HC Deb 20 August 1909 vol 9 cc1701-8

In this Act—

The expression "dwelling-house" means in burghs to which this Act applies without adoption a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of twenty-one pounds or under, unless the burgh contained within the police boundaries thereof at the date of the census of nineteen hundred and one a population of fifty thousand or upwards, in which case it means a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of twenty-six pounds or under; and means in burghs in which this Act has been adopted a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of fifteen pounds or under;

The expression "assessing authority" includes a town council, a parish council, and every other body entitled to impose an assessment; and

The expression "assessment" includes all rates, charges, and assessments imposed, assessed, or levied by an assessing authority, the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which are leviable in respect of the yearly value of lands and heritages, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of an assessment;

The expression "magistrate" includes judge of police;

The expressions "owner" and "occupier" have the meanings assigned to them respectively in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892; provided that Section fifty-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903 (which limits the obligations of factors), shall apply for the purposes of this Act as if it were herein re-enacted with the substitution of this Act for the Burgh Police Acts specified in the said section.

Amendment made: "In the first paragraph, after the word "expression" ["The expression dwelling-house"], to insert the word "small."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Sir F. BANBURY moved, in the same paragraph, to leave out the word "a" ["in burghs to which this Act applies without adoption a dwelling-house"], to insert the words, "an unfurnished."

There may be, especially at seaside resorts, a large number of houses which are liable to be let at longer notice than the terms of this Bill would permit, and unless an Amendment of this sort is inserted it would prevent furnished houses being let in the ordinary way. I do not think it would in any way interfere with the intention or spirit of the Bill, and it would do away with a considerable amount of injustice and inconvenience which might be caused to the owners of lodging-houses at watering places who let their houses for short periods, perhaps at longer notice than is given under this Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)

I cannot accept the Amendment. The valuation roll contains no furnished houses.

Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter. Representations have been made by a large number of proprietors of houses in coast towns which are let for short periods in the summer time, and this would really be a hardship. I am certain there are a great many owners of houses who think this will have a disastrous effect on them.

Mr. NORMAN LAMONT

I desire to associate myself with hon. Members opposite as representing a Constituency which has some of these coast towns. It is true the adoption of the Bill is optional, but as it at present stands, if the Amend-

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out "twenty-one" ["at a yearly rent or value of twenty-one pounds or under"] and insert "fifteen." If I am fortunate enough to carry this Amendment, I propose to move another later on the effect of which will be to make one uniform scale for all the houses which will be included in this Bill, and to do away with the varying scale which at present exists. I believe I am correct in saying that all the other Bills which have hitherto been introduced had one fixed limit at which the Bill was to come into operation. It would be very difficult to carry out these different alternatives, and I think it would be very much simpler if everyone understood that there was a fixed limit at which the Bill would come into operation. I am

ment were carried it might be very much more largely adopted.

Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 24.

Division No. 486.] AYES. [2.13 p.m.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Norman, Sir Henry
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Barnes, G. N. Haworth, Arthur A. Parker, James (Halifax)
Brigg, John Hazleton, Richard Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Brooke, Stopford Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Radford, G. H.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) Rees, J. D.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Henry, Charles S. Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Byles, William Pollard Hobart, Sir Robert Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Holt, Richard Durning Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Cleland, J. W. Idris, T. H. W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.
Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow) Jowett, F. W. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Kekewich, Sir George Sears, J. E.
Cox, Harold Kelley, George D. Seddon, J.
Crooks, William Lambert, George Simon, John Allsebrook
Cross, Alexander Lundon, T. Steadman, W. C.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lupton, Arnold Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lyell, Charles Henry Sutherland, J. E.
Erskine, David C. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Esslemont, George Birnie Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Maclean, Donald Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Everett, R. Lacey M'Callum, John M. Waring, Walter
Fenwick, Charles Marnham, F. J. Watt, Henry A.
Gibson, J. P. Mason, A. E. W. ((Coventry) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Gill, A. H. Massie, J. Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)
Glendinning, R. G. Montagu, Hon. E. S. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Myer, Horatio
Griffith, Ellis J. Nicholls, George TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Whitley.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nicholson, Charles N (Doncaster)
NOES.
Bowles, G. Stewart Fletcher, J. S. Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Forster, Henry William Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gordon, J. Renton, Leslie
Craik, Sir Henry Hamilton, Marquess of Sloan, Thomas Henry
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- Hills, J. W. Stanier, Beville
Doughty, Sir George Kimber, Sir Henry Tuke, Sir John Batty
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Du Cros, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Lamont.
Fell, Arthur Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

