when a tenancy comes to an end and the suspended period begins. The Amendment is designed to encourage both the landlord and the tenant to settle in a friendly spirit a tenancy by consent during this period and not to create a deluge of cases for reference to the courts in order to determine the respective rights of the parties. Strong doubts were expressed in another place on this matter and, with respect, I do not think that the answer given there was very clear. All that is known is that when a landlord applies for an order for possession the tenant can be granted occupation for a further twelve months. It does not seem clear whether the occupier under these conditions is to be considered as the contractual tenant, as a statutory tenant, or just as a trespasser.

The landlord appears to have three courses open to him under this Bill at the termination of a tenancy. He may agree terms amicably with a tenant; he may apply for a possession order to the court, which will be pointless; or he may just allow the tenant to remain in possession without applying for a suspended order. Supposing that under the previous tenancy agreement there was a repairing covenant, and the landlord chooses to allow the tenant to remain in occupation without applying for a suspended order, it would appear that he can say to the tenant, should the tenant complain that the roof is falling in, "The statute allows you to stay in this house, but it does not say that I have to repair the premises."

The other purpose of this Amendment covers the question of the landlord's accepting rent from the tenant during the suspended period. I have taken advice on this point, and I am told that as such a tenant is not defined under the Bill the landlord would be ill-advised to accept rent from the. tenant in case it was implied that he was creating a further tenancy. If the tenant was a controlled tenant it is clear in law where the landlord stands. I suggest that this rent problem can create great bitterness between landlord and tenant. As I have said, the purpose of this Amendment is to make clear the rights between the landlord and the tenant during the suspended period and to prevent parties from having to clog up the courts in order to determine what their respective rights are. This Amendment sets out to fulfil both these purposes. I trust that it will be considered favourably by the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)

LORD HASTINGS

I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this Amendment; I have very little to add. What I have to say relates only to the question of rent, which is a matter of real difficulty for both landlord and tenant. They honestly do not know what to do in this sort of situation. I remember that in the other place the Parliamentary Secretary rather pooh-poohed this, saying that it was a bit of folklore that if the landlord accepted a rent he would be creating a new tenancy in this sort of situation after the old tenancy had finished. In point of fact the Parliamentary Secretary must be wrong. Surely that refers only to statutory, controlled tenancies: it would not refer to any other form of tenancy. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would enlighten us on this point. If I am right, it is all the more important to have something written into the Bill to clarify the point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Government have, of course, carefully considered this, but are satisfied that this very complicated proviso is unnecessary and would only cause unnecessary complications. The Bill does not apply at all where somebody goes and squats in somebody else's house. It applies only to tenants after the tenancy has been fully determined. At that point if the tenant remains, not necessarily because he is a wicked man but because he cannot find anywhere to go, the landlord will either come to terms with him or will apply to the court for an eviction order. If he applies to the court for an eviction order, then this will not arise. If he comes to terms with him, that means there will be a new tenancy.

The only other situation one can envisage is that the landlord might, I suppose, say to the tenant: "You can remain there for ever, and I don't want any rent." That, I suppose, would be strictly a tenancy as well. But if they come to terms, there is a new tenancy—it may be on weekly terms, or on a day's notice, or on any terms they agree. But if that happens that tenancy will have to come to an end before the landlord can go to the court. As soon as that tenancy comes to an end he can go to the court again.

The only other point which could arise is that the tenant might want to pay something in the two or three weeks before the matter got to the court because he would know that the court would order him to go on paying it. But there is no difficulty about a landlord's taking it provided that he makes it clear that he is taking it as mesne profit and not as rent. It is not right to say that any complication need be anticipated, whereas with a proviso of this kind which says that he is "required to observe and be entitled to the benefit of all the terms and conditions of the former tenancy" that is a matter which the court would no doubt resolve when the case came before it. But the Amendment seeks to lay down terms that they are "required to observe". But the contract has already expired. This has nothing to do with what the court is going to order. This is really creating a new kind of statutory tenancy. That is what would be done if this Amendment were accepted. In our view, therefore, it is fortunately unnecessary to complicate this temporary Bill by provisions of that kind, as the anticipated difficulties will not arise. We are therefore, I am afraid, unable to accept the Amendment

LORD HASTINGS

There is just one point that I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord. He mentioned that the landlord and tenant might enter into a new agreement, perhaps on a weekly or monthly basis, and it does seem hard that, if a landlord said, "You can stay there for six months", he should have to go to the court if the tenant did not get out, when the six months' period was up. I was rather attracted by the suggestion of the Liberal Member for Orpington in the other place, who said that, surely, if the landlord extends the tenancy for the maximum period of twelve months in the Bill, the tenant should not be allowed to stay in the premises after that, and why should the court be worried about it? It seems to me, the tenancy having come to an end, that they should be allowed to agree on a firm basis and the tenant ought not to have any legal rights at the end of it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Of course, that inevitably follows in the case of any tenancy when notice has been given and comes to an end. Of course, it is fair to say that the tenant has been given notice; either for a fixed period which has come to an end, or due notice of whatever length of notice he is entitled to. But if it is right that in those circumstances a landlord should be prevented from evicting the tenant by force, even though the tenancy has come to an end, and should have to go to the court, it should equally be the case where, a tenancy having ended, the parties have come to terms and agreed a tenancy. There is no reason why that new agreed tenancy should not also be subject to the provisions of the Bill.

