§ 3.50 p.m.
§ Report stage resumed.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENmoved in subsection (1) to leave out "five" and insert "six". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I now reply on both these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has roused me slightly. I was not going to bring out these facts, but while I agree with him that this Bill is, in a way, inflationary, I would point out that the proposal for collecting these figures is not necessarily inflationary. Our own local authorities have all these figures at their finger-tips. It is merely that they are not being used properly by central Government. Therefore, I do not think that that will add very much to the cost.
I must revert to one of the real reasons why it is so necessary to give all the encouragement one can to the carrying out of these improvements. In the area of St. Clement's in Aberdeen—Aberdeen, as your Lordships know, has been run by a Socialist Council for a long time —there live to-day some 3,200 457 families. Among those 3,200 families—this is something I am not proud of—there are 280 baths; only 65 of those 3,200 families have the luxury of a separate w.c.; 388 of those families have no separate piped water, and only 153 of those families have all "mod. cons." I am not proud of these facts. These are the people I want to help. A Socialist town council for years has not managed to do so.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, it is all very nice for the noble Viscount to say that. He has referred to the disgraceful state of affairs and has taken a side-swipe at the Socialist town council. But who built these properties without these amenities? Conservative private enterprise developers, whom the Government are now encouraging again.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth will remember that the w.c. was a Scottish invention, but it was not invented until fairly recent times. The buildings and properties to which I am referring have been there for a very long time indeed; and furthermore, as an alleviating fact —not one I am proud of—the rent of this accommodation is only 11s. a week. Therefore, while admittedly I perhaps took a side-swipe at the Socialist town council—I would not deny it—I thought also that the noble Lord took a sideswipe, or rather made a frontal attack, at the suggested "inflation" from this side of the House. I thought "fair do's for all", and I hope he does not mind, because there is no malice in this at all.
I am delighted to hear the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, for this review is just the thing that is wanted. Obviously, a Back Bencher can produce only limited figures and cannot possibly see the whole picture, and while we feel strongly and always think that we are right, we know that we cannot possibly be right overall. I ask the Minister to urge upon his noble friends not to hide their light under a bushel and to let somebody else see these figures, too. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 41, leave out ("five") and insert ("six").—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD TAYLORmoved, after Clause 66, to insert the following new clause:
§ Inspection of houses by local authority.
§ .—(1) On the request in writing by a person who is or has been within the last three months a tenant or lodger in a house to which Part II of the Act of 1961 applies, the local authority shall as soon as practicable cause the house to be inspected, and shall take any appropriate action under the Act of 1961 which the condition of the house or the circumstances of its ocupation make desirable.
§ (2) The local authority shall within three months inform the person making the request of the action it has taken.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move this Amendment briefly. I just want to say that I think it was Sir Charles Harrington who invented the water closet. Whether he was a Scot or not, I do not know. He was a courtier at Queen Elizabeth's Court and he described it in a book called Ajax, but I did not know he was a Scot.
§ Amendment No. 13 seeks to do something we tried to do at much greater length at Committee stage, namely to enable ordinary individuals to make a complaint about the conditions under which they live and to get an answer from the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, was very conciliatory, because we proposed that action should automatically follow. He pointed out that this might be folly. We agreed with him, and we struck out the third and fourth portions of our Amendment. We also took out the word "forthwith" to describe the action of a local authority on receiving a complaint, and put in its place "as soon as practicable", which seemed to make the proposal very moderate indeed. Lord Hastings said that he was willing to consider our subsections (1) and (2) about inspection and report of information, and the question of the local authority's letting the tenant or lodger know the result of the inspection. I very much hope that the Government will look with sympathy on this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 66, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Taylor.)
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I am grateful to Lord Taylor for recapitulating so briefly what happened on the previous occasion. He made some complimentary remarks about my being conciliatory and helpful. If I may say so, he and his friends were helpful, too, in withdrawing the two last subsections, (3) and (4), in the previous Amendment, and Riving us an opportunity to discuss the first two subsections of it in a rather different form. I have gone into this matter thoroughly and have written to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about it. Noble Lords opposite realise that they still have not got over two difficulties in the drafting of their clause: that is, to prevent frivolous and repetitive requests, and also to avoid the situation in which, unknown to the applicant, a recent inspection has been made and thus the local authority would be required to make another which would be quite unnecessary.
After discussing these matters at great length within the Department, we have come to the conclusion—and this is something upon which I was not fully briefed on the last occasion—that it would be setting a precedent which it would be desirable to avoid. The general pattern of housing and public health legislation, going right back to the Public Health Act, 1875, in Disraeli's time, has been based on the supposition that local authorities will act responsibly in the exercise of the general powers vested in them; and, indeed, in the case of many of the provisions of Part IV of this Bill, new powers have been actively sought by the local authorities on the ground that they will use them responsibly, a situation in which we acquiesce.
It is normal, however, to provide certain default powers in extreme cases where a local authority fail in their duty. The pattern is repeated in the Housing Act, 1957, which, noble Lords will remember, is to be read together with this Bill. Therefore it is difficult to put in this Bill something entirely new which does not conform with the general powers in the Housing Act, 1957, and which constitutes a precedent compared to all previous legislation in housing and public health affairs. These default powers provide machinery whereby any four local government electors or other people acting on their behalf may complain, either to the 460 county council or to the Minister as the case may be, that the authority
have failed to exercise their powers under the Act … where those powers ought to have been exercised".This power of complaint is, of course, associated with the power of the Minister to hold public inquiries and to make directions as to the remedy for the authority's default. But noble Lords opposite will not seriously suggest that this is precisely the same as enabling just one person to requisition, positively to enforce, one inspection. That, surely, is a very different thing.I am again forced back upon the argument that the local authority departments are already hard pressed and they are going to be very much more hard pressed as a result of this Bill, particularly their public health and surveyor's departments. They will be having a lot of extra work as a result of this Bill and they will hardly be able to cope with it, particularly those aspects which touch upon slum clearance and improvement and compulsory improvement areas, without making a programme for their work and covering their whole area systematically. Therefore we really think that it is asking too much for them to be diverted from their plans by one person, in conditions which sometimes might not be at all justifiable.
To anticipate objections which may be made from noble Lords opposite and which have, I think, been made on a previous occasion, I would say that I really do not think we are depriving the private citizen of any inherent right. As I have said, he has not had this right in previous legislation on these matters and, after all, people are not slow in these days to write to their local authorities to complain, nor, indeed, to write to the Minister or their Member of Parliament; and it is certainly not our general impression in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that local authorities disregard these complaints when they get them.