given to understand that £21 is too large a limit for dwelling-houses in the burghs to which the Bill applies. The Bill says that a dwelling-house is one with a rental of £21, or under, "unless the burgh contained within the police boundaries thereof at the date of the census of nineteen hundred and one a population of fifty thousand or upwards, in which case it means a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of twenty-six pounds or under; and means in burghs in which this Act has been adopted a dwelling-house entered on the valuation roll at a yearly rent or value of fifteen pounds or under." I am informed that if the Bill is left as it now stands nine-tenths of the houses in Glasgow would be included I think it is perfectly impossible to include nine-tenths of the houses of Glasgow in the provisions of this Bill. A memorandum of this proposal has been issued by the Town Clerk of Edinburgh, and I presume he knows as much about it as the Lord Advocate. I presume that he speaks on behalf of the municipal authority of Edinburgh. He is strongly opposed to the limit proposed, and he says he cannot believe that the Lord Advocate is aware of the effect which the Bill, as it stands, will have on Edinburgh. So far as I understand the object of the Bill, I do not think that would be interfered with if my Amendment was carried. The object of the Amendment is to prevent hardship being imposed on working men by requiring them to give long notice if they desire to renew the agreements for continuing in their houses at the end of the year. I understand that a tenant has to give three months' notice, and that he is practically bound for 15 months. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Four months."] Well, that would bind him for 16 months. That would hardly apply in the case of houses with a rental of £26. The majority of these houses are occupied by people of a different class, and they would not be subject to the disadvantage which working men complain of.

Mr. J. P. GIBSON

I desire very shortly to state the position of Edinburgh in regard to this Amendment. The Bill, as originally introduced, fixed the rental at £15, and the Corporation of Edinburgh petitioned in favour of it. Occupiers in Edinburgh contribute £70,000 per annum to the rates. There is a loss of about 5 per cent. on the collections, which means a sum of £3,500 per annum. If the rental limit is raised to £26, as proposed by Clause 2, and if the commission is fixed at 15 per cent. for the collections—and that I understand is a moderate estimate, looking to the experience in England—the extra cost to the occupiers would be £12,000 per annum. It virtually means an increase of a penny in the pound on occupiers in addition to the present taxation. The limitation to £15 would cover the case of workmen's houses, which is the purpose of the Bill. I think that the views of the ratepayers should be followed rather than those of the landlords and house factors, who are anxious to collect the rates because of the prospect of getting a fair commission by which they will be paid. My experience of both Edinburgh and Glasgow is that the workmen's dwellings are not above £15 rental, and therefore the proposal which it is now sought to amend would be a distinct disadvantage to the local authority without being an advantage to the working classes themselves.

