RENT BILL

HL Deb 29 July 1965 vol 268 cc1459-569

4.23 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 21:

Registration areas and rent officers in England and Wales

(3) A scheme under this section—

LORD MITCHISON moved, in subsection (3)(a), after the second "the" to insert "Minister with the consent of the". The noble Lord said: Having regard to the constitutional and usual practice as between the Treasury and Ministers, this is a formal Amendment. But may I be allowed to make a short personal statement about a point which arose in Committee on Clause 13? It is to be found in cols. 1074 and 1075 of Hansard for July 26. On reading my first answer, in col. 1075, to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I think my answer was confused and embodied a mistaken impression in my own mind. I am glad, therefore, that I promised to check it and to let the noble Lord know the result, as I have done privately. The question was whether the second succession provided for in Clause 13 will apply only to tenancies at present under control, or whether it will also apply to the new regulated tenancies. Subject to modifications and exceptions, the Bill applies the Rent Acts to regulated tenancies, and accordingly the right answer to the question is that the second succession applies to regulated tenancies, since there has been a first succession and they are, therefore, statutory tenancies. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 19, after ("the") insert ("Minister with the consent of the").—(Lord Mitchison.)

LORD HASTINGS

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary, for having made this statement. I think it is important and useful that he should have done so, because, after all, we in this Committee need to know the meaning of the main clauses of the Bill, and, even more important, it is desirable that landlords and tenants should know their rights, and the limitations on their rights, in this matter. We now know where we are.

I do not blame the noble Lord for having misinterpreted the clause; I myself was doubtful about the meaning. While he did say that he found the language quite clear, the noble Lord managed to misinterpret its meaning, and therefore I submit that the language was not quite clear. Anyhow, I need not say any more about it, although it is rather an important clause, because now such rights as accrue on the second transmission on death are to be enjoyed by regulated tenancies and not only by the succeeding controlled tenancies. T should have seen the purpose of including the latter, because that would be dealing with cases of real hardship among the poorer sections of the community. I am less convinced of the necessity in so far as regulated tenancies are concerned. That has now passed, and we shall watch how it works in the future. I am obliged to the noble Lord for clarifying this matter, and I have pleasure in agreeing to the formal Amendment he has moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (c), to insert: () shall require the clerk to the local authority to appoint at least one rent officer or deputy rent officer for the area from among such persons as have had practical experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses;

The noble Lord said: I do not wish to spend much time on this Amendment. We had a long discussion on the Amendment, moved by my noble friend Lord Molson, on the question of having rent officers experienced in property valuation. I have put down this Amendment to correct what is perhaps a false impression created in my mind by the proceedings in another place, where there was much argument on this matter.

After reading the Report of those proceedings, I felt strongly that the Minister, although not actually saying so in so many words, had given an impression of being prejudiced against the employment of people experienced in the valuation of dwelling-houses. This impression may flow over to town clerks who have to appoint the rent officers and deputy rent officers in their registration area, and I want to make quite sure that town clerks will not feel themselves debarred from appointing people as rent officers or deputy rent officers who have experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses. I think it would be most undesirable if they were considered to be biassed. Surely it should depend on the stature of the person concerned. I should have thought that if a man has such experience, so much the better.

When it comes to the number, I have proposed that the clerk to the local authority should appoint at least one rent officer or deputy rent officer. It is impossible to judge what the number should be, because it brings one into a consideration of the number of registration areas and their size. I do not know—perhaps the noble Lord can tell me—what is in the Minister's mind as to how many rent officers or deputy rent officers are likely to be appointed in registration areas. Is it likely that there will be any case where there will be only one; or must there be a rent officer and a deputy rent officer, as a minimum? Is there any case where there will not be more than that? We should like a little enlightenment on this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.)—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CHAMPION

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that there is no prejudice in the mind of the Minister against people who are knowledgeable in this field. He has said that he is not asking for anyone who would have a definite qualification but, as I understand him, someone who has experience in the matter of valuation. If my noble friend had had such a prejudice against them, he would not have stressed the necessity to get them on the rent assessment committees. I am sure he is aware of the valuable services that could be given by people who are knowledgeable in this field.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will remember that I stressed this point in replying to his noble friend Lord Molson on Amendment No. 27. So far as the number of rent officers in each area is concerned, this is bound to depend on many factors. The county borough, a comparatively closely-knit affair, might need many less than would a huge county. As I say, it will be necessary for the clerk of the local authority to think out his area, and in the preparation of the scheme with my noble friend—because consultation enters into this very much—to decide how many rent officers he will require. I can well imagine that in some fairly large and populous counties four, five or even six might be needed. But this is a matter for consultation, and I am sure that my noble friend will go carefully into it when he is deciding on the scheme.

There is the factor to which I referred when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that it is not easy to get people who are completely qualified in this field. The noble Lord mentioned qualification, but it is not easy to get people who are experienced in the way that I am sure the noble Lord and the Minister would like to have, if it were possible to get them. A pretty formidable task is placed upon the Minister, because there will be some 172 registration areas in this country. There are, in England and Wales, 58 county councils excluding London, 82 county boroughs, and 32 London boroughs and the City. We feel that it would be better to leave this question to the Minister to decide, in consultation with the clerk, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is no prejudice in the mind of the Minister against people who have the necessary experience, if he can possibly get them to do this job.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

May I ask the noble Lord whether it is possible for a rent officer, or deputy rent officer, to be employed on a part-time basis? Is it intended that such officers should be employed on a whole-time basis? If there was arty difficulty, as suggested, in getting an experienced person, and experience may well be necessary in the valuation of dwelling houses, it might be possible to get on a part-time basis a person who was more efficient than those who could be got on a full-time basis, particularly if a large area is concerned. A valuation officer might have specialised or particular knowledge of a local area rather than a larger area. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us guidance on that point.

LORD CHAMPION

In answer to a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on Tuesday, I said that the Minister would not rule out the employment of part-time people in this field. Of course, so far as the part-time employment of people is concerned, he will need to have in his mind a number of factors. He will need to know what they are doing in the other part of their time; whether it might prejudice them against landlords or against tenants? All these are factors. But what the Minister has in mind here is that, as a result of retirement of people from the local government service and so on, we may be able to find just the sort of people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has referred.

LORD ST. HELENS

May I make a short point on this? In another place, Mr. MacColl, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, went rather further than the noble Lord, Lord Champion, because he said during the Committee stage: We recognise that a valuer should normally be available and hope that enough valuers will be available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, col. 1041, June 17, 1965.] If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary went as far as that in another place, would it not be as well to make it mandatory?

LORD CHAMPION

I think I have gone as far as I ought to go on this matter. It has been very carefully considered. I have been carefully briefed upon it, and I gave a fairly full reply. I stand by the reply I gave here to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on his Amendment on Tuesday last.

LORD HASTINGS

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. May I take up a point made by my noble friend, Lord St. Helens? I am not sure, but, speaking from memory, I think that referred to the appointment of valuation officers on the rent assessment committee, rather than rent or deputy rent officers, which we may come to later. In view of what the noble Lord has said—and I am obliged to him for the additional information with regard to registration areas—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.7 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved in subsection (3)(d), after "shall" to insert "allocate or". The noble Lord said: I hope we shall be able to discuss Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 together, because clearly they run together. In some registration areas, such as rural counties, there will be several rent officers, each of whom will be allocated a sub-area and will keep the register for that part of the area. Under Clause 21(3)(d) the scheme providing for the appointment of rent officers is to confer on the clerk to the local authority the duty of allocating work as between the rent officers. It may be appropriate, though, in some cases, for the scheme itself to specify the sub-areas into which the registration area is to be divided, and to specify the sub-centres where the parts of the register are to be kept, rather than to leave the clerk the duty of allocating the work. The first Amendment will enable this alternative course to be adopted when appropriate by providing that the work as between the rent officers may be allocated by the scheme. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pag 14, line 26, after ("shall") insert ("allocate or").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD NEWTON

This seems a very sensible improvement, and certainly we have no objection to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 27, after ("and") insert ("shall confer on the clerk the duty").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

Since rent officers are to be statutory officers and not employed by the local authority, it is necessary that we should include this Amendment in order to ensure that they will be insured under the appropriate Acts. This could have been done by regulation under the National Insurance Act, but it was thought that this would be perhaps the most convenient method of doing it, and would save a further waste of Parliamentary time by introducing a small regulation to cover this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 35, at end insert ("and for the purposes of the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1964 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1946 to 1964 they shall be deemed to be in that employment under a contract of service").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD NEWTON

Again we are obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [Registration areas and rent officers in Scotland]:

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "without consulting the local authority". The noble Lord said: This is a small matter. The Minister has power to revoke a scheme and to make another if something has gone wrong involving the local authority or the town clerk, and it says in the Bill as it stands at the moment that he may make another scheme without consulting the local authority. I only wish to remove the words "without consulting the local authority". I simply think that, otherwise, it is rather an unnecessary and a gratuitous insult to the local authority. I know, having worked in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that in practice local authorities would be taken into the confidence of the Minister, even in an unfortunate situation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 4, leave out from ("and") to ("make") in line 5.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CHAMPION

What is intended here is really the procedure to be adopted in the event of a default by the local authority concerned. It seems that to some extent it might make a nonsense of the default provisions if, in the event of a local authority refusing to have anything to do with the scheme, one had to go back and consult them about the scheme that one is going to introduce on one's own responsibility.

LORD HASTINGS

I do not want consultation, but, on the other hand, I do not want a definite lack of consultation.

LORD CHAMPION

I can see what the noble Lord means, and I do not want to go over the whole of the arguments because I am sure he understands the position. By reason of the wording of line 3 of subsection (1), it would be open to the Minister to consult the local authority if he wanted to do so before making another scheme. The word "may" in this context would, I think, cause the Minister to consult them if such consultation looked as though it would serve any useful purpose. I do not think this Amendment is necessary and I am fairly sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said, that if the Minister could possibly get consultation with a local authority that would be useful in the preparation of this scheme, he would be a fool if he did not do so.

LORD HASTINGS

I entirely agree with the last sentence of the noble Lord's remarks. I do not think the words in the Bill are in fact necessary, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Register of rents]:

On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am sorry I have not given noble Lords opposite any advance notice of this question, but I should like to put one question about this clause. It relates to the word "specification" in subsection (2)(b). I have a letter here from the Law Society, which seems to be a reputable source of authority to ask a question for clarification in the wording of the Bill. They found it difficult to imagine exactly what the word "specification" of a dwelling-house in the register would involve. I am bound to say that I do not know, either. Is it going to be the shape of it, or how many rooms it has, or whether the front door is green or blue? What does it mean?

Rather dependent upon what it may mean in the minds of those who are preparing the register, one has to look at Clause 43, where the Minister is given power to make regulations, and, among other things, in subsection (1)(a) he can prescribe the form of a register. One knows the sort of thing that happens in the case, perhaps, of a valuation list. The hereditament is set out, it is described: the owner occupier, the valuation and so on. I imagine that the register would take something of that form, but then we have this curious word "specification". Is the Minister going to prescribe something in Clause 43 which will make the form of the register take a particular shape so that it will contain certain details as to the things which are going to be specified under Clause 25? What is in fact in the minds of the Ministry on this? I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me now, but it seems to be a slightly strange word to use in this particular context, and I should be grateful for clarification.

LORD MITCHISON

I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will not think I am in any way criticising his point if I tell him that I notice he has not suggested any other word.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I would be happy to suggest another word after I have heard the noble Lord tell us what "specification" means. I will then do my level best to see if I can draft an Amendment to put it into effect.

LORD MITCHISON

The noble Viscount can do that by all means, but it is not easy to decide upon a collection of words because there are so many types of houses to deal with. I read this as meaning something like "two down and three up", termed into more official language. I thought it might go with a direction from the Minister that the number of rooms should be specified, or something of that kind. I do not think we ought to try to exclude things and I think this is a case where one cannot get very great uniformity, and indeed one ought not to try to get it. I should not have thought that this was in any way an opening for oppression; one could not use the regulations which the Minister may make to ask for an unreasonable amount of detail. I think that would be going beyond the ordinary meaning and intention of Clause 43. I tried to think of an alternative word as the noble Viscount was speaking and I think all that one could put in is something like "description", which really is less indicative than "specification". I suppose it is conceivable that on some occasion the court might be called upon to say whether what was required in this register was in sufficient compliance with the terms of the Bill, but I think in the great majority of cases there could be very little doubt about it. I do not say that almost anything would do, but any fairly simple kind of description would do, and that is what was indicated.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. What worried me a little was that this is going to be a public document. You will pay your shilling or whatever it is, under subsection (4) of Clause 25 and you will go and look at the register. The "schedule of accommodation", if I might suggest to the noble Lord, would be perfectly all right, but the word "specification" seemed to me possibly to bring in wider things, for example, that the property had not been repaired very well—the sort of things in fact that one deals with when getting a surveyor's report on a house. I wondered whether in the register it would be commented that the staircase was dirty, or something like that. I simply had no idea. After all "specification" is a technical term in the building and property world, as the noble Lord will realise, and certainly if what is intended is that there should be an indication of how much accommodation and how many bathrooms are contained in the house there could be no possible objection to it. I simply wanted to know whether it would go further than that. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to think about it.

LORD MITCHISON

I am sure the noble Viscount's comments will be considered by my right honourable friend when the regulations are made prescribing the form of any register. But I do not think one ought to try to tie this too tight. That was what occurred to me as the first thing. I can see parts of the country where possibly there might be some reason for asking for a little more information. I think that it is a matter which ought to be left to local discretion within reason, and subject to general directions. I do not think it would he right for us to try to provide details. I did not regard "specification" in this clause as having any connection with the specification one has in mind in a building contract.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

I hope the Government will take another look, because "specification" is a detailed description in highly technical terms dealing with thickness of walls, size of doors, kinds of materials and woods and so on. I should have thought that words such as "description of the dwelling-house" would be better, because anybody looking at this would consider that technical terms and detailed technical descriptions were required. I suggest it would be a good thing if the Government would take another look at it.

LORD MITCHISON

One is of course as courteous as possible in a matter of this sort, but it is very much a question of first impression. I did not get, and I have not got now, the noble Lord's impression that the word meant anything as detailed as a specification for building purposes. If I may say so, I think it would be a little ridiculous to put that into a rent register. It is the best word I can think of. If the noble Lord can think of a better one I should be very glad to consider it. I do not think the word "description" is better. I think it might invite the authority to ask for too much. I think "specification" is the more appropriate word, and I am sure my right honourable friend will consider this discussion when he comes to where it really matters, the regulations to be made.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I do not want to prolong this discussion. I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The point is this. I have no doubt that what will be prescribed will be a form of register. There will be a series of columns, one of them headed "Specification". Unless some thought is given between now and that time as to what that column is going to contain, we are simply going to get regulations with that word at the top. "Schedule of accommodation" might be better. I leave it at that.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Determination of fair rent

26.—(1) In determining for the purposes of this Act what rent is or would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling-house regard shall be had, subject to the following provisions of this section, to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances), and in particular to the age, character and locality of the dwelling-house and to its state of repair.

4.54 p.m.

LORD MOLSON had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (1), the first being to leave out the third "and", and the second to add to the subsection: and to the cost of building and of house repairs at the time".

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Molson to move these two Amendments, as he is, unfortunately, unable to be present. This clause deals with determination of rent. We have had already a discussion on the subject of rents, and I think it is well known that rents vary enormously. The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and I myself drew attention the other day to great discrepancies in Scotland, where rents are very much lower than in England; and in the north of England, of course, they are very much lower than in the south of England.

What is a fair rent? The answer to that question is not easy to come by: there is nothing in the way of statistical argument to bring forward. One of the essential features is to consider what the landlord has to pay for repairs. Controlled rents under the 1957 Act are frozen at about twice the 1957 gross value, but the cost of repairs is only marginally less than four times the 1957 level. This was brought out in another place when they were discussing this clause, and I understand that the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Housing claimed that this was the reason why frozen rents must rise under this Bill. If landlords are expected to put houses into good repair, as I hope they are, this is going to cost a considerable amount more than in, let us say, 1957; and in different parts of the country it is going to cost more than in others. What I think my noble friend Lord Molson is concerned about is that if, as it seems, the Minister agrees that frozen rents must rise under this Bill, it is desirable to write into the Bill some words which will bring this into effect, and the words in my noble friend's Amendment would do this.

The Amendment would add the words: "and to the cost of building and of house repairs at the time" after the word "repair". This would mean that in any fixing of rents the costs which the landlord has incurred in putting the building into a really good state of repair, so that it is in a habitable and proper condition, would be considered when the rent was being fixed. This would apply not only to private landlords but also local authorities. I have spent many years on the housing committee of a local authority, and the costs of repairs have steadily risen—and I should imagine are still rising—and affect them just as much as they affect the private landlord. If the Minister would consider some form of words (whether these are the right words or not I do not know) in which the cost of house repairs is considered in the fixing of rents, it would be fair to private landlords and public authorities. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 38, leave out second ("and").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD MITCHISON

I am much indebted to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for this Amendment, and I can assure them that we have given it most careful consideration. The conclusion we have come to about it is this. Under subsection (1) (it is a very important one, of course), regard has to be had to all the circumstances other than personal circumstances and then in particular to the age, character and locality of the dwelling-house and to its state of repair. I think that is perfectly clear. That covers the question of what the state of the dwelling-house is at the time. It covers the question of its state of repair. And surely those are the facts that have to be looked at when trying to determine what is a fair rent.

The rent officer is specially directed by the subsection not to look at personal circumstances; he is not, therefore, to consider who may have done this or that, or how much money anybody has, or anything of that sort. He must simply look at the house itself, including particularly, for this purpose, its state of repair. I think it is all quite clear. Subsection (1) as printed calls the attention of those who have to operate the Bill to what they have to do; that is to say, to look at the house itself, its age, character, locality and state of repair. If we try to put in anything else we are getting into a quite different sort of field. I think the wording as it stands is right: and I think it is sufficient. With respect, it seems to me that the noble Baroness's addition would not substantially add anything, except some question about what somebody had spent at some time or another. I do not think that is a relevant matter in considering what is a fair rent.

LORD HAWKE

I do not know whether the noble Baroness will regard the noble Lord's reply as satisfactory, but I am quite certain that I do not, and I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would either. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has argued the case with great skill confining the facts to be taken into account to the historic cost. But surely, when you are considering what is a fair rent, you must take into account the cost of replacing that dwelling, in other words, if you wanted to build more accommodation in the locality what would you have to pay? Of course, you would get a better type of accommodation. You would get something newer. But you must take into account something more than the historic cost, because otherwise you will get a completely false picture of the situation.

Lord Molson's Amendment would have brought in some element of replacing cost—"the cost of building and of house repairs at the time". In other words, if you are valuing an old house for a fair rent you would have to take into account how much it would cost you to build a new house there. Of course, the new house would command a much higher rent. You would then have to depreciate the rent of the new house according to the number of years the old one was up, and the two would have to have some relation to each other. I feel certain that in arriving at a fair rent you could not ignore the replacement cost.

LORD MITCHISON

This Is a slightly different point from the one that the noble Baroness put, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is really trying to tell the rent officer or the rent assessment committee, or whoever it is, how to do something rather than what to do. What they are trying to do is to look at all the circumstances. This would include, broadly, the sort of thing that the noble Lord has in mind. For example, one of the things is locality. Clearly if you are looking at a house and it is a rather old house, and you find some newer houses round the corner, that is the sort of thing that you may consider, whatever weight you attach to it.

But when you come down to the root of the matter you are doing two things. First, you are looking at an actual thing, a house, its age, its character, its state of repair, and where it is—its whole circumstances. You are looking at it as an object, and then you are applying your common sense or expert knowledge, whichever you like to call it, to what is a fair rent, subject to the matters you have to disregard given at the end of Clause 26. Therefore, I quite see the noble Lord's point, but I think it is open to a rent officer to do all that in any proper case; and that to direct him to do it in that particular way and with regard to those particular factors would really be confusing what are quite clear and, I think, most important directions.

This is a vital part of the Bill. Therefore, one does not want to introduce any confusion, and I am afraid that this would have that result. For those reasons, I would regard the insertion of these words as a mistake, and in this clause as a really serious mistake—not because I differ much from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the sort of thing that one would take into account, but because I do not think it would apply everywhere. I think the real nature of the task is more clearly indicated by the clause as it is.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining so fully the views of the Government. I have the impression that in another place the Minister was a little more sympathetic towards this point, though I may be wrong. In any event, I am not going to press this matter to a Division. But I think the Ministry might look at this point, because in a determination of fair rent, which I agree is the rubric of the clause, a great deal must enter into the words "fair rent". While I agree that there is a great deal down in the clause, I think there are variations and differences in different places which could, or should, if a fair rent is to be decided upon in different areas, be taken into account. However, we have discussed the point. I thank the noble Lord for his views. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for his support of this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.6 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD NEWTON

I did not move my Amendment No. 36, partly because I thought it would help the progress of the Committee if I did not, but mainly because I saw no prospect, in view of what the Government spokesman has said about this clause previously, that they would accept the Amendment, although I have never been able yet to understand why such an Amendment to include rateable value is unacceptable in relation to the clause. This clause is crucial to the Bill, and, as I argued on Second Reading at some length—I am not arguing it at any length this afternoon—it seems to me unsatisfactory because it is essentially so vague. I know that the Government want it to be vague, that they think it should be vague; but I personally think that it should not.

Just for a moment, I want to deal with the question of whether or not rateable value or gross value should be inserted into the clause. It has been said time and again by spokesmen for the Government in another place that in nine cases out of ten the rent officer and the rent assessment committee will, among all the steps considered, consider rateable value, and objection has been taken to inserting those words in the Bill. It is really rather odd when one recalls that the Minister himself, Mr. Crossman, said, I think in Committee in another place, or it may have been on Report, that rateable value is a way of assessing the rentability of a house based on its age, character and location. These three words are specifically inserted in the clause, yet the Minister is not prepared to put in another word which, according to his own mode of thought, is simply one word which defines and embraces those other three. So one is again driven to ask oneself, what is really the objection to mentioning rateable value? It is not making it a yardstick—nobody wants to do that—but writing it in and mentioning it. What I should like is to have something in the Bill which would give the rent officers and the rent assessment committees somewhere to start when they make up their minds as to what is a fair rent.

On Second Reading, I went out of my way to invite every single Member of your Lordships present, including the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to say how they would set about fixing a fair rent on the first occasion on which they had to sit as a rent assessment committee for that purpose. What did the noble Lord, Lord Champion, reply to me? I should like to remind your Lordships, because he answered me in winding up the debate on Second Reading. I am now quoting from column 1524 of Hansard of July 8. The noble Lord said: If I were appointed as a rent officer in my local town and district, I should start with a local knowledge of that town and district. Of course he would. He then went on: I know the existing rents, both controlled and decontrolled, in the area. No doubt he does. But, as I understand the Bill and the philosophy behind it, he must precisely ignore his knowledge of the rents prevailing in the area, because if there is any shortage of rented accommodation in the area, that shortage will have affected the prevailing level of rents. So I do not see how the noble Lord's knowledge of "existing rents, both controlled and decontrolled, in the area", if he were going to carry out what I understand to be the duties of these officials or committees, would be of help to him.

He went on to say: I know the town sufficiently well to know which part of the town I would rather live in and would be prepared to pay more rent to do so than I would pay to live in another part of the town." [Ibid.] No doubt that is so; but this still does not tell one where one is to start, or even where Lord Champion is going to start. It seems to me that the age of the house, its character, and its location are very useful criteria for deciding whether the fair rent fixed should be rather less than or rather more than the rent which would otherwise be considered to be fair if one had any reason to determine what the fair rent for a house of average age, average character, and average desirable locality was, which one has not. This is a major weakness in this Bill, and I personally have the gravest doubts whether this provision will work.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before the noble Lord answers, could I ask one other question which arises out of Lord Champion's reply as to what he would do if he were on a rent assessment committee? He said he would know the rents, both controlled and decontrolled. I wonder how. One of the people in any town or district who does know what the rents are, whether controlled or decontrolled, is the valuation officer. One of the things he has power to do is to serve forms on the occupiers of premises—the forms are, I think, confidential—and thereby he acquires all the necessary information which he needs in order to assess rateable valuation. This is essential to him, although I am bound to say that in many places where there are so few hereditaments let that information may not be of the same value as in other places.

Are the rent assessment committees or the rent officers going to have access to this sort of information? If not, how are they going to discover what are the controlled or decontrolled rents in any town? Are they going to go round to the estate agents and gradually build up a schedule? Is there going to be some list of rents which will be kept up to date and which will be compiled with the aid of various estate agents? How is the noble Lord going to find out the level of the rents? He says he knows, but how does he know?

LORD HASTINGS

I also have another question to ask on this matter. First of all, I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Newton said about the value of having a starting-point. I am well aware from the discussions in another place that the Minister and his colleagues do not want to put in rateable value because they regard it as, so to speak, a bad rent regulator; in other words, they believe that the gross value does not represent anything like the actual rents being paid. Therefore they seem to think that there is something misleading about rateable value. But, in point of fact, it is very useful for the rent officer to know whether in a particular district the rents are in fact about the same as gross value, or whether they are one-and-a-half times gross value, or even twice gross value. In that respect the rateable value will still act as a very useful guide and starting-point. Having achieved that knowledge in that way, it is up to the rent officers to decide, on the basis of scarcity or shortage of housing, whether those rents are too high or not. I should have thought that it was much the most valuable guide to put into the Bill.

The other point I want to make is this. I am interested to know whether the Government have thought out the effects in the long term of this particular clause on rating valuations in the future. If you are going to have regulated rents virtually over the whole field of housing, what purpose is a quinquennial rating valuation going to serve? How is it to be carried out? Do the Government wish to see the whole system changed? It seems to me that it is going to be very difficult for the rating valuation officer to fix a notional rent for houses which are subject to a regulated rent and to achieve an answer which is different from the regulated rent. Therefore, it will only be left to him to attach notional rents to owner-occupied houses which are not rented. Have the Government thought out the problem, and how do they see the future of rating valuation?

LORD SILKIN

All three noble Lords have referred to the relevance of rateable value, but in fact the rateable value includes the scarcity element. Under this Bill this element is specifically excluded. Therefore, to say that rateable value is a factor which should be taken into account is, in my view, misleading. Moreover, the noble Lords had an Amendment down and did not move it, and have not sought to argue it except in this indirect way. Furthermore, everybody who has considered the matter has now accepted the fact that rateable value is not a relevant matter in fixing rent.

In fact, of course, there is nothing to exclude the consideration of rateable value, for what it is worth. The officer is directed to take all circumstances into account. "All circumstances" would include rateable value, if he feels that it is relevant. If he does not feel that it is relevant, then it would be quite wrong to ask him to consider it. I have no statistics, but I should imagine that at least half of the rateable values which have been fixed are at present subject to appeal and they may not be heard for a very long time. That is only an indication of the fact that the rateable value is not generally accepted.

The noble Lord has suggested that the criteria in Clause 26 are vague. Are they? It seems to me that they include all the matters which a person who was trying to fix a rent would take into account. I will not state them, for they are set out in the Bill, but every possible consideration is taken into account. The valuer is directed to take them into account, and also all other circumstances—anything else which he thinks is relevant. Short of telling him exactly how he is to fix a rent, I cannot see what further directions or advice he can be given. He has everything there. There is no other circumstance which he ought to take into account which is not included in this Bill. Therefore, I think noble Lords opposite are quite right in not moving the Amendment to include a reference to rateable value, and I think the clause is perfectly all right as it stands.

LORD NEWTON

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is suggesting that the real reason I did not move my Amendment was that I have not got confidence in it. I hope that he does not think that. If he does, I will put it down on the Report stage.

LORD SILKIN

By all means do so and let us have a little argument on it, but I thought that almost every speaker in another place who referred to rateable value admitted that it was not a fair criterion. It is not a fair criterion because it includes something which the Bill specificially says should be omitted, namely the shortage of accommodation.

LORD NEWTON

It is probably my fault for not making clear what I had in mind. I do not want to make it the criterion, I do not want to make it the yardstick, for reasons on which we should probably agree. I merely think it ought to be one of the factors taken into consideration. The noble Lord said that rateable value must reflect an element of scarcity. Well, it may, if there is scarcity in that particular area, but I do not happen to believe that houses are scarce everywhere in the country. I would again remind the noble Lord of what the Minister Mr. Crossman himself said about this in Committee in another place. I am now quoting from column 706 of the proceedings in Committee on May 27. He said: What is gross value? It is a way of assessing the rentability of a house, based on its age, character and location. Those are the exact words in this clause.

5.21 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

I agree with every word that fell from my noble friend Lord Silkin. I do not think it is mere coincidence that the same things have occurred to both of us. We are not at the moment, of course, discussing a particular Amendment. We can do that if one is put down and if noble Lords opposite want it discussed, but we are discussing Clause 26 as a whole. When the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said something that really related to the Amendment—I do not say this too seriously as a procedural point—I knew perfectly well what he meant. What is the position about rateable value? The noble Lord, Lord Newton, quoted some remarks of my right honourable friend which might lead towards the conclusion that rateable value had regard to the character, age and locality. Since, if that is so, those are the very things which the valuer in this case has to have regard to, then, obviously, the rateable value would be of great assistance to him thus far. There is no doubt about that. But there is no reason to put in a specific reference to rateable value, if all you mean is a reference to character, age and locality, because that is there already.

LORD NEWTON

It is no excuse for not putting it in.

LORD MITCHISON

If, on the other hand, you want to use the rateable value not as a yardstick but as some sort of starting point, then I think you have to consider several things. The first is the most obvious one. You are not in this case directing the valuer—I am using the word "valuer" rather loosely—to find the rateable value as it should be found by a rating officer, because you are specifically directing him to neglect the scarcity element, which is a different question. The object of this clause is not to tell him how to do it; it is to tell him what to do. The whole purpose of Clause 26, and the whole machinery of the Bill, means that for the first time in rent legislation we are going to take the judgment of what I may fairly describe as ordinary knowledgeable people, of what is a fair rent. That is the object of Clause 26 and of the whole Bill, and, personally, I think it is quite right.

We have had far too many efforts to relate rents to rateable value and various other things—it has almost always been rateable value in some form or another—and one after another they have proved unsuccessful, and I think one can find the reasons for that. But it seems to me a very startling step to take a Bill, the whole of which is directed to that broader purpose of human judgment rather than rateable values, and to seek to go backwards into these arithmetical calculations of rent, which confused and made insufficient and useless one Rent Act after another. The imaginative point here, the point on which noble Lords attributed courage to the Bill and to my right honourable friend, is that it does not do that. It does not take the rateable value as the method by which rent is fixed; it takes knowledgeable human judgment. That is what we are told was so courageous of us—or so I understood. I think it was courageous. I think my right honourable friend has taken a very big step. I had a good deal to do with rent legislation in Opposition, and I never thought that this kind of thing could properly be put into a Bill. But here it is in a Bill, and I think it is very well put. Really, what is being said now is the sort of reactionary impulse—I hope the words are not offensive; they are not meant to be—that is so very strong in Conservative thinking. You try to lead them forward, and you suddenly find that they go back into the arithmetical jungle: "Do not let us take the judgment of our fellow men on what is a fair rent. Let us instead go to rateable value."

There is a further objection to this, and I think I ought to make it quite clear. The Inland Revenue valuation officer is really looking at a different question. He is assuming, for one thing, a hypothetical form of tenancy which may by no means necessarily be the one for which a fair rent is to be considered. One has to remember that under the clause all the circumstances have to be looked at. They certainly do not exclude the rating valuation and equally, they do not exclude the terms of the tenancy. How could you fix a fair rent if you were to exclude those? At any rate, on this side of the Committee we do not want to pour people into a fixed mould of tenancies, any more than we want a fixed range of factors to be considered, and that is why the phrase "all the circumstances" was carefully put in. These are not just additional words: they are the important words, as I see it; the others are by way of instance.

There is one other point. This is not the right time to take rating valuation as the foundation of rentals, even if such a practice were not open to the type of objection that I have been describing. We all know that in one very large London borough there has been a question before the courts about the sufficiency of rating valuations. I make no further comment on it than to say that it is at least doubtful whether they are the right thing to found on at the moment. And there is more than that. We have had the Allen Committee; we have had statements from both political Parties throwing some doubt on the present rating system, and my right honourable friend explained in another place (I forget whether or not it was in connection with this Bill) that he has under review at the moment local government finance generally, and particularly the sufficiency and fairness of the rating system.

I can give your Lordships one very simple instance. I said previously that we are rather short of statistics dependent on sample surveys and things of that sort, but I have here the averages for new lettings of houses in 1964 known to the Valuation Office—they do not by any means include every new letting; only the lettings of which they do know—expressed as multiples of gross value. I am taking London boroughs which are pretty similar, and I imagine that they are the old boroughs. Chelsea has 1.05, Hampstead, South, has 1.55 and Islington has 1.62. I have other figures on the list, but I think your Lordships will see that there is at any rate enough doubt about the uniformity of the relation between rents and rateable values, to make it a mistake to rely too much on rateable values.

I hope that I have not spoken for too long. This is a very important clause in the Bill, and I repeat that the essence of it is to tell knowledgeable people, believed to be fair, as clearly as possible what they have to do, but to leave the method and the approach to them. I have known my noble friend Lord Champion for years, and I can only say this about him. However he tells your Lordships he may have approached the matter, I have much greater confidence that he would reach the right result than that his description of his own approach would necessarily be right; and that goes for a whole lot of people. He would get there and would get the right answer, and like many people who have to function under this Act, he would know that it was the right answer. But if you cared to press him as to exactly how he worked it out, he would be as puzzled as I would be if I were asked how what I call my mind was working.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord did not really deal with the main point that I was making, which arises on the Motion, Whether the clause shall stand part?—namely, that this system of fair rents by way of rent regulation will reflect upon the rating system as a whole. The only remark which the noble Lord made on that had the effect of casting considerable doubt on the rating system. That is a new thing. I know, of course, that there is a review going on between central and local government finance; that possibly a part of the rates will be transferred to the central Government side; and that other people who are especially affected—old-age pensioners, and so on—may well be looked after by means of rebate, or some other form of special treatment. But this is the first time we have heard from the Government that the Minister has it in his mind to change the rating system; and that is precisely what I was trying to get at.

When we had a debate not so long ago on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, we had a good deal to say about rating. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, then quite clearly turned down any ideas of site valuation, and he seemed to be speaking, on behalf of the Government, rather favourably of the present system. That is exactly why, on this clause, I queried whether the Government had in mind a complete change of the rating system; because, if not, that system is going to be made rather more difficult by the results of this clause.

LORD MITCHISON

If by the courtesy of the noble Lord I could answer him, rather shortly, perhaps I did not answer the question in quite the form in which he put it, but I think I answered it by implication. Of course, we are not discussing at the moment the rating system. What we are discussing is fair rents, and how far present rating usage concerns the basis for them. I do not see how this clause is going to affect the rating system as it is at present. I may be wrong, but I do not want to discuss it at length because it is so very far from the subject matter of the clause we are considering.

LORD NEWTON

I do not want to prolong this debate further, but since the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, attributed to me typical reactionary instincts on the grounds that I wanted to write into the Bill what I think he described as "a rigid mathematical formula", I must say I went out of my way to say that I did not want to do that at all. What I said was that I thought there ought to be some starting point. If that is typically reactionary, I am delighted to be so described by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. He took great pride in the fact that this clause is designed to tell the rent officers and the rent assessment committees what to do and not how to do it. This is part of the issue between us. Of course we recognise that that is what the clause does, but I still want to know how these people are going to set about their task. We have not been told. I do not know whether other noble Lords think they know how they are going to set about fixing a fair rent, but I certainly do not know, and I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, knows either.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Amount to be registered as rent]:

5.35 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved to add to the clause: () For the purposes of this section any sums payable by a tenant to the landlord for services shall include, without prejudice to the generality any sums received by the landlord for the resale of electricity gas or water to the tenant in excess of the statutory charges which would otherwise be due by the tenant for the amount actually consumed.

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and to which I should like to direct the attention of the Committee. My Amendment is concerned with the payment made by tenants for electricity through meters hired from their landlords. This has been the occasion for some landlords making a profit on this transaction—a profit which is, in essence, an addition to the rent paid by the tenant for his accommodation. In a welcome attempt to try and stop this abuse, the Minister of Power required Electricity Boards this summer to fix and publish the maximum prices at which electricity may be resold for domestic purposes. However, the only sanction is a civil action against the landlord by the tenant if in fact a landlord sets a meter in such a way as to draw revenue from it over and above the charges fixed by the Electricity Board. How many tenants would in fact be prepared to pursue such a matter through the courts? I think very few. In most cases the sums involved will probably not he very much, although we have been told of cases where tenants have been paying for heating at a rate three to four times the maximum rates now fixed by the Electricity Boards.

The Consumer Council, of which I am Chairman, thinks that the tenant's position should be strengthened by more effective means of enforcement of the maximum price. It seems to us that it might be possible to bring these charges within the framework of the control over excess rents because, as I have said, the profit made by a landlord is in fact an addition to the rent. What my Amendment would do would be to enable rent officers and rent assessment committees to take into account in determining rents any excess payments for electricity enjoyed by a landlord through the use of slot meters. The Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have discussed our proposals with us, and I know that they do not think that they fit into the framework of the Bill, or, indeed, are easily worked.

I recognise that, as what the landlord is doing is reselling electricity, it may be difficult to regard any profit he makes on this as a form of rent. I recognise also the practical difficulties of inspection of meters in order to establish that they are set above the maximum prices fixed by the Board. Above all, I recognise that as, under this Bill, the only remedy which the tenant will have against rents in excess of those fixed by the rent officer or the rent assessment committee is to take a civil action himself in the courts against his landlord, he has no more effective weapon to hand than he has at present as regards his payments for electricity. This is an aspect of the Bill which, in general, I find rather surprising, although I recognise that the protection against eviction which tenants will enjoy does mean that they will be less hesitant about taking action against their landlords. There are ways, of course, in which a landlord can make the life of a tenant difficult which fall short of harassment but which, none the less, are very unpleasant.

Clause 28 of the Bill provides a criminal sanction if landlords do not produce information required by a rent assessment committee, but, rather oddly again, nothing is said about the giving of false information. These arrangements will evidently operate, in most cases, only within 28 days of the lodging of an objection to a rent assessment by the rent officer. I have been speaking about unfurnished accommodation. Furnished accommodation comes under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. Under that Act, the services which can be regarded as forming part of the rent, and therefore fixed by a tribunal, are pretty widely defined, so that it might perhaps be possible for tribunals to take electricity into account. The problem of excess charges for electricity by landlords certainly affects furnished lettings more than unfurnished lettings.

The Amendment which I am putting forward was debated when the Bill was in Committee in another place. The Government spokesman pointed out some difficulties, and the Amendment was withdrawn; but the Parliamentary Secretary said that he recognised that abuses were considerable, although he believed that the introduction of maximum charges would bring a sufficient remedy. He said, however, that the Minister had said that his mind was open on the question whether, if the introduction of maximum charges proved to be inadequate, he would acquire legislative powers to enforce. I think that, in the nature of the case, it will be very difficult to establish with any certainty for a considerable time whether the maximum charges are effective or not.

I have been speaking in terms of electricity since, owing to the fixing of maximum charges, this has drawn the most public attention. However, the problem applies to gas also, although perhaps rather less since gas meters are always owned by the Gas Boards, who have the right to inspect them. Electricity Boards, evidently, have no such right—the electricity meters are the property of the landlords—and, indeed, one Board has already announced that it will check meter readings only if the landlord has consented to their being checked. Many tenants of the kind with whom we are concerned are not at all knowledgable about their rights; and, even if they are, have very little knowledge of how to go about enforcing them. Even if they have knowledge of how to go about enforcing them, they may be unwilling to do so. It is for this reason that we wanted to take advantage, if we could, of the Rent Bill. If the Government say that it is impossible to do so as the Bill is framed, then I urge them to give an assurance that some other measures will be taken, perhaps by an Amendment of the Gas and Electricity Acts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD CHAMPION

Of course, we are bound to have a lot of sympathy with the purposes behind the Amendment moved by the noble Lady; we all know of, and applaud, her interest in the consumer. I am sure that the noble Lady and her Council have very seriously considered this matter, and she has moved an Amendment to which we all listened to with tremendous attention. One could not fail to understand it. The noble Lady's Amendment is to the effect that where the landlords supply tenants with gas, electricity or water at a price which is higher than the tenant would pay as a direct consumer, the difference should be included in the registered rent.