THE EARL OFKINNOULL

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply and for the advice he has given on this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.42 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (4) (c), after "obtain" to insert "or has refused an offer of". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hastings. I understand that in subsection (4) of this clause we are considering how a court, where it is making an order for possession, is to decide whether to suspend the execution of the order. Subsection (4) says that it is to have regard to all the circumstances and that it should have regard, in particular, to certain considerations. The second of those considerations, under paragraph (b), is whether an occupier "has unreasonably refused an offer of a tenancy" of the same premises or part of them.

What an occupier needs is a roof over his head, but not necessarily the same roof over his head—the roof of the house that he is occupying. If that were not so, indeed there would be no point in subsection (c), on whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation", which implies, of course, that an occupier may at least in certain circumstances be expected to look for other suitable accommodation. Of course he may not need to look for it; he may be offered other suitable accommodation.

My noble friend and I considered whether this Amendment should go into paragraph (b) or paragraph (c). Obviously, instead of offering accommodation in the same premises which might be highly inconvenient, totally impracticable, and quite unsuitable, the owner might offer it in other premises over which he has control. But the owner might himself find suitable accommodation or persuade someone else to offer it, and so we thought it was better to put this Amendment in paragraph (c) rather than paragraph (b).

The noble Lord who is to reply may say that, if an occupier refuses other suitable accommodation, whether offered by the owner of the premises he is occupying or by some other person, he clearly has not made efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. But I should have thought that to go looking for accommodation or to make efforts to find accommodation was quite a different thing from being given an offer without any effort at all. One does not know what view the courts might take of this, but I should have thought they might well say that if Parliament had intended the courts to have particular regard to an offer of other suitable accommodation—as much regard as they have to considerations (b) or (c)—Parliament would have said so.

The last point I should like to make is that under this subsection the court has to have regard to all the circumstances. I may be told that it would therefore be bound, in any case, to have regard to an offer of other suitable accommodation. But if the court is to be obliged to have regard in particular to an offer of a tenancy in the same premises, it might well feel that it should pay very much less attention to an offer of "other suitable accommodation". I submit that the words in the Amendment would be a reasonable addition and would make the considerations which the court is expected to take particularly into account very much clearer and very much more comprehensive. Even if the noble Lord were to say, "Of course, the court will take this into consideration", what my noble friend and I feel is that it should take it into equal consideration with the other considerations that are spelled out in this subsection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, after ("obtain") insert ("or has refused an offer of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD MITCHISON

The advice I have had, and, I may add, my own opinion, is that this Amendment is really unnecessary. One does not want to add to language which has been fairly carefully considered, unless there is some substantial reason for it. The way I look at the matter is this. The county court is directed among other things to look particularly at the question whether the occupier has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation. I should have thought, if he had in fact refused an offer of other suitable accommodation, that that was either the same thing or so close to it that, having regard to the language of the clause as a whole, the county court judge must count it as something which had happened and which he had to regard very seriously. I do not think there is any contradiction. I think that if somebody tried to say, "You, the county court judge, have been asked to look particularly at any failure to make reasonable efforts, but you have not been asked to look with the same intensity at the refusal of an offer", even a county court judge might smile a little at that suggestion.

I think that this is an unnecessary Amendment, and one does not want to complicate the language in a short Bill of this sort which has a particular object, unless there is some real reason for it. I am advised, and for what it is worth my own opinion is, that the Amendment really would not help at all. All that is likely to happen is that it might introduce a little more complication into what is tolerably simple.

LORD HASTINGS

The fact is we were very surprised that in the other place the Amendment was refused in relation to paragraph (b), which appears immediately before. That deals with the action taken by the landlord where he is offering a tenancy of the premises or part of the premises. It seemed to Members in the other place very reasonable, for clarification and simplication—precisely what the noble Lord himself says the Bill is aiming at—to add" or other suitable accommodation." The noble Lord will probably remember that there seemed to be a little confusion of mind in the other place, and nobody quite knew whether the Amendment had been voted on and, if so, for or against.

When it came up at Report stage I thought the Government spokesman refused it rather shamefacedly. I am not sure that it should have been refused, and I thought it might be better to put it in paragraph (c) on this occasion. However, I should have thought it would have clarified things in one subsection or the other; but, of course, it is not a matter I am going to press. If the noble Lord would like to look at it again, and then felt able to put it down on Report stage, we should be very pleased; but we shall not press the Amendment.

LORD MITCHISON

If I may say so to the noble Lord, I, too, agree this does not raise any deep question of principle or anything of that sort, but I can merely repeat that not only my advice but my own opinion is that it would not really add anything. When you try to clarify this kind of thing by adding to it, very often you introduce more confusion. I think the shorter you can make a thing of this kind, if you have really covered the substance of it, the better. It is not a matter one feels strongly about, but I think it is a case where the Government, on the advice they have had and on the opinion we ourselves hold, ought to adhere to what they think is the simplest way of calling the attention of the county court judge to the kind of point that the noble Lord has in mind. I hope that can be accepted.

