§ Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following provision was inserted:—
§ For the purposes of this Sub-section the expression "landlord" shall not include any person who since the twelfth day of March nineteen hundred and eighteen has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling-house or any interest therein otherwise than by the devolution thereof to him under a settlement made before the said date, or under a testamentary disposition or an intestacy.
1018§ The following Amendments stood on the Paper in the name of Sir Herbert Nield: At the beginning of the Clause to insert (1); and to leave out the word "provision" ["the following provision"], and to insert instead thereof the word "provisions."
§ The CHAIRMANThe first two Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member (Sir H. Nield) are intended, I see, to lead up to some later Amendments on the Paper. They are not necessary in that respect, and I am afraid the later ones are outside the scope of the Bill.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONI beg to move, after the word "Sub-section" ["For the purposes of this Sub-section"] to insert the words
in all such districts as may be set forth in an Order in Council.This Bill is intended, as I understand, to meet more or less exceptional circumstances in certain towns where people have come from air-raid districts and are offering large sums for houses, and the present tenants are in danger of being turned out. I have no objection to that object. That seems reasonable enough. But the Local Government Board have taken the easiest way of getting out of a difficulty. They have not given themselves the necessary trouble, I submit, so to specify these places that injury will not be done to the hundreds of other towns which are out of these areas, and for which there is no earthly reason why this Bill should be submitted. I would like to give a concrete case. There is a town of 2,000 inhabitants far away from any danger of air raids, where there are no munition factories and no abnormal movement of population. Near by, a farmer, an old man, who, being unable to get any labour, and his son having been taken away and killed, has broken down, and last year, seeing no way of getting over his difficulty of cultivating the farm, he gave notice, and he leaves the farm in May. He has sold off his stock, and has bought a small house. Are you going to stop this man getting into that house? Why should this Bill relate to hundreds of towns, large and small, where none of the objections which this Bill is intended to meet applies? Therefore, I ask, and I do not think it is too much to ask, that the areas should be set forth in the Schedule attached to this Bill, or by Order in Council. I really do not know 1019 there is any answer. It is bad enough to upset the ordinary law in places where there is need for it, but you propose in this Bill to go away to the North-West of Scotland and the North-West of England, where there is not the slightest danger of anything of the kind, and to upset the ordinary law there, simply because you will not take the trouble to schedule the places where it is necessary, and to which I offer not the slightest objection.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI hope the President of the Local Government Board will give serious consideration to this Amendment, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the trouble which has arisen over this question is of a much more general character than my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen has hinted. Members of the Labour party have received many letters, which are coming from nearly every part of the country, urging us to get this Bill passed at the earliest possible moment, and to make it retrospective. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will not agree to the Amendment, which would limit the Bill and make the difficulties of administration quite as serious as they are under the present law.
§ Mr. RENDALLIt has to be remembered that the desire for the Bill came entirely from the populous centres of this country. The matter applies almost entirely to those centres, and almost solely to munition centres. It has never been demanded in the country districts at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I think I am right in saying that. I do not think that any agricultural Member has received any complaint in the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Well, it may be so in the West of England, where, perhaps, there have been complaints. What, however, it seems to me is that the right hon. Gentleman might do is to accept this Amendment. He would still have the power by Order in Council, at once, if thought desirable, to cover the whole of the country. It would not deprive him of any power, and would enable him to avoid conferring, say, upon either Cornwall or Dorsetshire, which are purely agricultural counties, what may be intended for their benefit, but which might prove to have far greater disadvantages, and is, furthermore, an Act which they do not want. It would appear that in the country there exists 1020 a need for some such measure as this, but that is no reason why we should thrust it upon large parts of the country where the conditions do not exist which this Act is intended to meet.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSI trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will give very serious consideration to this Amendment before accepting it. First of all, I desire to ask him just to put his officials on to the point of trying to draw up a list of those parts of the country that have to be incorporated in any such suggested Schedule. So far as my experience goes, and it is a fairly wide one on this question, I have correspondence from all parts of the country—and not confined to England— from places, indeed, which one little expected would properly come within the scope of this measure. I quite agree that in the first instance the most glaring cases sprang from the munition areas; but when the cases began to be dealt with from those munition areas it was soon found out that a large number of other places were affected. My hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment told us of a case in Scotland where the farmtr had retired from his farm and had taken a cottage. He did not give us the point of view of the person who had to be evicted from that cottage. Surely he had something to say! Where are such persons as he to get other places?
§ Mr. PRINGLEThere is no shortage there!
§ Mr. ROWLANDSMy answer to that is that if there is no shortage in that town, that is the only case which could possibly be made out as an illustration. The farmer, under the Act, if he could show that he had a reasonable case, would be able to get reasonable possession, because there would be no difficulty whatever in the present tenant getting another suitable place. Therefore, there is no need whatever for this Order in Council. Once you begin to issue Orders in Council, and the President of the Local Government Board has to make out Schedules, he will find that he has started a task which will take his officials through the whole country. Since the last Debate I have had correspondence from Waves, and these letters tell of some very glaring case. These include a case from one of the leading officials of my hon. Friend's own political party, a gentleman whom I happen to know, living in an extremely 1021 populous part of Wales. I have letters also from Surrey; in fact, from all over the country. I do hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)We cannot accept this Amendment, and I am going to tell the House why. The original Act applies to the whole country—and Wales. When the Bill was originally brought forward this matter was very well considered as to whether or not we should have an Order in Council applying it, first of all to one part of the country, and then to another. Very great difficulties were presented to our minds. I may say that those difficulties are still more present to our minds now, because under the Defence of the Realm Act the Minister of Munitions has these very powers—that is to say, he has the power to declare that certain parts of England, Scotland, and Wales shall be areas in which no ejectment order shall take effect. He scheduled some of these areas, and, having done so, found all kinds of cases which the Act was intended to meet just outside these areas. He has found himself faced by this difficulty to such an extent that he has asked the Local Government Board, so far as possible, to take action for him; and he wishes to drop his powers of limiting the Act to particular areas and, to make defensive action, or operative action, on the part of the tenant practically universal. Clearly, it would be a strange thing if we were to leave the original Act operative through the whole of the country while limiting the Amending Act only to certain parts. It is true that the Act itself was brought forward and found favour in this House because of circumstances which were a cause of agitation by the dwellers in places like Glasgow, the East of London, and other similar places. That is quite true; but after that Act had been passed it became apparent to everybody that cruel action on the part of landlords was becoming a very common thing in different parts of the country. My correspondence shows that it is becoming very widespread, and that if you apply the Act to only one part of the country, then you would certainly find, in a short time, that even villages themselves had become congested from the very fact that munition factories were being rapidly run up in those areas. You would require to apply the Act week by week to different parts of the country. For that reason, 1022 and as this is an Amending Act, and as the Act itself must have universal application, we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HENDERSONThe original Act was well considered. My right hon. Friend says power was given to come in. Now you are taking that away. Of course, I agree with a great deal of what has been said. There are undoubtedly places throughout the country in the north-west, and north-east also of England and Scotland, where there is no necessity for anything of the kind. It was put upon the landlord always before he could evict the tenant to find a place for him. Is that the law of the land? Of course not! It is a most absurd thing that to save themselves a little trouble to schedule these various places the Department is going to force this through the House.
§ Sir H. NIELDThe last speaker evidently represents Scottish opinion, and Scottish opinion only.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir H. NIELDWell, then, all I can say is that I have here beside me letters from every conceivable part of England as to the way in which this Act has been interpreted. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman how these words came to be put into the original Act. The representative of the Board of Agriculture, when the Bill was in its original form, rising in his place on his own account, or invited by an agricultural Member on this side of the House, admitted that it was a great hardship to the agricultural farmer or the agricultural tenant, or the gentleman farmer farming his own land whose shepherd, herdsman or dairyman had been compelled or volunteered to go to the War, and who had to leave his wife and children in the cottage—that it would be extremely hard for the tenant farmer or the owner, as the case might be, to be obliged to meet the difficulty of getting a new farm servant to undertake the duties of the man who had left, to live at a distance, and to have to come in from the distance because the cottage on the farm, or in close proximity to the farm, was occupied by the family of his former tenant. It was for that reason that these words were inserted. I venture to think, as one who takes the keenest interest in this matter, that the necessity for protection has extended very much further west. The county of Buckingham has been a positive Eldorado to the unscrupulous 1023 landlords. Men are being made to pay through the nose, and are being evicted, because they have refused to pay additional rent. These words were inserted to protect purely the agricultural tenant or farmer from having additional difficulty to get labour in proximity to his place. Unscrupulous landlords all over the country have taken advantage of these words, and County Court judges have not had the courage in many cases to construe the Act widely, and so the result has been that in different parts of the country the most deplorable and distressing cases have occurred and orders of ejectment have been made. I know there is a difference of opinion in regard to construing the Act. Some people have taken a wider view, and hold that there must be some very strong reasons for the landlord to get the tenant out, while others have accepted the mere statement, "I want to bring my mother-in-law from Deptford to protect her against air raids." I need hardly say that she was going into a district where air raids have been far more prevalent. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a good reason!"] Evidently my hon. Friend thinks mothers-in-law ought to be jeopardised, but I am not going to discuss relations of that sort. I have heard it stated how mush more prized mothers-in-law are since the Man-Power Bill was brought in. I hope the Committee will support the Government on this point, and before the Bill leaves the Committee I trust it will be drastically amended.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir J. BOYTONI beg to move, after the word "not" to insert the words "except with the consent of the Court."
This Amendment is moved in the interests of 95 per cent. of those who occupy houses under building societies. If this Bill is passed in the way suggested it will have a very far-reaching effect upon the fortunes of building societies and the large number of people who have invested their money in them. I will give some figures furnished by the Secretary of the Halifax Building Society, which go to show that notwithstanding the War the working classes have invested very largely in house property. In 1914 the receipts of this building society were £1,524,000. In 1918 they were £2,643,000, or an increase of £1,119,000 in four years. Their assets have increased during that period by 1024 £1,263,000. They have opened accounts numbering 60,100, as compared with 44,000 in 1914. There have been applications for mortgages during the past year for large sums, and they have advanced by way of mortgage £717,000 to 1,694 new borrowers, and they now have 35,000 shareholders and 25,000 depositors. That will show how very widespread the movement is for providing homes for occupation by the working classes, and it shows how this Bill will interfere with them unless some reasonable modification is made. Hon. Members have referred to the enormous amount of correspondence which they have received from tenants, but I must confess that I have not been troubled with many complaints from tenants. On the contrary my complaints come from the landlords, which point to a very different state of things to what hon. Members have spoken about.
It has been said that in 1915, when the original Bill was introduced, the President of the Board of Agriculture obtained the insertion of an Amendment that possession could be recovered by the owner if ho could show that he required the house for himself, or for some other person in his employ. Sales of agricultural estates have been going on all over the country, and there never has before been such a breaking up of agricultural estates as at present. Under this Bill the new comer who buys the estate will not be able to utilise the cottages on that estate because he cannot turn the tenants out. He may have better men for husbandry and farming than those who arc living in the cottages. If it was possible in 1915 for a private Member to succeed in obtaining an Amendment of that kind, surely the same reasons hold good to-day. All I ask for is that if difficulties arise and disputes occur there should be some Court of Appeal at which you should be able to get the rough-and-ready justice which you get in a County Court, where you can have the dispute adjudicated upon.