It may be said that some housing authorities are so big that they cannot possibly know what is going on in every part of their area, but as a matter of fact our experience again teaches us that it is very often the largest authorities who know the most, because they are very well organised with a specialist staff, having the funds to tackle this 461 matter in a more systematic and highly specialised manner than smaller authorities. Therefore, in spite of the fact that noble Lords are merely trying to do something which seems to them eminently fair and reasonable, I think they are really making a bit too much out of this, and that the private citizen will not be at a disadvantage. The local authorities, on the other hand, would have very great difficulty in working this sort of provision, and I feel that we can have complete faith in their responsibility and in their ability to tackle these problems conscientiously and systematically, so that people will not be left very long before their problems are dealt with. Obviously, the local authorities will have a sense of priorities and will tackle the worst areas first. I hope therefore that noble Lords will feel they need not press this Amendment.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Part of his reply was similar to the reply he made when we moved the former Amendment—namely, that it would force the local authorities out of their planned order of campaign for dealing with these areas. We accepted that, and we said that we were not going to push that point at all. All we want to make sure is that an ordinary member of the public who is in a situation where the landlord is really doing something which he ought not to be doing knows that he can get an inspector along, that the inspector will look, and that he will hear the result of the inspection.
I would accept at once that if there has been a recent inspection, that is a fair reason for not immediately re-inspecting; and, also, that there might be frivolous people who would abuse this right. But I cannot, for the life of me, see that it is wrong to put this provision in here, and I am sorry the noble Lord has not felt that the Government could accept it. But it is a small matter, and I have no doubt that most local authorities will do as we want them to do and will, in fact, act in exactly this way. But there will be some who do not, and for their failure to act the Government must be responsible. We certainly do not propose to press this Amendment, but we are sorry that the Government are not accepting it.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
462§ 4.6 p.m.
§ LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 68, to insert the following new clause:
§ Security of tenure during the operation of notices under Part II of Act of 1961
§ ".—(1) Where any notice under section 15 or section 1 of the Act of 1961 is in operation in respect of a house possession of that house or of any part of it shall not be obtained by means of a notice to quit until the works listed in the notice or in the notice as varied by a court under section 17 of the Act of 1961 have been executed or the notice has been revoked under that section:
§ Provided that the person who has served the notice to quit may apply to the court for possession if the local authority certifies that that is necessary for the proper execution of the works and that alternative accommodation is available for those dispossessed.
§ (2) On the application of the local authority or of any person to whom the notice to quit applies and after considering any representations by the person who served the notice to quit, the court may suspend its operation for a period of three months from the date when it would have come into effect under the foregoing subsection."
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which was moved in another place. It received a considerable amount of discussion there, and I believe that at the end of the day the Minister promised to look into the points that had been raised. Very briefly, this new clause provides that where a notice has been given under Section 15 or Section 16 of the 1961 Act—that is, a notice requiring certain work to be done in a house which is in multi-family occupation—the tenants shall be protected against eviction until the work has been finally completed.
§ This Amendment arises mainly from the experience of the City of Sheffield. They found that in a large number of cases where valid notices had been given under Section 15 of the 1961 Act, because the house was over-occupied in relation to the amenities provided, landlords had got rid of some of their tenants, with the result that the house was no longer over-occupied, so that the notice was no longer valid, and the landlord was not obliged to comply with it. Once that position obtained the landlord was free to re-let, and the local authority were compelled to go through the same process all over again. That would have sounded fanciful, but for the fact that the Sheffield Corporation say that they have had a great deal of 463 experience of this very thing—of landlords turning people out in order that the house should not be over-occupied. Then, with the notice becoming invalid and the landlord re-letting, the local authority have been compelled to serve a fresh notice and the same thing has happened.
§ Very briefly, what the Amendment provides is that the landlord may give a notice to quit, but that he shall not be given possession until the work has been completed. When the work is complete, of course, then the ordinary law obtains. If the landlord desires to get possession he should be free to do so, and the tenant has the normal defences open to him. But the landlord should not be given possession merely on the ground that a notice has been served and the work is required to be done. The Amendment provides, also, that where it is essential for the landlord to have possession in order to carry out the work, and the authority so certify, and so long as alternative accommodation is provided for the tenant, that will be a ground for getting possession.
§ During the discussions in another place a number of objections were raised by the Minister. One was the well-worn objection that in cases of this kind the compulsory purchase order proceedings are available. I want to say a little about that in connection with an Amendment which I am moving later, so I will not dwell on it now, except to say that in many of these cases a compulsory purchase order is not available. But I will leave that to one side, and not try to argue the merits of this simple Amendment that I am moving, deferring possession, as against the heavy hand of the compulsory purchase order.
§ There were two other grounds which the Minister mentioned, from one of which I thought he rather ran away because he referred on a number of occasions to the fact that the Milner Holland Report would be forthcoming at some time in the future, and gave the impression that that was a ground for not taking action at the present time. I must admit that he did not put that very strongly: it was not in the forefront of his argument. His real case was that it would be possible for a landlord to take action for possession, and that, if this 464 Amendment were incorporated in the present Bill, he would do so all the more readily as soon as an inspector came along to view the premises, even though nothing might come out of the inspector's inspection; that landlords would anticipate the possibility of their being served with a notice, and would straight away take steps to get rid of a tenant. That argument, however, strikes me as being quite unrealistic.
§ The serving of a notice has to be followed by steps to get possession, and anyone with experience of these matters will know that it takes some months before a case is heard in the county court and before an order for possession is made. During that time, obviously, the inspector will have reported on the premises, and the local authority will have decided whether or not they will serve the notice. If they decide not to serve the notice, then the position remains as it is at the present time. If the local authority decide to serve the notice, then under my Amendment the tenant would be protected until the work had been completed. I therefore do not think that the objection is very serious or realistic. I thought that, apart from the compulsory purchase order suggestion, they were the only real answers to this Amendment. I hope, therefore, that the result of the consideration by the Minister of the points raised in Committee and on Report in another place will be favourable to this Amendment; and if I have said anything which may help to turn the scale, I shall be very glad. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 68, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
§ 4.14 p.m.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, it is true that this Amendment was discussed in another place, but I think not by your Lordships during the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised an interesting point, and it is one that we have been considering. But the truth of the matter is that this point was not overlooked when we were drafting the Bill. We considered it very carefully, even before the Bill was printed in its final form. The noble Lord opposite has anticipated one or two arguments which I should have made, and which were made in another place by my right honourable 465 friend. Apparently, the noble Lord does not think very much of the argument that if this sort of protection were given to tenants—the prevention of their eviction during the period of operation of a works notice—a landlord would tend to give notice previous to receiving the works notice, as soon as he got wind of anything like that in the air and of the inspector coming round.
§ LORD SILKINWhat I said was that the landlord possibly would, but that the notice would not be effective if the local authority acted speedily and made up their mind as a result of the inspector's visit.
