HL Deb 17 December 1964 vol 262 cc539-53

3.23 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

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

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mitchison.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I missed my cue late yesterday evening, and I am grateful for the support of my colleagues behind me in not allowing me to miss it again on this occasion. I did not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was going to say anything on Third Reading. We had a lengthy and, I think, useful Committee stage, but there are a few things that I should like to say.

First of all, I think that we managed to get through this Bill very amicably, in spite of some highly controversial aspects of it. That is only to be expected in your Lordships' House, on whichever sides the two main Parties are sitting, and I am very glad of it. At the same time, if I may be permitted to say so, we on this side did carry out the instructions of my noble Leader Lord Carrington, to which I referred at the beginning of my Second Reading speech. We have criticised the Bill, but we did so constructively, and at the same time thought of the interests of the country as a whole. I think that I can say truthfully that all of us on this side of the House are as glad as noble Lords opposite are that it is going to pass this side of Christmas. There is no reason, of course, why we, or anybody else, should behave in a less Christian manner during the whole of the year, but perhaps at this season there is a special reason why we should behave in a more Christian manner than we usually do. Therefore, if the anxiety of many people, that they may be turned into the street before Christmas, has been allayed, then we on this side are indeed very happy.

At the same time, we have considered the interests of certain special groups, minority groups, of the community, who, we feel, are adversely affected by this temporary measure and who, we feel, should be protected because they are not, perhaps, receiving their full due of consideration. There are two instances of this. One is that of the agricultural tied cottages. We discussed this question very thoroughly, and noble Lords on this side feel that we have substantially the better of the argument, when tested in any logical and analytical sense. We shall come back to this point at a later date, when major legislation is brought before your Lordships' House. We hope that, before that happens, the Party opposite will have considered this matter much more deeply than they evidently have done so far, because when it came to the final thought, they fell back on an argument which was purely political and nothing else. Therefore we hope that when this subject comes up before the House again, possibly during the summer months, we shall hear from the Government more substantial arguments and better reasoned arguments, because we shall have to go over this ground again and perhaps take a firmer stand than we have done on this occasion.

The second matter which caused us much concern on this side of the House was that of furnished lettings. We appreciate as well as anybody that there is a problem here in London and in some of the bigger cities. We ourselves had undertaken, on receiving the report of the Milner Holland Committee, to deal with this problem in those places where it needed attention. But we contend that it is quite unnecessary, in a temporary measure—indeed, it will be unnecessary in permanent legislation—to cover all furnished lettings, irrespective of their nature.

In this respect, we drew special attention to the problem of short lettings, particularly of holiday lettings at seaside resorts and short winter lettings. I think that I must be allowed to say more about this matter, because in our discussions yesterday, on Committee stage, I warned noble Lords opposite that if they were unable to give any sort of undertaking on this matter I should reserve the right to raise it on Report stage. I did not do so, because I was not too sure of the procedure, when a Committee had been completed without any Amendments having been made and when the Report was received and went through without comment. That is why I raise the matter now on Third Reading, because I feel that we have not done full justice to the subject.

We have, indeed, the most extraordinary situation. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, gave us to believe that these summer lettings would not be included in the Bill, because of the two words "in residence" contained in Clause 1. words which had been inserted into the clause by a Conservative Amendment moved in another place, but for a different reason. His opinion, which is based on the best advice available from the Departments for which he is responsible, was contradicted by no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I did not contradict it. What I said was that I was not sure that the word "residence" would really cure this problem: and I explained why, for other reasons, it did not matter.

LORD HASTINGS

I should not like to put words into the noble and learned Lord's mouth. But he certainly said he was not sure, and that rather led one to believe that these lettings could not be taken to be excluded from the Bill and, therefore, would actually be included in the Bill, and that summer lettings would be affected by the temporary measure. That has never been denied. The noble Lord opposite is shaking his head; but they will be affected by this temporary measure. I cannot recall that anything has been said in your Lordships' House to show that they will not be affected. If the noble Lord shakes his head and says that they will not be affected, and if, in giving his opinion at the beginning of his Second Reading Speech he intended to indicate that the Government did not wish the summer lettings to be affected—and I believe that to be the case—why were the Government not able to accept the Amendment put forward by us, or produce one of their own, confined purely to summer lettings or to short lettings of a month or less? Why have they refused to take any action on this matter? The fears of the people concerned are very real, and they are likely to increase, rather than decrease, during the six months ahead.

I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, to say quite clearly whether it is the intention of the Government that furnished lettings of this sort should be included, not only in this Bill but in the major legislation which is to follow; because that is what the people concerned really want to know. We have not only instant government, but government by Statement, and we do not want that to be extended into government by misstatement. I hope the noble Lord will give us further assurances on this matter, because there has been confusion in another place, and even more so in your Lordships' House.