Knowing the sympathies that animate us all at present and the feeling throughout the country is to help and befriend not all and sundry but all those who have suffered for us and who are liable to meet with considerable misfortune if they return and find their homes occupied, I am sure County Court judges would be exceedingly sympathetic and this would provide a rough-and-ready means of settling disputes, which I do not really 1025 believe will occur to anything like the same extent if there is a safety-valve provided. Two men are much more reasonable in Court, although they may talk a lot outside, because directly they come before the powers that be in Court they are generally very humble. If the President will not give all I want I should be ready to accept almost any modification or qualification of my Amendment provided it gave an Appeal Court. I have evidence to show the temperament of those who are largely interested in house property. Here is a letter written by the leading spirit of a large property investment corporation, and this is how he looks at this question. He lays down the following conditions:
1. That he or she is a British subject by birth, or a person who has served in the Army overseas or in the Navy afloat, and has been discharged with a good character.2. That he or she occupied premises as a dwelling, the conditions of the tenure of which compels removal, or that the health of himself or his wife (or family) will suffer materially unless ho or they can obtain other and more suitable premises.3. That he will sustain substantial pecuniary damage if he, or a definite person employed by him, cannot occupy the premises.4. The Court to have power to refuse an order for possession in cases where the enforced removal of the sitting tenant is proved to be injurious to the prosecution of the War.Those are reasonable suggestions to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree. I do not ask for any hard and fast line, but I do think it would be only fair that some appeal should be provided. One hon. Member stated that Buckinghamshire was a perfect Eldorado for landlords, but that does not appear to be the case, judging from a communication which I have received from a gentleman who writes from Chorley Wood. He says:I had occasion to take a house in Chorley Wood—"——[An HON. MEMBER: "That is Hertfordshire."]—At any rate, it is quite near, and perhaps neither of those counties are Eldorados—About eight years ago I had as second mortgagee to take over a house at Chorley Wood, built in 1902 at a cost of £1,000, to include the land. The mortgagor, an elderly man, who occupied the house, died during the time, and I took possession as mortgagee, having paid off the first mortgage. The house was rated at £50 a year on the footing of the tenant paying rates. I endeavoured to sell the house but without success, and it remained empty for a time. The Master of the O.B.H., whom I knew, asked me to allow one of the huntsmen to live there temporarily until the house was sold, as he could 1026 not get a cottage for him, and I agreed to do so, and a small rent of 8s. a week was paid me by the Master.The house afterwards became empty, and it was let to a builder's clerk at 8s. a week, who is employed in London, and the owner agreed to sell the house for £850, but owing to the temporary reduction in the assessment made before the War he cannot take advantage of Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act of 1915, and this Bill makes no provision for exceptional circumstances of this character. I only want to look at it from a fair point of view. The difficulties I have referred to cannot be met by any hard and fast Act of Parliament brought forward at a time when it is hoped it will pass through on account of sympathy and good feeling for these people I think the right hon. Gentleman might at least consent to give a right of appeal.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEI hope the President of the Local Government Board will not accept this Amendment. If he were to accept this proposal he might as well drop the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—Because every reason that has been alleged against this Amendment may be put as a reason against the measure as a whole. In the opinion of many people this Bill has been made far too narrow by the title that has been given to it. The object of the measure is to prevent tenants being evicted by landlords, or by those who, up to a certain date, become the landlords of the property. Instead of narrowing the objection of this Bill we should extend it, and make the dates more retrospective. If we once begin to make an exception and to say that the landlord may evict the tenant if he can get the consent of the Court, then we leave every case open to litigation. You give absolute protection to no tenant, because it would always be open to the landlord to go to the Court, and, unless the tenants were also prepared to go to the Court, and spend a great deal of time and money, the landlord, the other side not being heard and perhaps not having an opportunity of being heard, would win and turn the tenant out almost every time. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said that when people got into Court they were generally more reasonable. I do not know to which of the parties he referred. Does he think if this power is conferred that the landlord will be more reasonable? I will tell the hon. Gentle- 1027 man who, from his point of view, will be more reasonable. It is the tenant, who my find, unless he can put in an appearance in Court and incur the expenditure of having his side of the case put forward, that he will be compelled to come to terms. That is what is commonly called being more reasonable. Our object is not to make these poor people more reasonable, but to defend their rights, and from that point of view T certainly hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI must say that I very much resent the tone of the speech just delivered by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. D. White). I came down here with every sympathy with this Bill, and I want to do absolutely what is fair and right, but I do object to motives being imputed to people who happen to be landlords any more than that motives should be imputed to people who are tenants. We are here to try and do what is right, and I thought that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Sir J. Boyton) made a very honest, fair, and conciliatory speech. I am quite sure that in the majority of cases, if you gave this power to the Court, the tenant's interests would be at once protected. They would be protected in ninety-nine cases out of 100. There are undoubtedly certain cases where, if you make a cast-iron rule, a tenant who is not a deserving man will get an advantage to which he has no right. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept, possibly not this Amendment, but some means whereby the Court in these hard cases can adjudicate between the tenant and landlord.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will not accept the Amendment which has been moved. The Committee may remember that, in dealing with the difficulties that have arisen regarding houses and the administration of this Bill on a Second Reading, I pointed out that one of the greatest difficulties was the amount of litigation which had arisen in connection with the present Act. Already the administration of this Bill is far too costly. The Committee should remember that the Bill was brought in to protect the very poorest section of the community, and, if you insert a Clause of this character, you are going to undo all the benefit that you have conferred. It 1028 would lead to much more litigation, and you would thereby be penalising the section of the community that this Bill was brought in to protect. I think the Committee should consider well before doing anything of the kind. Why should we give encouragement to costly litigation? The House should make every effort when laws arc being framed here to make them as clear as possible so as to avoid litigation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will refuse to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. RENDALLI think everybody has forgotten the object of this Bill. It is brought in because doubts have been cast by judges on their power to do that which this Bill actually empowers them to do. If this Bill does actually confer that power upon them, then we are making the law precisely what we thought it was when we passed the original Act. I cannot see why we want to go further. It seems to be forgotten that a very large number of landlords of working-men's houses are working men themselves. It seems to me unnecessary to try and prevent a man selling his house unless you are going to do some real service to somebody else who ought to receive that service. You want to do something just and valuable on the merits and not merely because you are bound to some theory. In my division I have got a working builder who has ten houses in a row. A large employer came to him and said, "Will you sell these houses? Nine of them are already occupied by workmen in my employ. Will you sell, and give us occupation of the tenth house? We want another man, and we are doing work of national importance." Thereupon the working builder went to the tenth occupier and said, "Will you go out?" He said, "No; I will not." Under this Bill he will be protected. The consequence is that the working builder, who has all sorts of mortgages and bank charges, will miss his chance of selling. These small builders are really the landlords to-day, although they did not intend to remain so when they put the houses up. If they had not built them and raised mortgages to do so, we should be in an extraordinarily difficult position to-day. In a case like that the Court ought to have the power to say: "Here is a bonâ fide sale. The employer wants houses for his men who are doing work of national importance. If we say 1029 this man is to go out, he can find another house, and he will be compensated for the loss that he will suffer in going." If the Court had those powers in such a case the tenant could not be injured. If we pass the Bill without the Amendment, it prevents such a sale being carried through, and the tenant really gains nothing of any value. If there is another house, and he is compensated for any loss or trouble in going into it, why should he not go and allow the sale to take place? For these reasons, it does seems to me that this Amendment might be accepted. It would really give to all tenants all that they can reasonably want. It would give them perfect safety that they would not be interfered with unless there were good grounds which would convince a judge, who would also be enabled to award them compensation if they were evicted.
§ Mr. W. WATSONWhile I feel considerable sympathy with the Amendment, I am very reluctant, in view of the, hard cases of which I have heard for a long time past, to leave the matter entirely at the mercy of the County Court judges in this country and the sheriffs in Scotland. If it were possible for the Local Government Board to issue a set of reasons which should actuate judges and sheriffs all over the country, that course might possibly be adopted. The Sub-section in the original Act which I am anxious to see altered is the one which relates to a new landlord, who wants the premises for his own occupation. Along comes a man who would naturally desire to be a tenant but he finds himself up against this Subsection, and it is suggested to him that he can evade the Act by borrowing the money, or by the old landlord leaving the price as a bond on the property, he paying what is in effect a rent. That is the class of case where the hardship has arisen, and it is one which I am quite sure that the whole House wants in the fairest way to remedy. It would satisfy my views if this consent of the Court were excluded from the cases where the landlord required the premises for his own occupation, and if it were allowed to operate where the new landlord really brought for the occupation of a person in his employ or in the employ of the tenant. That would cover most of the cases to which the last speaker referred. It would cover the agricultural cases where undoubtedly hardship may arise if the Bill 1030 is passed as drafted. I venture to make that suggestion as one which would meet the hard cases that I have in mind.
§ Sir H. NIELDI have an Amendment on the Paper which deals specifically with the cause which has created the whole of this trouble. We have here another illustration of the unfortunate way in which we make our laws without a proper skilled revision and reconsideration, with the advice of Parliamentary draftsmen. If we could have that we should get rid of half the trouble, because any Parliamentary draftsman looking at the original Bill as it left the Committee, would have said: "This will not do, because in working it will be either too indefinite or contradictory, and something is implied which is not expressed. These difficulties ought to be corrected before the Bill gets the Third Reading.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESDo not the Government draftsmen ordinarily do that?
§ Sir H. NIELDI should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known that we pick a Bill to pieces in Committee and prevent the draftsman from having the opportunity of putting it into shipshape. This Bill is so narrowly drawn that it is impossible to resist the conviction that it must have been purposely so drawn. The fourth Section of the Amendment which I have put down, although it is out of order—
§ The CHAIRMANReally, we had better not anticipate that Amendment.
§ Sir H. NIELDAlthough I have had the temerity to put it down, I have done so with the fullest knowledge that Sub-clause (4) is out of order, as being outside the scope of the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANIf that is the case, then still more we had better not argue it now. I promised to hear the hon. Gentleman when the time comes.
§ Sir H. NIELDThe principal argument adduced by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. Watson), and by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Rendall), would be at once corrected by that provision which, I regret, is outside the scope of the Bill. I want to deal with the Hertfordshire house at 8s. a week. I should think that it is haunted, and I should imagine that the 8s. was a special premium to help to lay the ghost. I want to refute what has been said about Buckinghamshire.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Committee have just negatived the Amendment to limit the Section as far as area is concerned. We are now on a different Section.
§ Sir H. NIELDMy hon. Friend behind me said that I had declared that Buckingham was an Eldorado for landlords.
§ The CHAIRMANThat was on the preceding Amendment.
§ Sir H. NIELDNo, it was on this Amendment. He did not speak on the other occasion. In opening his Amendment, he alluded to the fact that I had made the statement on the earlier Amendment, and he refuted it. What does it come to? He gave an illustration of an extraordinary kind, a case which it is certainly not reasonable to suppose prevails to any great extent. I do not deal with the geographical area. I shall only give this as an illustration to show that my hon. Friend is mistaken. Here are evidences from parts of Hertfordshire which show that in each case it is not the difficulty which the hon. Member for the Thornbury Division (Mr. Rendall) pointed out, of wanting to get possession for the purpose of enabling a man to do important business, but the very things about which the public is so disturbed, namely, air raid refugees coming down to Buckinghamshire, bidding all amounts of money and turning out the tenants. Those are the persons with whom we want to deal. We want to stop people being dislodged from a home where they have lived perhaps for many years past, and in the occupation of which many of them have succeeded their parents.