§ LORD HASTINGSYes; I was just coming to that point. The noble Lord thought it would not be effective, and he was relying very greatly, of course, on the time factor. I do not think that I can argue about that in detail at the moment. That is not in fact the advice I have received about the matter, but I should not care to enter into an argument on what is, we might say, a quibble one way or the other. The real point here, I think, is that the protection which the noble Lord wishes to afford the tenant in these circumstances is very limited in any case. It is only for a short time, between the coming into force of a works notice and the completion of the works; and either before or after that time the landlord can get rid of that tenant. It was when we studied this matter and found that it was so extremely difficult to overcome all the difficulties that we decided, almost in the last resort, that the compulsory purchase order procedure for cases of this nature offers, in the long run, the best remedy. Again, I shall follow the example of the noble Lord opposite and I will not go into all the procedures, including the possibility of a compulsory purchase order. We shall be arguing them again in a few minutes, on another Amendment. But I have one or two more things to say about this which I hope will make the noble Lords opposite feel that this power, this protection, is not quite so necessary as they thought.
Those who support the Amendment base their case on the experience of Sheffield, which is rather alone in this field in the extent to which it has suffered from this sort of behaviour on the part of landlords. Now things have been made a good deal easier during the course 466 of this Bill. Noble Lords will remember that under the 1961 Act local authorities have always had default powers. They could, in fact, undertake these works themselves if landlords refused to do it, were not doing it properly or were too slow. They could go in and get the job done and then charge the landlord with the expense. That, of course, was the great difficulty: they could not always get hold of the right man, and they could not always be sure of recovering their expenses; because there were holding companies, subsidiaries, leases, subleases and so on—all sorts of troubles and difficulties.
But now, under Clauses 62 and 63 of this Bill, a local authority can use their default powers, carry out the works and make a legal charge against all the interests in the premises. So they cannot possibly fail to recover their expenses. That, therefore, is a great inducement for them to use their default powers; and I am bound to say, in this connection, that Sheffield never did use its default powers. It was not willing to do so. Now, under the Bill, there will be no difficulty in any local authority's doing so, because they know that they will be able to get their money back.
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, as I understand it the local authority will now be able to recover only where the expenditure has been reasonably incurred. In the case of a house which had, say, ten tenants, five of whom had been dispossessed in anticipation of the work actually taking place, I think it would be held by the court that, in those circumstances, if the work had been done for the purpose of making the house fit for ten tenants, the expense was not reasonably incurred in view of the fact that there were only five tenants actually in the dwelling when the work was commenced. That is a difficulty, as I see it, of the procedure which the noble Lord has outlined to us.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, this is a very ingenious point that the noble Lord has put, and possibly a legalistic one, but I should rather doubt whether the noble Lord would be right, because under the powers of Part II of the 1961 Act a local authority can lay down the standards to which a house should be 467 improved in relation to the number of people it is capable of housing or ought to house. Those provisions are in Sections 12 to 17 of Part II. If the house is overcrowded, for example, the local authority, as the noble Lord knows, can say that it should be put into proper repair for a lesser number of tenants than the existing number. The existing ones are not turned out, but the landlord is not allowed to replace them as they leave of their own accord. I think, therefore, the reverse must be true also: that if it is necessary to exercise a works order or use the default power it must be based on the number of occupants of the house which that house is capable of accommodating, based on reasonable standards, set out in Section 15 of the Act which refers to all matters such as ventilation, heating and plumbing. I think the noble Lord, if I may say so, is wrong on that particular matter.
§ LORD SILKINI do not know whether it is convenient to thresh out this matter now, but I think that the noble Lord is, with respect, "taking a chance" on it because that is not the wording of Section 15. That section says:
… having regard to the number of individuals or households, or both, accommodated for the time being on the premises, as not to be reasonably suitable for occupation by those individuals or households,Now, that is "for the time being". If it turns out that for the time being a number of families have been dispossessed by the landlord, it may well be that it would not be reasonable to have this work done. That is the difficulty that Sheffield has experienced. "At the time they give the notice" is one thing; but if the people have been dispossessed, then it is no longer reasonably necessary to carry out the work of which they gave notice. Therefore, they could not recover.
§ LORD HASTINGSWe are getting into a technical argument; but my advice is that if the work is done to comply with the notice, then reasonable expenditure is reasonably incurred. It cannot be circumvented by reducing the number of people, and the default power is to do the work required to be done by the notice under Section 18(1). So I think that the difference in the Bill as a result of Clauses 62 and 63 is as I said, and it will put the local 468 authorities in this very much stronger position. An authority which has had difficulties as Sheffield has had need not have them in the future, because there would be no reason why they should not operate that sort of power. Again, in their particular case, they have not been willing to use the power of compulsory purchase, which is, and always has been, available for them to use.
It is true that in this discussion the Sheffield Corporation received some support from other local authorities, but I think it is fair to make it clear that they have not the backing of the local authority association mainly concerned, that is, the Association of Municipal Corporations, who, although naturally sympathetic to the argument, do not feel that it is sufficiently powerful to ask for an Amendment on this particular point; they are, in fact, willing to work the Bill as it stands. I say this, because the noble Lord brought up the particular case of Sheffield. But, for the various reasons given, I think the powers now in the Bill are sufficient for the local authorities not to be worried during the limited period when the works notice will be in operation. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not feel it is necessary to press this Amendment.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I must say that on this occasion I am not satisfied with the reply; but I would ask the noble Lord whether he would be willing to go back and have another word with his right honourable friend on the subject. I am not asking him to commit himself; but if he feels able to do something about the arguments which I have put forward—and I think they are sound and based on the actual experience of Sheffield—I will, in the meantime, be willing to withdraw this Amendment and hope that on Third Reading it will be possible to do something.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 70 [Restriction on recovery of possession after making of compulsory purchase order]:
§ 4.29 p.m.
§
LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
(1A) Subject to this section, in proceedings
469
in the county court instituted during the relevant period to enforce against the former lessee the right to recover possession of the premises the court may if it thinks fit—
If at any time the Minister notifies the local authority that he declines to confirm the said compulsory purchase order, or that order is quashed by a court, or, whether before or after that order has been submitted to the Minister for confirmation. the local authority decide not to proceed with it, it shall be the duty of the local authority to notify the person entitled to the benefit of the order for possession of the premises, and that person shall be entitled, on applying to the court, to obtain an order terminating the period of suspension, but subject to the exercise of such discretion in fixing the date on which possession is to be given as the court might exercise apart from this subsection if it were then making an order for possession for the first time.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to make an improvement upon Clause 70. The general effect of that clause is that if the local authority make a compulsory purchase order in respect of a multi-occupied house, then for the "relevant period"—which has been laid down as twelve months—it is an offence to recover possession against the tenant who has been given notice to quit expiring after an order is made, otherwise than by order of a county court. Though the clause was welcomed in general it was pointed out in another place, and it has since been represented to us by the municipal corporations, that a more explicit power to stay possession should be given to the county court because its powers are limited under Common Law.
