§ Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
790§ [The EARL OF D0NOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Restriction on raising rent or rate of mortgage interest.
§
1.—(1) When the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or the rate of interest on a mortgage to which this Act applies, has been since the commencement of the present war, or is hereafter during the continuance of this Act, increased above the standard rent or the standard rate of interest as herein-after defined, the amount by which the rent or interest payable exceeds the amount which would have been payable had the increase not been made shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable:
Provided that—
§ (2) A person shall not in consideration of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies require the payment of any one, premium, or other live sum in addition to the rent, and where any such payment has been made in respect of any such dwelling-house after the twenty-fifth day of November nineteen hundred and fifteen, then the amount shall be recoverable by the tenant by whom it was made from the landlord, and may without prejudice to any other method of recovery be deducted from any rent payable by him to the landlord, but this provision shall not apply to any payment under an agreement entered into before the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen.
§ (3) No order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate as modified by this Act and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has committed waste or has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, or that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ, or on some other ground which may be deemed satisfactory by the court making such order.
§
(4) It shall not be lawful for any mortgagee under a mortgage to which this Act applies, during the continuance of this Act, and so long as interest at the standard rate is paid and is not more than twenty-one days in arrear, and the covenants by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) are performed and observed, and so long as the mortgagor keeps the property in a proper state of repair and pays all interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance, to call in his mortgage or to take any steps for exercising any right of foreclosure or sale, or for otherwise enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured:
Provided that this provision shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured
792
thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage, nor shall this provision affect any power of sale exerciseable by a mortgagee who was at the twenty-fifth day of November nineteen hundred and fifteen a mortgagee in possession, or in eases where the mortgagor consents to the exercise by the mortgagee of the powers conferred by the mortgage:
Provided also that if, in the case of a mortgage of a leasehold interest, the mortgagee satisfies the county court that his security is seriously diminishing in value or is otherwise in jeopardy, and that for that reason it is reasonable that the mortgage should be called in and enforced, the court may by order authorise him to call in and enforce the same, and thereupon this subsection shall not apply to such mortgage.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe first Amendment standing in my name is little more than a drafting Amendment. We strike out the words in paragraph (iv) requiring a statement of the increased amount payable in respect of the rates, not because a provision of that kind is unnecessary but because we think the point can be better dealt with in a subsequent clause; and then we put in words to make it clear that the increase of rent which the landlord may charge is to be an increase over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly, or other period which included the third day of August last year.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, lines 31 to 33, leave out ("and the increased amount payable in respect of such rates shall be separately stated") and insert ("over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly, or other period which included the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe object of the next Amendment is that the tenant should have with the notice a definite statement of the causes for which the increase of rent is required. It may be required in cases where the landlord has spent money upon structural improvements, or again where the landlord in the case of a compound householder transfers to the tenant part of the rates which properly belong to him. These two paragraphs require in each case that there should be a distinct statement so that the tenant may be under no misapprehension as to the reason for which the increase of rent is 793 required of him. But with your Lordships' permission I wish to add to those two paragraphs which are on the paper a third paragraph running as follows: "Where such notice has been served on any tenant the increase may be continued without service of any fresh notice on any subsequent tenant." These words make it unnecessary for the landlord to serve a fresh notice of intention to increase the rent above the standard amount in the case of a new tenancy, and are really put in as a precaution. It was thought that in their absence every new tenant might claim to revert to the standard rent and have a fresh four weeks' notice given to him.