I will not weary the Committee by giving a number of these cases, but here is one of them. Here is a house in which the writer of the letter has lived for very many years. It has been bought by a lady. I am afraid that ladies, young and old, are the chief offenders. This lady has bought this house as a temporary residence, still keeping up a London house, so that when the phases of the moon are dangerous to London she removes to Buckinghamshire. The original tenants are compelled to make way for these temporary birds of passage. I am not at all sure whether, if a County Court judge were given this discretion and words were added that it ought to be established to his satisfaction, that is to say, putting the onus upon the person who desires to recover possession, the mischief 1032 would be met. If we had not got this narrow Bill, words could be put in providing that in every case the applicant should satisfy the County Court judge. That would put the onus upon the applicant to prove that there was a good case why he should dispossess the tenant, and would get rid of the hard cases, from the landlord's point of view, of unsatisfactory tenants claiming to remain upon a kind of charter. On the whole, I hope the words will be accepted, but, if the ruling of the Chair prevents me from moving them, I hope that the representatives of the Local Government Board, who have been collecting information from all over the country and are really desirous of doing the right thing, will see their way to bring in promptly legislation, wider in its scope, in order to put an end to this very unsatisfactory condition of things and these hard cases.
§ Mr. FISHERI am very glad, and I am sure the Committee is very glad, that the landlords should have so excellent a champion as my hon. Friend the Member for East Marylebone (Sir J. Boyton), who knows the case well, and states it with great persuasiveness. He has stated it with great persuasiveness to-day. I am quite sure that not one of us wants to do any injustice to the great body of landlords. For my part, I can hardly listen with patience to any sweeping condemnation of the great body of landlords. I believe the great majority of them would have done justice and equity to their tenants even had no such Act been passed as that which we are seeking to amend. But it was obvious that there was a considerable minority of landlords who were taking advantage of the great shortage of houses and the great inrush of population to press for extortionate terms from tenants who had inhabited their houses year after year. Great injustice was being done, and great discontent was being created—a discontent which seriously interfered with the proper provision of munitions and with the peace and contentment which we are all trying to foster in the country in these extremely anxious and trying times. That really was the situation with which we had to deal. How did the House deal with it? It passed an Act of Parliament which provided, where the tenant paid the rent which he had paid up to 3rd August, 1914, and obeyed the conditions of his tenancy, where he was not in any way a nuisance and where he was what he 1033 called a reasonable and good tenant, that that tenant, although the house might be bought by another landlord, should not have an order made against him by which he would be ejected from the tenancy of the house, provided he paid his rent and maintained the general conditions of the tenancy. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Marylebone pointed out, it was suggested by my right hon. Friend who is now the President of the Board of Agriculture, but who was then a private Member, that that would operate unfairly and prejudicially to the State in the case of landlords who wanted certain cottages with which to work their farms. It was largely in consequence of the arguments adduced by my right hon. Friend that the House consented to put in an exception to the Act which did enable a landlord who reasonably required the house for his own occupation or for that of his employé, notwithstanding that the tenant had paid his rent and subscribed to the conditions, to turn the tenant out of the house, because, as the argument was put, he wanted that house for the purposes of his business.
Then the House discovered, by evidence which reached one from every quarter, that this exception was being exploited for the use of an entirely different set of landlords altogether, landlords who could not put forward the plea that they wanted the house in connection with the business they were carrying on for the benefit of the State, or indeed in connection with any business of any sort or kind, and landlords who probably would not put forward the real reason for which they wanted the house, which too often was to escape the ambit of the Gothas. This exception having been so exploited, great pressure has been put upon the Government to bring forward this amending Bill by which the landlord, who is an exception under the original Act and who can obtain possession of the house, shall be limited hereafter to the landlord who acquires the house, not by purchase, but by devolution under a settlement or under a testamentary disposition, or in some similar way. Thereupon an Amendment is put down—which will certainly find a good deal of support in the Committee—which says that the Committee shall not take upon itself to define the landlords to whom this amending Bill shall apply, but that the Courts shall take it upon themselves to define those land- 1034 lords. How would that work? There are scores, if not hundreds, of Courts that deal with this particular question. It is not only the County Court, but the Sessional Court; therefore there are hundreds of Courts to whom you give the power to say whether or not a particular purchaser was a purchaser to whom this narrow definition should or should not apply.
How would that operate? You would have an infinite variety of decisions all over the country. It is well-known that judges, like other people, have opinions of their own. There are judges who have opinions of their own with regard to Acts of Parliament. There are judges who hold the view that it was a very great misfortune ever to interfere with the good economic rule by which there was perfect freedom of contract for sale and purchase as regards house property even in a time of war. There are other County Court judges and other Courts who will probably, on this question, take the opposite view. There will not be the slightest certainty for a tenant as to how he will be treated where a purchaser has come along, and once several decisions have been given by the County Court judges, or the Sessional Courts dealing with this question, practically in favour of the purchasing landlord and against the tenant, we may be quite sure that would lead to enormous sales and purchases of houses. Purchasers living in the particular district where that particular County Court judge presides would say, "We are quite certain he will take such-and-such a view of the law, and will say that in all the circumstances the purchasing landlord has a perfect right to purchase it, and therefore he will give an order for ejectment." In other districts the judges may take an exactly opposite view of the law. It would be a sea without a shore. It would lead to an enormous variety of conflicting decisions.
I do not think it is possible for the Courts to deal with this matter. How is the Court going to summon before it all the evidence it ought to see before saying whether or not a particular purchaser comes within this definition of a landlord? If the Court is to have that power, if the Court is to be able to impose conditions and is able to say to the tenant, "We will make an order against you for your ejectment unless you stop that subletting of which your landlord complains, or unless you comply with certain other 1035 conditions which the landlord is imposing upon you," it would be impossible to amend this particular Bill in that way. I admit it is a very narrow Bill. I have previously invited the House to consider whether or not it has come into the possession of evidence on which a Bill of a far larger character will be based. All along I have been anxious—this is the course the Government have adopted—that we should stop this particular evil of which so much complaint is made. We believe this Bill will stop that evil, and that it will stop something like 80 or 90 per cent. of the cases where injustice is done. For my own part, I look ahead to the operation of this Bill when the War is ended. Some day or other the House will probably have to consider the whole matter from the wider point of view which has been mentioned by several speakers in this Debate. We shall have to consider whether some Court of Equity must not be set up here, there and everywhere to deal with these questions between landlords and tenants. That would raise the whole question of fair rents, fixity of tenure and all kinds of questions which must be controversial. Such provisions, if placed in this Bill, would prevent the Government from passing the Bill within any reasonable limit of time. When the Committee remembers, as it does, the great congestion of Government business at this time, I think it would be wise, whatever opinions hon. Members may hold on Amendments of this kind, not to press for an Amendment of this kind, but to leave it for some future date, when the whole question can be considered adequately and some larger Bill can be introduced into the House dealing with the many questions which have been raised to-day.
§ Mr. DENMANThe speech of the President of the Local Government Board, with all his usual persuasiveness, has hardly convinced the Committee that this particular Amendment will not completely cover the ground of those who desire the Bill to be somewhat changed. It is perfectly true that we all want one thing. We want a Parliamentary mandate to stop an obvious leak. But in stopping the leak is not the President going too far? I want to put the case of the wholly unreasonable tenant, who is absolutely protected in his unreasonableness by this Bill. I will give a case from my own district, where there is a considerable shortage of houses. A tenant occupied a 1036 house that was larger than he needed. A man came to do Government work in that district who was prepared to buy the house and to use it properly. He got an ejectment order before this Bill was produced, and when he got the order, and not until then, the tenant went out and found for himself another house, adequate to his needs. If this Bill had been in existence as an Act the original tenant there would have been absolutely protected, and the newcomer would not have been able to find a house at all. I submit that the President of the Local Government Board does not want to give additional rent to landlords of whose action complaint is made. This Bill, where you have a reasonable tenant, will give absolute security, no doubt, but if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this particular Amendment, may I suggest that at a later stage words should be put In which will provide the necessary safeguard. Objection has been raised that excessive litigation is involved, and that thereby fresh hardships are being created for the tenant. Under this Amendment, I agree the door is opened very widely to litigation; no specific points are laid down upon which the Courts shall pronounce a decision. Would it not be possible to set out quite clearly certain reasons upon which the landlord might appear in Court and claim an ejectment order? I would suggest these words:
Provided that this Act shall not apply when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a shortage of houses in the neighbourhood, and that the tenant is not making full use of the house.Under such a provision as that the landlord would have to satisfy the Court on two points; first, that there is a shortage of houses—a simple question of fact—and, second, that the tenant is not making full use of the house. Surely if he can do that the Court might fairly be asked to decide that the applicant shall obtain possession of his house. I feel that the present Amendment will not secure that.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERUndoubtedly in this matter, under the limitations laid down the Bill is very much too restricted, although probably the measure will deal with the majority of cases of hardship which have come to my notice. But by the Amendment we should be creating further hardships, especially in the case of perfectly bonâ fide purchasers of houses for their own occupation, who will be left completely stranded, because they will not be able to turn out the tenants 1037 of the houses which they have bought. I do suggest there is a possibility in many places of getting rid of the existing difficulty by utilising to better purposes existing house accommodation. There are—for instance, in Ayrshire—a large number of houses which are only let for a certain part of the year, and stand empty for the rest of the twelve months. Nobel's Explosive Company, and other companies, which are doing Government work in the district, require accommodation for their employés, yet there is no possibility of taking over these houses and utilising them for the occupation of workmen, although they are standing empty for nine months in the year. If this Bill had not been so narrowly drawn we might have amended it in order to deal with questions of that kind, and we could have remedied one hardship without creating another. I still hope that by some means or other—such, for instance, as that adopted in the Emergency Courts Act, which deals with the relations between debtor and creditor—this Bill may be amended so as to enable cases of hardship to be considered by the Courts, and practices of the kind complained of stopped.
It is not so much a question of construing the law. The President of the Local Government Board has talked about the different views which judges may hold in regard to the law, but surely there should be a power of interference on their part which will enable them to deal with cases of undoubted hardship. Any sheriff in Scotland could settle these questions in a very few minutes. The Government proposal does not meet the case of tenants, now protected by Act of Parliament, who sub-let rooms at exorbitant rents—and these people are to be found right and left—while the landlord, who has to pay higher rates and a higher cost of repairs, gets no help whatever to meet his extra charges. Some of these tenants are now getting £10 a week where they used to earn only about 30s. weekly, yet they are protected against an increase of rent, and by sub-letting rooms are making a big profit over and above their rent. If the President of the Local Government Board gets the Bill through, as he will do, I hope he will not consider that he is absolved from any obligation to go further with this matter. The whole thing requires to be gone into, because undoubtedly landlords cannot afford to pay higher mortgage interest and continue to keep their houses in repair at the present rents.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has taken up the attitude he has. No doubt there is enormous hard ship on tenants, but, at the same time, landlords are also suffering hardships, and if the Amendment had been accepted I cannot see why the County Court judge—and I understand that is to be the Court—
§ Mr. FISHERNot always!