§ Although a landlord cannot give notice to quit during the relevant period except by applying to the court, the county court can give a stay of possession for only a month or so. It would actually work out a little longer, since there must be twenty-eight days' notice as well. Therefore, it was obviously necessary to give the court the power to extend the period up to the maximum length of the relevant period, which is twelve months. That 470 is what this Amendment does. Nevertheless, since the relevant period may come to an end before the period of suspension allowed by the court, by the withdrawal, the non-confirmation or the quashing of a compulsory purchase order, then the landlord would be in a position to apply for the period of suspension also to be terminated. So the closing words of the Amendment provide that the court can still have recourse to its discretion if it thinks it desirable, under Common Law, to grant a more limited breathing space. Those are the two things that this Amendment does to strengthen Clause 70 and to meet the objectives of noble Lords in all quarters of the House. I hope it will be acceptable to noble Lords opposite. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, this Amendment, I think, satisfies the criticisms that were made earlier as to the possible ineffectiveness of the clause, and we are much obliged to the Government for introducing it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 39, at beginning insert ("'Subject to this section,'").—(Lord Hastings.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 76, leave out line 44 and insert—
("(2A) Subsections (1A) and (2) of this section shall not apply—").—(Lord Hastings.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 77, line 15, at end insert—
("(a) for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State;").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
471§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 17, after ("1946") insert ("and").—(The Marquess of Lothian).
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 18, leave out ("and to the Minister").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 20, after ("1947") insert ("and").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 21, leave out ("and to the Secretary of State").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 77, line 21, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (1A), for any reference to the county court there shall be substituted a reference to a court of competent jurisdiction;").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 22, after ("(2)") insert ("(2A)").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 23, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").—(The Marquess of Lothian)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
472§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 24, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to this section,").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 77, leave out line 35 and insert—
("(3) Subsections (1A) and (2) of this section shall not apply").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 71:
§ Control orders
§ Making of control order
§ 71.—(1) A local authority may make an order under this section (in this Part of this Act referred to as a "control order") as respects a house in their district which, or a part of which, is let in lodgings, or which is occupied by members of more than one family—
§ 4.34 p.m.
§
LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), at end of paragraph (b) to insert:
or
(c) if it appears to the local authority that, by reason of the action of the landlord, the safety, health, welfare or security of tenure of the persons living in the house are in need of protection as a result of intimidation, noise, offensive smells, the behaviour of other residents or other social conditions.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is what I described on Committee stage as a rather important Amendment. It is somewhat different from the Amendment which I moved on the earlier occasion. I think it meets at least one of the criticisms which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made, possibly with some force. Clause 71 provides for an unprecedented procedure: for the making of a control order by a local authority where a house is in multi-family occupation and where it falls short of certain standards and certain other conditions obtain, as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b), on which I need not spend any time. The effect of this is that the local authority can enter into possession and take the place of the landlord, and can do so for a period up to five years. 473 As I say, I do not propose to deal with the two grounds mentioned in the Bill, on which a control order can be made. The purpose of my Amendment is to introduce a third ground, which is that the landlord is guilty of conduct which amounts to intimidation of tenants, in consequence of which it becomes unbearable for a tenant to remain in possession. When we discussed this subject before, certain examples were given, such as setting a savage dog on a tenant, the creating of unbearable noise, making offensive smells, and all sorts of things like that, in such a way as to cause the tenant to give up possession. We know that that sort of thing has been taking place. There are many examples of it in a number of London boroughs —Paddington, for one. It has become known by the tern of "Rachmanism". And the purpose of this Amendment is to enable a control order to be made where these conditions exist in a house.
§ I would refer to some of the arguments that were put forward last time by the Government against the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. In the first place, they said that, as the Amendment was then drawn, it was out of keeping with the general purpose of the Bill and in particular of this clause, which relates to houses which are let in lodgings or occupied by more than one family. My previous Amendment, as drafted, was much wider, and no doubt the noble Earl was right in saying that it was out of keeping with the general structure of the Bill.
§ Then, our friend Sir Milner Holland was trotted out. We were expecting a report from him at some time which would give the ex tent of the difficulties that were encountered in this way and enable the Government more easily to deal with the problem. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that as this power was only for five years, at the end of that time the landlord could repeat his conduct and get rid of the tenants whom he wished to dispossess. We have an Amendment down to increase the period to seven years. Perhaps that will make the noble Lord happier about this proposal. At any rate, it will give the tenant security for two years longer.
§ The two main objections to the 474 Amendment—and I think that in a way they were contradictory—were, first, that local authorities were not suitable bodies for dealing with problems of this kind: they were qualified to look at the physical condition of premises and make decisions on that basis, but they were not suitable bodies for making decisions on the conduct of landlords, such as intimidation. At the same time, both the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that in any case a compulsory purchase order was more suitable for dealing with a problem of this kind—omitting to state that, in order to make a compulsory purchase order, they would still have to form a judgment on exactly the same set of facts. The question would still be: was the conduct of the landlord such that a compulsory purchase order would be suitable in the circumstances?
§ I should like to say a word about compulsory purchase orders. For the purpose of my argument, I am going to assume that a compulsory purchase order would be available for this purpose, but I am not at all sure that it would be. A compulsory purchase order is a very drastic procedure. It involves expenditure on the part of a local authority, expenditure here which is not primarily in order to deal with unsatisfactory premises but because there is an unsatisfactory landlord. I should have thought that was not primarily the function of a compulsory purchase order. Moreover, it is recognised—at least, the Minister said so in another place—that it takes an average of eight months to get a decision as to whether or not the Minister will confirm a compulsory purchase order.
§ Although it is quite true that provisions have been incorporated in this Bill which protect the tenant from a landlord getting possession while waiting for the result of a compulsory purchase order, it does not protect the tenant against such conduct of the landlord, which we are discussing, as forces the tenant out. What is wanted here is not summonses which will bite in eight or ten months' time, but something which will operate at once. The control order is something that operates immediately. If a tenant is being harassed with savage dogs or offensive smells or noises and the rest of the paraphernalia, that tenant cannot afford to sit there and 475 wait until the Minister confirms a compulsory purchase order. What is wanted is the local authority to use the control order procedure and step in and take the place of the landlord, and to take the place of the landlord for the next five or seven years.
§ It is for this reason, among others, that I feel the compulsory purchase order will not satisfactorily deal with the problem. I know it is drastic, but it does not necessarily penalise the landlord, because under the 1959 Act compensation has to be paid to the landlord for the value of the premises, presumably on the basis of the rents he is receiving or could receive. Therefore, it is not necessarily penalising him to acquire his premises compulsorily. But my point is that it does not protect the tenant. The landlord can carry on with this course of conduct and, if he so desires, get rid of the tenant while he is waiting for the result of the compulsory purchase order.
§ Throughout the earlier proceedings on the Bill the Government expressed themselves as being anxious to deal with the problem of Rachmanism. They have admitted that there is the problem, and. in fact, at one time the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, gave me the impression that the Bill as it stood, without amendment, was capable of dealing with that problem. I accept the noble Lord's explanation that that is not what he meant to say, although he certainly gave me that impression. But, even accepting the noble Lord's explanation, he recognised that this is an evil which has to be dealt with. Therefore, I would ask the Government why they are not prepared to deal with it in this Bill.
§ Now that I have, as I hope, put the Amendment in a form which is acceptable, or nearly acceptable—that is, it does not interfere with the general structure of the BillI— trust that it will be possible, if not to accept the exact words, to accept the general idea that Rachmanism has to be dealt with in this Bill, and broadly in the way that I have put forward in the Amendment. We have had a long argument about this before, and I do not want to enlarge on it. However, I feel that no other method of dealing with the matter is satisfactory, and I hope the Government will take the view that this can now be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
476
§
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 6, at end insert the said word and paragraph.—(Lord Silkin.)
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at this early stage in our discussion on the Amendment, because, in the first place, the Amendment is, as the noble Lord said, drawn in somewhat different terms from a similar Amendment that we debated on two previous occasions, and it will enable me to express the Government's view; and, secondly, it will give me the opportunity of clearing up one or two possible misunderstandings which seem to have arisen in our previous discussions, on a matter which is very complicated. I think, even from the few words the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken to-day, it is clear that some of these misunderstandings still exist. So during the course of what I have to say I hope we shall be able to examine just what the problem is; whether the problem, as put to your Lordships by the noble Lord, exists, and to what extent; and whether, if it exists, it is or is not dealt with in this part of the Bill.
It is true that the Amendment as drawn is in rather narrower terms on this occasion, and that it leaves in the Bill the words in lines 7 to 10 concerning the living conditions in the house, to which the Government attach such importance. It was proposed to take out these words in the previous Amendment. Nevertheless, if I may say so without disrespect to noble Lords opposite, the greater part of the proposed paragraph which they wish to insert adds little or nothing to what is already there. Indeed, by introducing the necessity to establish a link between bad conditions and positive action by the landlord, which is referred to in the Amendment, it tends, if anything, to have an unduly limiting effect. What the proposed words really amount to, when sifted, is an alternative ground for making a control order (whether or not subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this clause referring to the 1961 Act can be made to apply) if security of tenure is threatened by intimidation. That is what it comes down to; and I see the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, agrees. Although the words are different, the principle about which we are arguing is the same as before.
The living conditions referred to in the clause as drafted would cover, as I 477 explained before, events observable by way of living conditions, such as deliberate rowdyism and flagrant prostitution. These words are therefore adequate to cover any case where it is also possible to take action under Part II of the 1961 Housing Act. This is laid down in subsection (l)(a) and (b) of the clause, and that has hitherto been the bone of contention.
A house may attract action under Sections 12, 14, 15 or 16 of the 1961 Act, but it may suffice if I refer now, by way of example, to the words to be found in Section 15. It refers to power to require execution of works in multi-occupied houses which are defective in respect of the following matters:
Natural and artificial lighting, ventilation, water supply, personal washing facilities, drainage and sanitary conveniences, facilities for the storage and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water, installations for space heating or for the use of space heating appliances",and, in each and every case,having regard to the number of individuals or householders.The very essence of Rachmanism is the exploitation of tenants by means of exorbitant rents in relation to the living conditions. The profit comes from the fact that the physical conditions are bad, and that the house is defective in the way or ways alluded to in Section 15 of the 1961 Act. The defects which I have enumerated do not have to be very serious for action to be taken by the local authority in order to enforce the necessary improvements—that is, under the 1961 Act as it stands; nor do they have to be very serious in order to put on a control order under this Bill if the living conditions should at the same time be bad enough to necessitate a control order for the protection of the safety, welfare or health of the persons living in the house. For the application of this clause, it is the living conditions upon which emphasis should be put.If the multi-occupied house is not thoroughly well-equipped—in relation to the numbers of householders living there—with sanitary facilities, or with lighting, ventilation, heating and the other relevant amenities, or if the multi-occupied house is not thoroughly well-managed in terms of maintenance, lighting, cleanliness of common parts, disposal of refuse, fire escape arrangements, 478 and so on, then the 1961 Act could be applied. In any such property any observable pressure upon the tenants—that is, observable by the eye, the ear, or the nose—would be the ground for a control order if in the view of the local authority it threatened their safety, health or welfare.
There has not been brought to our attention any single case where pressure has been alleged to have been brought to bear on tenants when the equipment and management of the property was of such a standard that the 1961 Act would not bite. My right honourable friend in another place specifically challenged the Opposition there to produce such cases, with no result at all. We can, I think, regard it as almost axiomatic that barbarities of the sort we have in mind are not practised in well-equipped, well-managed properties.
Assuming, therefore, that the condition requiring that the property should be subject to the 1961 Act treatment is a very low hurdle to jump, I now turn to the requirement that the pressure should be observable in the living conditions. Again, every example quoted—systematic rowdyism, offensive smells, flagrant prostitution, overt intimidation —is observable; and if the local authority think that the welfare, safety and health of the tenants are endangered, then the control order power operates. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in connection with compulsory purchase orders, envisaged a situation where a tenant had to wait for six months before the order was confirmed, and might have his life made intolerable. But not by savage dogs; that, surely to goodness! is observable. That comes under one of the observable living conditions which enables the local authority immediately to impose a control order. So that will immediately spring off the procedure for a control order.
It is only if there were surreptitious, furtive, unobservable intimidation or pressure that the control order power would not be available. I must repeat that we have no evidence of such a case. In such circumstances then, and then only, the compulsory purchase order procedure would be there for the local authority to use. It is therefore absolutely right to say—as I have said 479 all along in spite of the misunderstandings that we have had—that Rachmanism is dealt with, and dealt with severely, in respect of multi-occupied houses, in Part IV of this Bill. I never said that it was not dealt with. All I have said is that it was not dealt with in the wider field to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was referring in previous speeches. Rachmanism is dealt with in multi-occupied houses in this Bill.
Now a word on the compulsory purchase order. If an authority did wish to step in where the rights and wrongs were by no means clear, and where there was no observable evidence of bad living conditions for tenants, then the compulsory purchase order procedure would be available. The tenants' security would be safeguarded for twelve months by Clause 70 of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, realised, and the Minister, through a public inquiry, could sort out whether it was right to hand the property over to the local authority because the landlord had, by his bad behaviour, threatened homelessness to his tenants.
I think it was at this point that we fell into a state of some confusion during the Committee stage, and I am only too willing to take the blame for that. There had been a good deal of questioning to and fro and, in particular, a number of noble Lords, notably my noble friend Lord Molson, wanted to know why one should use the more drastic powers of a compulsory purchase order to deal with cases of intimidation alone, rather than have it dealt with by means of a control order under this Bill. The relevance of this question loomed larger in the minds of noble Lords, in view of the fact that it was generally understood that in both cases there would be an appeal to the court.
My Lords, I am afraid that this is where I went wrong, even though I am sure that other noble Lords with great experience in the field of housing must, on reflection, have realised that I, and, indeed, all of us, went wrong at that point. The appeals under this Bill are to the county court, which is basically a court of civil jurisdiction and does not normally have the job of considering matters which arise under criminal 480 law. Where a c.p.o. is concerned, the Minister decides the case after the public inquiry, and the only appeal from his decision is to the High Court on the ground that an order has been improperly made or may be ultra vires. The appeal does not, and may not, deal with the merits of the case.
It will be seen from what I have said that the essential difference in dealing with cases of alleged intimidation by means of the control order procedure, on the one hand, or by the compulsory purchase order, on the other, is as follows. The control order takes immediate effect and penalises the landlord before he has even been heard, thereafter remitting his case to a county court, whose discretion must necessarily be circumscribed by a justiciable formula, enunciated in the Bill; whereas the procedure followed once a compulsory purchase order has been made not only ensures that the case will be thoroughly investigated at a public inquiry before the landlord is penalised, but also enables the Minister to consider the whole matter from the standpoint of the general public welfare—and that is a very wide standpoint indeed.
Therefore, I hope your Lordships will appreciate that the procedure of a c.p.o. is preferable when dealing with a threat of homelessness not linked with observable bad living conditions, both on the grounds of equity and justice, and on the grounds of public policy. It should be remembered that the effect upon the occupants of a multi-occupied house is as immediate in the case of a c.p.o. as it is in that of a control order. As I say, under Clause 70 of the Bill it is made clear that a tenant cannot be evicted for twelve months, except by order of the county court, once a c.p.o. has been made by the local authority. The protection to the tenant is thus afforded immediately, and does not have to wait for the confirmation of the c.p.o. by the Minister.
I hope that I have now persuaded the noble Lord opposite that this question of savage dogs and any observable intimidation can be, and would be, dealt with under the control order procedure. To sum up, I hope that I have been able to convince your Lordships that this Amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. I hope that the reasons I 481 have given are now perfectly clear, and I hope, furthermore, that it will be realised that, should this Amendment be passed, the whole purpose of the clause will be altered. It would not be possible to allow the references to Part II of the 1961 Act to stand on their own in the clause as a sufficient reason for the exercising of a control order without reference to the living conditions as an additional reason.
As it stands, the Bill deals with squalid conditions and with Rachmanism in all the manifestations which have come to light in multi-occupied houses. If there were to be cases when, against all our experience, either the management and the equipment of the property was first-class, and/or the pressure on the tenant was unobservable, then the c.p.o. procedure, with full protection for the tenants during its course, is available. I hope now that the whole matter will be clearer to your Lordships, and that you will see fit to reject this Amendment, should the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, press it to a Division.
§ LORD SILKINI do propose to press this Amendment to a Division, because I am in no way satisfied with the reply of the noble Lord. I do not think that anything would be gained by prolonging the debate. He has not really replied to many of the points I made as regards the unsatisfactory nature of the compulsory purchase order for protecting the tenant who requires immediate protection against eviction. It is true that he does not require protection against a court order, but the very essence of this is that a tenant's life is being made hell and that he is being forced to go. He is not protected at all by a compulsory purchase order. However, I see no point in going on with the argument. We have discussed this on several occasions and I hope the House will now decide.
§ 5.1 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)My Lords, before the House does proceed to a Division I should like, even at this late stage, to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, as mover of the Amendment, I have the right of reply, and I thought that I had exercised it. But if the noble and learned Lord 482 is now going to continue the debate, I hope that I shall be still permitted to exercise my right of reply.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I myself shall have no objection to that course. The noble Lord rose very quickly; I was waiting to see if any other noble Lord wished to speak, because there are a few things I wish to say to your Lordships on this particular Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, began his speech by saying that the local authorities were just as suitable bodies to determine whether a control order should be made as to determine whether a compulsory purchase order should be initiated. I am not seeking to challenge that proposition at all, but I should like your Lordships to bear in mind that the noble Lord's Amendment does not seek to alter the preliminary words and first two conditions of Clause 71—namely subsections (1)(a) and (b); it is merely to insert the new paragraph (c).
If Rachmanism (using the word in the same sense as the noble Lord has described it) does affect the living conditions in the house, the noble Lord cannot seriously suggest that the clause as it is now drafted does not cover that. I do not think there can be any doubt at all that it would enable a control order to be made. There is, indeed, a very considerable overlap between the noble Lord's Amendment and what is already in the Bill. The Amendment refers to the noise, smells, and the behaviour of other residents or other social conditions. If noise or smells or behaviour of other residents affects the living conditions of the people living in the house then Clause 71 bites.
But there are two significant differences. One is that the new proposal, this Amendment, only applies where it can be shown that the situation arises "by reason of the action of the landlord,". That is a limiting factor. I do not see how this new paragraph (c) could stand alongside paragraph (b). As the Bill now stands, all that is necessary is to show that the living conditions are affected in the way described by the Bill; it is not necessary to establish that that is due to the action of the landlord. In that context I must say that the Bill is better without the Amendment. 483 When you examine it, the only direct difference between the Bill as it now stands, apart from that particular point, is the inclusion in the Amendment of the word "intimidation". What is meant by "intimidation" in this context? We were teased the other day, in our discussions on the Resale Prices Bill, about "imprecise" language. I must say that I think the word "intimidation" in this context requires some definition. It has been said that one form of the tort of intimidation is intentionally to compel a person by means of an illegal threat to do some act whereby loss accrues to him. Presumably the word in this Amendment is intended to cover the same thing. This brings me to an important point, on which my noble friend Lord Hastings touched, but I hope your Lordships will not mind if I say a little bit more about it.
Your Lordships will see that Clause 71 gives the local authority power to act when certain conditions appear to them to exist. I want to remind your Lordships what those conditions are. There is no trial, no inquiry, before the control order is made. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the making of a control order on a landlord, on the grounds contained in this Bill, does constitute a very grave reflection upon the landlord. Where the control order is made on certain conditions appearing to the local authority to exist, the landlord has to submit to the control order—he can only appeal against it, ex post facto to the county court. It would probably take four months before that case could be heard. I think this machinery is acceptable when the living conditions are observable. The public health inspector can visit the premises and see for himself what the living conditions are. If, for instance, it is said that there is so much noise that a man cannot get any sleep, the public health inspector can satisfy himself of that and report to his local authority. But if a control order is made on the ground of intimidation, an illegal threat to do some act, the public health inspector is not likely to be a witness to that.
