HC Deb 27 June 1911 vol 27 cc393-8

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)

This Bill re-appears substantially in the form in which it was finally adjusted in 1909 at the close of the Session. The principle of the Bill was accepted on both sides of the House. It is designed substantially to modify the inflexibility of the present house-letting system in Scotland. The rigidity of the system has inflicted a double-barrel grievance. First, when a man desires to become a tenant he is compelled under the present system to make his arrangement four months ahead. Many things might occur to make it desirable that he should change his residence. The Bill proposes to remedy the grievance by making the period not more than two months ahead. If the agreement is for more than two months ahead it is not binding on either party. The second grievance is that if a tenant enters upon occupancy he finds himself saddled with the house for a whole year under the present system. It is proposed to remedy that grievance, in the first place, by saying that where a contract of tenancy is for more than three months notice may be given forty days ahead of the next payment of rent, and the tenant may go free. If the let is for less than three months, notice must be given equal to one-third of the period of the tenancy before the next payment of rent; and if the let is for less than a month seven days' notice is sufficient. The result will be that there will be a system of short lets in Scotland as in England. If that be so it is obvious that some readjustment of the present system of collecting rates is necessary. Rates in Scotland are collected at one time, and that the most inconvenient time for the tenant. There are two ways in which a readjustment may be made; the owner may be asked to collect the occupiers' rates, or the local authority may be asked to make more frequent collections. The Government prefer the former method because it is the simpler and more convenient. Since 1892, where a rent is less than £4, the owner pays the rates, and whenever there are lets for less than a year, the owner has to pay the occupier's rates. Although this is the preferable method, we do not bind ourselves to it, and if the local authority put forward a scheme for more frequent collection of rates, it will receive favourable consideration. After all, what the Government has in view is the readjustment of the system of the collection of rates to fit short lets. The House may ask what is a small dwelling? In a population of 20,000 and under, a small dwelling would be a £10 rental; in a population of 20,000 to 50,000 the rent is £15; and in a population of 50,000 and upwards a small dwelling rental is £21. None of these figures are cast iron, but are subject to reconsideration and discussion. I think I have sketched, at all events, the principle of this Bill, and the only question between us is as to the machinery by which the object of the Bill is to be achieved. The topic is extremely unexciting, and I submit the Bill to the House as an effective remedy for a grievance from which the people of Scotland suffer.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

I am glad that this Bill is at last to receive a Second Reading, and that it will be sent to Committee. I am not at one with the right hon. Gentleman as to what he says with regard to allowing the local authorities the option to collect the rates. I am quite sure if that is adopted that it will affect very materially the value of this Bill, and that if he will consult the working classes of Edinburgh and Glasgow that that option will not be given because it will be simply impossible. Take, for instance, the Poor Rate on which the qualification for the Vote is based. If that small rate can be collected at frequent intervals then practically speaking the local authorities will strike out the names. I sincerely trust that the Government will leave the principle as it is now in the Bill, and otherwise I am sure that it will meet with strong opposition.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

I agree with what was said by the Lord Advocate as to the grievance which has been felt for a long time. I confess, so far as my experience has gone, that this grievance is not Celt so much in other boroughs as it is in Glasgow.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

It is.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

I am not going to enter into the matter in any controversial spirit, but I think there are a great many boroughs which would far rather not have this Bill at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Again there is a difference of opinion, but that is the view I gathered from meeting a good many. I do not want to approach this matter in any spirit of controversy. My attitude is the same as regards this Bill as it was with regard to the Bill of 1909, and I do not propose to vote against it. I have a very strong view as to the point with which the Lord Advocate dealt last, and that to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh referred, namely, as to the method by which the alteration of rating law is made. It is introducing again, or rather extending, the system of what is called compounding, and, so far as I know, nobody has ever reported otherwise than adversely on that system. If there have been any favourable reports on it, the number of instances where the report is adverse is certainly much greater, and mainly on this ground that if you compound, the ratepayer gets more careless about expenditure and does not display any interest in keeping down extravagance. It used to be said by those who are responsible for Bills of this kind that unless this rating clause was introduced it was impossible for the Bill to be carried out. There has been conclusive evidence that that is a mistaken view, because no later than last year the Corporation of Glasgow on a report by their Committee preferred a system which is not that in the Bill. I have no doubt many of the Scottish Members received the other day a circular letter from the Town Clerk of Glasgow dealing with this Bill, in which, while approving generally of the Bill, disapproval was expressed as to certain amendments suggested by house owners. They referred to the commission proposed to be allowed to house owners for collecting rates, and they added that the Committee would not object to the insertion in the Bill in addition and as an alternative to the compounding provisions therein, to a clause permitting the assessing boroughs to collect by instalments. I refer to that report as showing that there is no difficulty at all in having a system of collecting assessments by instalments.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

How on earth could you have a weekly collection of rates by local authorities?

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

We will discuss the details when we go upstairs to Committee. In the meantime I may say I have greater confidence in the Committee of the Corporation of Glasgow than in the present scheme, which I think is impossible. I am aware that certain Members who sit below the Gangway opposite, though I do not see them present to-day, support the Bill because they say that it will make a great change in the franchise. That may be, but I venture respectfully to say that in my judgment this is not a legitimate place to make a great change in the franchise. A change of that kind should be brought about by a Bill dealing with the matter on a large scale, and should not be brought about in a Bill dealing with house letting. To my mind the argument which has hitherto always been used in support of the Government plan, namely, that unless you adopt that plan you cannot remedy the grievance, no longer holds water because, as I have pointed out, the Glasgow Corporation have proposed another method, which I would prefer to take. That is a practical method which would not raise these difficult questions. I do not oppose the Bill, but, on the contrary, I support the Bill. I quite recognise the open mind which the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate has given expression to upon various matters. I quite recognise that the point in dispute between us may lead to a good deal of opposition in Committee, but I also recognise that it is a Committee question, and one to be fought out in Committee. May I just say, showing how little opposition there is to the Bill as a whole, that there has been introduced into another place a Bill which, so far as I remember, is exactly similar to the Government Bill now before the House except as to the rating.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

That is the basis of the Bill.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

I differ from the hon. Member and the Lord Advocate differs from him, because the basis of the Bill would not be a matter on which there would be room for compromise and change in Committee. Therefore in that respect I must entirely dissent from the view of the hon. Member. I recognise the grievance that exists. I think it can be remedied. I think it ought to be remedied. I do not believe the Government have taken the best course in this Bill in Clauses 8 and 9, but that does not justify me in dividing the House against it. I think the Clause allowing commission will add considerably to the charge on the ratepayers. It will also have the effect absolutely of preventing anything like the relief which was given to those persons who, without being in the position of being paupers, are yet decent, respectable people so close to the line that they are not able to pay the rates. It will also, in my judgment, have the result of adding to or raising the rents just because the landlord will feel that whatever happens the tenants must pay the rates. I think those are considerations which are well worth the attention of those who profess, and I believe quite honestly profess, to be anxious to get good and cheap houses for our people. The Lord Advocate, I believe, has quite correctly given the figures of the rents of the small dwellings. They go up to £21 in this Bill, though I rather think it was £20 in the last Bill. That includes an enormous proportion of the rates in Glasgow, and I think I am within the limit in saying 75 per cent. of the houses.

Mr. URE

Fifty per cent.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

To my mind the rating proposal is not a sound proposal. If it is persisted in, and unless we come to terms, I do not know what the result will be. As I have stated, I recognise the grievance, and I think there is an honest effort to remedy the grievance. I think the proposal as to rating which the Government have made is not necessary. That really is the one point upon which this Bill seems to me to be open to criticism. That is the point upon which I shall reserve for myself and those who think with me full right to do our best in Committee in the matter.

Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN

In my judgment this difficulty constitutes one of the grossest scandals that ever I have come across in all my life. I happen to have been in Glasgow when the people were changing their residences, and it seemed astounding to me to see all those thousands of people moving with their furniture on the sidewalks, and to know of other cases where men have lost their employment and got employment in other towns in Scotland or across the border, and who yet have been hung up with the rent of a house for twelve months. I think that really does constitute one of the greatest scandals that continues to exist within the limits of Great Britain, and I sincerely trust that every success may meet the efforts of the Government to place this Bill on the Statute Book. The hon. Member opposite has raised a good deal of objection with regard to the rates. But the system to which he objects is in existence in practically all the towns in England, and there is not the slightest difficulty in the landlord paying the rates. It is said that if the proposed system is adopted the people will not take an interest in economical government in Scotland. But in England the keenest fights take place over the expenditure of the different local bodies, and doubtless the same will be the case in Scotland. The objection really does not exist in actual practice. The Bill sets out to wipe away a great grievance which has aroused keen resentment, and I think it ought to be supported by every Member from Scotland. I rise to give the Bill the blessing of the party with which I am associated, and to wish it an early success.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.