§ Sir F. BANBURYWell, the County Court judge or whatever other judge may be entrusted with the duty—I cannot see why he cannot adjudicate on the cases that would be brought before him and decide whether or not there is a real hardship either on the tenant or on the landlord. Personally, I have sufficient faith in our judges to believe that, in the majority of cases, they would give a sound decision. No doubt these cases must entail some trouble on the person who thinks himself aggrieved, but there is no real difficulty, and it would be far better to provide a Court of Appeal, where these people would have an opportunity of stating their grievances. It is all very well to say that in the future some Bill will be introduced which is going to put all these matters right. But we have a great deal to do in these days, and I think it is perfectly clear that no amending Bill, or any Bill dealing with such a complicated question, can be introduced into this House and passed within the next two or three years. In the meantime investments in house property will be discouraged, and a large number of persons who have invested their money in this class of property and who are not receiving an adequate return for that money will be further injured. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) has cited the cases of people who are absolute profiteers, who are earning several times their pre-war wage, and are taking advantage of the fact that there is a shortage of house accommodation to further increase their incomes by letting rooms in their houses at exorbitant rents. I suppose it is no use appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. If he will not do that, perhaps he will give some assurance that a Court of Appeal shall be provided either now or at another stage. If we cannot get such an assurance, then I hope the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will press it to a Division. An hon. Member who spoke just now talked about the trouble of going to law, but you cannot avoid that.
1039 An Act of Parliament must always be subjected to legal construction as to what Parliament means, and it is utterly impossible for Parliament to lay down rules or to pass a Bill so framed that under no circumstances can a Court of law interfere. As far as my experience goes, the mere going to a County Court is not a very troublesome matter. I have been there once myself; it did not take very long, and I came out victorious, so that I do not look upon the process with such great dread as my hon. Friend. I see no signs of yielding in the face of my right hon. Friend, but I still hope he may be induced to make some concession.
§ Mr. MORRELLThe Debate, so far as it has proceeded, shows that the Bill is not satisfactory to any quarter of this House. We all know what we want. We want to stop the practice which is now going on of ruthlessly turning people out of their houses. It may be it is very desirable there should be some sort of Appeal Court provided by this Bill, and I, for one, am disappointed at the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, although I feel he could not have accepted this particular Amendment. I am disappointed that he has not been able to suggest any other way of meeting the difficulty, except by a rather vague promise that we may have a Bill when the War is over to provide for it.
§ Mr. FISHERI did not go so far as that.
§ Mr. MORRELLI regret having misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. I endeavoured to put what he said in rather too summary a phrase. I am interested in this matter really on behalf of a, certain class of large building societies which are in no way landlords in the wicked sense. I learn from their representatives that they are very seriously concerned because they find that under this Bill their operations will be very greatly interfered with unless some more elasticity is introduced than is to be found in the measure as at present drafted. Still, I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will not think it necessary to divide the Committee upon it. This discussion has served a very useful purpose, and I would seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he cannot see his way to provide some machinery for meeting the complaints, with which I am sure he is very familiar, of the building 1040 societies with regard to the difficulties in which they are put by the present condition of the law upon this question.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSI was very glad to hear the President of the Local Government Board explain so lucidly what would be the whole position if this Amendment were carried. I have had an opportunity of discussing it with the persons who drafted it, and it would nullify the whole value of this Bill, which is so necessary at the present time. We should be throwing ourselves back into the same position as we were in, and the President of the Local Government Board in a very little time would have to draft another Bill. In spite of what was said as to the whole of these cases going before the County Court judge, it is the fact that they do not all go before the County Court judge. They go before other Courts, and the decisions of those Courts only need to be followed—for the composition of the Courts is well known—to find that you do not get a fair treatment of the case from the legal standpoint. No doubt the people on the bench think they are doing justice, but it is justice according to their untrained minds, and not what you would expect from a County Court judge. I will give an example of what can be found outside London. You have a County Court judge who tried a number of these cases and took a broad and generous view of the intention of Parliament in putting that Amendment in. But he has been called to more important work in connection with the War, and his successor takes an entirely different and very narrow view indeed, and declares that he is going to do so until legislation such as is proposed to-day sets him right in the matter. He interprets the Amendments of the Minister of Agriculture in quite a different way from that intended by Parliament. It was never intended by Parliament when the Act of 1915 was passed to open the Law Courts to litigation on the whole of these cases. The broad principle was laid down, an exception was made in some cases, and it is that exception which has led to the difficulties of the present time.
§ Sir J. BOYTONI must say that I am very keenly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) has not held out some hope of accepting my Amendment in some qualified form. As I said, I am speaking to-night on behalf 1041 of people who have contributed to the working classes 95 per cent. of all the houses that exist. The position to-day is that the right hon. Gentleman himself, as President of the Local Government Board, is concerned about the houses of the people, and he no doubt expects to be assisted by private enterprise as well as by local authorities. He contemplates building 300,000 houses after the War. I do not believe that the local authorities will accept the terms he offers, or that 300,000 houses will be built by the local authorities after the War. What are you doing at a time like this? You are paralysing private enterprise, you are breaking their hearts and causing them, as must be the case, to give up their businesses of building—to kill an industry which has provided the houses for the working classes and to bring entire ruin on what is probably the greatest industry, that of the brick and mortar trade, in this country. In no unmeasured terms do I express my keen disappointment that although in moving my Amendment I moved it in a moderate sense, hoping there would be some qualified justice done, that is ruled out, and we are told that we cannot have anything but this Bill—that we must accept it whether we like it or not. I say that that will bring ruin upon this great industry,
§ Mr. PETOBefore we part with this Amendment I want to ask one question, and to put a point of view on this subject which has not been touched upon in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the whole reason for this Bill was Section 2, Sub-section (3), of the original Act, which was intended for the protection of such small cottage property as was needed for carrying on agriculture and putting in a new agricultural farm labourer. He also pointed out that the basis of the Bill is that that limitation on the houses which at that time was reasonably required, with the food production problem as it was then, was being taken advantage of by a totally different class of landlord. This Amendment, whatever its merits or demerits, would give to the County Court the power of saying that this amending Bill, giving a new definition of landlords and shutting out all landlords by purchase, should not apply in certain cases where it was contrary to the public interest. I imagine that the kind of case that the County Court would decide as contrary to the public interest would be a case where a farm had changed hands. A 1042 new owner comes in, and he urgently needs two or three cottages for the cultivation of the farm, for men who are wanted actually to work upon it. I agree with what the President of the Local Government Board said as to our being unable to accept this Amendment providing all kinds of landlords and all kinds of law, as decided by a hundred different County and other Courts throughout the country. There I am entirely in agreement with him, but I would like to ask whether, as he is refusing this Amendment, and leaving this small amending Bill as of universal application, and in every case shutting out the landlord by purchase from any right of re entry into small property, he would accept a proviso at the end of the operative part of this Bill of something to this effect:
That this provision shall not apply in any cases in which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the premises are reasonably required for the occupation of some person engaged or employed in agriculture.I have given the President of the Local Government Board a case where a small cottage in my own Constituency changed hands, and where the new owner did not intend to use it for any such purpose at all. In such a case, where the dependants of a number of men who are fighting at the front would be dispossessed, I welcome this amending Bill, but I do think that the President of the Local Government Board may very seriously consider, in shutting this door, whether he will not accept some words by way of modification that will make it possible to carry on the work of all farms with the greatest efficiency.
§ Mr. FISHERI think there is a good deal in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) has just said. The House was very strongly of the opinion when it passed the original Act that a landlord should be able to acquire possession of his house, even though occupied by the wife of a soldier at the front, if he required it for the actual purpose of farming, more especially in these days, when it is incumbent on every landlord and every farmer to produce the greatest amount from his soil. There is a weak point, undoubtedly, in the Bill as framed. It provides that in future the only landlords who will be able to obtain possession will be those landlords who have acquired their property by devolution. If the Bill is passed as it is framed undoubtedly an owning landlord may sell to another landlord a large estate most valuable to the State, from the point of view of agriculture at the present time. 1043 The new landlord may desire to eject from two cottages the tenants, however desirable those tenants may be, because he requires them for ploughmen, shepherds, thatchers, or skilled agricultural labourers without whose assistance he cannot farm his land to its full value. Undoubtedly that purchaser would not be a landlord within the meaning of this amending Bill, and he would not be able to turn out those tenants, even though, I think, any one of us would say that—for the particular purpose and looking to the fact that it is of great national importance to produce the greatest amount of crops from the land—having to decide which of the two people should suffer hardship, it should be the sitting tenant, and that the landlord should be able to get back those cottages for the purposes of his business which conduces to the greatest amount of food for the nation. I am a little surprised there has been no Amendment on the Paper on the subject. I rather understood that those interested in agriculture were about to put down some Amendments to make an exception in these cases. All I can say is that I am quite ready to consider any such Amendments, and, indeed, I am prepared to move an Amendment either on Report, or to see whether some Amendment cannot be put in in another place.
§ Mr. RENDALLWould my Amendment do?
§ Mr. FISHERI am afraid the Amendment of the hon. Member is far too wide, but a limited Amendment of the kind which would cover the case to which my hon. Friend has called attention would be acceptable if it could be put in the proper form and limited to such cases as he has mentioned, which I think should be provided for.
§ Sir H. NIELDHas the right hon. Gentleman considered the first paragraph of my next Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANHad we not better get on with the Amendment which the Committee really wants to discuss?
§ Captain Sir C. BATHURSTI should just like to say, after what the President of the Local Government Board has said, that I fancy an Amendment very carefully restricted in its words would be of considerable value to the large number of farm tenants who at the present time are purchasing their farms from their land- 1044 lords; but I do think it wants most careful working if injustice is not going to be done to those farm labourers who are normally in continuous employment, not the ordinary farm labourers employed for a part of the year, or even for the twelve months, but those more skilled labourers who are in normal circumstances of great value to the farm, and who are now fighting their country's battles overseas. I think that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept in a modified form should be so framed as to offer sufficient protection to those persons.
§ Mr. HOHLERThis is a very important point, and I do commend to the attention of the President of the Local Government Board the desirability of some Amendment, because a practice in use in my Constituency in regard to this matter is as follows: A man wants to get a change of tenant, and thereupon the landlord pretends that he really requires the premises himself. He gives notice to that effect; he occupies one room for a week, and after that lets it to a new tenant. Obviously, that is the very thing that Parliament never intended. The history of this Clause was to give power to assist agriculture where cottages were occupied by field men who found it necessary to be near their horses, or by shepherds who found it necessary to be near their flocks. If the right hon. Gentleman would frame an Amendment so as to meet the case and confine it to agricultural tenancies it would be of great value. I would further point out that it would get rid of the abuse now complained of entirely. It is also to be observed that in the amending Bill as I read it, supposing there is a change in the agricultural tenant, the old tenant goes out through death or the expiry of the lease, or something of that sort, he will not get any right at all. He would be excluded, as I read the Clause, from any right to recover possession of a cottage essential to him, namely, the wagoner's cottage or the shepherd's cottage as the case might be. That could never have been intended. Therefore, whilst I strongly support this measure, I ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider what was the object Parliament really had in view in passing the original Act. I suggest that the Clause requires some Amendment both for the protection of people in towns, and further to give a like benefit in regard to agriculture to a new tenant as is now possessed by the present tenant.
§ Mr. WATTI support the Amendment, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will go to a Division in order to show the strength that is behind it. I supported an earlier Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) which limited the area in which the Bill would apply, and now I support this, which limits the conditions under which the Bill will apply, namely, that you must go to Court to have the matter decided. The Act, of which this is an Amendment, is admittedly unjust, and so will this be. It is expedient, but it is unjust. Surely no one would say it was just that the owner of property should be unable to raise the rent and that the holder of a mortgage should be unable to raise his interest. In no other sphere have prices been limited as they have been in this matter of property. Limited prices have been put upon merchandise, but never the pre-war limitation. The prewar limitation is only put on rents and mortgage interest. This amending Bill will actually prevent a man who buys a house from taking possession of it—surely a most unjust thing to do—therefore, any Amendment limiting this unjust Bill should be acceptable to the Committee, first as to area, which needs an Order in Council now, and now as to Courts—to let them have to go to Court to establish that there is an injustice. The outcry is such, and the treatment of tenants in some instances is such, that it is expedient, almost necessary, that Parliament should intervene, and Parliament is now intervening, but Parliament should certainly intervene in a limited way and give the established Courts of justice an opportunity of saying where the Act should apply and where it should not.