As the noble Lady said, the position at the moment is that the Gas and Electricity Boards have fixed maximum resale prices for their products. I rather think that in one case that was partly as a result of the pressure from the noble Lady's Council. But in neither of the cases for considering the points that she seemed to me to be stressing particularly is it possible to bring a criminal charge if overcharging takes place; and, as she said, in both cases recovery is by the method of instituting court proceedings. What the noble Lady's Council is doing is trying to seek a way in which this Bill could afford greater protection to the tenant. Clause 27(1) of the Rent Bill provides that in the case of a regulated tenancy: The amount to be registered as the rent … shall include any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord … for services, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation of the dwelling-house or are payable under separate agreements. Although there is no definition, either in the Rent Acts or in this Bill, of "services," the services covered by this clause must be services provided by the land lord; and it is quite unlikely that any court would treat any profit made by the landlord on gas or electricity meters as a payment for services provided by him.

The Rent Bill—and this is really the answer to the noble Lady—would not, in the Government's opinion, be the appropriate vehicle to try to deal with overcharging through electricity and gas meters. We believe that this would be quite the wrong method of doing it. I have a lot of information about the position of furnished houses which does not appear to me to be relevant in this context, and I will not weary the Committee with it. But on the whole point of the tenant having to take action in the courts for recovery, we say (and the noble Lady recognised it) that there should be less reluctance on the part of tenants to take action against the overcharging of services because of the provisions in the Bill safeguarding tenants against conviction.

Personally I must admit that I have tremendous sympathy with the fact that, while it is all very well to say this, many tenants just would not know how to go about this business of taking court proceedings against overcharging. But I am bound to return to the point I have just made: that this Bill cannot be a suitable vehicle for dealing with this particular problem. We have looked at this question very carefully. The Minister of Power has said that if, in the light of the experience of the operation of the new arrangements for controlling the resale price of electricity, it were found that further action was needed, he would consider the introduction of legislation to strengthen the means of enforcement; that is, the means of enforcement of the maximum resale price which he has now fixed. What would apply to the electricity industry would, of course, apply equally to the gas industry.

I have answered this Amendment at some length because we realise, and very definitely welcome, the Consumer Council's interest in safeguarding the consumer. I am only sorry to tell the noble Lady that I fear that this is not the Bill in which we can put this provision with any hope of its having any success; and I hope that, after my explanation, the noble Lady will be prepared to withdraw her Amendment.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reception of my suggestion. His answer is similar to one which was given, I think, by the Under-Secretary in another place. I realise that he may be right in saying that this Bill is not the vehicle for this legislation; but this overcharging is something which often provides quite a serious abuse to tenants. For this reason, I hope that the noble Lord will get in touch with his right honourable friend the Minister of Power and see that the inspectors and the people concerned take this problem seriously; and should the abuses be proved to be quite considerable (as, sometimes, I think they are) I hope that we may in the future have some legislation to deal with them. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier]:

5.47 p.m.

LORD REA moved, in subsection (2), after "household" to insert: or serves a notice to quit which he knows to be illegal or invalid, serves a notice to quit other than in the prescribed form well knowing that a prescribed form is required.

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wade, I should like to move Amendment No. 38 and, with the Committee's permission, at the same time to speak to the next Amendment, No. 39, because it is an implementation of Amendment No. 38, should it be carried. Amendment 38 is an Amendment to Clause 29 which is the first of the clauses in Part III of the Bill dealing with protection against harassment and eviction without due process of law. This part of the Bill is obviously intended to deal with the activities of the Rachman type of landlord. Clause 29 provides: If any person with intent to cause the … occupier … to give up the occupation … or to refrain from exercising any right does certain acts specified in the clause he shall be guilty of an offence". The purpose of this Amendment is to add an additional ground on which the landlord may be guilty of an offence; namely, that if he serves an invalid or illegal notice to quit, knowing it to be such, or if he serves a notice to quit other than in the prescribed form, knowing it is not in the prescribed form, he will be guilty of an offence. It would, of course, have to be proved that this was done with intent to force the occupier to give up possession or to refrain from exercising his rights.

The second Amendment, No. 39, deals with the form of notice to quit that must be given. There was some discussion in another place about the difficulties of laying down such a form; but this has been done in other legislation, and I suggest that there is no insuperable difficulty. It was also contended that if invalid notices were served frequently on a tenant, this would in itself amount to harassment. But the point of this Amendment is that it is just as well to make the position quite clear by putting this in the Bill.

An identical Amendment was put forward in another place in the names of two Liberal and two Labour Members, and was supported from the Conservative Benches. The debate is reported in Hansard of June 29. The Attorney General seemed to welcome the Amendment and thought it was a good one. He said that the matter was receiving the most active consideration, and hoped that a clause dealing with the form of the notice required would be produced by the Government when the Bill came to your Lordships' House. It is because that other form of notice, an alternative form, has not been produced by the Government that I venture to bring forward this Amendment, which I hope that the Minister will accept. If he prefers to say that he will produce an alternative form on Report stage, I shall be perfectly satisfied, and will withdraw the Amendment, though I should like him to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 17, after ("household") insert the said words.—(Lord Rea.)

LORD MITCHISON

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, described accurately what happened on Report in another place. The full words of my right honourable and learned friend to which I think I am entitled to refer were: Frankly, we have found the task of finding a form of notice that can be helpful and effective—and not be a mere bluff which I am sure the hon. Member would not want—a very difficult one. The matter is still receiving the most active consideration of my right hon. Friend and myself and those who assist us, and we hope that we may be able to produce a Clause dealing with a form of notice to quit for production in another place when this Bill goes there. I cannot give positive assurances that we shall succeed, but we shall certainly try, and I want to assure the House of our maximum good will in regard to this problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 715 (No. 143), col. 533, June 29, 1965.] Then he said that we had inherited a situation that had been allowed to drift, and so on and so forth.

I do not differ from anything said by my right honourable and learned friend, including the sympathy, but I am afraid that we cannot find a suitable form of notice. The reason is fairly simple. The clause itself is in Part III of the Bill and does not apply merely to the kind of tenancies we have been considering in Parts I and II. It applies, in the broadest terms, to tenant licensees, and I could not find words more general than those in the description of a residential occupier in subsection (5). The noble Lord rightly said that there were already forms of notice to quit in connection with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. They are applicable to that Act and to the remedies in it. There are questions of electing on what to rely or on what is wanted. It is in relation to those matters that the prescribed forms of notice to quit are required. Similarly, there are agricultural tenancies. There are points to be considered in ending them, and so on, which are peculiar to the legislation about agriculture.

The result is, therefore, that not one form of notice to quit but a great many would be required, and even then you might not be sure you had found the right one. For instance, one of them would be a form of notice to quit directed, so far as I can see, to a licensee. That is rather a new idea, but I daresay that it would be all right, if only one could find in the middle of this jungle what the noble Lord and his friends are after and what I should very much like to see; that is to say, some simple thing which would just tell the man occupying the house, "You have to get out." I keep thinking of the notices on some Ministry of Aviation property which read, "Ministry of Aviation. Keep out—that means you!" In this case it would be, "Get out—that means you!" But that is not what is intended here.

What gets worse about this matter is that the person must be told what it is all about. In the words of the Amendment it would be necessary to send him: such an explanation of the relevant provisions of this Act as appear to the Minister requisite for informing the residential occupiers of their rights and obligations under those provisions. What happens in respect of a man in an agricultural holding or some property subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act? It is not much use referring to this new clause; it does not tell him what we all want to tell him. We should have to set out the relevant provisions of whatever Act it was, and either produce a very long compendium or have a large variety of notices and hope to hit upon the right one to serve.

We have come to the conclusion that in these cases the right thing to do is to give as full publicity as possible to the Act itself, and we have already started to do that. To use a notice to quite for circulating provisions will not work because of their complexity. I ask noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to believe that I entirely agree with what was said about this point by my right honourable and learned friend. I should very much like to see something of the sort produced, and so, I am sure, would he; but I do not think that it would work.

The next point is this. The words in Clause 29(2) of the Bill, relating to the kind of thing we are now considering, are these: If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier to go, if I may use that term for the moment— … does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household … he shall be guilty of an offence. I should have thought that kind of thing, sending what I might call phoney notices to quit, or a constant bombardment with unnecessary notices to quit, would amount to what is stated in the Bill; and therefore it is a question of whether we are going to give anyone who is prosecuting in a proper case an easier and better definition of the mischief than is contained in the subsection.

That would present difficulties of its own, because it is a question of the service of a notice to quit which a person knows to be illegal or invalid, or (I paraphrase) which is other than in the prescribed form, well knowing that the prescribed form is required. I think there might be difficulty in establishing this in marginal cases; not in the case of a really bad landlord, but in the case of a landlord whom I might describe as rather naughty and not very knowledgeable. I think it would be easier and more correct to get him on the words in Clause 29(2) as it is, than to try this particular formula in this particular case. So I think that the words already in the Bill cover the mischief and that to pick out this case would be to select a peculiarly difficult one. Confusion when informing the occupier about his rights would be inevitable if we tried to do it in the way proposed, and I suggest that it is better to leave the matter as it is. As I have said, I am well aware of what was said by my right honourable and learned friend, and I have every sympathy with it; but it is no use attempting to do something in a way which would not help. I am afraid that that is my conclusion on these Amendments.

6.0 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

The noble Lords on the Liberal Benches have not a monopoly of abhorrence of Rachmanism in all its forms. Reading their Amendment closely I came to precisely the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that these acts were covered by line 16, "Acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort …" I do not know how the courts would interpret "peace or comfort". Perhaps the noble Lords would like to have something in the Bill. Peace and comfort may be mental, as well as bodily, and if that were put in, it would be absolutely clear.

LORD MITCHISON

I think that the words imply that. I do not think it is a question of mere comfort like a eupeptic state after a meal. I think it means mental and general peace or comfort. If it does not, I agree with the noble lord, Lord Hawke, that we should have to add something.

LORD AIREDALE

Is not one of the difficulties here that a county court judge, when trying a case, is not allowed to read the words that have fallen from the Minister in Committee stage in your Lordships' House? If a county court judge were permitted to do that, and if a case of a notice to quit which was well known to the landlord to be faulty arose, and the judge were armed with the knowledge of the words of the Minister this afternoon, he would have no difficulty in deciding that here was an offence under Clause 29. But as things are, having to decide the case blind, so far as the House of Lords debate is concerned, the judge might well say that although he would like to think that these faulty notice to quit cases fell within Clause 29, he was doubtful about coming to that conclusion, because if Parliament had wished such cases to fall within the clause, there was nothing to stop it saying so in plain terms, instead of saying that it was to fall within the vague term "peace or comfort". If Parliament really does wish these cases to fall within Clause 29, surely the sensible thing for Parliament to do is to say so by an Amendment to Clause 29.

LORD MITCHISON

I entirely agree that a county court judge cannot consider what we say in this House, or the fact that an Amendment has been introduced and does not finally appear in the Act. Such matters are quite irrelevant for him. But I should have thought that it was our duty to make up our minds what we wanted, and if the county court judge was wise and reasonable, as I presume most county court judges are, then he would consider that the general words in Clause 29(2) would cover these cases of notices to quit as well as a good many others. I think that we must be careful about introducing specific instances of what are really Clause 29(2) cases, for fear of leading county court judges to suppose that, because we have left out the others, they do not matter so much.

The words "calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort" of anyone in the house clearly would include the kind of case that is intended to be covered by the Amendment. If the service of these wrong notices to quit, which are faulty in some form or other, were not calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the occupier, then I do not think any of us would have any reason to try to deal with it under what is, after all, a penal clause, dealing with the harassment of the occupier. This is a borderline case. I repeat that if I thought we could do this, I should be inclined to agree with the noble Lord and say, "Let us do it". But, for the reasons I gave just now, I do not think so. If we have a complicated provision producing a complicated notice to quit, or a set of explanations with the notice, then in the long run, we shall do more harm than good. I assure noble Lords that my advisers have tried to find a form for this, but they cannot do it. May I add that it has been pointed out to me that these cases would not come before a county court judge—though, of course, the point is exactly the same whatever court they go to.

LORD AIREDALE

If this clause did not include the words "persistently withdraws or withholds services", and if my noble Leader had moved an Amendment this afternoon to include those words, I would not mind having a small wager that the Minister would have had no difficulty in saying, "Those words are not necessary here because such acts would be covered by the general words 'calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier'." It all boils down to what are the practices which ought to be covered by this clause. If we feel strongly enough about it, we ought to put wording in the clause to guide whatever court is dealing with the matter.

LORD MITCHISON

I do not want to take up the Committee's time unnecessarily, but it really is no good going on if you know that the Minister says that he is thoroughly in sympathy with this, but cannot find an appropriate notice to quit. That has been the case all the time. I think that we have said every possible thing about this—I know that I have.

LORD AIREDALE

It is one thing to say that you cannot find a satisfactory prescribed form; for, notwithstanding that, we still get cases of the Rachman-like landlord who produces a phoney notice to quit which he knows perfectly well is phoney.

LORD REA

I can only thank the Minister very much for his most careful answer and I am glad of his personal sympathy. It is obvious that he sees exactly what we are driving at. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that we do not claim any monopoly of anti-Rachmanism. It is shared by every Party and every Peer in this House. As the Minister has been thinking so hard up to this point, I would beg him to go right on thinking about this through the further stages of the Bill. I beg your Lordships' permission to go on thinking myself and perhaps bring up something on Report stage. With these words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Prohibition of eviction without due process of law]:

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "premises" and insert "dwelling-house". The noble Viscount said: The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said that this was a jungle; I think it is. Though I do not particularly wish to stand by the words of this Amendment, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of Clause 30(2). I did not quite understand whether to take the expression "exclusive possession" or the expression "premises". The difficulty that I foresee is this. We are widening very considerably indeed the idea of notices to quit and the requirement to go to the courts, and we are making it subject to swingeing penalties if you do the thing wrong. What I should like to have cleared up—if it is conceivably possible for the noble Lord to help on this, or if he could go on thinking and produce something at a later stage—is where exactly the line is drawn.

"Exclusive possession" is a very unusual expression, I think, in an Act of Parliament. I looked up Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which is usually a very fertile source of quotations, but there is no statutory reference to this phrase there. The only relevant references are to the Statute of Limitations and to people who have had exclusive possession for the requisite period in order to exclude another owner. "Exclusive possession" is a phrase that one gets frequently in the rating world; but there again, as the noble Lord will remember, it has caused the most appalling difficulties. For instance, there was a case where someone was an owner-occupier of a house. He agreed to give someone else the sole use of certain rooms together with the right with himself to use the entrances, bathroom and lavatories. The tenant, as he would be under the terms of this Bill, was not held to be in exclusive occupation of the rooms and therefore he was not rateable but the landlord was rateable for the whole hereditament. This is the sort of realm that one is getting into.

It may be the most dreadful thing to say, but some noble Lords and some members of the public employ people like an au pair girl to look after their children, or possibly have a domestic servant, to whom they give a room in their house. I am sure that this is unusual these days, but it does still exist, and it may not be such a dreadful thing to do. Equally, I envisage the case of an hotelier who has a guest in one of his rooms. It is possible that the "tenant" who is staying in a hotel room might come within the definition in Clause 30, and if he refused to go a court order would have to be obtained to get him out. The word "premises" is so vague that it might apply to anything. There is no question, as there normally is in legislation, of something like a separate dwelling, which is the expression used in the 1920 Act.

What, for the purposes of this particular clause, is the borderline? Is it the matter of the control of the house, the ability of the landlord, the owner, to go in and do what has to be done in the room? How is the noble Lord going to be able to give any guidance on what is exclusive possession, or, indeed, on what are premises? Quite frankly, the situation will be this. Nobody will be able to sack any employee who has a room which has been given to him by his employer, either in his house or in any other premises, without the fear of these appalling penalties under the Bill, unless he can be certain that he is not caught by this clause.

I think the clause is very vague. It does not seem to refer back to any of the kind of expressions used in the rating law, or the old franchise law, which was the foregoer of this difficult question on lodgers. I hope that the noble Lord can do something—probably not by accepting this Amendment, but by having another think as to the way the clause is phrased —to try to make it more clear to members of the public when they can and when they cannot sack somebody in their employ. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 3, leave out ("premises") and insert ("dwelling-house").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD MITCHISON

It was an ingenious effort, but not quite in line with what I was expecting. I thought that I should have to consider the difference between "premises" and "dwelling-house", and what I have to consider is whether "exclusive possession" in this context are the right words. I am not complaining; one has to take these things as they come. Let me try and see just where we are.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but I do not mind whether the noble Lord considers "exclusive possession" or some such phrase as "separate dwelling". It comes to much the same thing; it is merely a different approach.

LORD MITCHISON

Let me deal, first, with the point in the Amendment. I found it, I confess, a little puzzling. What it purports to do is to take out "premises" and insert "dwelling-house". The difficulty about the word "dwelling-house" is this. The noble Viscount, when he consulted Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, might have found that there were five pages describing what a dwelling-house is.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I did.

LORD MITCHISON

It really is a word that is used in many senses. But in the Rent Acts it has a more limited meaning. It is defined by Section 12(2) of the Rent Act, 1920, which says that this Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling … and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies. Consequently, "dwelling-house" within the ambit of the Rent Acts has a different meaning from, at any rate, many of the meanings that it has in other contexts: it has a special meaning. Since this clause applies not only to Rent Act cases, but to many others, the omission of the word "dwelling-house" was quite deliberate, because it might be thought to have a different meaning in some cases as distinct from others, and it is used with the meaning it has in the Rent Act in Parts I and II of the Bill. It was a drafting point, rather, but I think a sound one.

Then one comes to the question of what is put in instead. I agree that "premises" is nearly as bad. But I would ask the noble Viscount—and I have tried time and time again to do it myself—to find a word that has the exact meaning wanted. When one looks at this clause and its object, one sees fairly clearly what is intended and appreciates the meaning of "premises" in that way.

I do not find the difficulty which the noble Viscount finds about it. This subsection (2) is a special case for the purposes of this Act, and it is the special case of someone who under the terms of his employment is in exclusive occupation of premises. What are the purposes? One has only to go back to subsection (1) to see that they are: Where any premises have been let as a dwelling under a tenancy which is not a protected tenancy and so on, you must not turn a person out without going to court. Subsection (2) goes on to say that for the purposes of this part of the Act this particular case is also included. If you take it like that—and, with respect, I suggest that that is the right way to take it—I think what is meant is clear. I do not think the case of a bedroom occupied by, say, a domestic servant, or, if you like, a relative living in the house, is intended to be covered here. In those cases there is no letting in an ordinary form, and I do not think there is exclusive possession under the terms of the employment. I do not think that is the ordinary meaning of it. I think a stockman who may be required to occupy his cottage under the terms of his employment is one type of case referred to; but somebody who gets incidental possession, as it were, of a bedroom, or something of that sort, does not seem to me to be intended to be covered. At any rate I find that this is as clear as it can be made, and I hope the noble Viscount will not take it amiss if I say to him that, if he thinks there is some other clearer form of words, there is no one better than he to produce one, except possibly the Parliamentary draftsman who has had a shot. I mean this quite seriously. If he really thinks that he can clarify it in any way, we will be glad to consider what he proposes for that purpose.

6.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think that what I derive from his speech is this. If somebody has, either by letting, or in terms of his employment, or under a licence, something which is a residential unit, then this provision ought to bite, and you cannot get him out without going to court, unless he goes of his own free will. Where we have these very difficult lodger, hotel bedroom or domestic servant cases, they are not intended to apply. If that is so, then I think this is an extremely important clarification of the purposes of the Bill. I hope that is so.

It seems to me to be the sensible line to draw. If you can go inside with your own key, into your own residential unit, which is a complete unit, whether you are a domestic servant or whatever you are, then you have something which you probably ought not to be turned out of without the permission of the court. On the other hand, if you are living in one bedroom in the house, it seems perfectly ridiculous. I will certainly accept the noble Lord's invitation to see whether I can do better than this. I think it is most obscure. I say that with every respect to the Parliamentary draftsman; I am nothing like as good as he is. It is very difficult to see where this borderline, which I think we have established, appears in the Bill. I will not press this Amendment, but I should like to return to it, if I can, at another stage.