LORD AIREDALE

If the Minister does not feel all that strongly about it, and if noble Lords on this side of the Committee do feel strongly that this very short Amendment would make for clarification and would be very well worth while, will the Minister now give an undertaking that he will consider this matter again between now and the Report stage? Otherwise, I should be very pleased to vote for this Amendment if I had the opportunity.

LORD MITCHISON

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but it really would not be fair to say that consideration would lead to any change. It has been considered, and the opinion I gave is the collective opinion of the Ministry for which I am speaking and, incidentally—and I would say only incidentally—my own. It is a question of language and a little bit of first impression. But I suppose our duty is to put into the Bill what we think will best give effect to an intention which I believe to be completely common on this point between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. I think we all want the same thing, but we consider it is simplest and best expressed in the existing language, and that to add these words would not help and might hinder. I think that, on a question of this sort, we really must adhere to our own opinion and do what we believe to be best, I repeat, for a common intention.

LORD AIREDALE

I just do not follow why it is that the Government draw this distinction between the refusal of an offer of a tenancy of the premises, or part of the premises, on the one hand, and other alternative accommodation upon the other hand. What is the subtle distinction here?

LORD MITCHISON

I will see whether I can satisfy the noble Lord as I satisfied myself—because, of course, one does think about this sort of thing. It seems to me that a county court judge who is called upon to look at all the circumstances and, in particular, to the following … whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation; … clearly could not exclude evidence that an offer had been refused, and, if he had that evidence before him, clearly could not fail to give full weight to it. There seems to me to be no real substance, if I may say so, in the distinction. I cannot see how you can say that you are called upon to consider whether a man has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation; … and then say that you must not pay the same attention to the refusal of an offer. It is not as though these were limiting words. These are particularities in the general, and that is a little different. If these were limiting words I would put the Amendment in at once, without any hesitation, and a lot more, too. But when you are indicating to a judge what he should direct his attention to, I can only say that it seems to me fairly clear that he would have to look at this and attribute full weight to it.

LORD AIREDALE

I agree. I am sure we are completely ad unum; and the matter could be made abundantly clear by putting these further six words into the Bill.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I would agree with my noble friend Lord Hastings that our first reaction was surprise that words of the kind I have indicated were not in the clause originally, especially as the noble Lord has made it plain that it was his intention that this kind of consideration should be covered. But, having said that, and while expressing gratitude for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in this matter, I am content to rest on the assurance of Lord Mitchison that this is a matter which he has very carefully considered and which, in the view of the Department and in his own opinion, both administrative and legal, is fully covered by the clause as it now stands. If that is so, then I am content to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Restrictions on operation of foregoing sections.

3.—(1) The following provisions of this Act do not apply where the former tenancy was—

5.57 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to insert as a new paragraph (a): (a) a contract

  1. (i) to which the Rent of Furnished Houses (Scotland) Act 1943 and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 as amended by the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949 applied immediately before the termination thereof or would then have applied but for the provision as to rateable value contained in section 12 (1) of the Rent Act 1957; and
  2. (ii) which related to premises situate in an area which was not at the termination thereof designated by an order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government (made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) as one to which the provision of this Act apply."

The noble Lord said: This, of course, is a very important Amendment, fundamental to the Bill, both from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of the Opposition. The effect of including this Amendment would be to take out of this temporary measure all furnished dwellings, apart from those which fall under the control of rent tribunals; that is to say, those houses which have a rateable value of £40 in London or £30 outside London. The first point I wish to make is that the existing rent tribunals are to remain in existence, and one fails to see how they are going to operate in conjunction with this Bill when a great many other furnished buildings will come under the Bill. It seems rather a duplication, and I should like some comment on that. It does not seem a very reasonable thing to do.

Apart from that, of course, we feel that it is quite wrong to include furnished dwellings having a net annual value of up to £400. It seems to us wrong to include all furnished dwellings in this purely temporary measure when the real aim of the Government is of a different nature altogether—and I will come to that in a moment. The Bill as it stands is going to cause more than inconvenience, I think: it may cause very real damage and hardship to a great many people.

First of all, there are those people whose job takes them overseas, it may be for quite a short time—perhaps six months; or, perhaps, for someone in the Diplomatic Service, for two years. Perhaps they are business men, or, particularly, people in the Services—because there is a continual turnover of these people going to and fro. Naturally, they let their furnished houses while they are away, and they expect to be able to get them back on the day they return. I am sure it is the intention and the wish of the Government, as well as of ourselves, that they should be able to do so. It will be very awkward for these people if they cannot get rid of a tenant in time. I do not know the answer to this problem, but it must be thought about very deeply before the Government produces legislation.

Then we come to purely winter lettings. During the winter in various small towns, and particularly at the seaside, people let their houses and flats for a comparatively low rent, and then expect the tenants to get out to enable the owners to carry on with their holiday trade. It is easy for somebody to take advantage of that situation and to stay on at the low winter rent and make a great deal of trouble for the owner. He may also, incidentally, upset the whole of the lettings, which are probably on a fortnightly basis, for four or five months during the summer and the holiday time. There are also the short lettings during the summer period itself. These tenants also, apparently, could stay in and "upset the apple cart" for a whole lot of people, apart from the landlady, because the case might be the subject of legal action for damages, with the result that many people might have their holidays ruined. I am sure that this is not the purpose of the Government.