§ Sir H. ELVERSTONI have no particular love for landlords, but I think the Committee should consider what effect this Bill is going to have upon the housing problem at a later stage. You have at present good and bad landlords, and you have also good and bad tenants, but you are certainly penalising the good landlord by this legislation. I recently had an opportunity of seeing the accounts in connection with £100,000 worth of house property, which gives a good average. For the three years since the outbreak of the War the average return upon the capital is only 2 per cent. to 2¾ per cent., and by this legislation you will tend to further restrict that return. With a return of 2 per cent. to 2¼ per cent. you 1046 are certainly not going to attract capital into the building of houses, and whatever scheme the President of the Local Government Board may introduce, I am quite sure it will not be sufficiently comprehensive to supersede private initiative in this matter. We should have been very badly off if there had been no private landlords, and we shall be very badly off indeed after the War if people have come to look upon house property as a class of investment which it is in no way desirable to enter into. I am sure everyone in the House is in sympathy with the object of the Bill and fully realises how serious is the housing problem, which is getting worse and worse year after year, but I am inclined to think the evil is not quite so widespread as the President of the Local Government Board says. Overcrowding is more serious on the Tyneside than in any other part of the country, but no complaints have been made of anyone dispossessing present tenants. Be that as it may, we have this outstanding fact, that you want to improve the housing conditions of this country and you are not going to do it by legislation of this kind. It is going to have very far-reaching effects. I would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to give us some encouragement by putting down some carefully considered Amendment which will deal with genuine cases of hardship and give the right of entry on agricultural land and places like that where it is quite clear that the interest of the community will suffer if the Bill as it is at present is carried into force.
§ Sir D. GODDARDI think the discussion is being led a little far away from the Amendment. The far-reaching effects of which we have heard have nothing to do really with the Amendment. I am not going to take any strong general view as against all landlords. I quite realise that there are good landlords, and I have no doubt there are some who will suffer. I am a trustee of one of these large societies which we are told will be ruined.
§ Sir J. BOYTONI did not say societies; I said the building trade.
§ Sir D. GODDARDI have not had any representation from building societies on this subject, but I have had any quantity of representations in favour of the Bill. This Amendment obliges an appeal to some kind of Court. The cases which come under my observation are for the 1047 most part cases of speculation in houses. I ask any reasonable person, if those cases are brought before a Court, who has the advantage? The speculator distinctly has the advantage. He has money at his disposal, and can spend it. The defendant in most cases is a poor man, and very likely loses his time to defend his position. If he has to engage legal assistance it will cost money which he can ill afford. I do not think it is a fair thing at all, and for that reason I cannot approve of the Amendment, and shall vote against it. I was very glad to hear the President of the Local Government Board take so strong and clear a view on the Amendment. I shall be quite willing to listen favourably to any suggestion in regard to agriculture if those cases can be made good later on, but I cannot vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. HUDSONI shall certainly oppose the Amendment if it should go to a Division. I quite believe there is a very large number of very good landlords. I quite admit that laws have to be made in many cases for the minority and not for the majority. I do not think I should have risen had it not been that I wanted to follow the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Elverston) who mentioned Tyneside. In large munition areas such as that there has been a tremendous influx of population during the last three years. To give an example, take one large works where there were about 30,000 employés prior to the War, where now there are over 100,000. That gives a fair idea of what is happening. Houses are exceedingly scarce. There are not enough by a very long way to go round. The Act which we are seeking to amend operated very favourably to the sitting tenants there, yet quite a number, though I do not say a majority, of landlords took advantage of the ignorance of the tenants, and when the last amending Bill was before the House I called attention to overcharges in rent, and produced a rent-book to show that it was operating unjustly, and that they were trading upon the ignorance of the people. Again the hon. Gentleman says he has heard of no complaints. I have had numerous complaints. I have complaints of this character, that the wives and families of men who are engaged in munition work and in Government Departments, and men who are serving at the front, have been approached asking if they were 1048 willing to accept an increase of rent voluntarily. They refused, naturally, knowing the law. The week following they are told that the house is to be sold and they can buy if they wish. They had an opportunity of purchasing some few years ago, at the time they became occupiers, but they considered the purchase price much too high. Now the offer is to purchase, but to put as far as £15 or £20 more on to what was considered an excessive price in the first instance. I have one case in particular where the occupier refused to buy. A fortnight later a house agent approached him and told him he had bought the house, and consequently he must take notice to quit. Under that notice he is to cease his tenancy in August next. These are the kind of cases which we have to provide against. There is not the least doubt that many of these cases of purchase can be proved to be nothing more than bogus. They put down £20, £30, or £40, get a mortgage, turn out the tenant and use the house as they think proper. I have the case of a lady whose husband and son are both serving in France. The house was required. She agreed to pay £12 per year more rent in order to be left alone, but the other week she was advised that the house had been sold and that she must remove. She has not the faintest idea where she can get a house when the removal takes place. I have another case of a man who is living in Newcastle-on-Tyne, who has been removed there by a Government Department for the convenience of the Department, and he informs me that he is threatened with the sale of the house, and that if he is turned out he has not the ghost of an idea where he can get another house. If this Amendment is carried, and all these cases were taken to Court you would force these people either to spend money which they can very ill spare to defend their case, or, on the other hand, to lose the case. I am very pleased that the President of the Local Government Board declines to accept the Amendment. I do not object to the landlord being protected if you can do it, but it is the bad landlord who has brought about this position, and the good landlord should seek to deal with the bad one.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONI am afraid that the feeling of the House is that the tenant is always the hero and the landlord always the villain of the piece. I wish the Committee to consider the situation for a 1049 moment. I would like the hon. Member to tell me if he is to protect the bad tenant from the good landlord.
§ Mr. ANDERSONAre there any good landlords?
§ Mr. HENDERSONThat is the prejudice which the hon. Member has. It is as I say, the landlord is always regarded as the villain. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hudson) spoke of munition workers. This Bill was brought in in 1915, and I venture to say that there is no landlord who lets a house at £26 a year rent who does the repairs who is not very nearly, if not quite losing money on it to-day. We know perfectly well that the repairs have gone up 300 per cent., and no landlord can afford to let a house at the pre-war rate, having regard to the cost of repairs. The other day I had a little repairs to a cottage, and one article which cost me £6 before the War now costs £12 10s. I could demonstrate to this Committee from figures within my own knowledge the seriousness of this position. The tenant has been sitting at a rent which he could not get to-day if he took a house, having regard to the cost of repairs, which are constantly increasing. If you are going to say to a landlord, "You must continue this, and continue to have no return for your money," what sort of inducement is that for any man to come forward and build the houses that are so much required? He could not do it, and he would be a fool to do it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHe cannot build now!
§ Mr. HENDERSONAfter the War is over. With respect to the munition centres. Did the munitions people go to their employers and ask for more wages? Of course they did, but it is a sin when a landlord asks for more rent. That is a totally different matter. The tenants are the heroes and the landlords are the villains. I assure the Committee that there are men who are deliberately availing themselves of this restriction, and I ask that the decent landlord should have some sort of protection against the tenant who is imposing on him and taking advantage of this Act. For the ordinary tenant I have the greatest sympathy. The hon. Member (Mr. Hudson) mentioned cases in Newcastle-on-Tyne. That is an area which might be included in the Bill, but there are other districts where it would be impossible for the landlord to do repairs and not lose money by letting the house at the 1050 rent which has been fixed, and which he cannot increase. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot find some means which will give the landlord some sort of protection against the tenant who takes advantage of this Act when there is no necessity of doing it, and when he only wants to remain at a cheap rent, although he knows perfectly well that if he goes to another house he will have to pay more rent.
§ Mr. PETOMay I point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Henderson) that what he is asking for is impossible under this Bill? And I want to say to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson) that the case of the tenant who paid £12 a year extra rent is probably also outside this Bill, because it does not seem likely that such an increase of rent would be on a £26 house. I do not believe that the majority of sitting tenants would object for a moment to a reasonable increase of rent in proportion to the increased cost of repairs, or to cover the increased cost of repairs actually incurred. That is on the one side, and it has nothing to do with good landlords or bad landlords. On the other side this wretched little Bill, if I may use the term, is absolutely impotent to meet what I believe to be the real and most urgent case, which is that of the wives and dependants of men serving in the Army, the Navy, and the merchant service, who, in a large proportion of cases, are not covered at all by this absurdly small rent of £26. Therefore, I thank the Chair for giving us some latitude. I would not have intervened if I had not noticed the course of the previous speeches, because we are really beating the air, except that the President of the Local Government Board did say on the Second Reading that ho wanted to ascertain from the Committee what were their views. I hops he has got them. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that we should be asked to consider a Bill from another place which is so limited in its scope that it is merely a Bill to amend the definition of a landlord in one particular Sub-section of one Clause of another Bill. That being the case, what is the use of doing more than indicate to the President of the Local Government Board that we are entirely dissatisfied with this Bill, both on the side of the landlord and on the side of the tenant, and that we ask him to withdraw the Bill and bring in a sensible Bill? The latter is much the best course, or, on the other hand, we 1051 should get this Bill through at once, after having got some promise from the President of the Local Government Board that he will introduce another Bill forthwith to deal with the obvious hardships from the landlord's point of view and the cases
§ of great hardship as regards the tenant which are not covered either by the original Bill or this amending Bill.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 140.
1051| Division No. 28.] | AYES. | [5.40 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | France, Gerald Ashburner | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin | Gretton, John | Newman, Major john R. P. |
| Ashley, Wilfred W. | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Baker, Maj. Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.) | Parkes, Sir Edward |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Beckett Hon. Gervase | Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Shortt, Edward |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Hills, Major John Waller | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Bliss, Joseph | Hort, Richard Durning | Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Horne, Edgar | Thomas-Stanford, Charles |
| Cator John | Hunt, Major Rowland | Tickler, T. G. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.) | Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Clough, William | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen | Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E, G. A. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Colvin, Col. Richard Beale | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford (St. Ives) | Malcolm, Ian | |
| Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir J. |
| Fleming, Sir John | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Boyton and Mr. Denman. |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Morrell, Philip |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Greig, Col. J. W. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Anderson, W. C. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S. | Rea Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Barran, Sir R. (Leeds, N.) | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Higham, John Sharp | Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M. |
| Beach, William F. H. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Robinson, Sidney |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Rowlands, James |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Homes, Daniel Turner | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hope James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Shaw, Hon. A. |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hudson, Walter | Smallwood, Edward |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jowett, Frederick William | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kenyon, Barnet | Stewart, Gershom |
| Chancellor, Henry George | King, Joseph | Strauss, Edward A. (Southward, West) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade) | Sutherland, John E. |
| Clynes, John R. | Larmor, Sir Joseph | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Levy, Sir Maurice | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Collins, Sir W. (Derby) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Tillett, B. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lindsay, William Arthur | Tootill, Robert |
| Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Cowan, Sir W. H. | Lonsdale, James R. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Crooks, Rt. Hon. William | Lowther, Col, C. (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Waring, Major Walter |
| Davies, M. Vauqhan-(Cardigan) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Denniss, E. R B. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. | Macmaster, Donald | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Du Pre, Major W. Baring | Macpherson, James Ian | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Williams, Thomas J (Swansea) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore., N.) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Middlebrook, Sir William | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.) | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness) | Wood, Rt. Hon T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Mount, William Arthur | Worthington Evans, Major Sir L |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Nield, Sir Herbert | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Gilbert, J. D. | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John | Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs., Leek) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest. |
| Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darlington) | |
| Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland) | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) |
§ Mr. RENDALLI beg to move, after the word "person" to insert the words "other than a person engaged in work of national importance as certified by the Ministry of National Service."