LORD MITCHISON

May I read out a single sentence that was handed to me by way of advice, because I think it puts it better than I have put it? It is this. The idea is simply that somebody is indistinguishable to the naked eye from a tenant but for some technicality is not in law a tenant. It may be a crude way of putting it, but I think it is very good.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am quite convinced that the clause does not say anything of the kind. I will try to produce something better, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (2), after the second word "tenant" to insert: unless that exclusive possession is reasonably necessary for another person engaged in his place in that employment".

The noble Lord said: This is a clause which extends protection against eviction to the class of persons who were described in the White Paper as service licensees. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that a licensee is a person who occupies premises of which he is not the tenant. He pays no rent, he is not entitled to notice to quit, but he is entitled to exclusive possession. The class of people who fall into this category of service licensees are as a rule persons who are required to occupy certain premises by reason of their employment. Let me say that this clause has nothing to do with agricultural labourers. As a rule, when this question is debated, it turns largely on the agricultural labourer. He is dealt with in a different clause.

It is easy to enumerate the classes of persons who fall within this category of service licensees. There is the matron of a hospital, who is usually required to occupy a flat in the hospital so that she is present there continuously day and night. Then, among the employees of local authorities—I speak of them because perhaps I know them best—most local authorities have members of their staff who are required to occupy dwelling-houses or accommodation of some sort in proximity to their sewerage works, where their presence may be required at any time during the day or night. Again, in another part of their undertaking, they have staff who are required to live in proximity to their waterworks. They are required to be available at the reservoir or the pumping station, where their services may be required at any time of the day or during the night. Then there are chauffeurs who commonly occupy premises above the garages where their employers keep their cars. I suppose in most office blocks there are caretakers, whose presence there is required by the landlord during the night in order to ensure that there is no damage done at the premises by fire or leaking water, or by burglars breaking in from outside.

All those, classes of persons will under this clause be given protection against eviction. It is perfectly true that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us the other day that the length of time which is required to obtain an Order from the county court is only seventeen days, and I dare say that may be so. Conditions seem to have changed a good deal since I was a county court advocate. But, even so, there may be a considerable period before the landlord is able to obtain possession of these premises.

The point of my Amendment is to provide that if the exclusive possession is required for the purposes of a person's employment then the protection against eviction which is otherwise given to him will not be effective. I rather agree with my noble friend that a certain amount of uncertainty appears to be introduced into this matter by the use of the expression "exclusive possession". I think the difficulty is the word "exclusive". Does it mean that he may exclude his employer? Does it mean that he may exclude his landlord? In the cases I have just enumerated, it is quite clear that the occupant of a premises would in each of these cases be entitled to exclude his landlord—not his landlord, because he is not a tenant, but his employer. The matron of a hospital could close her door and lock it, and say, "So long as I am in occupation of these premises by reason of my employment, I have exclusive possession, and I will exclude the other officials of the hospital from entering my flat."

I am not so confident of the sympathies of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government about this matter to expect him to accept this Amendment. However, I should like him, and his right honourable friend, to consider whether an exception ought not to be made in the case of some of these classes. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that some consideration will be given to that. If he feels it is not practical or right to exclude every service licensee, then I hope he will think it is possible on Report to exclude some of these service licensees whose services are essential to the public welfare, and have to be conducted when the original employee is discharged. I hope he will think that some of these classes should be excluded in the interests of the management of public institutions from the general protection against eviction which the clause would otherwise give them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 4, after ("tenant") insert the said words.—(Lord Ilford.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I should like to say one word in support of my noble friend. I am thinking not only of local government institutions but of housing societies for the aged and sick who let flats to custodians having duties in connection with those people. When those custodians take on their duties they do so well knowing that the flat is let to them in consideration of their duties, probably without any payment at all, and it would seem to go a very long way if a person of that sort were allowed to use this part of the Bill to do what might amount to real damage to the people who are in his custody. I hope this Bill will not favour people who are clearly going to try to be difficult.

6.31 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

It is perhaps just as well to look back at the old clause and see exactly what we are considering in this connection. In the first place these are cases of tenants who have held over after the occupation of their premises has been terminated, and the effect of the clause is to oblige the landlord to go to court and to prevent his turning them out otherwise. That protection was given temporarily under the Protection from Eviction Act and it is protection which has been available under Scots Law, as I understand it, for many years past. That is the main purpose of the clause and I imagine no one will differ from it.

LORD HASTINGS

May I just tell the noble Lord that this did not come under the Protection from Eviction Act because tied cottages were not included in that Act.

LORD MITCHISON

With great respect, I think I was perfectly right. I gave the first instance, the main case in the Bill, and I am now coming on to the second one. I think on this occasion I happen to be right.

LORD HASTINGS

I apologise to the noble Lord.

LORD MITCHISON

Then we get the extension of this to all classes of licensees and tenants who, under the terms of their employment, have this exclusive possession. I do not think any noble Lord would wish to deprive the tenant of that protection, and the point of this Amendment is whether it should be extended to licensees, and to a particular class of licensee—probably the largest class of people—whose exclusive possession is reasonably necessary in their employment. Therefore what we are deciding as regards these people is whether the landlord in this case should be entitled to turn them out without going to the court or whether he should be obliged to go to the court.

LORD ILFORD

May I point out that he is not a landlord and he has never been a landlord; he is the employer.

LORD MITCHISON

Yes, I quite agree with the noble Lord. I said the other day that the term "landlord" is loosely used. He is not technically the landlord—should we call him the licensor?

LORD ILFORD

But the point was there has never been any tenancy agreement.

LORD MITCHISON

I am well aware of that. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. We are extending a protection which no one denies should be given to tenants, and are giving it to licensees. If I may say so, it is a somewhat legal point but a perfectly correct one to say that a licensee has no landlord—he has only a licensor. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that strictly speaking I should have used the word "licensor". I think the noble Lord knew what I had in mind.

The question we have therefore to consider is whether the licensor ought to go to the court or whether he is entitled to evict without doing so. I am afraid the answer to that is quite simply that if you look on this as a balance of what is right and wrong there is no real reason why he should not go to the court. The period of 17 days is no doubt an average and there have been very few applications for cases to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. But the most important thing is that the Scots have done this for centuries and I can see no practical reason why the English should not do the same.

We are drawing a distinction in this case between people who are in this particular position and everybody else, and that distinction will depend on whether exclusive possession is reasonably necessary for someone engaged in that employment. We are drawing a distinction about an important right—the right to have the decision of the court on whether or not you should be kicked out, and it will all depend on whether something or other is "reasonably necessary". I suggest that if we are going to do anything as drastic as that we must then draw a far clearer line than one just depending on what is or is not reasonably necessary. People will require to know whether or not they have got the right to turn these licensees out without going to the court, and it is not what they think is "reasonably necessary" but what the court will think is "reasonably necessary".

It is not right to put people's rights to a decision of that nicety and I cannot believe that this particular case involves so much more hardship than any other to require that a special provision of this kind should be applied to it. One has to remember the other side of the picture. There is someone in this house or flat who has stayed on. I have a certain amount of faith in human nature and we all have some knowledge of housing difficulties. In most cases, at any rate, that person will have stayed on because he had nowhere else to go, and what you will be doing is to give somebody the right to turn him out, on the ground that the incomer finds it reasonably necessary to occupy that place for his employment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Would the noble Lord draw any distinction between licensees of a more commercial type and licensees whose work is of such a character that an emergency may be created if they are not there to do their work? I am thinking of the people who act as wardens of homes. There are schemes whereby a warden lives in a flat or a cottage, and unless that warden is there to help the old people an emergency position may arise. It seems to me there is much more reason for preserving a situation where there is somebody in charge of the sick and the old than there is for preserving the position—shall I say?—as regards the noble Lord's cook.

LORD MITCHTSON

I am not seeking to draw any distinction at all in this case. I am simply saying that whether a man is a tenant or a licensee, one ought to have to go to court before one can kick him out of his home, and I would add that in most cases, at any rate, he will have stayed on there when he has no further contractual right to stay, merely because he has nowhere else to go.

If I may say so to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, with great respect, he has a very warm heart in these cases—I sympathise entirely with him—but let him remember that if he has his way, someone is going to be turned out of the house he is living in, probably with out having anywhere else to go; and I do not see that you ought to do that without going to the court about it. Particularly I do not see it when I notice that the Protection from Eviction Act was intended to cover, I do not say all these cases but this kind of case, and that in Scotland at any rate this has been the situation for centuries. And when it comes to kicking a man out of the house he is living in without going to court, I do not see why what is right in Scotland is wrong in England. As for the time it takes to go to the court, we had the information the other day from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. But I am a more hopeful person; I think that now we are really beginning to look at the law and its administration more thoroughly and drastically than in the past there is some hope of beating the 17 days average, and we shall not have to go back to the state of things when the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and I went off to the county courts and wondered at their delays.

LORD ILFORD

It took more than 17 days at that time. Of course it is desirable that people should be told whether they are entitled to protection or not, and it was for that reason I suggested to the noble Lord that between now and Report stage he might like to examine some of the cases I have enumerated and see whether he could not make an express exemption in regard to some of those employments I mentioned.

LORD SOMERS

Could the noble Lord make one thing a little clearer, and that is the position I should have been in when I was still teaching? I occupied a flat within the grounds but for which I was paying rent. When I resigned my position there, would the council of the school under this Bill have had to go to court in order to persuade me to remove myself?

LORD LEATHERLAND

I hope that noble Lords will permit the clause as drawn to go through. I have come across cases of this kind many times in the sphere of local government. There are undoubtedly difficulties on both sides: difficulties on the side of the employing authority which wants the house for the succeeding employee, difficulties at the same time on the part of the employee who is physically housed in that particular house and has nowhere else for the moment where he and his family can go. It would seem unreasonable to me if a man and his family could be evicted merely on the instruction of the employer who happened to be the landlord or the licensor, without any humane regard for the man and his family. At the same time it would seem quite wrong for that man deliberately to stay on as a kind of permanent trespasser ignoring all requests that he should leave.

I speak with some feeling on this matter because back in 1915, when I was 17 and with the Army in France, my father and mother and brother were occupying a house of this kind. True, they were tenants paying a small rent. My father, for some reason best known to himself, decided he wanted to change his job. He did change his job. He changed it in the full knowledge that we would have to give up the house he was then occupying. But at the time it was difficult to find alternative accommodation, and the family was turned out into the street while I was out in France at the age of 17 in a front line trench, 25 yards from the Germans. So I speak with some emotion. Fortunately, however, at that time I had attained the rank of company quartermaster sergeant. My father was able to write and say he would have to buy a house and had I got £100 I could give him? Being a company quartermaster sergeant, I naturally had. But the fact was there, and the family was turned out, and I think that while we are debating legal niceties and the respective merits of the landlord or licensor, on the one hand, and the tenant or licensee, on the other, we must have some regard to the physical fact that a man and his wife and little children may be turned out into the gutter. The clause as drawn suggests that such cases should go to the court. I think the court is the proper authority to exercise a right in cases such as this.

LORD MITCHISON

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked me whether I suggested that the council would have to go to court in order to turn him out of his residence as a teacher when he had ceased to teach there. I should wish to protect even the noble Lord in those circumstances. I do not think it could be right to turn him out into the street if he had nowhere else to go. The question of whether there was greater hardship on one side or the other, and matters of that sort, are the kind of thing that involve an application to the court. All we are really considering here is in what circumstances one human being ought to be entitled to turn another human being out of his home without going to any court about it. I say that is the kind of case courts are for, and if that has not been the law in England for some time it is about time we made it so. The Scots have done it.

LORD ILFORD

Of course, my noble friend was a tenant and never a licensee. I must say I am disappointed at the noble Lord. I thought he would have seen the force of making exception in some of the cases I have enumerated. He does not seem disposed to do so, and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MITCHISON moved, after subsection (3) to insert: () The preceding provisions of this section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply where the owner's right to recover possession arises on the death of the tenant under a statutory tenancy.

The noble Lord said: This is intended to remove an anomaly from Clause 30. Where a statutory tenant under the Rent Acts dies in circumstances in which there is no transmission of his statutory tenancy to his wife or other member of his family living with him at his death, the people residing with him in the house do not at the moment obtain the benefit of basic protection, as it has been called, under Clause 30, because the tenancy which has come to an end—that is to say, the former tenancy—is a "protected tenancy" as defined in Clause 32. There is no reason why people lawfully living in the house at the time should not be treated in the same way as regards protection, and the Amendment makes good the omission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Special provisions with respect to agricultural employees. 1948 c. 47. 1949 c. 30.

31.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply where the tenant under the former tenancy occupied the premises under the terms of his employment as a person employed in agriculture (as defined in section 17(1) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 or section 17 of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949).

(2) In this section "the occupier" in relation to any premises, means—

1. (a) the tenant under the former tenancy; or
2. (b) the widow or widower of the tenant under the former tenancy residing with him at his death or, if the former tenant leaves no such widow or widower, any member of his family residing with him at his death.

(5) In considering whether or how to exercise its powers under this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstnaces and, in particular, to the following, that is to say—

6.50 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b): "for not less than six months." The noble Lord said: This is a point that I think came out during our discussion on the Protection from Eviction Bill, and it seems reasonable to insert a limitation of time here because otherwise, as was pointed out on the previous occasion, somebody could move into an agricultural cottage under false pretences and, as a result, get protected possession. You will notice that in Clause 13 these precise words are inserted. There is a limit of six months. Admittedly, it refers to a second transmission on death, but I do not think that is a relevant point; I think it is really comparable. As our special consideration is in respect of agricultural cottages, I would have thought there would be here a term of six months' qualification. I think it is quite reasonable to ask for it, and I do not really see why the Government should refuse it.

I would also remind the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that when we were discussing this on Committee in the Protection from Eviction Act I moved a slightly different Amendment. It did not refer to six months; it referred to alternative accommodation. But the discussion was the same, and the noble Lord, in fact, said, in column 457 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of December 16, 1964: I would make it quite clear, as I do now—and I hope not to repeat it too often—that it does not at all follow that because we treat one type of tenancy or one question in one way in this Bill it would be treated in the same way in a Bill intended to have permanent effect and not simply to last one year. This Bill has permanent effect, and I think that in this case the addition of the words "for not less than six months" is quite a reasonable request, especially as they have already been used in a previous clause in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, at end insert ("for not less than six months.")—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CHAMPION

We recognise that the terms of this Amendment are not only mentioned elsewhere in this Bill but precedented in rent legislation. Section 13 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 has just such a variation. Its primary object—and, of course, it is the object of the noble Lord—was to secure that special benefits are not secured by relatives who come purely temporarily to look after someone in an illness from which in fact he does not recover. What the noble Lord fears is that someone will sneak in, knowing that somebody is likely to die—coming in and trying to ensure possession of a cottage upon the death of the person who is ill.

There have been a number of cases decided subsequently to the passing of the 1933 Act. These cases have shown that the word "reside" implies reasonably permanent residence. The cases are referred to in Megarry under the title, "Residing With" in the following terms—and I quote: The word 'residing' indicates reasonably permanent residence and not, for example, occasional visits, or even seven months spent nursing an aunt, unless the claimant gave up any other house and made the house her sole residence. To reside is one thing; to pay a visit is another. In the light of these cases, it seems that Parliament in 1933 was unduly nervous in not trusting the courts to use common sense. Although the cases are on the Rent Acts, there seems to be no doubt at all that the courts would be likely to follow these cases when dealing with this matter under Clause 31. But in this case—and this is a matter of some importance—there is in any event no question of a permanent security of tenure being granted to such a temporary visitor as would happen where statutory tenancies are transmitted. We are here dealing with cases where the courts will be able to judge whether the occupier of the farm cottage is, in law and in fairness, entitled to receive extra security. If they thought that it is a case of a relative on a temporary visit who is expecting to return to his or her other home, they are perhaps not likely to give more security than is needed to settle the deceased person's affairs. If, however, the relative has actually given up his home in order to help during an illness from which the former occupier of the tied cottage did not recover, they might be more generous.

In view of the fact that each case will be considered by the courts on its merits, and some hardship might be imposed if this Amendment were insisted on, it seems to us that the Amendment is not necessary and indeed should not be inserted. I am bound to admit the force of the noble Lord's argument that this is precedented elsewhere, with, it is true, similar words being brought in in a different Section of the Bill and for slightly different purposes; but we think that there is a reasonable safeguard here against what I have previously called the person who sneaks in with the intention of staying. This is not a clause which gives anybody the right to permanent residence; it is always for the court to decide. And it would be decided, I imagine, in the light of the advice that is given as a result of a careful consideration of all the cases that have appeared in relation to and since the date of the 1933 Act.

LORD HASTINGS

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this answer. It is much more satisfactory than anything we had during the discussion on the Protection from Eviction Act. I must say that it has done a great deal to allay my anxiety. Therefore, I beg to leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.57 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (a), to insert: () whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other suitable accommodation.

The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, who is not able to be present this evening. The Amendment deals with that part of Clause 31 which sets out the factors which the court shall take into account, when, having decided to award possession to a landlord, it is considering whether or not to stay the execution of that order. The factors set out in the Bill are similar to, but not quite so extensive as, those set out in Section 2 of the Protection from Eviction Act, 1964. The purpose of my noble friend's Amendment, which is to reinstate one of those five factors, deals with a situation which I can best describe by example.

Take the case of a landlord with two tenants in tied cottages. Tenant A is lured away into industrial employment in a town a few miles to the North. Tenant B is lured away to another town to the South, to work in a factory there. Let us assume that tenant A takes up his new employment, but does nothing whatever to find himself accommodation in the town in which he is now working. Tenant B, on the other hand, goes to considerable lengths but is unsuccessful. Surely in deciding whether or not to stay the execution of the order which the court has awarded to the landlord they should take into account the difference between these two men. Surely under this Bill it should be possible for the court to say that tenant B deserves, and should have, a longer stay of execution than tenant A. This Amendment seeks to put the matter right and to reinstate among these factors one which was already in the Protection from Eviction Act 1964. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 45, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Sandford.)

LORD COLLISON

I think that your Lordships will be aware of the concern which the agricultural workers and their representatives have felt on the issue of the agricultural tied cottage. Your Lordships will know that for many years we have taken the view that there should be absolute protection. We talked with our friends in another place and reached an understanding that if such protection could be given it would be done. In the event we found that, in the view of our colleagues, this was not possible. It is interesting to know the reason why this view was taken. It was understood that alternative accommodation, if it were to be provided, would have to be found somewhere. One of the considerations which was to be taken into account was the possibility of requiring a local authority to find alternative accommodation if alternative accommodation was available from no other source. This was a project which protected the worker and his wife and family and also the farmer who might need the accommodation for another agricultural worker. In the event, it was pointed out to us that there was a great shortage of housing in the countryside, and that it might be impossible for a local authority to provide other accommodation if it could be found elsewhere.

Frankly, we had to accept this view. It would be clear to everyone, I imagine, that it would be impossible and socially wrong to enact a piece of legislation which required a local authority to turn out the tenant of a council house in order to provide accommodation for an agricultural worker. It might be considered equally wrong that the agricultural worker should be allowed to jump the queue, so we accepted that this was a very potent argument and presented a very great difficulty. Nevertheless, we felt—and I am speaking with great sincerity and with complete honesty—that we should maintain our position that absolute protection should in fact be given and that the understanding we reached that an attempt should be made to do this should be honoured. In the outcome, therefore, what has been arrived at in this Bill is a compromise.

