CLAUSE 4.—(Extension of Principal Act to Higher-rented Houses.)

HC Deb 11 March 1919 vol 113 cc1199-238

As from the passing of this Act the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall extend to houses or parts of houses let as separate dwellings where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where—

1. (a) in the case of a house situated in the Metropolitan Police district, including the City of London, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty-five pounds, and neither exceeds fifty-five pounds;
1200
2. (b) in the case of a house situated in Scotland, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty pounds, and neither exceeds forty-eight pounds;
3. (c) in the case of a house situated elsewhere, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed twenty-six pounds, and neither exceeds forty-two pounds;

and shall also extend to mortgages (not being mortgages to which the principal Act as originally enacted applies) where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more of such dwelling-houses as aforesaid or any interest therein, subject, however, to the exceptions mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section two of the principal Act, but in the application to those houses and mortgages the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall have effect, subject to the following modifications—

1. (i) for Sub-section (1) of Section one of the principal Act, exclusive of the provisoes to that Sub-section, the following provisions shall be substituted:
   • Where the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or the rate of interest on a mortgage to which this Act applies has been since the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is hereafter increased, then, if the increased rent exceeds by more than ten per centum the standard rent, or the increased rate of interest exceeds by more than one-half per centum per annum the standard rate, the amount of such excess shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable from the tenant and if paid may be recovered by the tenant in the manner and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section five of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917;
2. (ii) in Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section one of the principal Act the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifteen;
3. (iii) in Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act references to the date of the passing of the principal Act shall be construed as references to the date of passing of this Act;
4. (iv) in Sub-section (4) of Section one of the principal Act for the reference to the standard rate there shall be substituted a reference to the rate permitted by this Section;
5. (v) in Section one of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, for the reference to the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, there shall be substituted references to the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen.

Mr. ROWLANDS

I beg to move, after the word Act ["the passing of this Act"], to insert the words, and notwithstanding any notice that may have been given by the landlord to the tenant or any agreement entered into between the landlord and the tenant. I am particularly anxious to know whether these words are necessary in order to protect a large number of persons who at the present time are under notice to quit or to buy between now and the 25th of this month. It is a widespread, far-reaching question. It affects not only large numbers of the working classes, but the middle classes and the well-off middle classes. There are hundreds and thousands of these notices at the present time. People are trying to get houses and find it totally impossible to get them, and if something is not done to protect these people between now and the next quarter-day there will be a most serious state of things. I do not at the present time see clearly that these people are safeguarded in the principal Act. We have to recollect that the whole of this period, the whole of the proceedings to-night, and the whole of the proceedings of last Friday, have arisen out of this particular question, and unless these people are protected we shall not have gained the object for which we have been striving. While the Bill might have come up in due course as a result of the Hunter Report, I do not think we should have had it at this part of the Session had it not been for the great grievance under which thousands of people are suffering in regard to these notices to quit. From the South of England, Scotland, or Wales, one has by every post enormous correspondence on this subject. The grievance is far reaching, and the position will be of a most serious character unless these people are protected.

Mr. FISHER

I need hardly say that the Government are in entire sympathy with the object the hon. Member has in view, but I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary. His object is already secured under the principal Act. In Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Act of 1915, tenants are prevented from being evicted. Not only so, but the Sub-section is made to apply in cases where an eviction order has been made but not executed before the passing of the Bill, and enables the Court to revoke or vary the order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ROWLANDS

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words both the annual amount of the standard rent and. Those of us who have had some connection, with the Act of 1915 are particularly interested in this Amendment. In that Act, as in this Bill, we have had the alternative question of rateable value or rental value. Everybody who has had anything to do with the working of the Act of 1915 are of opinion that it would be very much better to adopt the rateable value rather than the rental value.

Amendment negatived.

Major LLOYD-GREAME

The Amendment which stands in ray name practically raises the same point as the last Amendment, whether it is to be rental or rateable value. As my hon. Friend's Amendment in favour of rateable value has been accepted, am I in order in moving this Amendment?

Mr. RAWLINSON

As the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Rowlands) was negatived, is this Amendment in order? Is there any difference between this Amendment and the other Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member had better move it and make his point.