The object of the original Act was to enable men who were working on munitions to retain their houses, because men in various munitions areas were being denied fixity of tenure. If that is the object of the Bill, when a man buys a house and is engaged in work of national importance, and wants a house to live in in the neighbourhood to do that work, it seems to me that he should have a preference over another man who is not engaged in work of national importance. What I am asking here is that an exception should be made in favour of the new purchaser of a house who happens to be working at munitions or on work of national importance. These words cover the cases which have been brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Wilton. They enable the agricultural labourer and the employer of agricultural labour to obtain possession of a house on the condition, which is extremely easy to comply with, of showing that there is work of national importance to be done in the place. But in order that there may be no doubt on the subject, I have added the words "as certified by the Ministry of National Service." The Ministry is now represented all over the country, and that certificate can be got very easily. I know a case at present of people who ran away from London because of air raids and bought a house. That particular house is wanted by people who are engaged on work of national importance. If this Bill is passed as it is drawn those people who ran away from the raids will be allowed to remain in possession of that house for the whole of the War, while the person who is wanted to work at munitions in the same town cannot get a house. Those cases ought to be and can be dealt with by words of this kind. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these words are too wide, by all means qualify them; but we should not leave the Bill in such a form as to prevent persons who are doing work of national importance having a house to live in. That is practically what you are doing if you do not agree to this Amendment.
§ Mr. J. W. WILSONI hope that before the President replies he will give very careful consideration to this Amendment. 1054 I cannot support it myself because I feel that it would create a very great grievance in many parts of the country, particularly in the munitions areas, where it would tend to produce an effect practically the opposite to that which the hon. Member desires, because in these places the young men who have stayed behind and are earning good wages, more than they ever earned before, are buying out houses and clearing out in most cases the wives and families who have been left behind by soldiers and who are utterly unable to resist, though occasionally they may succeed on technical points which are brought before the Court in getting a decision in their favour. In a great many cases it is those young men who have got the protection of munition work and have stayed behind and are making plenty of money who are coming in and buying up the houses over the heads of the wives and families of soldiers. Of course, I have given a very flagrant case, but there are a great many almost equally deserving cases, in which great hardship has occurred. Discrimination in favour of these munition workers should not be granted under this Bill. Otherwise I fear it will foment the injustice and inequalities which have given rise to the demand for it, particularly in the munitions areas.
§ Mr. FISHERI cannot disguise my dislike to this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment says that there is to be an exception to what we are providing in the Bill, and that anyone who buys a house and can prove to the Minister of National Service that he is engaged on work of national importance should be able to get an order to turn the tenant out, even though the tenant is doing work of great national importance. What is work of national importance as certified by the Ministry of National Service? Soldiers would be certified as doing work of national importance. Therefore if any of them want to buy a house for their wives they would be persons who would come within the Amendment of the hon. Member. All those who are doing work in the Army or Navy, or are engaged at munitions work, or many other kinds of work, are doing work of national importance. There are a great many tribunals engaged in saying what is work of national importance, and it is certain that there would be 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people in this country 1055 who would be exceptions to the Bill. The Amendment is really one which would destroy the Bill and I cannot accept it.
§ Mr. RENDALLI agree that the Amendment is not accurately drawn. My whole object was that if there were two persons, one an idler and one doing work of national importance, the latter should have the preference for the house. That is not achieved in the Bill, but it would have been achieved under my Amendment subject to alteration. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. RENDALLI beg to move, in the same Sub-section, after the word "person" ["any person who sits"], to insert the words "other than a tenant thereof."
6.0 P.M.
I am informed by a high authority, well acquainted with the law, that by the Bill a person who has purchased a property or house would be precluded from exercising the right given under the Act of 1915. The point raised is a technical one, and it will be necessary, I think, to deal with it on Report. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to insert the words now, perhaps he will give them his consideration on the Report stage.
§ Mr. FISHERIf I accepted this Amendment it might cause a great deal of confusion between landlords and tenants, but I will take an opportunity of considering the point before Report. I cannot give a decision now.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSBefore the next Amendment is called, would it not be for the convenience of the Committee that the whole of the Amendments dealing with the question of date should form the subject of a general discussion on the one particular Amendment which is to be taken?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean)I think the question of date in the various proposals, would naturally arise for discussion on the next Amendment.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI beg to move, to leave out the words "twelfth day of March." and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of January."
I think the question of date is one of the most difficult arising under this Bill. 1056 We all wish, I think, whatever may be our view as to the date fixed, that there shall be no injustice done either to landlords or tenants, especially the tenants. I think that the Committee will conclude, after a discussion, that whatever date is inserted, the date twelfth of March cannot possibly stand. In the first place the quarter day in many parts of the country occurs in February. Many hundreds of notices are given in February to the tenants to quit their houses, and if we allow the 12th March to stand, as it does in the Bill, we shall let into possession a large number of aliens and other people who fled from the Metropolis and other towns to the Home counties, as far even as Portsmouth, and right down to Poole, in Dorsetshire, from the effects of the raids in November, December, and January. They turned out a number of tenants who had been in their houses for many years, and took possession. Therefore the 12th March seems to be an impossible date. Let us go to the other end. An hon. Member below the Gangway has put down the date for May of last year. I think that is going very much too far in the opposite direction. After all, there are a great number of men. who purchased houses perfectly legally and genuinely long before these air raids became severe or intense. They took possession of those houses, and if we are to go back and say that any man who purchased a house in May last year is to be turned out, a very grave injustice will be done. I submit that to go back so far as May would do injustice. If this House were really driven to some date between 1st December and 1st February, I think that the date I suggest, 1st January, would enable us to meet the case of a large number of tenants I would point out that 1st January is a most favourable date, for on that date you would not have to turn out many people who had got possession in January and you would protect all the people in regard to whom this Bill has been brought in—the people who were turned out by aliens, who went into the Home counties and other parts because of the air raids, which were most intense in October and December—and these people could return to the houses they had occupied previously. I have not given very clear and coherent reasons, I fear, why I say one date should be chosen rather than another. It is a very difficult question, but I do submit that the 1st January should be taken.
§ Sir H. NIELDI have an Amendment upon the Paper to insert the words "the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen." That is the date following Michaelmas, and it is about the date on which began these raids. We have had a number of day raids. We had one on the 13th of June, and another on the 7th day of July. I have reason to remember the latter date, because while I was sitting at my duties I heard the noise of the explosions at half-past ten in the morning. The raids commenced in September, and on the 1st October and the following nights there were very severe raids. It was at that time the exit commenced, the aliens, particularly, leaving the East End of London for districts in the West End, and going along in the direction of Harrow. There were large numbers of these aliens, and they went to the districts to which I refer because it was a cheap railway journey, and because they were removed from the area of danger. Later, however, they saw reason to go still further out of London. It is because of these circumstances that I have suggested, as appears in my Amendment, the 30th of September as the date for retrospective effect. It is admitted, apparently, that the Bill should be retrospective, for on the 14th of March in another place the Lord Chancellor, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, said:
My Noble Friend is quite right. The Bill, as drawn, has no retrospective effect. It stops the thing for the future. But I am bound to say, now that attention is called to it, that very recently a good deal of information has come to me which leads me to think that it may deserve consideration, whether to a certain extent, the Bill might be made retrospective. The state of things in some parts of Scotland, I am told, is such as to make anything of that kind, if it could be done, very desirable.In the Committee stage on the Bill, on the 19th March, 1918, after the speech of Lord Camperdown, the Lord Chancellor said:I, of course, have had very much in my mind the observations made by the Noble Earl at the previous stage as to the advisability of making this Bill retrospective. The matter has formed the subject of very careful consideration, not only by myself, but in consultation with the various Departments—and there are a good many of them—who are concerned. What is felt is this that we are hardly in possession at the present moment of sufficient materials for taking the step to make this Bill relate back to an anteceded time, but materials are coming in, and I should hope, before the Bill arrives at the Committee stage in another place, that sufficient material will be available for the decision of the 1058 question, and for deciding what the extent of the retrospective effect of the Hill should be.It will be seen that the other House, therefore, is of opinion, without coming to any conclusion, that there should be a retrospective effect of this Bill. I shall be glad to hear that since the Lord Chancellor expressed this view, on the 19th March, the Local Government Board have found material sufficient to induce them to make up their mind what shall be the date of this measure's retrospective effect. I have no great sympathy with that class of person who have succeeded in getting orders of ejectment from the County Court judge, and who object to interference with rights of contract between parties, and who urge that unless effect be given to their objection, and it is very clearly expressed in the Bill, no effect could be given to it in Court, and that in those cases an equitable line should be taken. It is a legal axiom that hard cases make bad law, but that is an axiom which, in this instance, might be applied inversely. I think that there is no real case for saying that because these orders have been made they should not be interfered with, the mischief having been persistently pursued notwithstanding all the complaints and all the notices in the London Press and the notices in the provincial Press calling attention to the hardship—these men, who are essentially profiteering in the very worst sense of the term, have deliberately gone on, knowing perfectly well that Parliament was so congested with work that it would be some time before any amendment could be made to the Act, and that in the meantime the Courts were appealing to the strict letter of the Act. As I pointed out before, the provision which was intended for one thing was diverted to another purpose entirely, and was used in this way by unprincipled persons. These persons are, I venture to submit, entitled to no consideration at all, and, even though these transactions have been completed, I believe with my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Ashley) that some of these people have not yet succeeded in getting actual possession, and I hope some steps will be taken in those cases to prevent persons being turned out who have not yet been turned out, and that even if the warrant is in the hands of the County Court bailiffs these persons will be saved. A person who has got possession should be obliged to redeliver the premises to any person who has been turned out since the 30th September. We have the expression from the Noble Lord on the Woolsack 1059 that this Bill might be made retrospective, the only point being to what extent it should be retrospective, and in view of that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the date I have proposed.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILI want to ask the President of the Local Government Board to accept this Amendment, if he can see his way to do so. We all in this House, I think, agree that this Bill is a good Bill, and there is no doubt that if it is so it should become operative from the earliest practicable moment. The only difficulty is, Where can you exactly draw the line? What is practicable and what is just? Arguments have been advanced by my two hon. Friends who have just spoken which show the reasons balancing both sides of the question. I do not think we can go very far back in making the Bill retrospective, but, on the other hand, I feel that we should go further back than the 12th of March. The question really is whether you can properly dispossess a purchaser who has been in possession for some considerable time. Personally, I do not think you can, but I should argue that to be in possession since the 1st of January is not a reasonable time which for this purpose need be respected, and, in view of the known circumstances that the main Act has been deliberately evaded, so to speak, through a loophole which was not at that time anticipated, but which was very well known subsequently to exist, I think Parliament is justified in making any amending Act retrospective so as to cover the transactions that have taken place. I strongly urge on my right hon. Friend that the Amendment should be accepted.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will consider another date than the one mentioned in the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Ashley), namely, the 1st January. I hope he will even consider a date prior to that mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), namely, the 30th September. I think too much has been made of aliens rushing from London to the Home Counties in the course of this Debate. We would have required the Bill supposing there had been no air raids. We would have required the Bill to protect our people against a raid of an entirely different character from the one that has 1060 been so frequently mentioned. Consequently, I think we should consider this from a broader aspect than the one so strongly urged by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing. The date I suggest should be put in the Bill, namely, 28th May, 1917, is one that has been suggested to me by the secretary of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Labour Housing Association. This association has had a large amount of experience in dealing with the hard cases that have arisen in connection with the administration of the original Act. and the secretary is of opinion, from his large experience, that if we are to properly protect the tenants you require to make the amending Act retrospective to 28th May, 1917. If you are entirely to cover all the hard cases that have arisen, you require to make it retrospective to the date that I and my hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) have put on the Amendment Paper. If that is not possible, the secretary of the housing association I have named says that the date should not be put beyond the 1st August, 1917. That date would not entirely cover all the hard cases, but it would certainly cover a considerable number more than either of the dates named by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the first Amendment and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing. In moving one of the recent Amendments an hon. Member for one of the Glasgow divisions stated that the reason why this Act of 1915 was passed and placed on the Statute Book and made the law of the land was because the House wanted to protect those who were doing work of national importance. Well, I desire to respectfully disagree with that opinion. That Act was passed in order to avoid serious industrial trouble that has arisen in several parts of the country in connection with the housing problem. It was introduced largely on the initiative of Glasgow, and it is therefore all the more surprising that an hon. Member representing a Glasgow division should state this afternoon that this Bill was an unjust Bill.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe are going a little wide of the special point of the Amendment, and I think it is quite time the Committee came flown to a discussion of the particular Amendment, after the very liberal way the Chair has allowed the Debate to run.