There are three considerations which the courts are asked to take into account. The first is whether other suitable accommodation is or can be made available to the occupier. This is a consideration which we very much support, indeed we should like it to be the only one, although I appreciate that I am speaking with a sectional interest. However, the National Farmers' Union also put up their proposals which contained a number of suggestions, some of which we opposed and some of which have been accepted. One which has been accepted and is important to the farmers is whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operation would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises were available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner. We did not like that clause and, for the reasons I have just explained, we opposed its inclusion. Then there is paragraph (c) which takes into account whether greater hardship would be caused by the suspension of the execution of the order than by its execution without suspension or further suspension". What I am saying is that these paragraphs in the Bill are the result of a compromise between parties who took almost completely different views. We took the view, and we make no excuse for it, that we wanted absolute protection. On the other hand, the farmers in the industry took the view that they needed some elbow room to allow them to deal with the situation which required another worker to take over a house occupied by a farm worker. On the understanding that this would be the form of the Bill, we agreed as a union—and you will understand that we are emotionally involved in this and indeed have a sense of obligation to our members—that we would not oppose this Bill. Therefore, this is where I stand on this matter; but, in view of the fact that this was a compromise which was discussed at great length in another place, and discussed, too, between the representatives of the farmers and the unions, out of which consideration this compromise emerged, I would plead with the Committee not to press any further Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

I can put my point on this briefly. The point of this Amendment is to put back in the Bill what was agreed on the Protection from Eviction Act, That, again, was as a result of a compromise after discussion. We wondered why this particular provision had been taken out. After all, the other provision about the acceptance of alternative premises, and so on, is looked after under paragraph (a) as to whether suitable accommodation is available. It is quite clear from discussions in another place, and from what the Minister said, that this is a balancing objective. There is one thing in favour of the landlord or the farmer, one in favour of the employee, and a nicely balanced aspect about hardship. Therefore, this would upset the balance. When one looks at paragraph (a), one sees the words: whether other suitable accommodation is or can be made available to the occupier That puts the whole onus of finding accommodation on the farmer. It is not his job to do so; he is far too busy a man. It is a little unfair if there is no obligation at all on the employee to look for accommodation.

LORD COLLISON

May I say that that is not so? There is also, of course, a need, if not an obligation, upon the tenant to find alternative accommodation. In fact, my union always tells agricultural workers in this situation to do their best to find alternative accommodation.

LORD HASTINGS

I am quite sure that in most cases that is so, but there are cases, as the noble Lord knows very well, where the fault is by no means—and I must emphasise this, with due respect to the noble Lord—on the side of the farmer. I know of cases, about which I could tell the noble Lord, in his county and in mine where agricultural employees have stayed on quite inexcusably in a cottage and made no effort at all to find other accommodation. I know of one particular case that occurred last year, in Norfolk, one which seriously upset other agricultural workers, and where no effort was made at all. I do not want to engender any heat into the discussion, for it is true that there are faults on both sides.

I would not advise my noble friend to press this matter in the circumstances, but it is worth bringing up because it is something which was approved by the Government on the previous Bill and which has now been taken out. I think that this is part of subsection (5)(a) itself, whether other suitable accommodation can be made available to the occupier, and whether he has failed to make reasonable efforts. It is part of the same thing, but was put in as a separate item. I can see that there may be difficulties, if you get an unnecessarily awkward employee who simply makes no effort at all. I only hope that the court would take that into consideration among the other circumstances.

LORD CHAMPION

What we have heard has made it quite clear that this clause is based upon a balance of considerations. It is nicely balanced, it is delicately balanced, to meet something which clearly my noble friend and his union have felt for a long time. We have tried to do our best here, and we could have been much tougher about this. It might well have been that we did not give very much consideration to the N.F.U.'s point upon it, but I should have thought that quite wrong.

We have done something which we did not really like doing. We have broken a part of an Election pledge on this issue, because we realise that the Election pledge would have been unfair to the farming community, and as a result of the careful examination that took place this is an attempt on our part to secure fairness to both sides. I think it would be quite unwise of us to alter it, certainly by means of the first Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved and which represents what he obviously feels ought to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned the fact that the provision in the Protection from Eviction Act was different from this, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well, and so does the House, that that was purely a temporary measure. A little time had to elapse in order that all the consultations could take place between the workers in this industry and the employers, and we have now come forward with this Clause 31.

I have strayed a little from the precise terms of the Amendment here to the balance of considerations, which I might have to return to on the next Amendment, but in the context of the present clause we are not seeking to list all the factors which the court will bear in mind. The clause sets out the vital factors in a case for possession of a tied farm cottage, and seeks to give them in a balanced formula which does not lean heavily in one direction or another. In my opinion, that is what the whole clause is about. But, in any case, the court is directed to have regard to all the circumstances—I stress the word "all"—and not merely to some of the circumstances, and to the availability to the occupier of suitable accommodation. These two factors seem to us sufficiently to cover the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had in mind when he moved his Amendment. Certainly, we think that to go on adding to the list of factors for the court's consideration might give the impression that the clause contained an exhaustive list of matters to be considered, but this is not so.

As I say, subsection (5) contains a balance of considerations, one favouring the occupier, one the landlord, and one directed to the balance of hardship as between the parties involved. It has been drafted in the light of the Minister's discussions with both sides of the industry, and while we cannot claim that the result has been entirely acceptable to either side—of course it has not been—it maintains a balance which it would be unwise to upset, certainly by the acceptance of this Amendment. So I hope that the noble Lord will consider accepting his noble friend's advice and withdrawing the Amendment which he has moved.

LORD SANDFORD

I am glad that the noble Lord now recognises the un-wisdom, rashness and extravagance of his Party's Election pledge on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.15 p.m.

LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) to insert: () whether the occupier has found employment other than as an agricultural worker.

The noble Lord said: Notwithstanding the general views on this clause expressed just now by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I must say that this is an Amendment which we consider to be of some importance. I hope that the Government will find it acceptable, because whether or not a compromise has been reached between the National Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Workers' Union I do not see how anybody can deny that it would not be right to give security of tenure of a tied cottage to a man who got that tenure in order to work in agriculture and then ceased to work in agriculture and found some other employment. Indeed, the Minister, Mr. Crossman, himself made it quite clear in another place, I think as early as the Second Reading of the Bill, that it was not his intention to give security of tenure of a tied cottage to a man in these circumstances. Obviously, to permit a man to go on living in a tied cottage while he was working outside the agricultural industry could well be a very great hardship indeed to a small farmer who had only one or two cottages. That seems to be so obvious that I need not elaborate the point.

In another place an Amendment was moved by some of my honourable friends to exclude such a man altogether from the benefits conferred upon him by this clause. That was resisted by the Government on the grounds that it would be unfair to the tenant, even in those circumstances, and this Amendment is an attempt to meet that objection. But it is also the purpose of this Amendment to give a little more protection to the farmer, particularly to the small farmer, because I do not consider that the risk of the man changing his employment is sufficiently covered by subsection (5)(b) because of the emphasis put upon the word "efficient". Obviously, it would be possible to argue that a small farmer who normally employed one man might, if he worked a little harder himself, be just as efficient as when he had one man working for him. So it seems to me that that does not sufficiently cover the risk which we are trying to cover with this Amendment. It seems to me an eminently reasonable Amendment and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 45, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Newton.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

I support my noble friend in this Amendment, but I should like to say a few words about the tied cottage in general. I am speaking partly as a Tory squire which is to-day a very unfashionable thing to be, partly as a member of a local authority, and partly from the point of view of one who is concerned with the housing associations. As a farmer, I know very well that unless I can offer a man a good cottage, and a well situated cottage, I cannot get or retain a good skilled agricultural labourer, who is very necessary in these scientific days.

Consequently, for a skilled man in full possession of his health and strength I cannot see that the alleged evils of the tied cottage system have any real meaning to-day. I feel that a very different situation arises when it comes to the old and ill agricultural labourer. As the owner of an estate, I have a certain pool of cottages, and I can usually place one of these retired labourers into a smaller, more suitable cottage, but it requires the solution of a jigsaw puzzle to do it. This state of affairs is not entirely satisfactory, but up to a point it works. With a small owner-occupier it does not work at all, because he has no pool of cottages and, as often as not, has to rely on the district council; and, as often as not, the district council has nothing to offer, for a considerable time, at any rate.

There is one further point that I should like to make on the provision of these cottages in these stringent times by local authorities. In order to conform to the points system, the local authority very often cannot consider an application from an old person unless that person is definitely threatened with court proceedings—and many farmers find it a very distasteful thing to threaten one of their old employees with court proceedings. It is a great pity that district councils have not been able to provide more cottages for these old, retired people. I do not think it is their fault; nor, I think, is it even the fault of housing legislation. I have known many cases where good schemes have had to be deferred because of some financial difficulty—a credit squeeze, and so forth. Although those things are very unfortunate, I do not think that the present Government are in a position to cast stones at the previous Administration on that score, because never throughout my local government experience has money been more difficult or more expensive to get—and I cannot see that a great stride forward will ever be made in housing until this financial stringency is over.

The need of these old people is there. I happen to be the trustee of a housing association, which I think is the only one in the country specifically reserved for old, retired agricultural workers. We naturally have no difficulty whatever in filling our houses with most deserving cases, and if we had ten houses of the same kind in one county we should have no difficulty in filling them, either. That is the measure of the demand. It is against this background, it seems to me, that this Amendment ought to be considered. The clause as drafted seems to draw no distinction between the claims of a retired agricultural labourer, who may have spent fifty years in the industry, and those of a man who may have spent much less time in agriculture and who may have deliberately taken on an agricultural job with the idea of changing his profession as soon as possible afterwards. That, as the Minister has stated, is really jumping the queue, and the sufferers, so far as I can see, will again be these old workers. I am sometimes surprised that the unions have not taken up much more strongly than they have done the case of these retired people. I do not think it right to leave it to the county court judge to unscramble the problem as best he can. I think Parliament ought to give some direction, some very mild guidance, as to where the priorities lie. It is a very modest Amendment which my noble friend is suggesting, but it gives that bit of direction or suggestion to the county court judge—and, in the performance of his almost impossible duties, I think he will be very glad of it. I support this Amendment.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I do not want to delay the Committee for more than a moment, but I should like to speak in support of the Amendment. I entirely appreciate the views of the noble Lord who represents the agricultural workers' union, with which I am very much in agreement, because we all want to do the best we can for agricultural workers. But there is one point he has not made, and I wonder whether the noble Lord who is going to reply could deal with it. Many farmers have taken advantage of the schemes of reconstruction of agricultural workers' houses, or reconstruction by way of hill farming schemes, in Scotland, and so on. Grants have been given, sometimes by the local authority and sometimes by the Central Government, for schemes approved by the Central Government or by the local authority. Under those schemes, it is not possible to let a non-agricultural worker have a cottage that has been improved by means of a grant made in respect of an agricultural worker. You cannot do it; and it would be very difficult indeed, I think, if you were faced with the problem of somebody who would not go, or somebody who changed his employment when he was in a house that had been reconstructed by means of a grant given, in part, for the improvement of the dwelling as an agricultural worker's house. If the person who happens to be in it then suddenly decides to go off and work somewhere else, but wants to continue to live in the cottage, it will be very difficult. He would have to be put out. It seems to me that this point has not so far been raised, and it makes the problem of the agricultural worker's house even more important and, also, somewhat more difficult for legislation.

LORD COLLISON

Before the noble Lord, Lord Champion, replies may I make just two comments? First, I want to make it clear that I am conscious of the fact that there is a great misunderstanding about the whole question of the tied cottage. People on both sides of the industry talk very loosely about the abolition of the tied cottage. That does not mean, of course, that we want to pull them all down or destroy them all. We on our side recognise that in many cases a house or a cottage on a farm is a necessary part of the farm equipment. What we are concerned with is protection of the tenant, or the service tenant, of that cottage. We want to avoid completely farm workers' being evicted from such cottages. I will not go back to the question as to the difference of opinion between ourselves and the farmers on this matter, except to say that we believe that absolute protection ought to be given.

Next, I would say, having made that clear, that the emotions which are aroused about tied cottages are due to the fact that people are, in fact, evicted. You get several every year—men, women and children who are put out on the roadside. Frankly, I think that in this year, 1965, this is a very improper situa- tion. My right honourable friend in another place, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, believes that the introduction of this Bill—a balanced solution to this problem, as it has been described—will prevent evictions from taking place. Quite frankly, we do not think it will, although we certainly hope it will. But we are prepared to wait and see about that.

Coming to the Amendment now moved, we cannot accept this, because clearly, if it were accepted, it would destroy the whole intention of the clause. What would happen if a man were declared redundant by a farmer? Suppose he came to the man one weekend, and said: "John, I am sorry, but I no longer have any employment for you." If that man is not in a position to find other agricultural employment, he can be put out. His position is impossible. Of course, it happens very frequently nowadays that men become redundant—although I give the employers credit, that in the majority of cases they do not toss them aside; there is a paternal feeling in agriculture. But the situation is, nevertheless, that, having become redundant, such men must look elsewhere for employment; and I do not think that they should be confined to agriculture. I hope that my point is clear. I think it is a strong one. The man will be in a position either of having to find a job in agriculture or of being threatened with eviction from his cottage.

VISCOUNT GAGE

May I ask one question? This Amendment, as I understand it, does not suggest that these people to whom the noble Lord referred should be removed altogether from the jurisdiction of the court. It suggests simply that where a man is deliberately going out of agriculture, the county court judge shall take that fact into consideration. There is no intention of taking away the protection of the courts from the people to whom the noble Lord refers.

LORD COLLISON

As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, explained, the court takes everything into account. A man may find himself in a position where he has to find other employment. There should not be this lever operating against him and preventing him from taking employment outside agriculture, believing (as he must believe) that if he did he might be in danger of losing his cottage.

There is another aspect of this problem. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not object to my saying it, but I think it is particularly true that farm workers, as a whole, do not receive very good pay. This is agreed by many farmers and progressive thinkers on the other side of the Committee. That being so, is there anything wrong in the man's seeking employment elsewhere? Is he to be contained in agriculture? Is he to be imprisoned in agriculture without having the possibility of taking employment outside, without being in a position of being threatened with the loss of his house and home? I think that all possibilities are covered by the Bill as it stands. It has been said that it is a balanced Bill, that the rights and problems on both sides are taken into account. Therefore, on these grounds I would ask that this Amendment be not pressed.

7.35 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

Before actually coming to reply to the debate on this Amendment, may I say that I understand that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we did not adjourn for an hour at this time; but rather went on to finish the Bill at a reasonably early hour. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has anything to say on this matter. Clearly, it is a matter for negotiation between the two sides. I should be grateful if he would tell us what he thinks about it.

LORD NEWTON

I fancy that it might be for the convenience of quite a number of us to continue. I think that if we do we shall be able to finish that much earlier, and I imagine it will not be necessary for all of us to sit here while dinner is being served.

LORD CHAMPION

I hope that we shall not all have to stay here. This arrangement is often introduced, and indeed decided upon, in order to help Ministers, who are bound to be closely involved and who cannot very easily "sneak out" to get something. We shall have to try to arrange that.

Coming back to this Amendment, I must say that I have much sympathy with both sides of this argument. That is the trouble. I have farmer relatives who could be in the difficulty of not being able to get a stockman or a cowman because someone who had gone to work as a road man or in a factory was sitting in his cottage. On the other hand, my sympathy is bound to go also to the people who might be evicted under the old system (which appears to me always to be wrong; that somebody could be turned out, with his possessions, on to the streets) without going to the court in order that the balance of hardship and the various considerations should be considered.

The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, told us that he was a Tory squire. I have never seen anyone less like the cartoonist's picture of a Tory squire. Certainly his interest in planning and in local government removes him from the category of the sort of person I envisaged. But I think he was a little wrong in suggesting that on this matter the instructions to the courts were loose and almost non-existent. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection (5) appear to me to be pretty straightforward considerations which the county court judge will have to bear in mind when he is taking his decision. Paragraph (b), especially, to some extent answers the point made by the noble Lady. It refers to, "the efficient management of any aricultural land". If a farmer genuinely cannot manage his land efficiently unless he can get somebody out of his cottage and somebody else in, the county court judge is bound to take this fact into consideration, and in those circumstances the man, after a reasonable period, would undoubtedly have to go. This is right. It is a balanced consideration, as is the whole clause.

I have listened to noble Lords on the other side of the Committee and to my noble friend on this side, and I am bound to say that the considerations in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (5) appear to me to be, in the circumstances eminently reasonable and just. There is so much to be said for both sides. The man who takes a cottage simply to get it and who then leaves the job to take other work certainly does not deserve special sympathy. We have no sympathy for him if he does, in fact, sneak in, as I have said in regard to the other consideration of the man or woman who stays on after the death of the tenant. On the other hand, we feel that to deprive a farm worker of any protection under Clause 31 as soon as he leaves the industry would fail to do justice to the arguments which have been advanced here this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Collison.

As the clause stands now, the court will look at all the circumstances of the case, the proper working of the farm, the house of the farmer's employees, the reasons for his change of job and so on. This, I think, is important. What are the reasons for his change of job? The court will weigh up the factors, and the county court judge is capable of doing this. He has experience of men and knowledge of men; he has long experience of weighing evidence. The subsection as has been said—and I have said it a few times—contains a delicate balance of factors to which the court must have patent regard. Paragraph (a) directs attention to the worker's circumstances; paragraph (b) to the farmer; while paragraph (c) brings out the balance of hardship as between the two parties in the dispute. It seems to me and to the Government that it would be quite unwise to alter this balance by mention of further specific factors.

There is just one other point to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. No one likes the dirty trick of any one who obtains a job in order just to secure the tenancy of a cottage of that sort, and who then leaves the job for some other employment. But, as I read the Amendment (I hope I read it correctly), it does not seem to show proper consideration for the situation that arises if an agricultural worker goes into a job with one farmer, and the cottage that goes with it, then promptly leaves that for a job on a neighbouring farm. I should regard such action as being as dirty a trick as going into the cottage in order to secure accommodation and then later going to work on the roads or in a factory.

I do not wish to continue to stress this point, but we must consider that this clause represents a delicate balance between the N.U.A.W. and the N.F.U., between the employee and the farmer. We think it is workable and will give the farmer his cottage when the business efficiency of his farm would be jeopardised if he were not in possession of it. I hope that it will be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw his Amend ment—I did not like the way in which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, shook his head; I rather fear that he was giving a signal.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

The noble Lord should not attach any significance to any movement which I make with my head.

LORD CHAMPION

If no significance is to be attached to the movements of the head of the noble and learned Viscount, I would rather he kept it still. That would certainly be helpful to me. It has prevented me from going into the marvellous peroration that I was about to deliver. I will leave your Lordships to decide, as I think you must, that this delicate balance ought not to be interferred with.

LORD HASTINGS

I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that his whole argument is misconceived. This Amendment is not an attempt to upset the delicate balance to which he has referred. The whole point is that on Second Reading the Minister said that he was entirely against an employee obtaining a farm cottage and then, when he had a roof over his head, taking employment in some other industry. That was confirmed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage proceedings. He said: On the other hand, merely to say there was no protection for people who leave the industry would lead to considerable abuse. That was in reply to an Amendment which would have made a person leaving the industry and staying in a farm cottage liable to be dealt with under Clause 30. That would have placed a duty on the court to make an order for possession within the normal time—anything from 17 days to six weeks. Already this man has much greater protection under Clause 31 and there is no question of taking away the protection. Under this clause he has more protection than an ordinary tenant of a non-agricultural tied cottage. The court still has power of suspension indefinitely.

It seemed to us that this Amendment was much milder and more modest than the Amendment moved in another place, and as the Government and the Minister seem to be in favour of not allowing this particular abuse, and indeed said as much, it seemed reasonable to expect that the Government would not mind our putting this as one of the considerations for the court. It does not upset the delicate balance between agricultural employers and employees. The person concerned would no longer be in agriculture. The fact that this matter comes into this clause is accidental, in that it is designed to get over difficulties which were pointed out in another place. It does not, in our opinion, upset the delicate balance.

LORD NEWTON

As I moved this Amendment, I suppose I ought to say a word at the end of our debate. This is a difficult matter on which to make up one's mind and to decide where fairness lies. I do not agree with the noble Lord,

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [The court]:

On Question, whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Champion, that if the Amendment were accepted it would follow that the agricultural worker would be denied the protection which is given to him at present by the clause. I appreciate what has been said several times about the delicate balance, or compromise, which has been arrived at between the N.F.U. and the N.U.A.W., the results of which are incorporated in the clause, but Parliament does not exist in order to give legislative effect to compromises which have been arrived at, even by such important bodies as those two unions.