On this last point, I regard as important what was said in this House on the Second Reading, when the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, gave it as considered opinion, and as legal advice coming from his own Department, that summer lettings at the seaside will not be within the Bill because the occupiers, although they may be in occupation, will not be in residence. Then he added that the reference to "residence" has been included since the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, and the definition of "occupier" appears in Clause 1 (2) in order to avoid any misunderstanding. I pointed out that perhaps there was a slight inaccuracy, since the Amendment was moved, not in order to avoid any misunderstanding on that point, but in connection with a different clause for a different purpose.

But, to refer back to the earlier words, that this word "residence" has that effect; that was denied—or, at least, aspersions were cast on it by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said that he could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. He said he quite realised that people who live by the seaside let their flats for the summer holidays (and I understand that there is an increasing number of flat lettings rather than the letting of single rooms or lodgings for this holiday purpose) and go away, but that if such a flat is self-contained there is a tenancy and of course the Act will apply. This is a serious matter. It is surely not the intention of the Government to cause this effect, but we must have this particular aspect cleared up and I would ask the noble Lord opposite to give an undertaking that this matter will be looked into.

There was an alternative Amendment in another place which expressly excluded summer lettings. I think we should have an undertaking, in view of the contradiction of advice received from the other side. If I am right in assuming that the Government do not want to catch these people out, either landladies or holiday-makers, I think they should have accepted something like the alternative Amendment in another place, referring to summer lettings or short lettings, and with reference to a perfectly practical Act which exists in New Zealand in this regard. I hope that we shall have an undertaking, otherwise I am afraid that we shall have to move another Amendment at the Report stage to look after this particular point. So I invite the noble Lord to lake note of that and to give me this undertaking, if he can.

Coming to the second half of the Amendment, we fully recognise the real reason behind the Government's wish to include furnished dwellings in this temporary measure. It is to protect people in London, and some of the other congested cities where landlords have taken advantage of the existing legislation to get out of the Rent Acts for unfurnished dwellings by putting in a stick of furniture and calling the accommodation furnished. That is not a very happy situation, and it is a very real problem in this city.

We on this side of the House, when we formed the Government, asked the Milner Holland Committee to consider most particularly in London all furnished dwellings and rented dwellings, both private and local authority; and I was glad to see the other day that the Minister has had a preview of the Report and that it will be available quite soon in the New Year. I hope that it will be published. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he replies, will be able to tell me that. The Minister said that he wanted to look at that Report before casting his major legislation. But we ourselves said that we were going to take action in the light of the recommendations of the Milner Holland Committee, so it is perfectly consistent on our side to agree with legislation of this nature affecting London and the congested cities. That is the purpose of the second half of the Amendment, which would enable the Minister to designate the areas to which this Bill should apply, and to leave everybody else unaffected.

I should have thought that, particularly in an emergency measure, that would have been more than adequate. If the whole landlord-and-tenant relationship, including furnished dwellings, is to be recast in major legislation later next year, that will need a great deal of consideration. At the moment, it seems that the Government have not sufficiently considered the matter, because by this temporary measure they are going to do a lot of damage to people whom they do not wish to hurt. That is why we are giving the opportunity to the Government to exclude, certainly the summer lettings, on the one hand, and on the other, to cover the people they wish to cover by designating the necessary areas. I should have thought that was quite a simple thing to do, and I hope that the Government will think over and accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 11, insert the said paragraph—(Lord Hastings.)

6.8 p.m.

LORD WOLVERTON

As my name is coupled with this Amendment I should like to support it, because it is a major Amendment which, as my noble friend has said, takes out all the furnished dwellings from the Bill but gives the Minister power to make regulations approved by both Houses of Parliament applying the Bill's provisions in special areas. I feel that to sweep in all the furnished dwellings which were not swept in before would cause a great hardship. I should like to put one case before the Committee. Suppose a Service man and his wife are ordered abroad at short notice, and let their house for a tenancy of two years, the period of his tour of duty abroad. Then they come back, probably with young children, and find that the tenants will not get out because, they say, they have nowhere else to go. The tenant says: "My wife has just had a baby, and I cannot move out." In that event the case must go to court, and the court has to decide where lies the greater hardship. I think it will upset the whole of the short lettings if owners are placed in that sort of position, and they will think seriously whether or not they will let their house.

I heard a noble Lord on Monday say that he thought there ought to be many more furnished dwellings available, and certainly we all want to see that. But if we are going to put such provisions in the Bill, it means that people will have to go to all the expense of a court order, and it will make them think twice before they let. It is not necessary to have this procedure all over the country, because, when all is said and done, the great shortage of accommodation is in the big cities like London and Birmingham, which have been greatly affected by the large number of overseas residents coming into this country—so much so that we have had to bring in legislation to impose quotas on overseas residents. There is nothing like the same urgency outside. Many of these large cities have little land left for housing and have to go out to new towns to accommodate their populations.

In the second part of this Amendment we have provision for this, but I cannot see that it is necessary in many parts of the country, where the pressure is not so great, for people to go through this difficult procedure. We are told that permanent legislation is to come along, and I think that something on these lines should be included in that permanent legislation. I support the Amendment.

LORD MITCHISON

I agree with the two noble Lords who have spoken to the Amendment, that it is an important one. Indeed, if it were passed I think that it would have a serious effect on the scope of the Bill. What I think we have to bear in mind on this Amendment is exactly what the Bill is doing. It is an emergency measure. It will oblige some people in some circumstances to go to the county court and get an order, instead of turning people out forcibly. That is really all it does—with the one exception of requisitioned dwellings, which is a minor matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, spoke about upsetting the apple cart. I cannot feel that we are going to upset many, or indeed any, apple carts by a landlord going to the court instead of taking upon himself—self-help, it is sometimes called—the extremely difficult job of forcibly evicting somebody without using too much force. That is what the whole of this Bill is about. It does not prevent people from coming to agreements. It simply prevents "wrongful eviction", as the Scots call it. It limits Rachmanism. There may not always be "Rachmans" involved, but all kinds of other circumstances. And in a simple measure of this sort one has to consider carefully the addition of complications.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for recognising that there are large parts of the country where something of this sort is urgently necessary. I think it was that in the minds of noble Lords opposite that led them to accept the Bill on Second Reading. I think we could all agree about that as a matter of common sense and one's own experience. But I think that we must be careful about going too far over this. A city like London is not uniformly virtuous or uniformly vicious, and there might be more evil in trying to legislate on a geographical basis the geographical location of virtue being somewhat uncertain. Especially in a temporary measure, and under the present circumstances, we must deal with it as simply as we possibly can.

This Amendment requires two points to be satisfied. First of all, one has to be within a district which the Minister has designated for the purposes of the Act and, secondly, there are provisions about furnished lettings, which I will come to in a minute. Therefore, it is within the designated districts that this question applies. I think that I have that right. It would leave London, if it is going to be designated, out of the picture, and this provision would apply, let me say, to Bournemouth or some place of that character.

LORD HASTINGS

I think that it is the other way round. This excludes from the provisions of the proposed Bill areas which are not especially designated.

LORD MITCHISON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I got it right the first time and then confused myself. With regard to the geographical point, this not only would complicate the matter, but would also involve difficulty about whether to apply it to a mixed area (if I may call it so for this purpose) which does not obviously call for the functions of the Bill. It would also involve us in difficulties about drawing a sharp line between different areas and having one law on one side of the street and another law on the other. This is the kind of thing we want to avoid in an Act of this kind.

Apart from this question, there is the more substantial question of furnished lettings as a whole. What we have done is to apply these provisions to every tenancy or, perhaps more accurately, after every tenancy. We have not had regard to whether it was furnished or unfurnished, and I think that is a perfectly clear and simple thing to do. If, however, we are going to take furnished accommodation out, we are, in a measure of this sort, asking for trouble. This is not a Bill intended to deal with landlords as a whole, but with bad landlords. If a landlord is good and behaves as reasonable people do, I doubt whether this Bill is ever going to come his way at all. In the ordinary course of things, if a good landlord wanted possession he would go to the court about it, and this Bill is not needed to oblige him to do so. It is the kind of people who will take every possible advantage within the law, or on the edges of the law, whom we have to deal with here.

This business has already begun. We have already had certain attempts, and I would repeat the passage out of the Economist: Landlords are buying or attempting to buy tenants' furniture so as to convert leases to furnished tenancies. We can get the inverse process, and there are all sorts of ways out of being under rent control. Generally, there has been considerable difficulty about what "furnished" meant. Are premises furnished when you put a bit of linoleum on the floor? How many chairs have you to put in for them to be "furnished"? All these points are connected with attempts by landlords to get out of the legislation about unfurnished accommodation by turning it into furnished accommodation, and it was these attempts which led to the rent tribunals. If we now bring in an emergency Act and do not apply it to furnished lettings, we are simply asking for the same trouble in exactly the same circumstances, and we shall get the trouble from the same kind of people who had to be dealt with by the rent tribunals and the legislation about them.

I was asked: is not the legislation about rent tribunals sufficient? What will be left for the rent tribunals to do? The short answer to the second question is that they are rent tribunals to fix rents. That is their primary object. While they have powers about security of tenure ancillary to that, they will still have to carry out the job of fixing rents where they find the rents unreasonable. But it is true that they give some security of tenure in cases where they have to fix the rent.

But there are various troubles about this. One is that a great many of the premises which are included for the purpose of the Bill would be beyond the jurisdiction of the rent tribunal, because those tribunals deal only with the limitations of rent control, and that is something that does not apply here. The larger and more expensive houses all come under the £400 figure—or, if the noble Lord prefers it, his own £300 figure—and do not come within the rent control provision.

There is another difficulty about this. I can hear noble Lords saying: "We do not very much mind about that. We do not think the danger is as great." I am not sure that this is right. The rent control figures are very low, but that is another matter. One unsatisfactory feature about the rent control legislation is that if you are going to get security of tenure you have to go to the rent tribunal before the notice to quit is served. That is the real difficulty in these cases. I mentioned this on Second Reading;. Perhaps at this hour of the night I might put it in this way. I am sure that rent control, the rent tribunals and the legislation about them would not give the protection given by this Bill against the landlord who wants to evict by force rather than by going to the county court. That is the whole thing. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to refuse this Amendment.