§ Mr. ADAMSONI accept your ruling, Sir, and will not pursue that line of argument further. As a matter of fact, I simply content myself by urging on the President of the Local Government Board to give serious and full consideration to the date I have put down on the Amendment Paper, namely, the 28th May, 1917.
§ Mr. J. W. WILSONI rise to support the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) and by the Mover of this Amendment to the Minister in charge of the Bill to accept this date, the 1st January. I think a good deal might be said for an earlier date, as the last speaker has just been arguing, but if you take a date as early as the one he mentioned I am afraid it would lead to a great deal of confusion. The House could not accept it in the form in which it is on the Paper, but only with certain provisos with regard to turning out the new tenant and Clauses for his protection. If you go back to the 1st January it is about as far as you can go without making special provision for the hardship which might and would have arisen by the removal of the previous tenant and the occupation of the landlord. He would have to be re-turned out, and the person who had taken his house that he had let in order to take up his new occupation would not welcome any provision of Parliament that he should be turned out, and in congested areas there will be all this confusion and doubt as to where the present sitting occupation landlord should go to. It might be very hard on him, he having given up his previous house. However, I think in the great majority of cases the question between the 1st January and the 12th March would not be a very large one. The notices in many of these cases have been delayed. The evictions have been delayed by the Courts in order to mitigate hardship to a large extent, and therefore occupation has not taken place as soon after purchase as it might have done if it had not been largely contested action, as it has been in many localities. Therefore, if the Committee was willing to accept the 1st January, the Amendment might go through without any proviso in regard to occupation. If you go to an earlier date you must give some protection where occupation has already taken place. You might, of course, vary it in the direction in which the hon. Member has just argued by saying that in cases where purchase had taken place before the 1st January, 1062 and where occupation had not yet been given, this should apply; but I think if you give that you will also have to give it where occupation has taken place since the 1st January. Personally, I would sooner have a clean cut of the 1st January without any proviso about occupation at all.
§ Mr. W. WATSONI hope the right hon. Gentleman will make two points quite clear, because they seem to bear on the question of dates and on the construction of his Bill. In the first place, the expression he has used is, "has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling house." I rather think that is ambiguous, but I fancy it means the date at which the new purchaser acquires the right of turning the tenant out. If that is so, the date of the contract or agreement for sale may be a very different date altogether. It may be very much earlier. It may be months earlier. Is this the date at which the new purchaser absolutely becomes the landlord and has the rights of a landlord over the tenant? That is the first point.
That is one point I would like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with. The other point I would particularly ask him to consider—and it is one which has an important bearing on the question we are discussing—is whether this Clause will affect any cases where orders for eviction have already been made. As I read it, this will not, because the Sub-section which we are amending begins, "No order…shall be made." Therefore, as I read this Bill, all cases in which the purchase had already been carried through, and an order has been made, will not be affected by the Bill as drawn. That excludes a great many cases to which hon. Members have been referring—not only cases where an order has been made already and not carried out, but cases where an order has been made and has been carried out. Therefore, where a new tenant has been put in, or the new purchaser himself has gone in prior to the passing of this Act, he will not be affected by this Act at all.
That removes at once from the question of date a very large class, and removes the kind of hard case to which the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke was referring. In other words, it is not retrospective in that sense at all. It will not turn out a new purchaser who has got possession for himself, or a new tenant put in by the purchaser under an order of eject- 1063 ment. Nor will it, as I understand, affect the case where an ordinary ejectment has been got for the new purchaser and has either not been put into operation, or has been attempted to be put into operation but has not succeeded—in other words, the old tenant has resisted. There are a good many of those cases in Scotland, some of which I have heard, and some of which I know the hon. Member for West Fife has heard, and some in which the resistance has lasted at least as far back as November last. I take it these cases will be really cases of hardship as regards the sitting tenant, and it is the type of cases that this Bill was particularly intended to safeguard. As the new purchaser has been kept out all that time, and the sitting tenant is still there, I think it will be a great service, as it is the intention of the Bill, to cover those cases: but, as 1 say, I do not think they are affected by this Clause at all. This Clause, as I read it, will only affect a purchaser who, after the passing of this Bill, applies for an order of ejectment. Then the question he will be asked will be, "When did you become landlord?" and I personally will support the furthest date that is suggested if I am correct in the reading of the Bill, because, if I am right, it only applies to a new landlord who, after the passing of this Act, asks for an order. What hardship is there making it date back as far as possible? It does not seem to me there can be any hardship in making it as retrospective as the 28th May, and it is important in Scotland to go back at least as far as that date. It is important to go a good way back, always assuming that I am right in my reading of the Bill.
I would remind the Committee that, as regards making the Act retrospective in Scotland, in response to a question of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt)—who does not seem quite so sympathetic towards this Bill to day as he did previously to this class of question—in March, 1917, the Secretary for Scotland said that if this evil persisted he would require to take steps to legislate. That warning was repeated later on and therefore, so far as Scotland is concerned, there has been fair warning given that legislation might be expected if this evil went on. I do ask the Committee to consider these points, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with them. If my view is correct, it will 1064 be seen how little hardship is involved on any landlord in putting the date far back, because it covers such a limited number of cases, whereas, on the other hand, if a person became a landlord last August and has taken no steps to turn out the sitting tenant until now, I think it would be very hard to turn out a sitting tenant on an order asked for after the passing of this Act.
Major DAVIESIf the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down are correct, most of us who put down this Amendment to the Bill feel rather in a fog, and I have risen to elucidate some of the points which the hon. and learned Member has put before the Committee. I hope, therefore, the President of the Local Government Board will be able to shed some light as to what the proper position is. If the hon. Gentleman opposite is correct, I think we might accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Fife, and go back to the 28th May, 1917. On the other hand, if he is not correct, then I hope the Government will accept the 1st January, 1918. For my own part, I do not particulary mind what the date is, provided the Government do make this measure retrospective in order to cover the hard cases already alluded to in the course of the Debate. The people I am particularly anxious about are widows and wives of officers and soldiers serving at the front, and I think the Committee would be quite willing to go back to any date in order to safeguard their interests, and to ensure that they will not be hardly dealt with. I venture to appeal, as other hon. Members have done, to the President of the Local Government Board to make this measure as stringent as he can, and make the date as far back as is possible and practicable.
§ Mr. PETOI entirely agree, if I may say so, with the hon. and learned Member for South Lanark (Mr. Watson). I never personally imagined there was any question of any Amendment being possibly put down giving retrospective effect to this Clause doing more than alter, so far as the date was concerned, the Sub-section that this Bill is introduced to amend, and to which it is strictly limited I myself put down an Amendment dealing with the special point raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite as to the wives and dependants of these men who are fighting for us. If they have been ejected 1065 they should be able to go back. But I felt perfectly certain that Amendment was not in order, and I do not suppose it would be allowed, or anything else which deals with the real hardships we ought to be dealing with. I differ on one point from the hon. and learned Member for South Lanark. He says that this is restricted by the words of the Sub-section, that—
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—and so forth. That being the limit of the powers, it is said we might just as well go back as far as the hon. Member for West Fife suggests, namely, 28th May, 1917, because there is no hardship in the matter. I do not altogether agree with that, because it seems futile to carry back this Bill, with its narrow limit, to last May. If a landlord purchased property as far back as last May, for the purpose of getting possession and turning out the tenant, surely it is almost inconceivable that he should have taken no steps up to the present time to move for the recovery of his premises! It is not the least likely. I rather argue that, as the matter is so very limited, the real hardship, which was considered in another place, was that it was quite likely that for a limited period before 12th March a landlord might have purchased property with the intention of doing precisely what we wished to stop being done, and have taken no steps, and just because he purchased in February or the first few days of March he would be deemed a landlord within the meaning of Sub-section (3), although he had acquired the property by purchase, and therefore moved for the ejectment of the tenant. Therefore, I think the whole weight of the argument is in favour of fixing a date not unreasonably long. I think you will practically deal with all cases if the 1st January is accepted. There is no question, as the hon. and learned Member for Ealing pointed out, in quoting the actual words of the Lord Chancellor in another place, that the Government are practically pledged to give a retrospective date, whatever that date may be, according to the weight of the argument in the Committee stage in this House. The Bill, such as it is, is the Lord Chancellor's Bill. I hope it will soon be succeeded by a more useful measure, but in the meantime I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the 1st January, because I do not think any earlier date than that would serve a useful purpose.
§ Mr. FISHERWe have had a very interesting Debate as to whether the Bill should be retrospective at all, and, if so, how far it should be retrospective. One Amendment proposes to make it prospective, but that has not been argued. One does not like the idea of making any legislation of this kind retrospective from some points of view, because obviously there is nothing in any way illegal, or, let us say, immoral or inequitable, in many cases in the purchase of these houses. I must say I have a certain sympathy with some of those who have purchased these houses, knowing that they were not doing an illegal act, and perhaps for some very good reason; but, unless we do make this Bill retrospective, we shall not block a good deal of entries on most undesirable grounds which have been made by a certain class of purchaser whom the original Act was undoubtedly intended to stop, and we shall not enable a very considerable number of tenants to remain in their present houses unless we do make it to a certain extent retrospective. Therefore, in considering this Bill, we have to consider the balance of hardship, and in striking that we ought to remember what was the main purpose of the original Act. The main purpose of the original Act was to protect tenants, and therefore if we have to cast ourselves on one side or the other in a fairly evenly balanced situation, I think we ought to cast ourselves on the side of the tenant, to protect whom we framed an Act which has not given that protection, because a coach-and-four can be driven through the Act. Therefore, I am quite prepared to follow the Lord Chancellor in another place, and to make this Bill retrospective.