7.46 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Ferrers, E.	Mills, V.
Albemarle, E.	Forster of Harraby, L.	Milverton, L.
Allerton, L.	Fortescue, E.	Monson, L.
Auckland, L.	Fraser of Lonsdale, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Brocket, L.	Gage, V.	Newall, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Glendevon, L.	Newton, L.
Carrington, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Redesdale, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Greenway, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Conesford, L.	Grenfell, L.	St. Helens, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.	Sandford, L.
Denham, L.	Hastings, L.	Selkirk, E.
Digby, L.	Hawke, L.	Somers, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Horsbrugh, Bs.	Spens, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Ilford, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Dundee, E.	Inglewood, L.	Thurlow, L.
Dundonald, E.	Killearn, L.	Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.	Lambert, V.	Windlesham, L.
Emmet of Amberley, Bs.	Luke, L.	Woolton, E.
Falkland, V.	Mancroft, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Leatherland, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Archibald, L.	Lindgren, L.	Shackleton, L.
Bowles, L.	Listowel, E.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L.	Llewelyn-Davies, L.	Snow, L.
Champion, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Sorensen, L. [Teller.]
Chorley, L.	Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Stonham, L.
Collison, L.	Mitchison, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Crook, L.	Morris of Kenwood, L.	Summerskill, Bs.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Peddie, L.	Taylor, L.
Hobson, L. [Teller.]	Plummer, Bs.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Hughes, L.	Rhodes, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Latham, L.	Royle, L.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

In view of the late hour and of the absence of right reverend Prelates, whom Amendment No. 33 affects, I do not propose to move this Amendment to-night, but I shall put it down again for the later stages of this Bill.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37:

Furnished houses

37. (2) The application of the Act of 1946 to any contract shall not be limited as mentioned in section 12 of the Rent Act 1957 but, subject to subsection (3) of this section,— (a) the Act of 1946 shall not apply to a contract relating to any dwelling the rateable value of which on the appropriate day exceeded, in Greater London £400, and elsewhere in Great Britain £200;

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection 2(a), to leave out all words after "London" and insert: £350, in the Special Review Areas in England and Wales (as defined by section 17(1)(a) and (2), section 25 and the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act 1958) £200, and elsewhere in Great Britain £150;

The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows naturally upon Amendment No. 1, dealing with rateable values, which we were successful in getting into the Bill. In this case, the Amendment concerns furnished houses. It had been put to me that logically I ought to reduce the rateable values even more, because it is obvious that, taking the same house, the rent for a furnished dwelling is higher than for an unfurnished dwelling. Therefore, we should be dealing with rents that are higher altogether than when dealing with rents for unfurnished dwellings. I considered that, but came to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would lead to complications and perhaps the temptation to switch from unfurnished to furnished and from furnished to unfurnished, and I felt that it would be better to keep the same rateable value limits. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to accept this Amendment, in order to make sense of the Bill. He must realise that if he does not, I shall have to divide upon it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 33, leave out from "London" to end of line 34, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD MITCHISON

In the present state of Parliament, I do not pay the faintest attention to threats to divide. Equally, I am not called upon to assist noble Lords opposite in their efforts to arrive at the logical and simple. All I can say about it is this. The increased limits were introduced against the wishes of the Government and against my advice and vote, and therefore I think that this Amendment is quite wrong. But I think it is even more wrong to have one set of Amendments for unfurnished houses and another for furnished houses. Therefore, if this is put to the vote, I shall naturally not support it; nor shall I oppose it, but trust that it will be put right by other means.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.58 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a technical and minor matter. In another place an Opposition Amendment was accepted by the Government, the effect of which was to put the word "ordinary" before residence in Section 2(1) of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946. As a result, the scope of that Act is to be confined to contracts granting the right to occupy as an ordinary residence a house or part of a house for a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or services. This was intended to exclude holiday accommodation from the scope of the 1946 Act. It was felt that the occupiers of holiday accommodation might acquire rights to stay on at the end of their bookings and so upset the holiday bookings of other persons. These apprehensions the Government share, and they are met, and I think met clearly and better, by the Amendment now proposed.

The difficulty about the "ordinary residence" Amendment was that it might cover cases other than the type for which it was really intended. One instance is a student's lodgings. There we could get a question of what was or was not "ordinary residence". The only point that is intended to be dealt with here is the question of holiday accommodation. To that extent, I would not call it a drafting Amendment, but one of a minor character. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 33, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Mitchison.)

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord either in his description of this matter or, indeed, on his statements as to the intentions which actuated my honourable friend Mr. Graham Page when he moved the Amendment in another place. It is true to say, as was said the other day in relation to another Bill, that it is a minor matter; but it is not really as minor as all that. The noble Lord repeated more than once that this subsection moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Graham Page was intended only to exclude holiday accommodation. The Amendment is effective to exclude holiday accommodation, but the noble Lord is doing a great injustice to my honourable friend if he thinks that my honourable friend, who has great experience in these matters, did not fully realise that the wording of the Amendment covered such people as students working away from home for quite considerable periods: indeed, I should have thought that this was obvious on reading the subsection. These categories have been mentioned on occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill, and it has been urged on a number of occasions that provision should be made to protect landladies against any such tenants "squatting" after the end of their tenancies.

My honourable friend moved this Amendment in a speech of commendable brevity, which I am sure would attract the praise of my noble friend Lord Egremont, and the wording of the subsection is, I think, clear and unambiguous. All that the Minister said after the Amendment was moved, and he was asked whether the Government would accept it, was, "Yes, we will". Now the Government, having accepted that Amendment without any criticism of it at all, come to your Lordships and ask your Lordships to agree to an Amendment which cuts down the operation of the Amendment that they accepted.

I cannot believe that this acceptance was a sudden change of mind on the part of the Government. I have no doubt that the Amendment tabled by my honourable friend had been on the Order Paper for some considerable time, and had been considered by Ministers, and the result was that, without any discussion, and no statement other than that they agreed to it, the Amendment was embodied in the Bill. I will not take up further time on this, but I must say that we are not prepared to accede to the noble Lord's proposition that what the Government accepted as an Amendment should now be limited by what is proposed in this and the next successive Amendment.

LORD MITCHISON

I am in some difficulty here, because I am not quite certain whether I am allowed to refer to what happened in another place. We have been told that a particular thing happened. The text of Mr. Graham Page's short speech is in front of me, and can only say to the noble and learned Viscount, in whose honesty I have complete confidence, that I do not read that short speech in the sense in which he put it to the Committee.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

If I may help the noble Lord, I do not think we disagree about that. I think that neither of us can refer to what the mover of this Amendment in another place said, and I certainly have not sought to do so. But I did go on to say that I thought the subsection was clear and unambiguous in its language, and it would be wrong to assume—although Mr. Graham Page did not mention it specifically in moving the Amendment—that Mr. Graham Page did not intend to cover students and people of that sort, and I should have thought that this would be appreciated by anybody reading the subsection.

LORD MITCHISON

I still have the speech here and I am still in this somewhat technical difficulty. What I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say was this: that this was not intended merely to cover the case of holiday accommodation, but was intended to cover other cases. I have looked at the speech, and I am trying to be fair about it. It is perfectly true that at the beginning of it four words refer to other forms of letting; but it was made clear in the course of the speech that the object of the Amendment was to deal with seaside accommodation, and perhaps I am in order in saying that it could be called the "seaside landladies' Charter".

I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount and I want to be completely honest with the Committee about this. May I put it as fairly as I possibly can? I hope I am right, but if I am wrong, the noble and learned Viscount will correct me. I am not talking about the language of the existing subsection; I am talking about the purpose for which it was put forward, and that was to deal with the case of holiday accommodation, seaside landladies and the rest of it, with which the Amendment I have now moved also deals. Not a word was said about students, and not a word was said about various other cases. What has happened is this. The Government accepted the purpose of the Amendment in order to give effect to the subsection as it was put forward. There were other Amendments on the Order Paper, as appears from the short speech I have referred to. All I am saying is that we have since discovered that it would go further than, as we understood it, the main purpose of the Opposition went. When I say "main purpose", I repeat that in the course of the discussion there was no reference to any other type of accommodation than this, and there were several references to this type.

Surely it is a little unfair to say to the Government, "You accepted something from the Opposition, and you are now whittling it down". What we accepted was accepted for the purpose for which the original subsection was moved, which provided for the difficulty that is still met by this Amendment. I ask the noble and learned Viscount to behave, if I may say so, reasonably over this, and I hope I am doing so myself. This subsection was intended for that purpose. The Amendment covers it. The subsection would have covered other purposes, which may have been in somebody's mind, but which were certainly never mentioned at the time, and which were never put before the Government as the purposes of the subsection.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

It is difficult to deal with this matter without referring in detail to what was said—and I have the Hansard in front of me. However, I do not quarrel with the noble Lord's description of what was said in moving this Amendment. I think if he looks at what I said a few moments ago he will see that I did not suggest anything else. But the language of the Amendment is clear and specific. There were two Amendments under consideration, and the language of the Amendment was to insert into the Bill: The Act of 1946 shall be amended by the insertion of the word 'ordinary' before the word 'residence' in section 2(1) of that Act. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that, when Amendments are tabled, careful consideration is given by those who brief Ministers as to their effect and scope. How often is it said, when one has drafted an Amendment and moves it, "That may be the noble Lord's intention, but the Amendment does not give effect to it"; that it goes too far or too wide, or it covers too wide a range of classes. One starts with the fact that Amendments which are tabled in another place are, I believe, always considered by the Ministries concerned as to their ambit and effect before advice is given to Ministers.

What I said was that my friend in another place, who is a very skilled draftsman, was perfectly aware that the wording went beyond what I called the holiday visitor. I agree that he based his case for this Amendment upon that. Indeed, I think it is true to say that he makes no mention of that, but I consider it was obvious from the language of the subsection. I understand that there was an arrangement at that stage of the Bill that it would finish at a particular time, and everyone was trying to be brief. If the Minister in charge had said, "Yes, we agree with your intent. We will table an Amendment to put it in proper language", that would be one thing. But the Amendment obviously having been studied, and there being a choice between two alternative Amendments, the Minister in charge said, "We agree", and he agreed to the first without any qualification, and without any comment.

I do not want to take advantage of a slip by a Minister, although slips are most regrettable. But it is of greater moment than that because, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, this question of students over-staying in the same way as holiday visitors, had been the subject of discussion in another place. I do not think there is any question of honesty or dishonesty involved in this. There is the question of whether the Government, having accepted this Amendment, without criticising its terms, when its terms are clear, should now be allowed to cut down its scope, to the prejudice of a number of landladies, to particular classes of occupants. We have considered this, and I have taken the trouble of consulting with my friend in another place about it. He has told me that he was fully aware—as, indeed, I think anyone must have been if they had read and studied the proposed subsection—that it would cover such people as students working away from home for quite considerable periods. Therefore, I am afraid I have no alternative but to advise my noble friends to resist this Amendment.

8.14 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

Before we do so, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will listen for a moment to what I have to say. There is no dispute about the facts. There is no doubt that this Amendment covers more than the seaside landladies' charter, as it was described by the honourable gentleman who moved the Amendment. He moved it at 11 p.m. in an extremely short speech. He did not mention students. He said nothing about any other purpose than four general words, saying that it might cover other forms of letting, or something of that sort. But he put it entirely on the single case of seaside landladies and their accommodation.

It is not for me to lecture the Opposition on political honesty—I should not have the presumption to do that. But I think it is unfair to accuse the Government of going back on their words, when what the Government have done is to accept an Amendment that was put forward for a purpose with which they were in sympathy, but now find that it goes beyond that and includes considerations which, rightly or wrongly, they did not have in mind when accepting the Amendment. All of us know that Governments, individuals, all of us, are fallible. Of course we are. It may well be that one can say to them, "You should have thought better about it. You did not look at it carefully enough". I have been reading a summary description of the 1957 Rent Act, for which the Tory Government were responsible. I would say that it was not perfect, and that those who prepared it were certainly fallible. Of course, Governments occasionally go further than they intended, but really it is "a bit rough" to say to a Government in those circumstances, "You are going back on what you said you would concede", when in fact they were asked to concede one practical point only, and are still doing so.

I cannot, of course, prevent your Lordships from taking advantage, if you so choose, of the fact that it has now been discovered that this clause goes further than the original intention of the Government at the time. I am not talking about Mr. Graham Page. He put it on one point when he may have had others in mind—I do not know. I am going on what he said. After all, I am a very junior Member of this place, and it is not for me to lecture your Lordships about it. It is the last thing I want to do. But I want to make it clear that I consider it distinctly unfair to blame the Government for a case like this, when I think that, if there is any blame, it might rest on other shoulders.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

This is a difficult situation. Owing to the pressure of time in another place, the case may not have been put as fully as it might have been. The noble Lord has said that he has now discovered that this subsection goes wider than it was thought to go. I find that very difficult to accept—with the emphasis on the word "now". I cannot but believe that it must have been perceivable, and clearly so. I am almost inclined to assume that the scope of the Amendment was perceived before ever it was moved.

LORD MITCHISON

If I may—

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

Perhaps I might just finish the sentence, because I do not want to take up time on this matter. If it was the case that it was perceived (and I cannot myself think that it was not), and the case was put forward for this Amendment on the basis of holiday lodgings, there was a simple course open to the Government—one has seen it done hundreds of times. The Minister has got up and said, "Yes we agree to an Amendment being made to protect holiday lodgers, but this Amendment goes further than that and we cannot accept it. We will put one down which puts that right." That sort of thing happens thousands of times, but it did not happen on this occasion. A Minister may have slipped up—I do not know. But we are told now that it creates a position of some difficulty. When you move an Amendment you do not always put all the arguments in support of the Amendment.

LORD MITCHISON

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. He is telling us that in his view, if I understand it rightly, considerable importance should be attached to the state of mind of the Minister who accepted the Amendment at the time. I have no information about that. I asume that what has happened in this case is that the Amendment was accepted, and was then found to go further. But this is a matter which can easily be verified. I will make an offer to the noble and learned Viscount. I will ascertain—and the noble and learned Viscount knows me well enough to know that I will ascertain carefully and truthfully—what the Minister had in mind; that is to say, whether he realised at the time that this clause went materially beyond the seaside landladies' charter. If I find that he did so realise, that seems to me to put an entirely different light on the matter. I hope that it will also appear to the noble and learned Viscount to put an entirely different light on the matter if I find that he did not realise it.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I do not think that that really goes far enough. I am sorry to pursue this matter. It is not a question of whether he realised it, but whether he should have realised it. One has known cases of Ministers not reading their briefs with the care which they should devote to them. I think that has possibly happened to all of us at different times. The point is that my honourable friend in another place, in moving this Amendment, did it, I agree, with great brevity, but it was his intention, and his desire, that the Amendment should cover other people such as students. The language of the Amendment itself is so clear that it is not confined to one particular category of tenant. I should have thought that that would have been immediately perceptible directly the Amendment was tabled. That being so, I should have thought the Minister ought to have known the scope of the Amendment before he spoke on it, and if he did not, then it is his omission which has created the difficulty, because I have taken the trouble to find out what were my friend's intentions in moving this Amendment. I am not quarrelling about what he in fact said. He was not playing any trick, he was trying to be extremely brief and he knew very well it went beyond that, and I should have thought that it was immediately apparent to everyone.

I am in a difficulty about this because I do not want to do anything that is unfair. On the other hand, members of my Party attach considerable importance to the point. I do not want to take or to appear to be taking an unfair advantage, and I do not really think I am. Therefore what I will do is to ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment now and to put it down again at a later stage. It might be possible for us to have discussions about this matter. It may be that there has been a genuine slip-up on the part of the Minister; but if the noble Lord intends to press this Amendment to-night then I am afraid, on the information I have, I shall have no alternative but to resist it.

LORD MITCHISON

I must repeat, for the sake of perfect clarity, that I am entirely unmoved by threats to divide or not to divide. Fortunately that is not always the end of the matter, and I want it to be quite clear—

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

It would be the end of this matter.

LORD MITCHISON

I am not so sure. Let us leave it as it stands and—

LORD CHAMPION

Withdraw it.

LORD MITCHISON

Wait a minute. My noble friend has suggested that I should withdraw it, and indeed I was just about to do so. We will find out exactly what the sense of it is, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I shall possibly return to it later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

8.27 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause.

Notice to quit furnished house let by owner-occupier

".—(1) Where a person who has occupied a dwelling as a residence (in this section referred to as the owner-occupier) has, by virtue of a contract to which the Act of 1946 applies, granted the right to occupy the dwelling to another person and—

1. (a) he has given notice in writing to that person, at or before the time when the right was granted (or, if it was granted before the commencement of this Act, not later 1539 than six months after the commencement of this Act) that he is the owner-occupier within the meaning of this section; and
2. (b) if the dwelling is part of a house, he does not occupy any other part of the house as his residence;

section 5 of the Act of 1946 and section 11 of the Act of 1949 shall not apply to a notice to quit the dwelling, if at the time the notice is to take effect the dwelling is required as a residence for the owner-occupier or any member of his family who resided with him when he last occupied the dwelling as a residence.

(2) In this section "the Act of 1946" means the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946: and "the Act of 1949" means the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949.

(3) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to the Act of 1946 or section 5 thereof there shall be substituted respectively a reference to the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act 1943 and to that Act as read with section 17(7) of the Act of 1949."

The noble Lord said: This is a case of providing protection for the owner-occupier who wishes to let his dwelling furnished for a time. For example, when he is away on a tour of duty abroad he might wish to let his dwelling furnished and to regain possession afterwards. It is the parallel case with regard to furnished accommodation to Clause 14, which relates to regulated tenancies and therefore to unfurnished accommodation. This matter has been discussed at length, both here and in another place, so I will say no more at present and see whether, as I rather hope, it will commend itself to the Opposition. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 37 insert the said clause.—(Lord Mitchison.)

LORD HASTINGS

I have nothing to say in regard to this Amendment except to thank the noble Lord for moving it. As he has said, this does for furnished tenancies what Clause 14 did for unfurnished ones. In fact it is possibly even more important, because I should imagine there would be more cases where people are going to overseas service of one sort or another and they wish to leave their houses furnished. This would probably apply to shorter terms, say a period of two years, than would Clause 14.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Am I correct in thinking that we now have an inconsistency in the Bill and that the two situations are different, under this clause and under the one that was dealt with before with regard to unfurnished tenancies?

LORD MITCHISON

I do not understand the noble Viscount's question. Perhaps he would make clear the inconsistency he has in mind. If there is any real point I will do my best to answer him.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

It does not matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 agreed to.

LORD ILFORD moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause:

Discharge of functions of rent tribunal by rent officer

".—(1) Where a tribunal constituted under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 acts for an area (whether consisting of one or more districts in which that Act is in force) the Minister may by order direct that the rent officer for that area shall discharge the functions of that tribunal.

(2) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the rents of furnished accommodation. Its purpose is to make it possible for the Minister by order to transfer to the rent officer, and through the rent officer to the rent assessment committees which are to be set up under this Bill, the work which is now being done by the furnished houses tribunals in those districts where these tribunals have been set up.

I commend this Amendment to your Lordships upon two grounds. The first ground is more important than the second. This Bill sets up an entirely new means of determining rents. It introduces the rent officer and, through him, the rent assessment committees. This new procedure has been described as being akin to a conciliation procedure, and indeed so it is. In my view it is a great advance on the determination of these questions upon purely judicial lines, as has been done under the earlier rent restriction legislation. For my part I welcome this change. I think it is the most valuable change made by this Bill. I have greater confidence in the system of rent officers than some of my noble friends would seem to have. I believe this substitution of conciliation machinery will prove to be of great value.

The work which is done by the furnished houses tribunals is substantially the same as the work which will be done by the rent officer and by the rent assessment committees, with this difference: that the furnished rent tribunals are dealing with rents of furnished premises whereas the rent officer and rent assessment committees will be dealing with the rents of unfurnished premises. I see no reason why these two parallel forms of procedure should be maintained. I think it would be a good thing, and a great improvement to this Bill, if the principle of conciliation was applied to the fixing of rents of furnished premises in the same way as it will be applied to the fixing of rents for unfurnished premises. The primary aim of this Amendment is to make that possible.

I said a moment ago that I commended this Amendment to your Lordships on two grounds. I hope I have stated the first ground clearly. I attach much greater importance to the first than to the second, because I think this new principle of conciliation in rent fixation is going to be a very useful thing and I should like to see it applied to both furnished and unfurnished accommodation alike.