I rather lost count (it was my fault; I should have taken a more careful note) of what the noble Lord asked me to do, but I think I picked up one thing. I can repeat that this Bill must be taken as without prejudice, as it were, to what may be done in the, larger Bill. Because in this Bill we treat furnished and unfurnished lettings for this purpose together, it by no means follows that they will be so treated in any other legislation. I am not giving a promise as to what the legislation will be. It is because we are thinking it over and waiting for the Report of the Milner Holland Committee that we want this temporary emergency legislation. I remember that the noble Lord asked me about the publication of the Milner Holland Report. I do not officially know the answer, and I can only say that, personally, I should be surprised if it were not published. I should have thought it was the kind of Report that would be published. But that must not be taken as an undertaking from the Government. If the noble Lord would like me to inquire further about it, perhaps he would tell me. If I have missed any other points in the noble Lord's speech it is due to the infirmity of my recollection.

6.24 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving such a comprehensive explanation, and, if I may, I should like to compliment him on its clearness and the approach he has made to this matter. The two important points that he made were, first, that you have to apply to the rent tribunals before a notice to quit is given; and secondly—and this is a point which, to the best of my recollection, was not raised in another place—that if you included all unfurnished dwellings in this comprehensive temporary measure on security of tenure, and did not include furnished dwellings, then people would begin furnishing the unfurnished dwellings. I quite appreciate that point.

But the noble Lord still has not really answered the question of the difficulty of these summer lettings. He said that we should not try to complicate the thing. It seems to me that the Government are a little obstinate here. They are the ones who are introducing complications and difficulties for themselves and for other people, and we want to help them sort it out. The noble Lord also said: "Surely it is only a question of going to the court instead of forcibly evicting people". But there is a rather different situation in respect of holidays lettings. There is no time to go to the court on short lettings of a fortnight, or, for that matter, even to get the short-winter-let tenant out. After all, these people have their own homes. They came from somewhere, and they must have somewhere to go back to. It is not as if they are rendered homeless. I frankly think that the landlord who is having holiday lettings upset is quite justified in putting them out, bag and baggage, on the doorstep, if they refuse to move. I cannot see that there is any moral argument against it in the particular case where people are not rendered homeless, and I think the Government should deal with that matter. Otherwise the Bill is going to have a very bad effect, not only on holiday lettings, but in regard to furnished dwellings in general.

I should like to read to your Lordships some extracts from two letters that have been sent to me. In the first the people are writing from Hampshire, and this is what they say: For several years my wife has provided two furnished flats at Swanage. These have been in very great demand, particularly from people with young children and also from the occasional Serviceman on leave. These flats were let almost exclusively for periods of a fortnight, except for the occasional winter let. Because of the expense involved in travelling to and from the flats we decided to sell them and in their place to purchase a house at Barton-on-Sea. This we have recently done. The place has been redecorated and central heating installed. If the Bill is passed in its present form it will be impossible to make a letting programme as we could never be sure that tenants would leave the premises at the end of the fortnightly or other short periods. I shall be exceedingly grateful if you will tell me whether you consider that this will be the position. If it is, then we shall at once sell the property. What could otherwise be expected? This is what will happen in so many cases.

The other letter refers to another aspect that I had not yet mentioned but which is not without importance. It is a member writing to the National Federation of Property Owners, and he says: I do not know whether your Society is aware of the fact that if furnished accommodation will also become 'controlled' nobody giving home loans, whether building society or local council, will allow their mortgagors to let at all. Thus the housing shortage will become twenty times worse than it has ever been. … I am living in a little house under mortgage to the local borough council (Labour controlled) who have in the past given me permission to let, on condition it does not become rent-controlled. Noble Lords know that mortgagees cannot recover statutory controlled properties if the mortgagor cannot reacquire the property. Presumably, the mortgagees will therefore find themselves in the same position under this temporary measure—and they may perhaps be in the same position under a permanent measure—and cease to let, just as this lady has done. These are serious matters.

To return to the question that I asked of the noble Lord, whether he would give an undertaking to do something about summer lettings, I think I have rather demolished his argument, if I may say so, about the hardship upon people who occupy these temporarily, because they are not going to be rendered homeless, even if they are thrown out. If the noble Lord will not give an undertaking that he will do something about the summer lettings, then I am afraid we shall have to move another Amendment on the subject on the Report stage.

LORD WOLVERTON

The noble Lord did not reply to my question about the problem of the Serviceman going overseas at short notice and letting his house. Would he be prepared to consider putting an Amendment down on Report stage such as the one put down in another place for the tied cottage, so that the court should give special consideration to this man?

LORD MITCHISON

I must first apologise to the noble Lord. It is perfectly true that I left a large part of his argument unanswered, so interested was I in my own way of putting the matter. Let me get one thing quite clear. It arose out of what the noble and learned Lord said at the beginning. I shall never object to being found wrong in law by the present Lord Chancellor. I am sure he will understand that. After all, one has to recognise experience when one meets it. If I was wrong—and I may well have been; I am not quite certain—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I both reached the same result by different routes. I said it was a question of whether people resided in these places, and he said—and this is an answer to a good deal of what the noble Lord has been saying—that many of these summer lets were apt to be licences and not lets at all. University students in "digs" was one instance which I gave. Clearly they are not lets. People who go to a place in some pleasant surroundings for a fortnight are not as a rule taking a lease at all; they are just being allowed to go there, as they would be to "digs" or to a room in a hotel. There is much more likely to be the relationship of the normal landlord and tenant. Therefore, I accept entirely—indeed, I should not have the impertinence to do anything else—what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about licences. I should have mentioned it. I quite agree.