Now, as to the date. A variety of dates have been proposed. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Lanarkshire that we should very carefully have in our minds what really is the meaning of these words. First of all, I was asked by my hon. Friend, "What do you mean by the word 'acquisition?'" To the best of my ability I will give an answer. The acquisition of a dwelling-house is the date on which the new purchaser acquires the rights of the landlord to receive the rent and to eject the tenant, if the latter doe?s not pay or perform his other duties. I say that is the ordinary and proper meaning of the word "acquisition?" the meaning which the lawyers would apply; the meaning which the lawyers would give, and the definition 1067 given whenever it has become disputed in a Court of justice. A much more important question than that is, Will this Bill affect the cases where the order has not been executed? I take it it will not affect any cases where the order has not been executed—that is to say, whatever the date we choose to put into this Bill, whatever the retrospective date may be, it will not cause a reinstatement of any tenant who has been evicted under an order executed. I hope I have made that quite clear, because it affects our judgment in considering the date in the Bill. Having to make up my mind on behalf of the Government as to what date I will accept—
§ Captain JOHN WATSONHas the right hon. Gentleman exhausted the last point? Will this Bill prevent ejectments if the order has already been made?
§ Mr. FISHERI think we meet that point in another Amendment.
§ Captain WATSONThe Bill as drawn will not prevent the Amendment that is necessary?
§ Mr. FISHERI think that point is covered by another Amendment. On the whole, I think it better, perhaps, to divide the distance, and to take the date suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing, 30th September. I think it is sufficient to go back to 30th September. After all, there may be a Scottish case—Ido not think a very strong one—for taking 28th May. There is no English case for that date. I cannot help thinking, after all, that there must have been very few purchasers in Scotland as far back as 28th May. Most would probably be between 28th May and 30th September, and they will have taken steps to obtain an order and obtain possession of properties which they have purchased. Looking, then, on the whole balance-sheet as between landlords and tenants, looking at the whole of these transactions which have taken place, the Committee, I think, will act wisely, and fulfil the justice of the case, if it takes to put in the Bill the date 30th September. I am quite prepared, therefore, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend—that of 30th September. I hope that will be acceptable to the Committee. I think it will meet most of the cases, which have become very aggravated, caused by 1068 people living in certain areas desiring to escape from air raids. It is quite true you must not only look at air raids. There are a great many other cases for which purchase of a house is made, but I quite admit that here, at all events in England, in certain parts, that has been the reason for the purchases which have been so large, and which we desire to frustrate, if we possibly can. They have been very largely caused by the desire, mainly of aliens, to escape from the air-raided districts. I do not say that is a very strong case, but one way and another I think upon the whole I have met the wishes of the House by the date I have mentioned—30th September.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSIt was quite evident to most of us when we read the Bill that the date in the Bill was not the date that would suffice. It has not been supported by any speaker in the Debate. I put down an Amendment to alter the 12th of March to the 1st of January. Since I put that Amendment down I have received information in regard to a number of cases that would not be covered by the 1st of January. There are cases in which notice only has been given, but the ejectments have not been applied for, and it may be that these will be covered by the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the 30th September, because it was that quarter in which the notices were given. It is the date that will meet the majority of the cases mentioned.
§ Mr. T. WILSONI fully recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has met the House very, very fairly indeed. I am very well pleased with the concession he has made. The cases that I have had brought to my notice are not those concerned at all with air raids, but a little more serious, perhaps, than people taking houses out of the danger zone. They are cases where in various congested areas men are buying houses over the top of each other, and I am very glad that the Bill has been introduced and that the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is going to make the matter retrospective. So far as I am concerned I am quite satisfied to take it in place of my Amendment, and to accept the date put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing.
Colonel THORNEThere is one point, I think, in the statement made by the hon. Member for East Lanark which requires 1069 to be cleared up before this Bill goes from the House. He has already stated that where landlords have applied for orders and have got notices for ejectment that these are not covered at all by this Bill. I want to point out to the President that I have got at least a dozen cases in my hand now concerning this one particular point. They are at Watford. As a matter of fact to-morrow morning, if the landlord likes, he can turn a number of these tenants out because he has got the ejectment orders. I believe the orders are out now in the hands of the bailiffs. Therefore, if this Bill, as it stands now, is not to cover cases of that kind, I say without any hesitation at all that there are hundreds of cases in different parts of the country where ejectment orders can be put into force and the tenants turned out on the roadside. That is a very serious position. It is quite true, as the President of the Local Government Board said, that the statement made by the hon. Member for East Lanark could be met by the insertion of some other words. I am hoping that before the Bill leaves the Committee the right hon. Gentleman will add some words so as to prevent even the orders that have been obtained now by the landlord being put into force and so putting a very large number of tenants into the roadside. As a matter of fact, it is quite impossible for the wage-earners of this country to obtain houses anywhere. You cannot obtain them for love or money. It does not matter at what price—they are unobtainable. I have in my possession cases of men working on the railways or in munition works, and it will be a very serious position, I feel sure, to allow this Clause, a very important one, to go through as it is. The concession made by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, is acceptable to the Committee. But the one point I think we ought to have cleared up is about the present orders being obtained by the Court, and as to whether they could be put into force to-morrow morning, if necessary,
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)I understand the view of the Committee is to agree to this proposal made on behalf of the Government. I do not see in his place the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment (Colonel Ashley).
§ Mr. PETOMy name is on the Paper against the Amendment. I do not know whether I would be in order in withdrawing it to allow the change?
§ The CHAIRMANNo, I am afraid it can only be withdrawn by the Mover. We might, however, do it in this way, by leaving out "twelfth day of March," and inserting instead the "first day of January," then subsequently taking those out and making it "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the proposed words 'first day of January be there inserted."
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps the Government will now bring up their Amendment.
§ Mr. FISHERI beg to move to leave out the words "first day of January," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
§ Amendment agreed to.
Colonel THORNEShall I be in order in repeating to the President of the Local Government Board the question I put a few moments ago?
§ The CHAIRMANThere is no question before the Committee at present.
§
The following Amendments stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Peto: At the end of the Clause to add the words:
nor any person in respect of the ownership of a dwelling-house, of which the tenant is the wife, widow, or immediate dependant of an officer or man who is serving or has served in the present War in His Majesty's Navy, or Army, or in the Mercantile Marine, and in such a case the tenant shall not be liable to ejectment, whether the annual amount of the standard rent of the house is below thirty-five pounds in the Metropolitan police district, thirty pounds in Scotland, twenty-six pounds elsewhere or not.
§
At the end of the Clause to add the words:
Provided that where any person who is the wife, widow, or dependant of an officer or man serving, or who has served, in the present War in His Majesty's Navy, Army, or in the Mercantile Marine has been ejected from a dwelling-house since the passing of the principal Act such person shall be entitled to resume possession of and to occupy the dwelling-house.
§ The CHAIRMANThe two Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes are beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PETOOn a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. I do not for a moment desire to dispute your ruling, but I would ask your 1071 further ruling on this: The Bill is entitled, "An Act to restrict the meaning of the expression landlord in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915." As far as the Bill goes, it provides that a landlord shall not be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of the principal Act under that Sub-section when certain things happen. For instance, when he has become the owner of any dwelling-house by purchase prior to the 30th September, 1917. That is perfectly arbitrary, and, indeed, it reminds one of the question that used to be asked in the nursery, "When is a door not a door?" the answer being, "When it is ajar." The question in this case is "When is a landlord not a landlord?" and the answer is "When he has become a landlord by purchase and not by inheritance." If that is the scope of the Bill, why is it not in order to say that the term landlord must not include "any person who is the owner of a dwelling-house of which the tenant is the wife, widow or immediate dependant of an officer or man who is serving or has served in the present War in the Navy or Army or Mercantile Marine." That seems quite reasonable. May I move the first part of my Amendment if the second part is out of order, because that deals with standard rent in the Metropolitan police district, in Scotland, and elsewhere?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is one of the points that I had to consider, and it leaves so much open that you might say all sorts of other persons are landlords when they are not. I am bound to take the meaning of the Bill as approved on the Second Reading, and when leave was asked to introduce it. I take the scope of the Bill which was to limit a landlord in the definition of time. I am certain it is not my duty to admit as coming within the Scope of the Bill this kind of Amendment which is going far beyond its scope as defined on the Second Reading.
§ Mr. PETOMay I ask if it would be equally out of order to move any proviso with regard to the eviction of a tenant, which is in the Bill, and which is not a question of actual definition of the word "landlord" which is the purpose of the Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANI have no such Amendment before me. It may be possible 1072 to do that, and the Government may be considering that point, but I see no Amendment before me which does that, although I will not rule against that probability.
§ The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Major HAMILTON:
§
At the end of the Clause to insert the words:
Unless such person has been previously approved of by an order from the County Court for the time being for the district in which the dwelling-house in question shall be situate, or by purchase with the previous consent in writing of the tenant of the said dwelling-house at the time of the said purchase, or after the tenant of the said dwelling-house, having been previously served with fourteen days' notice in writing by the landlord of the said dwelling house of the intention of the said landlord to sell the said dwelling-house, has failed to lodge before the expiry of the said fourteen days' claim in the aforesaid County Court that the completion of the said purchase shall be restrained on the ground that the same is oppressive or inequitable, and has subsequently satisfied the said County Court that the completion of the said purchase should be so restrained.
§ The CHAIRMANThe same ruling applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton).
Major HAMILTONIs the part of my Amendment which says, "or by purchase with the previous consent in writing of the tenant of the said dwelling-house at the time of the said purchases" in order?
§ The CHAIRMANI think we had a long discussion on that question, and it has been negatived.
Major HAMILTONThis is another alternative, where the tenant has agreed to the purchase such purchase should be allowed, and it has nothing to do with the County Court at all.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is either a negative of what we have already done or it has no effect on the Bill. The same ruling applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir Samuel Roberts), and the hon. Member for Cornwall (Sir G. Croydon Marks).
§ The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir HERBERT NIELD:
§
At the end of the Clause to add:
(2) The said expression 'landlord' shall be deemed to apply only to a landlord of agricultural property or premises which are occupied by
1073
persons wholly or principally engaged in agriculture, or market gardening, or in the cultivation of small holdings when such occupation is part of the wages of such occupiers or is necessary for the performance of such employment.
(3.) Any such landlord as aforesaid shall not be entitled to recover possession until after notice to quit in writing has been duly served upon the tenant or person in occupation, and such notice shall specifically set forth the grounds upon which possession is claimed.
(4.) Provided that all proceedings for recovery of possession or for ejectment shall be commenced and brought in the County Court for the district in which the premises are situate and not otherwise; and no order shall be made or judgment given for possession unless the applicant satisfies the Court that the premises are required for the occupation of himself or some person in his employ or in the employ of some tenant of his, and that such premises have been accustomed to be occupied by him or his tenant or the servants of either of them in connection with or in relation to their employment and are bonâ fide so required to be used.
§ The CHAIRMANWith regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), I have given further consideration to that point, and I am quite clear that that again is an Amendment of the principal Act, and quite beyond the scope of the present Bill.
§ Sir H. NIELDI have searched the pages of Erskine May to find out the difference between a matter which is outside the Preamble and one which is outside the scope of a Bill, and Erskine May affords me no satisfaction, and it seems to me to be the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The expression "landlord" as used in the Act of 1915 is to be curtailed and defined, and if that is so, surely an Amendment which seeks to put affirmatively in the Bill the very reason why the word "landlord" was put in, is in order. This Amendment not only seeks to limit the word "landlord" but to make right the very mischief that has arisen by the decision of the Committee to except agriculture. I do not understand your ruling if you insist. That is the very thing that has caused the mischief, and yet it is outside the scope of the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANOn merits the arguments of the hon. Member may be perfectly sound, but that does not challenge the ruling of the Chair.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
1074§ The CHAIRMANAll the new Clauses on the Paper are, for the reasons I have already stated, beyond the scope of this Bill.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.