§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendments accordingly considered.
§ Lords Amendments: Clause 1, Sub-section (1), paragraph (iv.), to leave out the words "and the increased amount payable in respect of such rates shall be separately stated," and to insert instead thereof the words "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 PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)These, and the Amendments which immediately follow dealing with the rates question in no way alter the effect of the Bill as it left this House, except to make clear certain doubts as to the amount of the rates, and the means by which it is to be arrived at. They carry out the undertaking I gave to the House when we were in Committee.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: Sub-section (1), par. (vi.), after the word "rent" ["increase the rent"], to add the words "accompanied,
§ (a) where the increase of rent is on account of such expenditure as is mentioned in proviso (ii.) to this Sub-section, by a statement of the improvements or alterations effected and of their cost; and
§ (f) 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
§ (e) where such a notice has been served on any tenant the increase may be continued without service of any fresh notice on any subsequent tenant."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Mr. KINGOn this point—and I think on all points where we have a consider- 579 able number of words put in—we ought to be assured definitely that there is no change. I must call the attention—
§ Mr. LONGMay I interrupt the hon. Gentleman in order to point out that I have already said there is no change in the incidence. All we do here is to make it necessary if a landlord charges more rent on account of an increase in the rates, that he must give the tenant particulars as to the increase of rates and the amount in respect of which he charges an increase of rent.
§ Mr. KINGI quite understood that was the explanation of the last Amendment, but does it cover all the Amendments that the Lords have brought to our notice?
§ Mr. HOGGECan the right hon. Gentleman assure us that none of these Amendments affect anything in Scotland?
§ Mr. LONGCertainly; they affect its application to the United Kingdom, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in them to which he can object. If anyone could object to this it would be the owner on whom it throws a slight additional burden. It is, however, fair, because as we gave him the power to get an increase of rent to cover increased rates which he has to pay. This carries out the undertaking I gave in Committee that we would endeavour, in another place, to make it clear that any claim would have to be accompanied by a statement.
§ Mr. BOOTHIt would simplify the matter if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether they are Government Amendments which have been inserted in another place.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: Clause 1, Sub-section (3), after the word "employ" ["in his employ"], to insert the words "or in the employ of some tenant from him."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Mr. LONGThis also carries out an undertaking I gave. The House will remember that the question was raised whether the words in the Clause would 580 cover the case of the employé of some tenant. We thought they would, but the Solicitor-General thought it would be safer to put in these words in order to make my meaning perfectly clear. This, also, is a Government Amendment, only inserted to make that perfectly clear.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: Sub-section (3), at the end to insert the words,
§ "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."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Mr. LONGIn moving to insert these words I need only to remind the House that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) at the end of our Debate raised the question of certain tenants who were called upon to quit under an execution order already issued, and he appealed to the Government to try and make a provision for those cases. I promised, on behalf of the Government, that we would examine the case, and see if it was possible to remedy a manifest injustice. These are the words the Lords have inserted, moved by the Government, and they enable the Court to review the proceedings and to act as if this Act had been passed at the time of the execution order. I think that will meet the case.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Mr. BOOTHI arise in order to ask why the Government cannot deal with the House a little more courteously. I am not challenging the President of the Local Government Board. So far as I can see he has informed Members of the House about this Bill, but I venture to say as one who has sat not only all through the Debate last night and until half-past five this morning, but again to-day, that know- 581 ing how interested we were in the Trading with the Enemy Bill there should have been an opportunity taken to tell us that that Bill would come on. The specific announcement was made by the Prime Minister after questions that the Government would take the first four Orders. I should not mind if he had said six or seven, as I have no wish to obstruct business. But we were not told of this, and the first thing we saw was the name of the Bill going up on the board. We may be told that these are Amendments of a verbal character. If so, it was quite easy to inform us of them. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member who is interested in that Bill was informed of it. It is an easy thing to do. What are the Whips for? There are no by elections in the country, and what have the Whips to do? There are eight of them, and it has been pointed out again and again—I do not blame in this case altogether the Chief Whip because he probably has a good deal on his mind—but somebody ought to tell us something about it, especially as this is in contradistinction to the statement of the Prime Minister. There is a notice board in the Lobby, but I cannot get the Whips to use it. Time and time again, when the House has suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule at the end of the year, in conditions similar to to-day, there has been a notice put up on the easel as to what measures will be taken. I believe it was established when Mr. Whitley was Chief Whip. I have tried to get to know what business would be taken as it was not on the notice board, and I have been told that that was only used when we suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. To-day is a case in point, and I have been out to see it. It is a simple thing to let us know, and I appeal to the President of the Local Government Board that some intimation should be given.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think it is very important, even when verbal Amendments are made in the House of Lords, that hon. Members in this House who have taken an interest in the Bills affected should be informed that these verbal Amendments have been made. After all, a verbal Amendment may appear extremely innocent on the face of it, and it is only those conversant with it who can tell us what is really its effect. I can give an illustration from the Parliament Bill. There is a Sub clause of Clause 1 which hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House interpreted in the wrong way, every one 582 of them. I think it was an inadvertence on their part, and I do not take special credit for this, but I pointed out to them that the words used had not the effect which they understood those words would have, and on investigation every one of those Gentlemen agreed that they had the effect which I placed upon them, and that has turned out to be so. That illustrates the importance of verbal Amendments in a Bill, and it is not asking too much of the Government to make this promise: That when verbal Amendments are introduced in the Lords, Members who have become interested in them should be informed that some Amendments are being made in order that they may be able to inform themselves of the Amendments, read them in conjunction with the text of the Bill as it left this House, say whether any real and effective change is being made in the sense of the Bill, and so be in the position to make a change, if need be, when opportunity arises. That is not unreasonable, and I am sure the President of the Local Government Board will agree.
Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWAn appeal was made to me in connection with a particular Bill, and I must say it came as a great surprise to me personally that it should have been taken now. But words which were inserted "corporate or unincorporate" do not make any difference in the matter, and, therefore, I said nothing— in fact, they were Amendments which I had in draft, but which I had no opportunity of moving. But on the general question which has been raised I am entirely in accord with all that has been said. I think it was very unfortunate that a Bill which clearly had aroused a good deal more feeling in the House than was anticipated, and as a result of the discussions on which certain concessions were secured, concessions which I do not think it was meant to concede originally, should have been taken in this way, and I think it is doubly unfortunate the House was not informed that it was going to be taken.
§ Mr. KINGI was here for the purpose of watching these Bills, and I raised an objection because I was determined to prevent any proceeding with them unless I was assured the Amendments were purely verbal. I had that assurance. I would like to point out to the House that there is on the Order Paper one Bill—the Evidence Amendment Bill—Consideration of Lords Amendments — which has been 583 taken. It stands fourth on the Order Paper and the reason why it was put there is no doubt to be found in the fact that I called the attention of the Whips to this Bill and to the rather important nature of certain Amendments in which I had taken very great personal interest, and they courteously promised me that they would not take the Bill without putting it on the Order Paper. As soon as I saw it there I knew when it was coming on. I should like to make a suggestion which is a step in advance of that made by other hon. Members, and it is that in all cases in which Lords Amendments to Bills are to be considered notice should appear on the Order Paper unless there is some particular urgency for putting the Bill through without a moment's delay. I do not think that that is too much to ask, or that it would be giving any very great trouble to the Whips, while it would prevent any possibility of saying that important Amendments had been put through without the knowledge of Members specially interested in a Bill in the discussion of which they had taken an active part. I hope that that suggestion will not be too much for the Government, and if the Whips will comply with it I am sure it will give a great deal of satisfaction to Members interested in Bills.