§ Amendments moved—
§
Clause 1, page 3, line 5, after ("rent") insert ("accompanied—
(a) where the increase of rent is on account of such expenditure as is mentioned in proviso (ii) to this subsection, by a statement of the improvements or alterations effected and of their cost; and
(b) where the increase of rent is on account of an increase in rates, by a statement showing particulars of the increased amount charged in respect of rates on the dwelling-house"; and
(c) where such notice has been served on any tenant the increase may be continued without service of any fresh notice on any subsequent tenant.")—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNESubsection (3) contains a provision under which, in spite of anything in this Bill, in certain cases the owner of the premises is allowed to recover possession of them. The circumstances are mentioned in the subsection, but it was thought that there was one case which had not been noticed—namely, the case where the owner desired to recover possession of the premises in order that they might be used for the accommodation of some person in the employment of a tenant from him. An obvious case would be that of a farmer who required a cottage for the accommodation of some person in his employ. The words are put in to make the subsection complete.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 27, after ("employ") insert ("or in the employ of some tenant from him").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
794§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe object of the addition to subsection (3) of the words in my next Amendment is to save pending proceedings in a case, for example, where an order for ejectment has been granted before the passing of this Bill but where the execution of the order has been deferred.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 28, after ("order" insert ("and where such order has been made but not executed before the passing of this Act the court by which the order was made may, if it is of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had been in operation at the date of the making of the order, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT PEELMy Lords, there is one point I should like to raise on Clause 1. This Bill is, of course, a very rough-and-ready way of dealing with this problem, and a good many injustices are committed under it. But that is no reason why some injustices which can be avoided should be committed. The Bill aims chiefly at munition areas where rents are likely to be increased owing to a large inflow of persons coming from other districts in order to work on munitions. The case which I want to bring before your Lordships is one which I am advised is very prevalent in London in regard to small properties. It is the case where rents have been raised since the commencement of the war in consequence of decisions taken before the war; that is to say, where the raising of the rents had nothing whatever to do with war conditions. There are a good many classes of property of this kind where the economic rent was fixed two, three, or four years before the war commenced, but purely out of consideration for the existing old tenants their rent was not raised. What happens is this. Perhaps the old tenant dies or goes away after the war has commenced, and a new tenant comes in and has been charged the economic rent which was settled before the war began. There seems no reason whatever why the new tenant should not pay that particular rent, but under this Bill the landlord would only be able to recover the rent that was being paid before the war commenced. He could not recover the additional amount above the old rent. If the Bill remains as it is, landlords—or perhaps I ought to say owners of property, as it is a more 795 agreeable term—will be penalised merely because they had been kind to old tenants. Surely that is an injustice and not likely to induce owners of property in the future to give consideration to their tenants. Secondly, it will cause a good deal of disturbance amongst the tenants in a particular block of property, because the other tenants whose rent was raised just before the war will wonder why they should go on paying the old rent while the new tenant takes advantage of the lower rent paid by the old existing tenant. I suggest that this is a matter that ought to be remedied in the Bill. I confess I have not brought with me an Amendment on the subject, but the fact is that this House legislates with such lightning rapidity that I, being accustomed to the more leisurely methods of the other place, have not had time to draft an Amendment. But I should like to present the matter to the noble Marquess, and possibly if he agrees, as I hope he will, with the justice of the case, he will perhaps insert on behalf of the Government an Amendment on the Report Stage which may deal with the matter. I am advised that there are a great many cases of hardship like these, and I think they ought to be remedied.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONBefore the noble Marquess answers, I should like to point out that there is one very peculiar condition set up by this Bill. These houses in the neighbourhood either of munition areas or of camps are largely sublet by portions, and I know instances in which the owner of the property has been unwilling to increase the rent to his tenant, but in which the subletting has resulted in three or four times the value of the rent being realised by the tenant. What can be more absurd than that a new tenant who has taken a house at a standard rent should be allowed to make a profit of from 200 to 300 per cent. out of the house, which he has never lived in before, and yet the owner of the property is debarred from putting the matter on a commercial basis? Lord St. Aldwyn has an Amendment on the Paper, which I propose to move on his behalf, providing that in rural sanitary districts the Bill should apply to houses up to the value of £12 instead of £26 a year. Houses in country districts let at a rental of £26 a year could be let off to perhaps half-a-dozen different tenants. In my own neighbourhood there are cases in which good labourers' cottages are sublet to two 796 or three different people, and each of the sublets is of more value than the rent the tenant is paving to the owner of the property. I hope the noble Marquess will find means of dealing with this. It is possible that you might even make the Bill dependent on subletting not taking place. At any rate I think the point made by Lord Peel ought to be taken up.