Mr. G. N. BARNES

I hope that the Lord Advocate will not accept this Amendment, because I believe that the Bill is far better as it stands, as far as the mass of working people in Glasgow who are going to be benefited are concerned. The whole speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Gibson) is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that there is going to be a loss on the compounding of the rates. Of course, were the proposal, which comes on later, to increase the amount for the collection of the rates to 25 per cent. to pass, it might become a loss; but we are not going to be so foolish as to pass that Amendment. The compounding is to be carried on with the provision that the sheriff of the district is to fix the amount that is to be given from the rates, and, presumably, the sheriff, being a fair-minded man, accustomed to hear and weigh evidence, will fix the amount of the reduction somewhat in proportion to the loss of the rates, so that there need not be any loss at all if, as I assume he will do, he does his duty. The speech of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was somewhat amusing. It was evident when he started to speak that he knew absolutely nothing about this Bill, and just about as much of the conditions in Scotland. He did not know the population of Dundee. He did not know whether the Bill applied to Dundee or not. He said that if the Bill fixed the amount at £15 it would apply to nine-tenths of the houses in Glasgow. I do not know whether it would or not, and I do not care, because I can assure the House it does not matter. The Bill is to afford relief to classes of tenants not included in the large mass of nine-tenths mentioned by the hon. Member. In Glasgow there are about 140,000 houses; and a large number of the houses, I should say about 40,000 or 50,000, are not let under the conditions mentioned by the hon. Member for the City of London—that is to say, subject to the 12 months' lease and the three or four months' notice. Probably one-quarter to one-third of the houses in Glasgow are now let on weekly or monthly tenancies. Consequently you must exclude all those houses altogether. The Bill does not touch them, and the Bill is intended to apply just to that class of houses that lie between £15 and £26—that is to say, it is meant to apply to the better class of mechanic and those men who want to be free to move from one place to another so as to do away with that immobility existing at present which ties up a man to a particular district for 16 months at a time. In the event of the Amendment being carried it will exclude all those houses. I can assure hon. Members that a very large number of those mechanics are paying anything from £20 to £26 per year, and therefore the Amendment will bar out all these men, and practically destroy the Bill.

Mr. J. W. CLELAND

I hope that the House will not consent to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of London. I cordially agree with the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Barnes). There is a very large number of people in Glasgow and the surrounding districts who suffer hardship from the system at present in operation. I do not

think, and I say it with all respect, that hon. Members who represent English constituencies quite realise the extraordinary hardship that is caused by the present system of house letting in Scotland, and more particularly among the more respectable classes of artizans in the industrial districts. In reference to the question of compounding and the point that has been mentioned with regard to 15 per cent., I do not think it in the least likely that the sheriff would fix 15 per cent. I very strongly urge hon. Members on both sides to vote against this Amendment, because, after all, this is not a party question. I do not know a single candidate last time who was not asked about it and did not pledge himself in favour of the principle embodied in this Bill, and I appeal to hon. Members not to whittle down the benefits which the Bill proposes to confer on the industrial population.

Question put, "That 'twenty-one' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 20.

Division No. 487.] AYES. [2.35 a.m.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Norman, Sir Henry
Barnes, G. N. Haworth, Arthur A. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Bright, J. A. Hazleton, Richard O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Brooke, Stopford Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Parker, James (Halifax)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Henry, Charles S. Radford, G. H.
Burns, Rt. Hon, John Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Rees, J. D.
Byles, William Pollard Hobart, Sir Robert Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Holt, Richard Durning Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cleland, J. W. Idris, T. H. W. Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jowett, F. W. Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E, Grinstead) Kekewich, Sir George Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Cox, Harold Kelley, George D. Seddon, J.
Crooks, William Lambert, George Steadman, W. C.
Cross, Alexander Lamont, Norman Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lundon, T. Sutherland, J. E.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lupton, Arnold Thorne, William (West Ham)
Erskine, David C. Lyell, Charles Henry Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Esslemont, George Birnie Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Walters, John Tudor
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Waring, Walter
Everett, R. Lacey Maclean, Donald Watt, Henry A.
Fenwick, Charles M'Callum, John M. White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Marnham, F. J. Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth)
Gill, A. H. Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Glendinning, R. G. Montagu, Hon. E. S. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)
Griffith, Ellis J. Myer, Horatio TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nicholls, George
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Forster, Henry William Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Bowles, G. Stewart Gordon, J. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hamilton, Marquess of Stanier, Beville
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hills, J. W. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Craik, Sir Henry Kimber, Sir Henry
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt-Col. A. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. J. P. Gibson.
Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount
Fletcher, J. S. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp