Clause 30. — (Prohibition of Eviction without Due Process of Law.)

Orders of the Day — Rent Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 1 November 1965.

Alert me about debates like this

Lords Amendment No. 23: In page 19, line 11, at end 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.

Read a Second time.

Photo of Mr Graham Page Mr Graham Page , Crosby

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "tenant under a statutory tenancy" and to insert: second successor as defined in section 13 of this Act". I believe that the intention of the Lords Amendment was to take into account the person who follows the second successor on a regulated tenancy. Under Clause 13 we have now extended to the second successor the right to succeed to a controlled or regulated tenancy. In the earlier stages of the Bill, I put the case of the father, mother and daughter living together, the father being the tenant. I am here assuming a regulated tenancy. The father dies, and because the Rent Acts apply to this regulated tenancy the mother will be the successor. Under the existing law, and prior to this Bill taking effect, the mother will be the last person entitled; that is to say, if she were to die the daughter would not be able to succeed. The law at the moment does not recognise a second successor to a controlled or a regulated tenancy. Under Clause 13 the daughter is now entitled to succeed.

Then we go one step further. If someone else is in occupation when the daughter dies, he is following on a protected tenancy. Therefore, he is excluded from the provisions of Clause 30, because only the person who is not following on after the protected tenancy is protected by Clause 30. Nor would that successor to the second successor be covered by the Rent Acts, so that person is left without any protection.

I suggested at an earlier stage, before we had the second successor, that protection should be given to him. I now suggest that the third successor should be given that protection, but not in the form of the Lords Amendment because it goes too far. It gives a right of protection to anyone in occupation after the death of a statutory tenant. Surely they are already protected under the Rent Acts—exeryone except this third successor. This is the only person to whom we have to give a special protection. As the Clause stands, it is quite in conflict with Clause 32.

Photo of Mr Julius Silverman Mr Julius Silverman , Birmingham Aston

Does this not deal with an entirely different matter? Clause 14 deals with the question of protected tenants. This deals with what is called the basic protection of no eviction without a court order of tenants not protected under the Acts.

Photo of Mr Graham Page Mr Graham Page , Crosby

I said that the second successor under the existing law is neither protected under the Bill nor under the existing Rent Acts. In Clause 13 the third successor is left without protection under the Rent Acts and under the Bill. Anyone following a statutory tenant has protection under the Rent Acts. It is only the third successor we need to protect. It is to that person that the Clause should be restricted. Use of the phrase "statutory tenant" means nothing at all. A person who follows a statutory tenant will be protected under the Rent Acts. If this Clause is confined to the person who needs protection it is in order, but as it stands it is contradictory to Clause 32.

Photo of Mr James MacColl Mr James MacColl , Widnes

I am not sure of the extent of the difference between the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself because I think that the Lords Amendment which I shall invite the House to support is wide enough to cover the point the hon. Member has raised and to cover other people who may be affected.

The first person who dies and has been protected under the Rent Acts may well be a statutory tenant. Unless there is transmission of his statutory tenancy to his wife, there will be no protection for other people in the house unless the Lords Amendment is adopted. The Lords Amendment covers two points. First, basic protection is given where the statutory tenant was the original statutory tenant, or one who obtained the first transmission and has not a widow or other member of the family to succeed him. Secondly, the other people lawfully in the house would receive basic protection.

The second case to which the hon. Member referred is where the statutory tenant has obtained his tenancy by a second transmission and any person residing with him at the date of his death would get protection. The Amendment from another place meets the case which the hon. Member put forward.

Question, That "tenant under a statutory tenancy" stand part of the Lords Amendment, put and agreed to.

Photo of Mr James MacColl Mr James MacColl , Widnes

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I think that I have said all that need be said on this Amendment. As I have explained, the Amendment was made in another place to meet the difficulties worrying the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself.

Question put and agreed to.