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that it does not matter, and I am bound to admit that it is not often that a lawyer says that. But I shall leave the legal side of it to my noble and learned friend behind me, if he chooses to come into this discussion. I think we should be told quite clearly why it does not matter, because noble Lords opposite have usually just fallen back on the argument: "Forgive us, please. We have been in a bit of a hurry. It is only a temporary measure. Therefore, it does not matter." But it is important for this particular class of person. It matters to them for this coming spring and summer; to them it is a matter of life and death. They must have some assurances for the future. I have given the noble Lord in charge of the Bill here his chance during the Committee stage, and he has not taken it; and neither did the Lord Chancellor. But I hope that they will be able to give the necessary assurances to us before we pass this Bill.

Having said that, I would thank the noble Lord for his courtesy and for the care he has taken in replying to Amendments. I would merely add, in conclusion, that so far as we are concerned, this Bill may be necessary in its basic principle, which we have readily accepted, but it has many unnecessary features about it. It has been ill-thought-out; it has been too hastily produced; and we hope that the Government will do much better in their major legislation.

3.35 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in a semi-serious spirit for his good wishes to the Government, and in a serious spirit for the way he and his noble friends treated this Bill. I think that all through the discussions they had in mind the main purpose of the Bill, which is, of course, a temporary measure; it goes on for only a year. It is intended, not so much as a means of sending people to prison, but as a means of deterring them from oppressing their fellow citizens, and is directed, not to the whole body of landlords, but to the few landlords—and we have had some well-known ones in London—who have behaved very badly during a housing shortage. Having that in mind, I must say that all the criticism and comments we have had are perfectly fair. I did not always agree with them, of course; that is too much to expect; but I felt that noble Lords opposite were doing their job as an Opposition—they will say as a temporary Opposition; but that is the nature of democratic government. After all, one should be able to say that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will not expect me to accept all his self-congratulation—congratulation to his Party, I mean—or all the comments he made about the balance of argument one way or the other. We say these things and, to put it mildly, we do not always expect the other side to agree.

To turn to the two particular points he made, I agree with the noble Lord that tied cottages had a pretty good run yesterday. In fact, there seemed to be at times a tendency to forget what is the real point of this Bill. It is simply a Bill to prevent people in certain cases from trying what is commonly called self-help; that is to say, turning out without undue violence instead of having recourse to the courts, where in the circumstances we think they ought to go. That is the only object of the Bill. It does not raise any general question about rent or housing; it does not raise any general question about tied cottages at the moment; and, of course, it has been introduced because we are taking time—and I hope noble Lords opposite, who have been saying that this Bill was hasty, although I do not think it was, will not grudge us the time to consider the major measure—to consider what to do in a much bigger measure that we stand committed to. And obviously I cannot say anything about that.

To turn now to the letting of seaside places in the summer, I think that the question of summer lettings does beg the question a little. The main point (and I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made it quite clear) is whether these are lettings at all. I suggested, first of all, on the Second Reading of the Bill and, secondly, at least once in Committee—and I am afraid it was a good many times—that they were not lettings at all; that they were licences, like students' accommodation in "digs" and other cases that we had in mind. I must say I do not agree with the noble Lord that the discussion yesterday was really ineffective or inefficient. I felt on this point that he was not doing himself full justice. I thought he put the whole of his, if I may say so, slightly indifferent case very well indeed, and I should like to congratulate him on this. I do not think in what he said to-day he could have added, or did in fact add, to what he said yesterday. If the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is going to add something, I will gladly give way at once.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I will speak later.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. I do not know that there is very much more to answer about tied cottages. However, I should like to make one thing perfectly clear. It is not my job (and I should not esteem myself capable of it) to argue with Lord Chancellors about the law—any of them. I would merely point out that even Lord Chancellors have been known to disagree with one another; judges have been known to disagree with one another, and members of the Bar make a living out of disagreeing with one another, though in the latter case they are not necessarily their own opinions. There are always two sides to a case, and a large number of circumstances affecting it. This particular case of summer lettings is rather like that.

I think the substantial point here is: should one try to make separate provision for some of these cases, or are the provisions in the Bill sufficient having regard to its temporary purpose? We have not attempted to define different categories of letting of premises. We have defined the persons involved, and so on. We have not tried to make a distinction, for the purposes of this Bill, between letting and licence. We have not tried to alter or clarify the law in any way about that. All I can say to your Lordships is that, in a Bill of this character, I think we are right. If we tried to add too much to it we might be aiming at a theoretical perfection and find ourselves bogged down in a confusion of language. I rather think that the old caravan, Scherzo, that trotted out its ancient form yesterday—the ancient pantechnicon that could hardly move without falling to bits—was a pretty good instance of the kind of trouble you get into if you put too many definitions where there is already a large body of law that has been interpreted for various purposes and at various times. Therefore I would suggest that we were quite right in refusing to accept Amendments.

May I end by saying to the noble Lord that I am very sorry—if I may use a most un-Parliamentary phrase—that he "missed the bus" yesterday. I was not trying to "pull a fast one" in any way, and I am sure that he knows that I was not. If I had known that it was intended to raise this point, and if we could have done anything to help, I would have done so, subject only to one thing—and I repeat this: that we did have a pretty full discussion on this yesterday, and I thought that, on the whole, we discussed it well, as we discussed other things well.

I hope that I have not taken up too much time, and I would just add one final comment, concerning tied cottages. We were accused of ending up with a purely political argument. I would say, with respect to noble Lords opposite, that I hope they will not come to regard carrying out electoral pledges as a form of political argument. It is the duty of honest people, in the political business of this country, and when they go to the electors before an Election, to tell them what they mean to do; and, when they get back to power, to do it, so far as they can. They ought not even to be teased for that. Noble Lords opposite may say it was a wrong thing to promise. That is quite another argument. But to say it is a political argument or, as somebody called it yesterday, doctrinaire Socialism if we carry out an electoral promise, seems to me to be quite the wrong way of attacking the question. The merits of the proposals are what matter.

3.45 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I should like to add a little to what has been said on this subject, and also one word in passing upon the observations about Party politics to which the noble Lord referred. It does not seem to me in the least inconsistent with doctrinaire Socialism that the Party opposite should seek to carry out one of the pledges that apparently they gave at the Election. But it still may be doctrinaire Socialism.

I am anxious about one part of the Bill. So far as the main purpose is concerned there has been no controversy. It is obviously right, if there is to be a Bill reintroducing some form of rent control, that people should be prevented from taking steps prematurely before we see that legislation; and here it is intended to avoid the object of its operation. But as has been said, the Bill also touches tied agricultural cottages, and the cottages occupied by licence by agricultural workers. I think I can summarise the argument for including such licensees. I believe it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who said how difficult this question was, and how many cases there have been as to whether or not the man concerned was an agricultural tenant or an agricultural licensee. It will depend in each case on the particular circumstances and facts. The argument was that to avoid all that, to avoid all the controversy which may arise in the county courts if we do not include what I call agricultural licenses, we should include the lot. I hope I have summarised it correctly, because I think it is relevant to bear that in mind.

LORD MITCHISON

Not quite.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I think I have summarised it sufficiently for the point I was seeking to make with regard to what have been commonly called seaside lettings. The noble Lord, when he was moving the Second Reading of this Bill, was, I thought, quite positive. I do not think there is any question here of a disagreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself on a question of law, for I share the view expressed by him on the particular point on which he dissented from the noble Lord. But the noble Lord was quite positive in his statements when he said, if I may quote his words: There seems to have been some misunderstanding about types of occupation which have been thought to be included for the purposes of this Bill as furnished lettings. University students, for instance, in 'digs', will usually be licensees, not tenants. Summer lettings at the seaside will not be within the Bill, because the occupiers, though they may be in occupation, will not be in residence…."—[Official Report, Vol. 262 (No. 21), col. 284, December 14, 1964.] I think I have read enough to state quite accurately the grounds the noble Lord put forward for his assertion, as Minister in charge of the Bill, that this Bill would not bite on that kind of occupation. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came to reply he said—and I agree with him—that he was not quite certain that the word "residence" would do the trick in taking out of the scope of the Bill what are referred to as summer lettings. There I agree with him. But the point remains—and I will come on to deal with this—was it the object of the Government to keep this kind of letting outside or to include it within the scope of the measure?

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for giving way—and perhaps I should congratulate him on his new title. What happened about this was that I gave one reason and my noble and learned friend gave another for coming to the same conclusion. I should like the noble and learned Lord, if he would be so good, to indicate in what respect the two conclusions differ. It is perfectly true that the grounds upon which we arrived at them were different. I should be most grateful if he would make quite clear what the difference was between the two conclusions. May I say one thing before I sit down? I repeat that I am always wrong if I try to argue law with Lord Chancellors, present or past.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am not seeking here to indulge in an argument on law at all. The noble Lord put forward two reasons why he thought that lettings of this kind were outside the scope of the Bill, and one of the reasons he put forward was the one which the noble and learned Lord Lord Chancellor, as I gather approved. and with which he agreed. I will come to that in a moment. I am leaving the question of the interpretation of the word "residence."

Before the noble Lord interrupted me I was on the point as to what was the Government's real intention here. Is it the Government's intention merely to keep within the scope of the Bill the short seasonal summer lettings (or maybe winter lettings) of furnished premises, or is it their intention that they should not come within the scope of the Bill? As I gather from reading the speeches, it is their intention that they should not come within the scope of the Bill, and both noble Lords think, for the reasons expressed by the Lord Chancellor, that in fact that kind of occupation is outside the scope of the Bill.

I must say I find some difficulty about that. It is just as difficult to tell whether an occupation of seaside premises is on a licence or is under a tenancy as it is with regard to an agricultural tenant. It turns always on the facts. A lodger, of course, is a licensee, but you may well have a tenant living in a house with a landlord living on the premises; the landlord in possession of the common portion of the premises and the tenant being a tenant of one room. It is very difficult often to decide whether it is a tenancy or a licence. It was for that reason that the argument was put forward that in relation to agricultural occupants we cannot distinguish between the two.

Now let us see what is the position under this Bill with regard to a seaside letting. First of all, what I may call the landlord or, it may be, the licensor, will be in some doubt as to whether he is within the scope of this Bill or not. Where it is a short let and the tenants or occupants decide to stay on, he may realise that they will attain their objective if he has to go to the county court. He may try to exercise the rights that he would have if he were indeed a licensor. But he may be wrong, and then he gets into all the pains and penalties imposed by this Bill. On the other hand, if he does go to the county court and says, "I am a landlord: I have to come here for an order for possession because these people will not leave" the county court judge then has to go into a very difficult question of whether he is a landlord or a licensee, because the county court judge will have to decide whether or not this Bill (when it becomes an Act) will apply to him. I must say that I do not think that that is very satisfactory.

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that usually these occupants will be licensees. I personally am not prepared to go so far as that. A great many of them may be, but I am quite sure that a great many of them will not be. There will be many occasions and many instances where premises are taken—it is just as easy to rent furnished premises as it is to rent unfurnished premises; you can rent furnished premises for the matter of a week, a fortnight or a month—and it will be a tenancy, and the Bill will apply. So I am not happy about the answer. I do not think there are any statistics on this, because there cannot be, to say that usually they will be licensees and not tenants. I do not think that that will be the case.

This doubt that is left in this Bill as it stands now can be removed by considering an Amendment, if indeed it is the Government's intention, as I understand it to be, that this Bill should not bite on that kind of occupation. I should have thought that it would not have created any difficulty at all here if the Government had put down an Amendment just to say that a tenancy of furnished rooms for a fixed term not exceeding, say, a month, would not come within the scope of this Bill.

Suggestions have been made to noble Lords opposite in the course of these debates to put down an Amendment; they have all the resources available to them to consider it; but it has not been put down and it has not been considered. I do not know whether it is too late for the Government to move an Amendment of that kind now. We, I think, cannot. But I am saying, with the greatest regret, that I think we are left in a very unfortunate position under this Bill with regard to the seaside lettings. As I say, in each case, so far as I can see, where there is an occupa- tion after the agreed period there will be very difficult problems for the licensee or landlord, as the case may be, and for the county court judge, and I think that could all have been avoided if Her Majesty's Government had been more ready to accept the suggestions put forward by my noble friends.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount, before he sits down, whether he is aware that no such Amendment was put down, and that the form of Amendment he is suggesting was never put forward until this moment?

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I am very surprised to hear that. When this point was raised Her Majesty's Government did consider whether or not it was possible. The point about seaside lettings was raised in your Lordships' House, I should have thought, more than once; and certainly it was raised in another place. I should have thought that, if Her Majesty's Government were seeking to meet the point, that would have been one of the first things they would consider, with their advisers.

3.55 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I wonder whether a very simple, plain and blunt man may explain the difficulty that confronts him. I really wish to understand what is the Government's contention about this, but I am, frankly, baffled. I have not before intervened on this Bill, largely because I accepted two statements. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, in the passage in his speech on Second Reading which has been partially quoted, but of which I shall quote just a little bit more, was expressing with complete accuracy the belief of the Government and their intentions. I admit now, as everybody admits, that he got his law wrong, because, with everybody else, I agreed with the correction made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, may I say that I did not make a correction? I said that I was not sure, but, for reasons which I explained, it did not matter whether that was so or not. I was not sure: I did not correct.

LORD CONESFORD

I shall be delighted to support the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and assure him that his law was quite correct, but I shall quote a little more of his statement so that nobody can say that I was misrepresenting him in any way. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, said—it was partially quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, but I should like to quote just a few more words—was this: Summer lettings at the seaside will not be within the Bill, because the occupiers, though they may be in occupation, will not be in residence … ". So much was quoted by my noble friend just now. But let me quote the rest of the sentence: … and the reference to residents has been included since the Second Reading of the Bill in the definition of occupier, in Clause 1 (2), so as to avoid any misunderstanding."—[Official Report, Vol. 262 (No. 21), col. 284, December 14, 1964.] That was the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison. I should have thought that a more categorical statement of what was the intention of the Government could scarcely have been made. It was a categorical and clear statement that he thought the Bill now did what those on this side, desire—namely, that it excluded summer lettings at the seaside.

Now let me turn to what the Lord Chancellor said. It will be found in column 339 of Monday's debate: As to the seaside accommodation, I would frankly say, with all respect to the advice which my noble friend Lord Mitchison has received, that I am not sure that the word 'residence' will really cure the problem. The position I think is this. The ordinary seaside accommodation is rooms or lodgings, and of course the Bill does not touch them at all, because the Bill relates only to tenancies. But I quite agree that there might be a man who lets his flat for the summer holiday and goes away himself because he lives by the seaside; and if it is a self-contained flat it is a tenancy and, of course, the Act will apply. So the House will see that there is a categorical statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, that, to avoid all misunderstanding, something has been put in the definition which has the effect of excluding these summer lettings at the seaside, while the Lord Chancellor is carefully explaining that the intention so accurately stated by his noble friend was not, in fact, achieved by the Bill as it stood then and as it stands now.

I should have thought, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, is quite capable of stating accurately what he intends, that he accurately described what the Government's intention was in his speech. I accept what he said as an accurate statement of the intention of Her Majesty's Government. I also support with all the weight I can on legal grounds the statement of the law of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But the combination of those two statements is that the Government's intention has not been achieved under the Bill as it now stands. This seems to me to be an important fact, even though the Bill is only temporary.

We are, of course, perfectly accustomed to the Government's not knowing what they are doing, but it is a novelty when they do not even know what they want to do. That is a new advance in our proceedings. The point I want to make is a perfectly simple one. Do the Government still have the intention that the Bill, which will shortly be an Act, shall have the meaning given to it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison. on Second Reading, or do they not? And if they wish it to have the effect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mitchison, said it had, is it really to be said that the Government, with all the resources of the Parliamentary draftsmen and all the technical aid which is at their disposal, are unable to draft an Amendment which will make their own Bill carry out the intention that they themselves proclaim?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, if I may clear up this little difficulty, any difficulty has arisen simply and solely by the use of the ambiguous word "lettings" by noble Lords of the Opposition. Nobody would blame a layman for using the word "lettings", but seeing the evident ambiguity here I was a little surprised that the word was continued to be used by the noble Lord who has just spoken, who is himself a distinguished lawyer. This has caused all the trouble. In law it is either a tenancy or a licence. Ordinarily there is no difficulty in telling which is which, except in the field of tied cottages, which for particular reasons have on occasion caused a good deal of difficulty. If by seaside lettings—and my noble friend Lord Mitchison was using the term in that sense—one is talking about ordinary seaside lodgings or rooms, these of course are not tenancies, they are licences. There is no exclusive occupation, and anybody who goes to take rooms at the seaside is taking premises to which this Bill does not apply at all, because this Bill, as it says, applies only to tenancies.

Of course, you can have a tenancy at the seaside as you can anywhere else, and, as I made plain in what I said, if you go and take a self-contained flat for six months, of course the fact that it is at the seaside does not stop it from being a tenancy and the Act applies. What is the effect of that? I do not think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, gave us the benefit of his opinion on the Second Reading, so perhaps I may be forgiven if I explain that this is an Act to stop landlords from using force. They and policemen and warders are, I think, the only people who by occupation have a legal right to use force, landlords being entitled to force tenants out if they use no more force than is reasonably necessary. No other occupation is privileged, if it cannot get its own way, to use force in that way, and if I say that is the landlord's right your Lordships will bear in mind, I am sure, that they have that privilege only if they live in England or Wales, and that in Scotland, where also people have seaside accommodation, they have had no such privilege since 1955. What will happen if there is a tenancy at the seaside, as in towns, in England or Wales, is that landlords will be in exactly the same position as they have always been in in Scotland—namely, they will not be able to throw a tenant out but will have to go to the courts, and if wishing that to be the law is to be a doctrinaire Socialist, then I can only say that I am very glad that I am a doctrinaire Socialist.

On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.