My Lords, just suppose for one moment that some ill-disposed tenants—and not all tenants are well-disposed— 484 make a series of allegations of intimidation; and suppose that the local authority believe them and make a control order in consequence. If this Amendment were accepted, then the landlord would be condemned unheard—and I am sure your Lordships would never accede to the proposition that a man should be condemned unheard and then just be allowed to appeal. Yet this is what this Amendment proposes: that the local authority shall be able to make a control order if it appears to them, without any inquiry and without the landlord having any opportunity of showing that the allegations made against him are false, that the landlord has been guilty of intimidation. I suggest that this really will not do; and on this ground alone I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
Where the local authority think that there has been intimidation likely to affect health, safety or welfare or, indeed, the security of tenure, I do support what my noble friend has said: that the right course would be for the local authority to seek to exercise their powers of compulsory purchase. If the landlord wishes to challenge what is said against him, he can object to the order and there must be an inquiry before the order is confirmed. The landlord thus has an opportunity of showing, before the order is confirmed, that the allegations are false. It has been said that the sanction of a compulsory purchase order is heavier than that of a control order. I am not sure that that is the case, but if it is, I am not myself opposed to the sanction being heavier, bearing in mind that this procedure has the advantage of allowing the landlord to secure a public inquiry before he loses his property, whereas under Section 71 he has no right to an inquiry before being dispossessed.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that a compulsory purchase order would mean compensation based upon the sweated rents charged. There was a suggestion that he might be entitled to that. I am advised that that is not the case. It has been held by the Lands Tribunal that they disregard any element of value that derives from a use that could be restrained by any court or is contrary to law or detrimental to the health of the occupants of the premises or to the public health.
I have intervened at this late stage merely to put these points to your Lord- 485 ships. I make this point finally. I find it very difficult to believe that if a landlord is engaging in Rachmanism he is going to rely upon intimidation alone. If there is anything in the kind of intimidation that affects the living conditions, then I reiterate the tenant is fully protected by Section 71. The only thing that this Amendment really adds—while it is limited in the sense I indicated to being restricted to having to establish action by the landlord—is inclusion of the word "intimidation", and if there is a case of intimidation standing entirely by itself, things said or done or written by the landlord or his agent to the tenant, I believe, for the reasons I have given, a compulsory purchase order is much the better machinery for dealing with it.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I am sure we are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for intervening. He has made, I think, two main points: one, that the Amendment is really unnecessary because it is possible to deal with a question, other than intimidation which is not observable, by the earlier provisions of this clause. I world only say that this is an additional ground. It does not prevent a local authority from making a control order under paragraph (a) or (b) if it is applicable, if the conditions of the dwellings permit it. But this is an additional ground which has been deliberately inserted as applying to actions
§ for which the landlord is responsible. In addition to the grounds to which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred, giving a right to a local authority to make a control order, we want to give them this further ground so that they can deal with actions by the landlord designed to get the tenant out without the legal machinery. We know that this is happening, and I still fail to understand why the Government—whether they like the particular words or not—are not prepared to accept the further strengthening of the powers of the local authority in addition to what is already in the Bill for dealing with this particular evil.
§ In my view, these provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) to Clause 71(1) are not sufficient to deal with this particular problem. I do not think I need enlarge on the matter. I hope that the House will be prepared to incorporate in the Bill express powers for dealing with this specific problem which everyone knows exists, whether accompanied by the problem of the condition of the premises or not. I hope, therefore, I shall be supported in this Amendment.
§ 5.23 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 57.
487| CONTENTS | ||
| Addison, V. | Gardiner, L. | Samuel, V. |
| Alexander of Hillsborough, E. | Henderson, L. | Shackleton, L. |
| Amwell, L. | Hobson, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Archibald, L. | Latham, L. | Silkin, L. |
| Attlee, E. | Lawson, L. | Summerskill, B. |
| Burden, L. [Teller.] | Lindsay of Birker, L. | Taylor, L. |
| Champion, L. [Teller.] | Listowel, E. | Uvedale of North End, L. |
| Chorley, L. | Longford, E. | Walston, L. |
| Colwyn, L. | Milner of Leeds, L. | Williams, L. |
| Crook, L. | Morrison of Lambeth, L. | Williams of Barnburgh, L. |
| Faringdon, L. | Mottistone, L. | Wilmot of Selmeston, L. |
| Gaitskell, B. | St. Davids, V. | Wise, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Ailwyn, L. | Denham, L. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. |
| Alport, L. | Derwent, L. | Hanworth, V. |
| Ampthill, L. | Devonshire, D. | Hastings, L. |
| Atholl, D. | Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Hawke, L. |
| Auckland, L. | Drumalbyn, L. | Horsburgh, B. |
| Blakenham, V. | Ferrers, E. | Iddesleigh, E. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Forster of Harraby, L. | Ilford, L. |
| Carrington, L. | Fortescue, E. | Jellicoe, E. |
| Chesham, L. | Fraser of Lonsdale, L. | Lansdowne, M. |
| Conesford, L. | Fraser of North Cape, L. | Long, V. |
| Coutanche, L. | Goschen, V. [Teller.] | Lothian, M. |
| Crathorne, L. | Grenfell, L. | Mabane, L. |
| McCorquodale of Newton, L. | Monsell, V. | Spens, L. |
| Mancroft, L. | Newton, L. | Stonehaven, V. |
| Margesson, V. | St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] | Stang, L. |
| Massereene and Ferrard, V. | St. Oswald, L. | Stuart of Findhorn, V. |
| Merrivale, L. | Sandford, L. | Thurlow, L. |
| Meston, L. | Sinha, L. | Tweedsmuir, L. |
| Milverton, L. | Soulbury, V. | Waleran, L. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 80 [Appeal against control order]:
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, I apologise for having made the longest speech during the Report stage. I shall now make the shortest. This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 22, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").—(Lord Hastings.)
§ Clause 84 [Termination of control order]:
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, this is an Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that he would not mind seeing and did not feel strongly about. He did not mind if the period was seven instead of five years. Therefore, I thought I would put it down and give him an opportunity of saying that he agreed. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 27, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, the noble Lord has moved his Amendment most winningly. If I remember correctly, he said at Committee stage that he did not wish to put too high the case for seven years as opposed to five years. I thought it right to return the compliment and say I did not feel passionately about five as opposed to seven, although I preferred the former. I think, from the point of view of strict historical accuracy, that is the position. But I did say that the Government preferred five years, and that is, in fact, still my position.
We have in fact looked at this again—that is not just a phrase—and we should still prefer five years for the control order, and that for the two reasons which I mentioned at Committee stage which I shall rehearse briefly now on Report.
The first is that we feel that five years is really a sufficient period for the local 488 authority to get the conditions which they are worried about put right. The first control orders will presumably be made this year, and therefore any local authority making them will have until 1969 to put the conditions right. Surely that is a sufficient period of time. As I mentioned on the Committee stage, it is as long a period as the First World War, and perhaps I might mention now, on the Report stage, that it is only one year less than the period of the Second World War. I would have thought it was sufficient time.