§ Mr. LONGI can assure my hon. Friends who have spoken that the Government fully appreciate the temporary, but I hope not serious, difficulty in which they have found themselves with regard to the Bills, the Lords Amendments to which have been taken to-night. But they only reached this House from the House of Lords a very short time ago, and there really was no time even, if all the eight Whips had set to work, to circulate the information to Members of the House that it was proposed to take them to-night. There is that urgency to which the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has alluded in connection with both of these Bills. It is desirable that they should pass into law with the least possible delay. I think everybody will admit that. There is a Royal Commission to-morrow, and the Government desire that these Bills should then receive the Royal Assent. In order that that may be done it was necessary to take the Amendments this evening. I quite agree with the hon. Member who spoke just now and who referred to his discovery that a certain point had escaped notice. These cases will some- 584 times occur, but may I say that, in the main, unless there be some extraordinary reason, the Government do put on the Order Paper the Bills with Lords Amendments on the day before they are to be taken, and it is only when we reach a period of the Session like this, when it is necessary to pass them into law without delay, that Bills are taken in this way. I have for thirty-five years been a Member of this House. I have been actively associated with a number of Governments, and I can assure hon. Members that we have, in this matter, followed the invariable practice. It is not merely in the interests of the Government or of the Front Bench, but it is really in the general interest of the House that we should get the business through at a time like this without delay. May I say if there had been in any of the Amendments any real substance to which Members in any quarter of the House would be likely to object, we should not have taken them without notice, and there would have been full opportunity given for critics to express their views. I may claim, and I think it is admitted in all quarters of the House, that if, at a time like this, a Minister of the Grown rises in his place and assures the House of Commons there is nothing in the Amendments which would give rise to any criticism or objection such as would be likely to proceed from opponents or supporters of the measure that statement is ordinarily accepted, and I can safely say I never knew such a statement made without its being wholly accurate. That is the case to-night. One of the Amendments, I admit, the one I referred to as following out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stockport, was important. It was, however, an Amendment which was indicated in previous stages of the Bill. It had been recommended by the hon. Member for Stockport and approved in various quarters, and, therefore, it could not be said to be an Amendment to which any objection would be taken in any quarter. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the Chief Whip and his associates, to whom we all are, I am convinced, enormously indebted for the work they do day in and day out, will always do their best to make the House acquainted with any business that we are going to take, and certainly will not take advantage of Lords Amendments coming down to pass anything that ought to be criticised or examined here. I 585 hope my hon. Friends will feel that we have acted in what we believe to be the interests of the House, and have taken no advantage of them by the course we have pursued. I will communicate to the Prime Minister the views expressed this evening, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to ensure that, consistently with the progress of public business, there shall be nothing done to which hon. Members can take umbrage, or which will show a lack of consideration for them.
Sir H. DALZIELThe right hon. Gentleman has replied, as he always does, with courtesy, to the views put forward by private Members. He has assured us that, so far as his experience has gone, he does not think there has been any violation of the general rules which govern these matters. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be the very first to admit that the conditions to-day are entirely different to those which have prevailed during his long Parliamentary career. In the ordinary course of things, when we had no Coalition Government, and an ordinary Opposition, what would have taken place would have been that the principal Whip of the Government would intimate to the principal Whip of the Opposition what it was proposed to take, and matters would be settled, and Members would be informed what business was going to be taken. But we labour under a difficulty at this moment in not having an organisation, or anyone, to communicate with the Whips, and, therefore, the only thing left for us to do is to secure as far as possible, when taking business not on the Paper, that an intimation shall be given to at least one Member who has shown himself specially interested in a Bill. What was the position? We were told by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government this afternoon that they would only take the first four Orders. Those were my marching orders for leaving the House. Many other Members left when they saw that the Lords Amendments to the Evidence (Amendment) Bill had been disposed of. It is not fair to private Members, after the Prime Minister has stated the Government would only 586 take four Orders, and Members have gone away on the strength of that pledge, that we should find that the Government take what they are pleased to call verbal Amendments from the House of Lords, which may be, and in most cases are, of a verbal character. It is not always for the Government to say what are verbal Amendments. I remember a case in connection with the Scottish Small Holders Bill, in which an Amendment, which was declared to be a verbal one, in fact altered entirely the character of the Bill.
In any case we are entitled to form a judgment as to what is a verbal Amendment or as to what is not, just as much as the Government, if not more so. So long as we have no ordinary Opposition, there lurks danger in the fact that we may have a number of things brought up after Members have left the House, believing that the Orders of the Day were over. We do not blame anybody; it is the system to which we object. I know the two Chief Whips do everything they can to meet us whenever we put our views before them, but they must have great difficulty in remembering who is interested in particular business. I would suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that in the case of a Bill in which some of us are interested, if he would inform my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who is in almost daily attendance here, of the fact that the Bill is going to be taken and ask him to inform us, that would possibly meet the views of some of us. We ought not to take Amendments from the Lords without due notice. I would ask, in the first place, that notice should be given on the Order Paper issued every morning. If we had that intimation, everyone in the House would know exactly what would happen. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, and I hope that the short Debate we have had to-night will prevent any recurrence of this in the future.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes after Eight of the clock until tomorrow (Thursday), at Twelve of the clock, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day.