The second reason why I commend this Amendment to your Lordships is this. It seems to me that we are multiplying the number of these tribunals which are set up for special purposes. Indeed, in the last twenty years these tribunals have proliferated. We have appeal tribunals under the Ministry of National Insurance, appeal tribunals from the decisions of the National Assistance Board and so forth. There are a number of new tribunals which have been set up for different purposes. One of the problems is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to man these tribunals. A good deal was said at an earlier stage in this Bill about the difficulty of finding suitable personnel, and I think that this difficulty exists. It will be relieved to some extent if the personnel at present engaged in the furnished houses tribunals were released for appointment to the rent assessment committees which are going to be set up. I do not think it is a good thing that we should multiply these tribunals, and if we get an opportunity of putting two tri bunals doing substantially the same work together, saving the manpower which must inevitably be saved if the two tribunals are combined, I think we shall not only be improving our juridical system but we shall be going some way to overcoming the difficulties of finding appropriate personnel for these tribunals.

In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I am conscious that it may be open to some drafting objections, and if it is I hope the noble Lord will be able to say he will give this matter some further consideration before Report stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 38 insert the said clause.—(Lord Ilford.)

LORD CHAMPION

The noble Lord has moved his Amendment with all the knowledge which he possesses. He is always listened to with tremendous attention in this House, as is right and proper with a man of the standing he has achieved. We do not think, however, that this Amendment ought to be accepted. In the first place, the rent officer will not necessarily be well equipped to deal with these subjects. First, his experience will be in the field of unfurnished properties; the fixing of reasonable rents for furnished properties will involve an assessment of the value of the furniture, the proper allowance to make for its depreciation and so on. Although we want to secure first-class people for rent officers, we feel that this man would not necessarily have the experience and qualifications to enable him to do so.

Secondly, applications for extensions of security of tenure may involve complicated legal issues which it would not be fair to expect a layman to pronounce upon and which involve considerations quite outside the scope of rent fixing for unfurnished lettings. Questions of security for tenants of furnished and unfurnished lettings are, of course, the exclusive province of the courts, and the rent officers and rent assessment committees have no jurisdiction whatever here.

The next point I want to make is one in answer to the point on proliferation. I know I have used this word a number of times to-day, but I have great sympathy with the point expressed by the noble Lord. There seem to be too many sitting in judgment on too many things as a result of Acts of Parliament. Perhaps I should not say that as a Minister, but I have said it. We do not want too great a proliferation of this sort of thing. We want to keep it down to a minimum. The Government appreciate the problem involved in having two separate rent fixing authorities, the furnished houses rent tribunal and the rent officers and rent assessment committees brought into being under this Bill, and at the Report stage—I do not know if the noble Lord noticed this—the Minister moved the addition of a new clause to the Bill allowing for the appointment of rent tribunals by the presidents of rent assessment panels. The debate is to be found at cols. 489 to 491, and the clause was agreed to without a Division; that is now Clause 38.

The Minister pointed out that it was not possible in this Bill to integrate the two codes of legislation for furnished and unfurnished lettings, but that the clause allowed the staffing of rent tribunals (for furnished lettings) and rent assessment committees (for unfurnished lettings) to be integrated, so that the same people would apply both codes and so ensure greater uniformity of standards. As far as I can see, if it allows for the staffing to be similar in both cases, it seems to me that the Minister has in fact already met the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in his new clause.

LORD ILFORD

Do I understand from what the noble Lord has said that it will be open to the chairmen of the panels to appoint to the furnished houses tribunals the same individuals who are serving on the rent assessment committees?

LORD CHAMPION

Yes.

LORD ILFORD

I cannot press an Amendment of this sort. I am a little disappointed that the Government are not prepared to consider it, but I cannot press it, particularly at this late hour, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 [Mortgages of dwelling houses to which Rent Acts apply]:

LORD MITCHISON

This clause deals with relief for mortgagors, and subsection (1) describes the conditions in which that relief is to be granted. One of them is that there should be a legal mortgage created before the commencement of this Act, and a regular tenancy. Not all tenancies are binding on the mortgagee; they may have been created by the mortgagor in excess of his powers and in those circumstances are not binding on the mortgagee. This is, therefore, to give protection to the mortgagee in such a case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("and the tenancy is binding on the mortgagee").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.39 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON moved in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) to insert () the mortgagor is not in breach of his covenants (the covenant for the repayment of the principal money being disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph unless it provides for repayment by instalments); and".

The noble Lord said: Again I think I can move this shortly. This is again a case of protecting the mortgagee, and it excepts from the relief given under the clause the mortgagor who is in breach of his covenants. Then the question arises as to the covenant to repay the principal. This covenant is a matter of form in mortgages and it does not, as a rule, have any significance; it is really a relic of the past. But it does have significance in one group of cases; namely, where the mortgage is to a building society. In that case it is a covenant to pay by instalments. Therefore, this clause provides for relief not to extend to a covenant for the repayment of the principal as a rule, but extending it where it is a covenant that provides for repayment by instalments. I hope I have made the point clear. If I have not, no doubt some noble Lord will tell me how stupid and inadequate my statement was. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 28 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mitchison.)

LORD HASTINGS

Strangely enough, it is one of the clearest statements that I think the noble Lord has made during the Committee stage. Even I can understand it. I think it is an improvement, and I thank the noble Lord very much.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

This Amendment substitutes for the word "covenant" the appropriate Scottish terms "agreement" or "stipulation". It is therefore consequential upon the Amendment just accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 14, at end add— ("() for any reference to a covenant there shall be substituted a reference to an agreement or stipulation.")—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40:

Rateable value

40.— (4) Where after the date which is the appropriate day in relation to any dwelling-house the valuation list or valuation roll is altered so as to vary the rateable value of the hereditament or lands and heritages of which the dwelling-house consists or forms part and the alteration has effect from a date not later than that date, the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the appropriate day shall be ascertained as if the value shown in the valuation list or on the valuation roll on the appropriate day had been the value shown in the list or on the roll as altered.

8.41 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "that date" and insert "the date on which this Act comes into force". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the effect of the appropriate day on the valuation of a house, "the appropriate day" being March 23, 1965, when the Bill was introduced. It is laid down in subsection (3) that the valuation of a dwelling-house standing in the lists on or before that date shall be its valuation. But there is an exception allowed in subsection (4) where, owing to an application being made to the valuation officer for an increase, or even a decrease, in the valuation after that date, owing to some material alteration in the house, when that case has been decided the valuation will stand in the lists as from the day it takes effect. In other words, if the application is made before March 23 and the decision is not reached in another two or three months—I do not know how long these matters take; I believe sometimes six months— then it shall date back. So that, for instance, if an improvement had been carried out to a house shortly before the appropriate day, and the owner had asked the valuation officer for a new valuation, then the increased valuation would date as from before March 23; and that might have the effect of taking that particular house out of the regulation and control of this Bill.

I envisage a situation where, during the passage of this Bill, an improvement has been made in a dwelling-house. It may even have been going on at March 23 and have been halfway through and completed since. Or an improvement may have been started in April or May, and will be finished in August. It seems to me only fair that in such a case the owner of the house, if he so wishes, should be able to apply to the valuation officer for a new valuation to be made, as the result of which his house would increase its rateable value, in which event before the passage of this Bill the house might be above the limit set in this Bill.

It seems to me a little unreasonable that an owner who, for natural and proper reasons, has improved his house after the initiation of this Bill, but before it is passed, or was in fact improving his house when this Bill was introduced, should be deprived of the possible benefit he might receive from this new valuation.

I hope that I have made the point clear. I do not see any reason to suppose that any owner of a house would deliberately embark upon an improvement for the purpose of putting his house beyond the limits of the rateable value set in this Bill. I think that would be a rather far-fetched idea. It seems to me only fair that any benefits that might possibly accrue in that respect should be available to the owner of a house who is carrying out these improvements up to the time the Act comes into force. I hope that the noble Lord will regard this as a reasonable suggestion, and that he will see his way to embodying it in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 4, leave out ("that date") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD MITCHISON

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, about the possibility of landlords appearing before astonished tribunals and asking that the assessable value of their house be increased. I fear that any body that had to consider this request might suffer such a shock that they would grant it without further consideration of its purpose. It might pay the landlord handsomely in some cases, and they would be cases which we should desire not to encourage. I quite see that there is something to be said both ways—it is not a large point—and in this case I feel that it is right to follow the worst of all possible examples, the 1957 Rent Act. It had exactly the same problem to consider, in paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule, and it did, in fact, deal with it on the lines at present suggested in the Bill, and not on those in the Amendment. I repeat to the Committee that I see the force of one or two of the points of the noble Lord, but on the whole, where there is a rather difficult situation and one does not quite know how it is going to work out, I think it is better to stick to what was done in this respect in the 1957 Act, whatever one might think of it in other respects.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I must say that if paragraph (5) of the Second Schedule to the 1957 Act is what the noble Lord is relying on, this is a very special case indeed. Is it not Section 11 of the 1925 Act under which, in a certain number of cases, the owner, instead of a tenant, can pay the rates? Perhaps I should be more correct in saying that I think there is a special provision in some places by which rates paid within a certain time attract a deduction. There is an allowance which I think is referred to in the Schedule to the 1957 Act. But surely that is no precedent for the case that is now being put forward. The 1957 Act related to an entirely different set of circumstances, where, on account of prompt payment, one got a small discount. This would have had an effect on the valuation concerned. Surely this cannot affect the case which my noble friend has put forward.

LORD MITCHISON

It is the nearest parallel that I can find. I agree that it is not the same; it could not be, because the two Acts are dealing with different circumstances. There is no instance that I can find in the 1957 Act—I beg your Lordships' pardon, I see that it is paragraph 2, of Schedule 5. I think I had better not say much more, but perhaps I may make a general proposition. This kind of point did occur in the 1957 Act, and in no instance was the sort of method proposed by this Amendment used to deal with it. I think that it is putting temptation into the thoughts of landlords, and it would have a horrible kind of Alice-in-Wonderland effect if we were to send them before tribunals to ask for their rateable values to be put up in order to get outside the intentions of the Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment. I hope that I have the reference right.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

You have now.

LORD HASTINGS

I am sorry the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment, because I think that it is eminently reasonable; it is a little unfair that it should not be accepted. It is unusual that provisions of Bills should take effect before an Act is on the Statute Book. It is, in a certain respect, retrospective, or nearly retrospective, legislation. If my own Party has been guilty of that heinous crime in the past, I deplore it as much as I do the Government's present attitude. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clauses 41 to 50 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Amendment of the Rent Acts in relation to regulated tenancies]:

8.52 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON moved to leave out paragraph 11. The noble Lord said: This is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 82. It raises a question about Sections 10 and 11 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933: …the references to the principal Acts shall be deemed to include references to this Act. Section 10 of the 1933 Act gives councils of county boroughs and county districts power to publish information about the rights and duties of landlords and tenants under the Rent Acts. Section 11 gives councils of county boroughs and county districts power to institute proceedings.

Under the Bill as it stands, these sections are applied simply in relation to regulated tenancies, and it is thought that in view of the general power available to local authorities under Section 276 of the Local Government Act, 1933 to prosecute and defend legal proceedings where they deem it expedient, the absence of these powers in relation to Parts III and IV of the Bill would not mean that local authorities could not give publicity to these provisions. It has been thought desirable, however, to avoid doubt, that they should expressly be put in. That is the effect of that provision. It is transferred from Schedule 1 to Schedule 6 for that purpose.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 31, leave out paragraph 11.—(Lord Mitchison.)

LORD HASTINGS

I am grateful for the explanation. It did look to me like a transfer; otherwise, of course, I did not understand a word about it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Rent Assessment Committees]:

THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to add to paragraph 1: and the Minister may appoint one panel to represent more than one registration area".

The noble Earl said: I am sure the House very much appreciates the great courtesy which both the noble Lords. Lord Champion and Lord Mitchison, have shown in their replies to Opposition Amendments, even though they have moved very little in their answers. However, I am hopeful that they will accept my Amendment, as it is very much in line with the latest statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on curbing public expenditure. The setting up of the rent assessment committees is described in full in Schedule 2 of the Bill. It is quite obvious that there will be a considerable cost to the taxpayer in setting up the committees.

The weakness of Schedule 2, which I suggest has been spotted by this Amendment, was, strangely enough, overlooked in another place. It is that each panel to be set up by the Minister can deal with only one registration area. The result of this will be that in the less populated areas of the country some registration areas will have very few cases to consider. I suggest that it would be more practical and economical to allow one panel to handle a number of registration areas. This Amendment would give the Minister power, if he thought fit, to appoint a panel to cover more than one registration area, and thus would save unnecessary wastage of public money. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)

LORD CHAMPION

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his kind remarks. I am also grateful to him for suggesting something which he thinks will save public expenditure. As he says, there is considerable emphasis on this at the moment, and we should jump at anything which would enable us to do this, provided that it did not upset reasonable arrangements for public and private business. However, we think that the Amendment is unnecessary. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule requires the Minister to draw tip panels of members and chairmen of rent assessment committees for such areas as the Minister determines, such areas, in total, covering all registration areas as defined in Clause 21(1)—that is to say counties, county boroughs and London boroughs. The panel areas can be whatever areas are most practicable, from the point of view of geography and communications, and need not necessarily observe the same boundaries as registration areas. The Minister can alter the panel areas in the light of experience and changing conditions. We think that the point which the noble Earl has in mind is adequately covered in the Bill, although we appreciate his desire to bring this to the notice of the Committee and the Government.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Supposing that the arrangement which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull is suggesting is put into force, will there also be an arrangement by which the panels can change the town in which they hear cases? Can they, so to speak, go on circuit around the districts? Supposing they are large areas, I foresee that it may be convenient that they should sit in one town at one time and in another town at another time, so that members of the public do not have to travel an enormous way to appear before them.

LORD CHAMPION

I think it is the case (if I should happen to be wrong on this I will communicate with the noble Earl), that this will be very much a matter for the president of the panel to decide. He will be able to fix arrangements that are reasonably convenient both to the members of the panel and to the general public. However, if there is any doubt at all, I will write to the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I am grateful for the noble Lord's advice. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.0 p.m.

LORD ST. HELENS moved to add to paragraph 4: Provided that each committee has one member with at least five years of practical experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to provide that each rent assessment committee has one member, at least, who has five years of practical experience in the valuation of dwelling-houses. If this Amendment is not accepted, the same difficulties will be introduced into the rent assessment committees as exist already in valuation courts, where you find that the courts are staffed by members who have no practical experience of valuation. Over the years in the valuation courts the members have developed a good deal of expertise and have become experts, not in valuation, but in assessing the evidence which is put before them in the courts.

I myself am no expert at all, but in trying to prepare myself to move this Amendment I went round to a great many reputable, well-established estate agencies. I discussed with them the effect, which exists already in the valuation courts, of not having valuation experts and how this position is likely to be continued in the rent assessment committees. They told me that the situation is created where the plaintiffs in the valuation courts have now got into the habit of putting forward a case in such a way that the average determined by the court will be that which they desire to get, and therefore the whole system is quite unbalanced. They make their original claim far too high, in the hope that eventually an average convenient to their client will be arrived at.

I suggest that the Government should be extremely grateful for this Amendment because, by their own admission, they expect the administration of this Bill, or Act as it will be, to end in chaos; that comes from the mouth of a Government spokesman. I would quote an article which appeared in a Sunday newspaper on July 18, according to which Mr. Robert Mellish, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who was addressing a Labour Party meeting at Romford, said: There may even be chaos, but it is the sort of chaos I would welcome. I am sure the Government would not wish this situation to arise.

My noble friend Lord Newton has already quoted an exchange that he had with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which Lord Champion was challenged to say how he would arrive at assessing the rents. He welcomed the challenge, took it up, and said that he himself would be able to assess the rents in any particular area very easily. I am no expert at assessing rents, so again I asked the people who were kind enough to help me in the large estate agencies; indeed, I took the Hansard in my pocket and I quoted this exchange between the two noble Lords to them. Because of my great estimation for the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and indeed my affection for him, I would not wound him by quoting to him what the estate agents said in comment. Indeed, if I were to do so I believe I should be out of order in your Lordships' House. However, the professions do not believe that non-professional people are capable of making fair and exact valuations, so I asked them where the Government are going to get valuation officers. Those men who are experienced in valuation said, "It is quite obvious that they will not be able to get people without paying a very high price, and they obviously will not pay this price because competent valuers to-day are paid between £1,750 and £3,500 a year."

It is quite obvious that the Government are not going to be able to pay for those people to act in all the rent assessment committees, so there remain only the retired members of chartered professional bodies. Although I feel that the Government would welcome this Amendment with open arms if they possibly could, I think that for practical purposes they will probably have to turn it down, because the retired members of these chartered professional bodies do not exist in sufficient numbers for one to be appointed to each rent assessment committee. So although I realise that this Amendment would be very much welcomed by the profession who have to deal with this practical problem on the spot, I have the nasty feeling that the result will be that the administration will end in the chaos that Mr. Mellish predicted. But I very much hope that the Minister will be able to show me a way out of this labyrinth. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord St. Helens.)

LORD CHAMPION

I am sorry that the noble Lord found it inadvisable to quote the words that were used about my statement in the House. It might have added to the gaiety of the Committee, if not of the nation, to have heard what in fact was said. But then, of course, I may have found out something about the gentleman's activities, and said something equally forceful about a member of this particular profession. One can always do this—it is part of the exchange—plus the fact that I have been in politics long enough now to be just a little bit thick-skinned.

We certainly are grateful for the intention behind this Amendment, but not for the Amendment itself. We do not feel that we can accept it. It certainly is the Government's intention that a professional valuer should serve on any tribunal whenever the case to be heard requires his expert knowledge, as it normally will. It is, however, we say, going a little too far to say that no committee will be properly composed unless a valuer is present. Valuers are in short supply—I think the noble Lord actually said that himself—and it might prove impossible to get one for every hearing. This would be a pity, but it would not destroy the validity of the decisions taken by a committee when there happened not to be a valuer present.

Now the rate assessment committees will clearly have a body of decisions reached when the valuer was there present with them, and something like case law will be built up. This will guide them. They will have evidence about the property; the chairman of the committee will usually be a lawyer, of course, qualified by his training to weigh up the evidence of comparableness, one property with another; and the case will have been discussed before the rent assessment committee. There may be other evidence—rateable value, for example—

LORD NEWTON

Hear, hear!

LORD CHAMPION

—and, despite our discussion this afternoon, the rateable value will come into the general discussion without necessarily appearing in the appropriate clause. This can legitimately be used to help in arriving at its decision. The members of the committee will normally be drawn from the area in which the property is situated and have a general background knowledge of the values there.

Furnished houses rent tribunals have for years been fixing reasonable rents for lettings, frequently without a valuer to help them, and their decisions have not given rise to serious complaint—very little compaint, in fact. In these circumstances, we think it is too rigid to require a valuer's attendance at every hearing. This should certainly be the general rule; but if the valuer found it impossible to attend at any time convenient to the parties, and if the tribunal had fixed a fair rent for a very similar property in the locality, it might be right to proceed without the valuer member being present.

We think this is something which can be properly left to the discretion of the president of the panel, who has an important function to perform and who will be responsible for the make-up of the committee at the particular hearing. The Minister will leave the presidents in no doubt that a valuer should normally be on every committee and present if possible. Sensible and experienced people such as will make up the panels will not, however, be incapable, we think, of arriving at sound verdicts in many cases; and it would fetter the operation of the committee too much if this Amendment were accepted. I hope that the noble Lord will see that there is some force in these points, and will consent to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD NEWTON

In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has just said, I do not suppose that my noble friend Lord St. Helens will wish to press his Amendment, but I think, all the same, that my noble friend has done your Lordships' Committee a great service in moving it and in saying what he did in moving it—not least for telling your Lordships (and I do not suppose your Lordships knew before; I certainly did not) what the view of one of the two Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is as to the sort of situation which will arise as a result of the activities of these rent assessment committees. He said that chaos will result. That is precisely what I and my noble friends have been saying at every stage of this Bill—although, I would point out, in far less derogatory language.