The second point which I made on Committee was that, if the land or property was really beyond redemption, then quite possibly a control order is not the right instrument in any case. It may well have been better for the local authority to go for a c.p.o. in the first instance. But if the local authority have not gone for a c.p.o. but have opted for a control order, then that does not preclude them during the period of the control order from going back to the c.p.o. procedure if they so desire. That is expressly provided for in Clause 72(5) of the Bill. We feel that five years is really a sufficient time. I do not wish to claim any particular merit for it. The noble Lord has not claimed any particular merit for seven, other than, presumably, that it is a luckier number than five. He has not argued the merits of it, and I feel that five is a sufficient period. I would suggest, again without expressing passionate feelings about it, that we should rest on five.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, it has to be remembered that, if the control order is made for the reasons set out in the earlier clause, there will be a lot to do to put things right and it may well take time. There may be difficulties of construction of one sort or another, or legal proceedings. Therefore, it is desirable that they should have adequate time. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said earlier that what we were asking for in the previous Amendment was all in the Bill; that you 489 could deal with Rachmanism fully under the Bill as it was. Therefore, this period is a matter of some importance. I must say, incidentally, that the Lord Chancellor said it would be wrong to deal with Rachmanism in the way that we want under the Bill. However, he overthrew the argument of Lord Hastings. But this is tied up, at any rate, with the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) in the earlier clause which contemplates a pretty serious state of affairs.
Indeed, this problem of housing and bad conditions, and so on, aroused the protests and public manifestations of two right reverend Prelates in London, the Lord Bishops of London and of Southwark, who led a procession from St. Paul's to Southwark Cathedral. I sympathise with them in doing so, even though it was a little inconvenient to the London County Council. Therefore, it is to be much regretted that, when we are dealing with Rachmanism and some aspects of homelessness this afternoon, neither the Bishop of London nor the Bishop of Southwark, nor any other Bishop, is here either to speak, or to vote. I have mentioned this before. I really do think that, so long as they remain Members of your Lordships' House, they ought to be here on matters of this sort.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I would just say to the noble Earl that I did not put forward any argument for the Amendment because I was under the impression, no doubt wrongly, from what he had said previously, that it would be accepted. I thought that there was no point in wasting words if it was going to be accepted. One of the arguments put forward against the previous Amendment was that at the end of five years the same conditions will apply—that the landowner will once more indulge in intimidation, and so on. The answer to that is to extend the period. Once such a drastic step as a control order is made, it should be made for a sufficient period to enable the house to be put into proper order, not only from the structural point of view but from every other point of view, to get the tenants living happily together and to ensure that thereafter the place will be properly conducted. This is not one of those Amendments one would fight to the death about, but it is an important Amendment, and I think that once a control order is made it is right that it should be made for a longer period.
§ 5.31 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 52.
489| CONTENTS | ||
| Alexander of Hillsborough, E. | Hobson, L. | Silkin, L. |
| Archibald, L. | Listowel, E. | Summerskill, B. |
| Burden, L. [Teller.] | Longford, E. | Taylor, L. |
| Champion, L. [Teller.] | Milner of Leeds, L. | Walston, L. |
| Colwyn, L. | Morrison of Lambeth, L. | Williams, L. |
| Crook, L. | Mottistone, L. | Williams of Barnburgh, L. |
| Faringdon, L. | St. Davids, V. | Wilmot of Selmeston, L. |
| Gaitskell, B. | Samuel, V. | Wise, L. |
| Gardiner, L. | Shackleton, L. | Wootton of Abinger, B. |
| Henderson, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Ailwyn, L. | Fraser of Lonsdale, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Fraser of North Cape, L. | Milverton, L. |
| Auckland, L. | Goschen, V. [Teller.] | Molson, L. |
| Blakenham, V. | Granfell, L. | Monsell, V. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Newton, L. |
| Chesham, L. | Hanworth, V. | Poole, L. |
| Conesford, L. | Hastings, L. | St. Aldwyn E. [Teller.] |
| Coutanche, L. | Hawke, L. | St. Oswald, L. |
| Crathorne, L. | Horsbrugh, B. | Sandford, L. |
| Denham, L. | Iddesleigh, E. | Sinha, L. |
| Derwent, L. | Ilford, L. | Soulbury, V. |
| Devonshire, D. | Jellicoe, E. | Stonehaven, V. |
| Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Lansdowne, M. | Stuart of Findhorn, V. |
| Drumalbyn, L. | Long, V. | Thurlow, L. |
| Ferrers, E. | McCorquodale of Newton, L. | Tweedsmuir, L. |
| Forster of Harraby, L. | Margesson, V. | Waleran, L. |
| Lothian, M. | Massereene and Ferrard, V. | Wolverton, L. |
| Fortescue, E. |
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ Clause 101 [Other minor amendments of Housing Acts]:
§ LORD HASTINGSMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Page 112, line 13, leave out ("a house") and insert ("any premises").—Lord Hastings.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.40 p.m.
§
LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
(3) In section 69(3) of the Act of 1957 (under which a local authority may issue a certificate that a house is fit for human habitation and will remain so fit for a specified period, not being less than five nor more than ten years) for the word 'ten' there shall be substituted the word fifteen'".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment requires lust a brief explanation. Section 69 of the Housing Act, 1957, enables the owner of a house who proposes to improve it to obtain a certificate from the local authority that the house is fit, and will with reasonable care and maintenance remain fit for a period of not less than five years nor more than ten years. During that period the local authority is debarred from taking action to secure the demolition of the house as unfit for human habitation, either by means of including it in a clearance area or by means of a demolition order under the Act of 1957. The situation is that the local authority must be satisfied before making a standard grant that the house will remain fit for not less than fifteen years, and it is the same for a discretionary grant; and the same period again is also the test in the case of compulsory improvements. Therefore, it seems to the Government that it would be right to amend Section 69 of the Act of 1957 to remove this discrepancy.
§ As this is the last Amendment, and in anticipation that it will not be very controversial, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed so much both to the Committee stage and to the Report stage of this Bill. We have had quite a number of Amendments to-day which have been agreed between us, meeting points on one side or the other. I should like also to thank my noble friend beside me, not for actually abandoning the defence of the Navy, but for coming to the assistance of the defence of his old Department. I hope we shall feel that we have done good work on 492 this Bill and improved it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 28, at end insert the said subsection—(Lord Hastings.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in the latter part of his remarks in support of this Amendment, was entirely out of order, I shall be out of order in supporting the Amendment and saying that, while we recognise that this Bill is a much better Bill than it was before, we should have been completely satisfied if only the last Amendment on which we divided, and the one before, had been accepted by the Government. I still regret very much that they have not been accepted. There is still time; there is another stage of the Bill, and I do hope—not with very great confidence—that the Government will have another look at this matter to see whether it is possible to provide in this measure for the fears which so many of us have. This practice of Rachmanism is still continuing, a great many people are suffering as a result of it, and this Bill gives us an opportunity of dealing with this matter. If only that can be done, then my satisfaction with this Bill will be almost complete.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.