XN000022-1981-12-09 — Page 8

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1981

7

+ IF THEY DO NOT EXERCISE SUCH RESTRAINT, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RESTRAIN THEM REASONABLY, HE ADDED.

MR BILL BROWN EXPRESSED MISGIVINGS AT THE SPEED WITH WHICH THE BILL WAS BEING PASSED FOR IT HAS LEFT LITTLE TIME TO CONSIDER ITS POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES NOT ONLY TO LANDLORDS AND TENANTS BUT ALSO TO THE OVERALL INVESTMENT CLIMATE AND THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE.

WHILE RECOGNISING THE NEED FOR URGENCY, HE CONTENDED THAT IT MUST BE LOOKED UPON AS AN INTERIM MEASURE ONLY.

+ IN THE LONG TERM THE BEST METHOD OF PROTECTING TENANTS IS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF NEW RENTED ACCOMMODATION, AND WHEN FRAMING OUR LAWS FOR RENT CONTROL AND SECURITY OF TENURE WE MUST ENSURE THAT OUR ACTIONS DO NOT RUN CONTRARY TO THIS VITAL CONSIDERATION, HE SAID.

MR BROWN POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF REVIEW IN A PIECEMEAL MANNER IS CAUSING UNCERTAINTY WHICH WOULD ONLY LEAD TO UNEASE ON THE PART OF TENANTS AND PERHAPS UNWILLINGNESS OF INVESTORS TO CONSTRUCT NEW DOMESTIC ACCOMMODATION.

+ALTHOUGH WE ARE TODAY DISCUSSING SECURITY OF ENURE, AS OPPOSED TO RENT CONTROL PER SE, THE MAN IN THE STREET MAY PERHAPS BE FORGIVEN IF HE CAN SEE LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, FOR BOTH REPRESENT AN INTERFERENCE WITH MARKET FORCES THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO PREDICT.

+GIVEN PRESENT CONDITIONS I DO NOT THINK ANY OF US WOULD DISPUTE THAT SOME FORM OF RENT CONTROL WILL BE NECESSARY FOR SOMETIME TO COME.

AND IT

+HOWEVER, THE LONG TERM OBJECTIVE MUST BE DECONTROL WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BRING THIS ABOUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND RECONFIRM THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF REVIEW ON FUTURE POLICY FOR RENT CONTROL AND SECURITY OF TENURE REMAIN GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE, MR BROWN URGED.

MISS MARIA TAM SUPPORTED THE MAIN PROVISION OF THE BILL BUT WITH ONE RESERVATION.

SHE WAS PARTICULARLY WORRIED BY THE CLAUSE WHICH STIPULATES THAT WHERE A LANDLORD APPLIES TO THE LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR AN ORDER FOR POSSESSION ON THE GROUND THAT HE REQUIRES IT FOR HIS OWN USE, HE CANNOT SELL OR LET OUT THE PREMISES FOR TWO YEARS WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, EVEN IF HE SETTLES THE CASE WITH HIS TENANT OUT OF COURT AND THE TENANT DELIVERS UP VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES.+

SHE NOTED THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN FOR INCORPORATING THIS CLAUSE IN THE BILL, BUT IN HER VIEW, IT IS IMPOSING PROTECTION ON TENANTS WHO DO NOT NEED IT AND RESTRICTION ON BOTH LANDLORDS AND TENANTS WHO WISH TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS WITHOUT LITIGATION.+

MISS TAM POINTED OUT THAT A TENANT RARELY SETTLES A CASE WITH THE LANDLORD IF HE BELIEVES HE CAN WIN THE CASE, OR HE H ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION, HIS LOSS CANNOT BE CONPENSATED BY MONEY. THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND HE WISHES TO AVOID LITIGATION.

NO

/+IN SUCH