LORD ST. HELENS

I am only too ready to offer a quid pro quo; and in view of the hasty repentance of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on the subject of rateable value, and in view of the Amendment that the Government will no doubt put down on the Report stage, I, in return, beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.13 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

I beg to move Amendment No. 62. This is a very simple Amendment, and I need not take very long in moving it. As it is quite obvious that the members of rent assessment committees will have to make a considerable number of purely subjective judgments, with no guidance whatever, or with virtually no guidance whatever, from Her Majesty's Government on how they are to do it, it seems to me very desirable that, at any rate, these assessment committees should consist of an odd number of people, as opposed to an even number of people. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 32, leave out ("one or").—(Lord Newton.).

LORD CHAMPION

As the Schedule stands, the committee will consist of a chairman and one or two members. Thus the Amendment would not permit—and that was clear from the remarks of the noble Lord—of a chairman and one member. Paragraph 6 allows a chairman to sit alone to deal with a case if the parties agree; and it is anomalous that a chairman should be able to decide a case if sitting alone whereas the Amendment would not allow a chairman accompanied by a member to decide a case. I suppose what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is getting at here—I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I should have said Lord Newton; I ought to remember his name for he has attacked me often enough—is seeking to prevent an equal division of opinion on the committee, the chairman favouring one fair rent, the member another, without any provision for a casting vote. But this state of affairs could perfectly well arise between three members, all holding different views of what a fair rent should be. In practice it is most unlikely that the decisions of a committee will be other than unanimous; this is the experience of rent tribunals operating in this kind of sphere. Indeed, as a magistrate I myself sit on a bench where there are just two of us, and two can operate. One cannot operate, except in certain limited circumstances. But two magistrates can sit. I know it is better to have three and I should prefer three; but I do not think this is the sort of thing that ought to be imported into the Bill and made obligatory.

There is also the difficulty—and the public, or, at least, the people likely to appear, must be considered—that if a committee is convened to hear certain cases and one member at the last moment is delayed and fails to arrive at the appointed place, the considerations of the committee cannot proceed without him. This might involve all parties in needless expense. The Minister has made it clear that he expects, as a general rule, that each rent assessment committee will consist of a lawyer, a valuer and a layman, but I do not think he should be bound by an Amendment such as this to make this composition obligatory in every case.

LORD HASTINGS

What we are concerned with is the constitution of a permanent committee, and not whether a particular case is heard by one, two or three people. It seems to me that this Schedule deals with the constitution of a permanent committee; and it appears to us wrong that a rent assessment committee should permanently consist of only two people; it should always consist permanently of three. It may be that one of those members cannot attend or that it is not necessary for one of them, even if he is a valuation expert, to attend on any particular case. If I am right in believing that this Schedule and paragraph in particular deal with the permanent constitution of a committee, I think it should be made clear that there must be three members altogether. It would be wrong to have a permanent committee consisting of only two members. That is the point.

LORD CHAMPION

I do not think the noble Lord is right about this.

LORD HASTINGS

I hope I am not.

LORD CHAMPION

I do not think he is; but I should not like to be too dogmatic. We will look at it and I will communicate with the noble Lord. This is not the sort of thing on which we should wish to be dogmatic. We should not wish something to slip into the Bill which is not intended. I will communicate with him, arid, in the light of that, perhaps his noble friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD NEWTON

I do not want to press this point, but I doubt whether the noble Lord is right in saying that normally, in most cases, the members of the rent assessment committee will be unanimous in their decisions. I wonder whether Mr. Mellish would take that view. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to ask Mr. Mellish about it. Also I do not think that you can make a comparison between the activities of a rent committee and the activities of a magistrate on a bench. I agree that two magistrates are perfectly adequate; magistrates have primarily to find facts.

LORD CHAMPION

Would you really say that?

LORD NEWTON

I am a magistrate and I regard that as my primary duty. The members of the rent assessment committee would be concerned not with facts but with opinions. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3:

REGISTRATION OF RENTS

Application for registration

1. An application for the registration of a rent for a dwelling-house may be made to the rent officer by the landlord or the tenant, or jointly by the landlord and the tenant, under a regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house.

2. Any such application must be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars in addition to the rent which it is sought to register.

3. Where a rent for any dwelling-house has been registered under this Act no application by the tenant alone or by the landlord alone for the registration of a different rent for that dwelling-house shall be entertained before the expiration of a period of three years from the following date, that is to say—

1. (a) where on an application for the registration of a different rent the registered rent has been confirmed, the date of that application (or if more than one the last of them);
2. (b) in any other case, the date on which the registration took effect;

except on the ground that since that date there has been such a change in the condition of the dwelling-house (including the making of any improvements therein), the terms of the tenancy or any other circumstances taken into consideration when the rent was registered or confirmed as to make the registered rent no longer a fair rent.

Procedure on applications to rent officer

4. On receiving any application for the registration of a rent the rent officer may, by notice in writing served on the landlord or the tenant (whether or not the applicant or one of the applicants) require him to give to the rent officer, within such period not less than seven days from the service of the notice as may be specified in the notice, such information as he may reasonably require regarding such of the particulars contained in the application as may be specified in the notice.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 3, to omit all words after "from" down to the end of paragraph (b), and to insert instead: "the date of the last registration". The noble Viscount said: I do not know which of the noble Lords opposite will deal with this Amendment, but I ought in advance to make a candid apology to him in that I think that, as it appears in the Marshalled List, the Amendment does not make sense. I also apologise to my noble friend Lord Hastings. It is not intended to be derogatory to him, but on rereading the Amendment I do not think that it deals with the situation where rents are confirmed, as opposed to being registered.

If I understand this part of the Schedule aright, here is a slightly curious state of affairs. If an application is made singly, either by a landlord or a tenant, as opposed to a joint application, for a change in the registered rent, one of two things can happen. Either the change can take place, or the old registered rent is confirmed. If a change takes place it may be as a result of the rent officer dealing with the matter, in which case he registers it and there is no more ado. Alternatively, it may go to the rent assessment committee and, if the committee decide that a change shall be made, the rent officer registers the change. If either the rent officer or, on appeal, the rent assessment committee decides that no change should be made the original registered rent is confirmed. In those circumstances, why is it that there is a distinction in the time, in paragraph 3 of this Schedule, before which a person can again come to the rent officer, according to whether or not the rent was confirmed or changed?

As I read it, in the case where the rent is confirmed, in the first instance or on appeal, the three years dates from the application. If the rent is found not to be right and is changed and re-registered, a person can come again in not less than three years from the date of the registration. I cannot see any logic in this. In either case the thing may be fairly long-drawn-out, and it does not make any difference whether it is the landlord or the tenant who applies or whether the rent goes up or down. I cannot see why, merely because an application is turned down, and the rent assessment committee or the rent officer decides the registered rent was correct after all, a person should have to wait less time before applying again—surely this is the effect of paragraph 3 of the Schedule—whereas, if the rent was wrong, the three years is dated not from the date of the application but from the date of the registration. I am sorry if this is not the point which the noble Lord expected to meet, but I wonder whether he could explain the logic in this. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 44, leave out from ("from") to end of line 2 on page 36 and insert ("the date of the last registration").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD MITCHISON

As I see it, the effect of the Amendment would be that the three-year period would always run from the date of the last registration of a fair rent, so where an application made after three years to register a different rent failed, it would be open to the applicant to go on making further applications, because more than three years would have elapsed since the date of the last registration. That appears to be a considerable difficulty regarding the Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I started by saying that I ought to put in the Amendment "confirmation or registration", and I have made a different point from that which the noble Lord has answered. Can he, by any chance, give me an answer to the point into which I went in some detail? There seems to be an extraordinary distinction between the situation where a rent is confirmed and where it is changed. I will give the noble Lord a moment to read this Amendment. I can easily continue on this subject for some time, if he would like me to do so. If there is going to be some distinction made, it is a very strange one to my mind, because to all intents and purposes there is no distinction whatever between the two applications. They both go through exactly the same procedure, but in one case the applicant wins, and in the other he loses. Why where he happens to lose he should be able to have a shorter period before he can apply again than if he wins. I cannot understand.

LORD MITCHISON

I cannot see any particular difficulty about this. Time is going on, and the noble Viscount should put down on Report what it is he really wants done to the Bill. That is the object of an Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I cannot expect the noble Lord to be able to answer that sort of question at short notice.

LORD MITCHISON

Not willing.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Not willing, either? The noble Lord realy ought to have been willing to try, but, after all, at this time of night I had better not take advantage of the noble Lord's unwillingness in the way I might otherwise have done. Perhaps the noble Lord should accept that, because he cannot answer it, it is probably unanswerable, and had better be changed. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.27 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out "seven" and insert "twenty-one". The noble Lord said: The next three Amendments go together, and there are similar Amendments later on, one or two of which I may have to move separately. I think that what I am after is clear. I want to introduce some uniformity in the Bill in relation to the time factor. We are dealing with the procedure that a rent officer must pursue on receiving an application for the registration of a rent. In the first case, it relates to seeking information; in the second, to representation in writing, and in the third, to consultation with the landlord and tenant. In each case, the rent officer has to give notice of not less than 7 days. Yet when we come to the rent assessment committee dealing with the same matter, possibly even the same case, they have to give notice of not less than 14 days. It seems odd that the time factor should be different when the circumstances are the same.

In regard to the first time of not less than 7 days, I suppose that a rent officer, seeing this direction in the Schedule, would assume that he cannot give notice under a week and in practice it will probably become about within 14 days. But that is still a shorter time than the "not less than 14 days" in paragraph 10. When an application is sent in by post, it is unlikely that the rent officer will reply by return. He will have a lot of work to do, and it may be a couple of weeks, at best, before he can consider the case and begin serving the necessary notices. We have also to consider that a landlord or tenant may have gone away on holiday and it is perfectly reasonable to go away for 14 days, the minimum length of the normal holiday for anybody. I should have thought that "not less than 14 days", as in paragraph 10, is the absolute minimum that should be allowed.

If the noble Lord were willing to accept these first three Amendments (and the Government could quite easily put these discrepancies right on the Report stage, and put it at not less than 14 and not less than 21) it would not be necessary to change paragraph 10, as to which I have two Amendments down, and I should be willing to accept that. I have on the other hand, put "not less than 21", which I think is better; and curiously enough, this ties up with the Government's own words in Amendment No. 68, which follows, and which relates to a period of 28 days when there is an appeal, or something of that nature, to the rent assessment committee.

LORD CHAMPION

An objection.

LORD HASTINGS

When there is an objection to the rent assessment committee. So here we have not less than 7 days; not less than 14 days; and, finally, within 28 days. I should have thought that it was reasonable to have not less than 14, if necessary, or 21, which is what I prefer, and which would tie in with the "within 28". I think it is a matter of convenience and logic, and it would avoid confusion. I hope the noble Lord will study this matter again, and that he may he able on the next stage to improve the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 13, leave out ("seven") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Lord Hastings.)

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Hastings on this Amendment. I am certain that both the tenant and the landlord will need to take advice on this matter, and the 7 days would give very little time for their advisers to apply to the rent officer.

LORD MITCHISON

These questions of time limits were discussed at considerable length in another place. The concessions were made and the Bill is the result: and there are some further Amendments, which I propose to move shortly, which will go some way to meet some of the points that I am sure the Opposition have in mind. I think the right answer is this. Questions of time limit of this sort are no doubt important, and one wants to get them to work. There are provisions for extensions in cases where we think extension is required, and the periods allowed must, in the long run be a question of judgment. If we make them too short, it will make things difficult for people; if we make them too long, it will, in practice, allow things to drift along for far too long in cases where, on general grounds, an urgent decision is advisable.

I would say to your Lordships that I feel that, when the matter has been discussed at length, when concessions have been made, and others appear on the Marshalled List of Amendments, we really cannot go into the whole thing all over again; indeed, it is inappropriate to do so. I do not think I should help the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if I said that I would look at it again, because all I would see is what I am seeing now, and that is that the matter has been discussed at great length and that there have been concessions. Of course the Opposition have not got all they want—they never do in these cases. But they have got quite a lot, and I should have thought that the reasonable thing was to accept what has happened and not to start this complicated business of a timetable all over again. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will accept that. If he does not, he can always put the Amendment down again on Report stage.

LORD HASTINGS

I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken this attitude. I am well aware of what discussions took place in another place. But they were all on specific points of time, and not on the whole timetable all through these different Schedules. There were one or two Amendments; I have read the results altogether, and I am trying to improve the Bill. The noble Lord is tending to treat the last Amendment and this as of a frivolous nature, as though we were not discussing them seriously.

LORD MITCHISON

No.

LORD HASTINGS

That is the impression the noble Lord's attitude has given me.

LORD MITCHISON

I would never treat an Amendment as of a frivolous nature—not this kind of Amendment, at any rate. What I am saying is that in the long run these are detailed matters which are matters of balance of consideration. It has been open to people to raise them, and many of them were raised below. Concessions have been made, and there are further concessions made on the Order Paper. Could we not, as a matter of common sense, leave it at that?

LORD HASTINGS

I am very sorry, but I think the noble Lord is adopting the most extraordinary attitude, because these matters have not all been discussed. Some of them have, and one or two alterations have been made. But in the generality they have not, in fact, been discussed in the way in which I am discussing them and linking them up. I thought that I was being reasonable and helpful to the Government in pointing out these anomalies, and the difficulties that are going to result, both to landlord and tenant, because sufficient time is not given. If one is not to discuss matters of detail—to use the words the noble Lord used—in Committee when are we to discuss them? This is precisely what Committee is for. I am not going by what has been discussed or not discussed in another place. This is a different discussion. I am sorry the noble Lord takes this attitude. I have no intention of continuing the argument under these conditions, and I shall withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MITCHISON moved, in paragraph 8, after "he" to insert "or a rent assessment committee". The noble Lord said: We can, at any rate, have the advantage of seeing what concessions there are on the Order Paper, and I hope they will be considered in due course together with the other matters the noble Lord will be considering.

We now come to a group of Amendments which I might refer to together: Nos. 67, 68, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79 and 80. This is a question of allowing an extension of time for the making of certain objections and requests. The questions arise partly under Schedule 3, "Registration of rents", and partly under Schedule 4, "Certificates of fair rent". The object of all the Amendments is to put in the hands of the rent assessment committee the decision to allow or not to allow an extension of time. I think that in many of these cases—I do not want to prejudice what the noble Lord has in mind—that is a good way of dealing with the time-table.

The first Amendment concerns Schedule 3, paragraph 8. The landlord and the tenant are given 28 days, or such longer period as the rent officer may allow. If one turns to the acual Amendments, one sees that in effect this is now in the hands of the rent assessment committee, that is to say, if the rent officer does not make sufficient allowance. In Schedule 3, paragraph 16, there is a similar point about where a rent officer is not satisfied that a rent specified in a certificate of fair rent should be registered, and the applicant desires to request that the matter should be referred to the rent assessment committee. There is the timing of that. The next Amendment relates to Schedule 4, paragraph 4. Where a rent officer is not satisfied that he has sufficient information to enable him to entertain an application, the applicant is given fourteen days or such longer period as the rent officer may allow. The fourth case is Schedule 4, paragraph 7, where an applicant objects to the rent which the rent officer proposes to specify in a certificate of fair rent. The applicant is again given fourteen days, or such longer period as the rent officer may allow, to request a reference to the rent assessment committee. So that while leaving the rent officer with the discretion to do this, there is a further extension in the hands of the rent assessment committee.

I am bound to say I shall have to look carefully at the Bill and the Amendments when they are put down on the Marshalled List to discover how far these Government Amendments (if the noble Lord accepts them) have met all the points he has raised. I am sorry if the noble Lord felt I was treating his points as being frivolous. I was not, but I could not very well have referred in any detail to the Government Amendments I am putting forward, and I think we shall both have to consider how far those Government Amendments meet the substance of what the noble Lord had in mind. I fully recognise, as I have said before, that these questions of time are always a matter of balance. If you make them too short you may seriously inconvenience one of the parties; on the other hand, if you make them too long you may make the whole proceedings too slow and inadequate for the purpose we have in mind in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 11, after ("he") insert ("or a rent assessment committee").—(Lord Mitchison.)

LORD HASTINGS

I could not quite make out what the noble Lord was referring to when he intervened on my previous Amendments and spoke of "concessions". Now I realise that he was talking about these Amendments, but I had read them carefully and tried to find out the effect they would have. In fact, I find they are not concessions at all. They are better drafting of what is already in the Bill, and the period of 28 days in the first case and, I think, 14 days in the other cases is the period in relation to that particular paragraph which is already in the Bill. It does not at all affect any of my Amendments, which are a separate matter, and that is why I wanted them considered separately. I hope the noble Lord will look at this rather carefully again. My criticisms of the shortage of time still stand, and with regard to the other time factors I should like the noble Lord to see if he cannot bring a little more uniformity into them and allow a little more convenience for the landlord and tenant in dealing with these particular situations.

LORD MITCHISON

I would just like to say one thing. These are in fact concessions because they allow a further extension of time. It may very well be that the right way to deal with questions of time limits is to give rather more discretion to the rent officers and the rent assessment committees than was given in the original drafting. That is the intention of these Amendments. Therefore the extension of time is not in the form of an extension of the number of days; it is in effect a concession to the party who might otherwise be harassed.

LORD HASTINGS

I appreciated that when I said that they were better drafted, but I do not think they give the power of extension to some of the matters referred to in my Amendments, and even the rent officer only has discretion on one of two occasions and not in respect of all the occasions which I have marked down in my Amendments. If that discretion could be exercised in all cases it might be the easiest way to meet the point.

LORD MITCHISON

I assure the noble Lord I will look into this. It works out as a rather detailed matter of administration and it is obviously not a thing to be discussed in great detail at this hour. The noble Lord clearly understands I can give no undertaking whatever to make any alteration, and my present impression is that the solution has been sufficiently reached already.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 37, line 14, leave out paragraph 9 and insert— ("9.—(1) If no such objection is received then—

1. (a) if it is received within the said twenty-eight days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the matter to a rent assessment committee;
2. (b) if it is received after the said twenty-eight days the rent officer may either refer the matter to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.

(2) The rent officer shall indicate in the register whether the matter has been referred to a rent assessment committee in pursuance of this paragraph.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 42, after ("officer") insert ("or a rent assessment committee").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 38, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert— ("(3) If such a request is made, then—

1. (a) if it is made within the said fourteen days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the matter to a rent assessment committee;
2. (b) if it is made after the said fourteen days the rent officer may either refer the matter to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Certificates of Fair Rent.]:

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 39, after ("officer") insert ("or a rent assessment committee")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 41, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 42 and insert— ("(2) If such a request is made, then—

1. (a) if it is made within the said fourteen days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the application to a rent assessment committee;
2. (b) if it is made after the said fourteen days the rent officer may either refer the application to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 15, after ("officer") insert ("or a rent assessment committee").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 41, line 18, leave out paragraph 8 and insert— ("8.—(1) If such a request is made, then—

1. (a) if it is made within the said fourteen days or a rent assessment committee so direct the rent officer shall refer the application to a rent assessment committee;
2. (b) if it is made after the said fourteen days the rent officer may either refer the application to a rent assessment committee or seek the directions of a rent assessment committee whether so to refer it.

(2) If no such request is made or if such a request is made but the application is not referred to a rent assessment committee the rent officer shall issue the certificate.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

LORD MITCHISON

This is the Amendment which was discussed on a previous paving Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 44, line 34, at end insert— ("3. In sections 10 and 11 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 the references to the principal Acts shall be deemed to include references to this Act.")—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Enactments Repealed]:

9.50 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

This Amendment and No. 84 provide for two further repeals of the 1957 Rent Act which are consequential on the repeal of Section 11(3) of that Act. This was the section which enabled the Minister by order to release dwelling-houses from control under the Rent Acts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 26, column 3, at end insert ("Section 13(2).").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MITCHISON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 41, after ("6") insert ("in paragraph 8(3), the words or subsection (3)'").—(Lord Mitchison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Schedule 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HASTINGS

I should like just to thank noble Lords opposite for their patience and ask them to excuse me for my apparent impatience. I think we have managed to get through this Bill without delay, and to discuss it thoroughly. I know that this has been a long session to-day, but we have had to get through it. I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords have dealt with our Amendments, which have often been rather complicated and discursive.

LORD MITCHISON

May I thank noble Lords opposite for what has been constructive help? Of course there have been points of difference—there always are. But there has been a great deal of constructive suggestion coming from the other side. May I, too, be allowed to say that I hope I have not sounded too cross in the last half an hour or so?

On Question, Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.