There is another reason, too. There are longer lets, the ones that, for convenience, both the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and I called winter lets; that is to say, lets for several months on end. The noble Lord took the case, and I think I did, too, of the brother officer. He is becoming almost as well known a figure as the "reasonable businessman", who used to appear for a long time in various guises. I think the answer here is a practical one. I think I gave it on Second Reading, but I will repeat it very shortly. I do not believe that you have, in that sort of case, to deal with the question by recourse to this Bill and its provisions. I do not think anybody is at all likely even to go to a county court, and still less are they likely to try forcible eviction. In a measure that lasts only for a year I think there is a great virtue in simplicity. If you attempted to divide up the furnished lettings into those where there was merit of the kind the noble Lord had in mind, the Bill would never be needed, and thus, where the Bill might be needed, you would only introduce an impossible complication. The only practical thing to do is to take in all the furnished lettings. I agree that there are borderline cases. I agree that I was talking about the difficulty of distinguishing licences and leases with regard to agricultural tenants, and one might say, "Well, why not here?" The distinctions are not going to make much difference.

I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord within Parliamentary reason, as it were. But I can give no undertaking to introduce this or any other Amendment at the Report stage. I hope we shall be able to enact this Bill in as simple and expeditious a form as possible, and I believe that is what we all want.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

6.35 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

I should like to say a brief word about Clause 3. Two matters arise. The first one is on subsection (1) (a), which refers to jurisdiction of the county court and the limit of £400 rateable value, to which I referred yesterday. I wanted to clear up something on that, because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in winding up took me to say something which I had not intended. I pointed out that, although the £400 level was outrageous if applied to the whole country, my argument on differentiation of categories and amounts was directed toward;; the main legislation and for consideration in the future, and not by way of criticism of this temporary measure.

The other matter of some importance to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is a rather strange omission from this list of exceptions. This is a clause which says that certain people and authorities, and certain legislation, shall not be covered in the Bill. I have a letter here from a housing association wondering why housing associations have not been excluded. This letter came into my hands only just before I came into the House, and although I have not been able to put down a manuscript Amendment I thought I might bring the matter up on this occasion. This is what the letter says: I am writing to you to express this Association's concern at the fact that the above Bill … effectually prejudices the position of Housing Associations inasmuch as they are implicity made subject to this proposed enactment whereas they have previously been excluded from the ambit of legislation affording security of tenure by virtue of Section 33 of the House Repairs and Rents Act, 1954. This exclusion has in the past amounted to equating the special circumstances of Housing Association lettings with lettings of local authorities and it would seem that the present Bill, as it now stands, presages a general extension of security of tenure provisions to Housing Associations. I think perhaps this was an oversight on the part of the Government. I gather that a deputation of the National Federation of Housing Societies has already seen the Minister and received the reply that there had not been time to go into things sufficiently. But when you see that even the ecclesiastical authorities and their ability to eject incumbents from parsonages has been included, I should have thought that somebody might have thought of Housing Associations, because they more readily spring to the mind.

I should like the noble Lord's reaction to this, and perhaps an expression of intention whether the Government could slip that exclusion into the Bill at Report stage, or at least to hear whether they could make some statement that it is not their intention to exclude housing associations later on.

LORD MITCHISON

So far as I am concerned, I find this proposal a trifle sudden. It is quite true that it had not occurred to me, but I am afraid that now that it does occur to me I do not feel very hopeful about it. Let me give the noble Lord my reasons. There is, I think, a reason for excluding local authorities to some extent because their character, I should have thought, is fundamentally different from that of housing associations in that they are elected bodies, and the real sanction against unreasonable management of their housing estates by a local authority is that the councillors will not be reelected. That is the real sanction behind the authority all the time. I should have thought that it was extraordinarily unlikely that anything under this Bill would in practice affect housing associations. But I am not so sure that they ought to be excluded. I think that if you open the door in any way, you may find even in the limited time available that various other bodies will also try to come in. I say quite frankly. not with great experience of housing associations, that if there is not in various respects some difference between them, then they are unlike any other body of institutions I have ever met.

If there were cases where a housing association was contemplating using force, then this introduces some almost metaphysical ideas, and I find it rather difficult. It might be wise that they should go to the court. I cannot think that they are going to suffer in any way, and I feel that it would probably meet the requirements of the correspondents of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if I repeated once again that this Bill is No 1ndication of what form permanent legislation may be. I have taken the point that housing associations have had special protection not only in that respect but in other respects, but I will not try to go over the history of this matter now and I should not possibly remember it if I did. But nothing in this Bill will either detract from or add to the treatment that they will receive under permanent legislation.

I have been asked to make this specially clear, not only in this but in, other connections. I rather think that the correspondents of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, might find that assurance satisfies them as regards this Bill. I shall very gladly, of course, talk to the noble Lord about it if he so wishes, but that does not always quite meet the case.

