Clause 2. — (Suspension of Execution of Order for Possession.)

Part of Orders of the Day — Protection from Eviction Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 8th December 1964.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sir John Hobson Sir John Hobson , Warwick and Leamington 12:00 am, 8th December 1964

This is nothing to do with service tenancies. It covers all in agriculture, whether service occupancies or tenancies. The Amendment is intended to emphasise that while we accept and are grateful for the fact that that principle has been applied to agriculture, it ought equally to be applied to all forms of industry where somebody is let premises in consequence of his employment and where he has gone into those premises because they were necessary as part of his employment. That principle ought to apply not only to agriculture but to the other circumstances.

May I give a few instances? School caretakers and stokers, for instance, frequently have to live on the premises. It is important that they should do so, and it is important, when the county court judge considers whether or not he should make an order for possession, that he should take into account that somebody else has to get that job, that the premises were originally let to the person in consequence of his employment, that that person has ceased to be in that employment and that somebody else now has to live in those premises for that work. I have already mentioned railway employees; we debated them at length on the last occasion and several questions, from the Government benches, from the Liberal representatives and from this side of the House, were asked about why railway employees were being treated differently.

Factory workers and night watchmen, in many cases, have to live on premises, and some factories have processes just as important as agriculture. It is just as important that some people in other industries than agriculture should live on the premises. Hospital staffs, managers of public houses and caretakers of flats are all people to whom the premises were originally let to enable them to do a job. When they have ceased to be in that employment, it is surely right that the county court judge should Lake into consideration the fact that a new employee must live in those premises.

I cannot understand why the Minister should be upset, because when he has done it for agriculture, the same principle should apply to large numbers of other industries, where it is of immense importance that the fact that the premises are needed for the purposes of the job and that another person has to go into those premises for the same job should be taken into account by the county court judge.