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI think my two noble friends have shown that in conceivable circumstances the Bill might operate somewhat hardly in the manner which they have described. The case that, my noble friend Lord Peel cited was that of an old tenant who had been allowed to remain in occupation at what I suppose I may call a preferential rent, a rent considerably below the economic rent and considerably below the rent paid by the adjoining occupiers. It would seem of course hard, supposing the old tenant had disappeared and been replaced by a new man having no particular claim to indulgent treatment, that in that case the owner of the premises should be precluded from charging what ex concessis would be not more than a proper economic rent. I am afraid the answer is that in legislation of this kind—which my noble friend described, and I am not sure that I did not use the same expression last night, as "legislation of a rough-and-ready description "—hard cases of this nature will arise, and I do not know that it is possible to anticipate all of them. I would, however, ask Lord Peel to look at subsection (6) of Clause 2 of the Bill, which provides that "where the standard rent payable in respect of any tenancy of a dwelling-house is less than two-thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply." That would seem to exclude from the operation of the Bill cases where the rent was obviously very low, or, as my noble friend would put it, an uneconomic rent. I cannot take upon myself to say with confidence that the subsection fully meets the case to which my noble friend has drawn attention, but I am under the impression—indeed, I am advised—that it would operate in that direction. Apart from the merits, I am afraid I must ask my two noble friends not to press us to amend the Bill. We are extremely anxious that it should pass into law as soon as possible, and I think for a sufficient reason, because we are told that in some parts of the country a great deal of anxiety and 797 unrest prevails under the apprehension of demands for increased rent. If we were to amend the Bill in order to remedy some minor imperfection it would have to go back to the House of Commons, and a great deal of valuable time would be lost.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER)Possibly the noble Viscount (Lord Midleton) will allow me to say a word on the criticism that He has directed against the Bill. I am bound to say that I have not looked at the Bill, in the light in which he suggested it should be read. I wonder if he has read it in the light in which I have always read it myself. I have regarded this Bill as regulating rent as between landlord and tenant wherever that relationship existed, and as making no difference whether the person whose rent had been raised was a sub-tenant or not. He would, in relationship to the person to whom be paid the rent, stand in the position of tenant, and the sub-rent cannot be raised, in my view, any more than the original rent. My reason for suggesting that is this. I have told the noble Viscount that I had not considered that his view of the Bill was a possible one, and therefore I cannot speak with confidence upon it; but my reason for the view I have expressed is that Clause 2 defines landlord and tenant and does so in these terms. The expression "landlord" includes "any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord"; and "tenant" includes any person who "derives title under the original tenant." It appears to me that wherever the relationship of landlord and tenant is established the rent cannot be raised, after this Bill has been passed, beyond the standard rent. Again, by subsection (2) of Clause 2 the Bill applies to "a part of a house let as a separate dwelling"; and I suggest to the noble Viscount that these two considerations, taken together, show that his fear lest the benefits of the Bill should be taken away from people who are sub-tenants is not justified.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONI am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. But is he quite correct in what he says? Take the case of a cottage that has six rooms and has not been sub-let before. The cottager seizes an opportunity to make money and sub-lets one room to one set of persons and two rooms to another set. 798 Surely that would not come under the Bill because the cottage was not sub-let before, and no standard rent will apply to it.
§ VISCOUNT PEELMay I direct the noble and learned Lord's attention to the fact that in the country houses up to the value of £26 come under the Bill. Do I understand, supposing the rent is £25 and the tenant sub-lets the house in different portions, that the whole of that rent—the different portions added together—has to be less than the £25? Because if that is not so, there really is no standard rent at all, and the tenant might make a very good thing out of it. But if the separate rents added together are to be taken as the standard, then there might be no raising of rents.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think it is possible, if a tenement had not been sub-divided and sub-let until after the time fixed for the operation of this Bill, that then the amount at which the sub-tenancy was established would not be regulated by the Bill. But I think it may be safely assumed that people intending to sub-let their property will already have sub-let it, and to consider merely the cases of the people who from and after the passing of this Bill will begin to sub-let their property is to consider a rather small and I trust an insignificant portion of the cases which this Bill will control.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONI am afraid we do not get it quite clear. I do not want to be too insistent. The tenant, say, had not sub-let before the passing of the Bill and was getting his house for 5s. a week. He then sub-lets and gets 10s. out of it. It may be that the rent has since been increased perhaps to 7s. 6d. Would it be possible to meet such a case lay adding such words as these, "and where the sum received by a tenant for sub-letting part of the premises did not exceed the standard rent"?
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDI was going to suggest another way in which this might possibly be met, but I understand it is extremely undesirable that any Amendments should be put in the Bill. Otherwise I should have thought it could be amended in regard to subsection (3) of Clause 2—that is to say, this could be included amongst the reasons on the ground of which the superior landlord could give notice of the determination of the tenancy and thus prevent the abuse.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think that if these cases really exist we ought to have some better information than the mere statement that they exist, and I will tell the noble Viscount why I say that. This Bill is expressly designed not to affect lettings of furnished apartments, and the cases that he suggests are cases in which it appears to me that the ordinary letting would be the letting of a place that is furnished—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNot necessarily. But it is assumed that the place was let as a whole up to the outbreak of war, and that after the war the tenant, realising that there was a good opportunity for making money, proceeded to sub-let part of his holding. The ordinary case of that kind would be where the man in occupation before the war had his house furnished, and then when the war broke out, in order to accommodate munition workers or people brought into the district by reason of the pressure of employment, let his place furnished. If that is the case, it is excluded from the operation of the Bill altogether. The other cases where the man lets the bare rooms after the beginning of the war, would not, I trust, be many in number, and unless the noble Viscount has information that leads him to think there is a grave abuse I beg him not to press his Amendment now. But if the case is a serious one, I think it would not be a difficult thing to get the Bill amended in that respect.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Interpretation and Application.
§ 2.—(1) For the purposes of this Act except where the context otherwise requires:—
- (a) The expression "standard rent" means the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, where the dwelling-house was not lot on that date, the rent at which it was last let before that date, or, in the ease of a dwelling-house which was first let after the said third day of August, the rent at which it was first let:
- (b) The expression "standard rate of interest" means in the case of a mortgage in force on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the rate of interest payable at that date, or in the case of a mortgage created since that date the original rate of interest:
- (c) The expression "rateable value" means the rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or in the case of a house or part of a house first assessed after that date, the rateable value at which it was first assessed:
- (d) The expressions "landlord," "tenant," "mortgagee," and "mortgagor include any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord, tenant, mortgagee, or mortgagor.
- (e) The expression "mortgage" includes a land charge under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897.
§ (2) This Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value of the house or part of the house does not exceed—
- (a) in the case of a house situate in the metropolitan police district, including therein the city of London, thirty-five pounds.
- (b) in the case of a house situate in Scotland, thirty pounds and
- (c) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, twenty-six pounds.
§ (3) Where for the purpose of determining the standard rent or rateable value of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, it is necessary to apportion the rent at the date in relation to which the standard rent is to be fixed or the rateable value of the property in which that dwelling-house is comprised, a county court may, on application by either party, make such apportionment as seems just, and the decision of the court as to the amount to be apportioned to the dwelling-house shall be final and conclusive.
§ (4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, this Act shall apply to every mortgage where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies, or any interest therein except that it shall not apply—
- (a) to any mortgage comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land if the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is less than one-tenth of the rateable value of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage, or
- (b) to an equitable charge by deposit of title deeds or otherwise.
§ (5) Where this Act has become applicable to any dwelling-house or any mortgage thereon it shall continue to apply thereto whether or not the dwelling-house continues to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies.
§ (6) Where the standard rent payable in respect of any tenancy of a dwelling-house is less than two-thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply to that rent or tenancy nor to any mortgage by the landlord from whom the tenancy is held of his interest in the dwelling-house.
801§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, the conversation which has taken place shows how very inconvenient it is that Bills should be brought up and hustled through your Lordships' House at the last moment when they have obviously not received proper consideration. Let me point to the Amendment to Clause 2 which has been put down by Lord St. Aldwyn. Can anybody suppose that the intention of Parliament would be, in protecting the working classes, to apply the legislation to houses of the rental value of £26 a year in rural districts? Members of the working class in rural districts do not live in houses of the value of £26 a year. The effect of this provision is to bring under the action of the Bill—unintentionally -a class of house which is altogether foreign to the purpose of the Bill. In his Amendment, Lord St. Aldwyn proposes that the limit of £26 a year should apply in the case of houses in any city, municipal borough, or urban sanitary district, and he proposes that in a rural sanitary district £12 a year should be the limit. I myself should have been inclined to put it at £13 a year, as that represents 5s. a week. I should have thought that a fair outside value to take for the ordinary cottage of the agricultural labourer on most estates. I feel great difficulty in pressing this Amendment because I gather from what tile noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) said that the passage of the Bill to-day is of the very first necessity. I assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he can go into rows of houses in some districts and find that the conditions I have described have obtained for many months. Rents have been received by the tenant far in excess of the whole rent of the dwelling in some cases, and double the rent in others. In some of these sub-letting cases furniture is provided, and in some it is not. If we are unable to amend the Bill I will only move pro forma Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendments, which I think ought to be inserted.