LORD HASTINGS

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, especially about the temporary nature of this Bill. I agree that these people are most unlikely to be affected by this temporary measure. The real fear is that they might be affected by the permanent measure. The noble Lord's statement may reassure them in this regard to a certain extent. I would draw attention to the discussions we had rather on these lines on the Housing Bill, 1964, and I would remind the noble Lord that almost all the housing associations in future will, I think, come under the new statutory Housing Corporations and they could with even greater confidence in the future, be treated as responsible bodies. That may be worthy of consideration.

LORD MITCHISON

I know that the noble Lord understands quite clearly, but these things sometimes get muddled a little in transmission. What I am saying, and I repeat it quite clearly, is that this Bill and the provisions in it will not affect the future legislation, one way or another. I can give no undertaking whatever as to what the future legislation will be, because it is the consideration which is being given to it which has occasioned this Bill.

On Question, Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Postponement of decontrol of formerly requisitioned dwellings.

5. Section 11 (5) of the Rent Act 1957 (which extended, until the end of March 1965, the application of the Rent Acts to certain dwellings of which those Acts would otherwise have ceased to apply) and section 4 (4) of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act 1955 (which enables local authorities in England and Wales to pay part of the rent in respect of such dwellings) shall each have effect as if the year mentioned therein were 1966.

6.42 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out all words after "each" and to insert: continue to have effect until the end of the year 1965.

The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment which I think is self-explanatory, but I felt I needed a little of elucidation of this provision. Clause 5 refers to the Rent Act, 1957, which extended, until March, 1965, the application of the Rent Acts to certain dwellings, and also to the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, under which tenants of requisitioned houses were enabled to continue in that accommodation until next March, 1965, on a lower rent, because the local authority made up the rent to one that was more reasonable to the landlord, either by way of a cash bonus or annual payment. Of course the Government faced the position of what is going to happen in 1965, because if these buildings become immediately decontrolled, as they would, the landlord could put up the rent and the local authority would no longer have the power to pay part of the rent for these tenants who perhaps would not be able to afford the full rent. I think that this must be at the back of the Government's mind and it would be a very awkward situation if the tenants had nowhere to go, especially in areas where there is a shortage of housing.

The point of this Amendment is to make sure that this problem is going to be dealt with in the major legislation and not left hanging over. This temporary legislation is going to come to an end at the end of 1965, and I cannot see any reason why this particular legislation on the books affecting requisitioned property or, rather, derequisitioned property, under the special agreement, should be continued until April, 1966. Surely to goodness, it is going to be considered in connection with all the major legislation, and by making it clear that these provisions extend only to the end of 1965 should at the same time make clear the temporary nature of the extension, just as this Bill itself is of a temporary nature; and that before the end of 1965 both the one and the other will be brought together and dealt with in permanent legislation. That is the point of this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will think that it is reasonable and will tell me what the Government are going to do about it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 22, leave out from ("each") to end of line 23, and insert ("continue to have effect until the end of the year 1965").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD MITCHISON

I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it would be a strange state of affairs if we prolonged this particular piece of legislation into 1966 and in the course of legislation in 1965 failed to deal with what was originally a temporary measure. I cannot give him a formal undertaking on this point; I have not been authorised to do so. And I can see the reason for that. The whole of this permanent legislation is under consideration. It involves a lot of changes, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept my assurance that my own common sense, and nothing else, leads me to the conclusion that this matter must be dealt with in the course of that legislation. I do not know if that is the correct form of a Government assurance; it is not really intended to be one, because one does not know the form of the future legislation. I cannot conceive, however, that it would be left out.

The extension was for a period of one year. It was the sort of figure that one takes for a temporary extension. There is a real need for it. If it was not for this extension these provisions would end at the end of March, 1965, and the metropolitan boroughs who are mostly concerned with, this have asked for the extension to be made. I should have thought there was good reason for it for quite a substantial number of families are affected. I see that St. Marylebone, of all respectable boroughs, has, for example, 114; Kensington has 53; Paddington 150; and there are various other boroughs concerned. It is a local matter; some boroughs are much more affected than others. But where the need exists it is quite real and obviously the provisions ought to be extended.

The noble Lord did not in effect say, "You made a bargain with these people and you cannot extend on that account". I do not think he or I would have thought that a very good argument if it were put that way. But I ought to point out that the arrangements made by the boroughs with the owners of the premises were made in pursuance of the 1955 legislation, and at about that time, and that was before the Rent Act, 1957, came into operation. In fact, the changes made by way of decontrol in that Act have made a much more extensive alteration of the original bargain than anything that is proposed here. I hope, therefore, that with that explanation and in those circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment; a point, if I may respectfully add, which I more than appreciate.

LORD HASTINGS

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It was my purpose only to add this and to draw it particularly to the attention of the Minister because I thought that he failed rather to take it into sufficient account on Second Reading in the other place. He failed rather significantly to give any sort of undertaking that it was going to be dealt with at the same time. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite agrees with me that it is the common-sense thing to do. I wanted to bring it out and make quite sure that this view was put to his right honourable friend the Minister, and not left hanging over. It really must be dealt with. That is the sole purpose of the Amendment and now it has served its purpose I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.