§
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 5, line 17, leave out ("elsewhere") and insert ("in any city, municipal borough, or urban sanitary district")
Clause 2, page 5, line 18, after ("pounds") insert ("in the case of a house situate in any rural sanitary district, twelve pounds").—(Viscount Midleton.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI certainly shall not complain of my noble friend for what he has said as to the inconvenience 802 to which this House is subjected by being called upon to deal with important Bills when there is not sufficient time to examine them. I have been longer a member of this House than my noble friend, and I can recall no time at which I have not been occasionally occupied in either protesting against the manner in which this House was treated or making more or less inconclusive statements of the reasons for which that treatment was inevitable. But this particular provision to which my noble friend refers is not, as he seems to suggest, the result of pure inadvertence on our part. He has called attention—and Lord St. Aldwyn called attention the other evening—to the high limit of value which has been fixed in the case of houses outside the limits of London. I quite agree that on the face of it to take a limit of rent or valuation of no less than £26 in the case of houses in rural districts seems a rather extraordinary provision; but the circumstances that led to this are the following. We found that there were many areas—areas to which it was absolutely necessary that this Bill should apply—which, although they were technically rural areas, had in fact an urban character. Take for example London. You have the Metropolitan Police area, and immediately outside that area you come to districts which are technically rural but in which, as I said just now, all the conditions are not those of a rural but of a suburban area. We came to the conclusion that it would be extremely dangerous to make a sudden jump from a valuation limit of £35 to a limit of, say, £12 or £15; and it seemed to us on the whole better to include a certain number of cases in which the persons concerned were not, strictly speaking, entitled to protection than to take a lower limit and exclude a number of persons who seemed to its to have claims upon the relief which this Bill gives. There is one other point that I would mention. If you come to houses with a valuation in the neighbourhood of £25 in purely rural areas—that is, areas which are not in any sense suburban—there does not seem to be very much reason for anticipating that the owners are likely to resort to a general putting up of rents of the kind which is anticipated in the munition areas and in other parts of the country to which the benefits of this Bill are intended to apply. Therefore, my Lords, with our eyes open we took this higher limit. The matter was very fully discussed in the House of 803 Commons and, as I ventured to say last night, no Divisions were taken in spite of the fact that this particular provision does afford—I admit it—a rather obvious target for criticism. I hope in these circumstances that my noble friend who has moved this Amendment will not think it necessary to press it upon the House.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI am inclined to think that some of the difficulty here has arisen from the fact that when the Bill was first before the House of Commons it was to apply only to certain specified areas and not to the whole country. I think it would have been better if the Bill had retained its original form, because it is no doubt owing to its applying to the whole country that the difficulty has arisen. The noble Marquess says there are some rural areas that partake so much of the nature of urban areas that you must have a limit of this kind. I should have thought it would have been easy to specify those particular areas. At any rate, it would be so round about London. In the Title of the Bill I see these words, that this is a measure to restrict "the increase of the rent of small dwelling-houses." In many districts the houses that will come under the Bill are large dwelling-houses, some of which ought not to be included.
§ LORD BARRYMOREI am sorry that the noble Marquess cannot accept this Amendment, because £26 is an enormously high value for houses in rural districts. Anybody who is cognisant of rural life or who has to do with the management of estates in rural districts must know that a £26-a-year house there is a very large house indeed, and not at all the kind of house that is occupied by the working classes. The Amendment which has been moved is not a jump suddenly from £35 down to £12, because the intermediate figure of £26 remains. At least we should be given some protection in regard to what are large houses in rural districts where this £26 limit certainly ought not to apply.
§ EARL ST. ALDWYNI am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Midleton for having moved these Amendments in my absence. I am not in the least convinced by what my noble friend opposite (Lord Lansdowne) said of the intention of 804 the Bill as it stands, but I quite see the difficulties of the position. The Bill certainly could never have been intended when it was introduced to apply to houses of the class which I had in my mind when I placed these Amendments on the Paper. As my noble friend who has just spoken said, everybody who knows the rural parts of England and still more of Ireland knows how ridiculous it is to suggest that a house of £26 rateable value or rent is inhabited by one who works for weekly wages. Therefore the Bill is extended by this remarkable definition of value far beyond the cases to which it is intended to apply. I quite feel, however, that it is useless to press these Amendments now. I do not suppose, after what the noble Marquess has said, that they would be accepted in another place. Therefore I hope that my noble friend who has been good enough to move them for me will not press them further. It is a remarkable piece of legislation that Parliament should be asked to make an extraordinary measure of this kind applicable to cases to which, in the opinion of my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill, it is not at all likely that it will be applied. That is really the position in which we are.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am much obliged to my noble friend for not pressing his Amendments. I will make only this observation. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will remember that this is not a Bill bringing premises of this kind permanently within the operation of legislation of this kind. It is an emergency measure which will operate only during the continuance of the war and for a few months after.
§ Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported: Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow Twelve o'clock.