Major LLOYD-GREAME

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words neither exceeds and to insert instead thereof the rateable value does not exceed. The question whether it is to be rateable value or rental value will make a very considerable difference in the attitude which Members will adopt on the Amendments which follow. We should naturally be prepared to accept a rather lower maximum figure if the test is to be rateable value, but if the standard is to be rental value we shall be compelled to press for a higher figure.

Mr. FISHER

I hope the Committee will be indulgent to me when I confess that I am very unfamiliar with the legal minutiæ of this measure, and feel at some disadvantage in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Hewart). But I remember hearing this matter discussed by those who are familiar with the legal technicalities of this Bill, and it seemed that rental value and rateable value ought to be stated in the Bill. I quite appreciate the fact mentioned by the hon. Member that if we go by rateable value we have a higher test than if we go by rental, and that consequently it will make a difference in the figure. I also appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his announcement only mentioned rateable value, and consequently created an expectation that that would be the sole test or standard. I must ask leave of the Committee for the moment to assume that in this Clause the £55 rental limit is lower than a rateable limit of £55, and consequently the Committee in discussing what the limit should be will proceed upon the assumption for the present that the Government are proposing £55 rental value.

Sir A. YEO

The right hon. Gentleman has not committed the Government in any way, and we shall not be satisfied by a long way unless this is raised to a very much higher figure.

Major LLOYD-GREAME

On the understanding that my right hon. Friend is going to be generous to me on my next Amendment I ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ROWLANDS

I beg to move to leave out the word "fifty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy-five."

This Amendment is of very great interest to a very large number of persons. Anyone, who has been following this question, and has read the correspondence that has been alluded to over and over again, which has reached us from all parts, is aware that the figure of £55 shuts out many thousands of persons who ought to come under this Bill. Many of my correspondents suggest having no figure at all; others go up to £100. I have letters from places for instance like Leigh-on-Sea, and other watering places round the coast, where large numbers of houses do not come within the scope of the £55. We have fixed £75 as a compromise between £55 and the higher figure which so many persons would desire. There are very large numbers of people who are in what may be called the "buy or quit" position, because it is supposed that they could in an emergency, not being able to get another house or flat, raise the money or part of the money to purchase the houses in which they live, and who would be excluded under the present Bill. This Amendment covers a very large number of flats throughout London and the suburbs. I am not speaking of residential flats which are furnished or in which there is attendance, but flats taken by people to furnish with their own furniture which would not come within the £55 limit. There is a great number of them in existence at present, and there is a great tendency to increase them by the conversion of large houses into maisonettes, and these would be also outside the scope of the present Bill. I hope the Government will accede to this very modest request.

Colonel THORNE

Does this Amendment simply mean a rental of £75? If so, the Government ought to accept it. The Leader of the House, a few days ago, gave us to understand that it would mean a rateable value of £55, and not the rental, which makes all the difference in the world. Therefore, if the Government accept the £75, it will be only meeting the argument put forward by the Leader of the House when he led us to believe that it meant a rateable value of £55.

Sir K. WOOD

I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. Some of the most deserving cases that have come before Members who have taken an interest in this Bill have been in reference to what I might call the middle or professional classes. I was very sorry to hear the statement on the Second Reading of the Bill that this was not a middle-class measure. The sooner that it is made a measure for the relief of a certain number of the middle-classes the better. There are large numbers of cases, especially in London in connection with flats as indicated by my hon. Friend, in which professional people have perhaps suffered almost more than any other class during the War, and yet my right hon. Friend the other day indicated that this Bill was going to give no relief whatever to them. I cannot understand the Government coming forward with such a proposal. At this time we ought to be able to give relief to the people who have suffered so much and certainly deserve that relief. I should myself prefer to vote for the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Major Lloyd-Greame), but I will take whatever I can get in this direction. I want the Government fully to realise that this deals with a case quite as deserving as that of the industrial wage earner. Some of the most severe cases affected by this Bill are amongst these people who have been struggling for the last three or four years under the most adverse circumstances, and who deserve the greatest amount of sympathy and some relief from the Government in this matter.

Major LLOYD-GREAME

Perhaps it will be convenient to the Committee if I were to move as an Amendment to this Amendment to insert the words "one hundred" instead of "seventy-five."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot do so at this stage, but if this Amendment is defeated he would then be in order.

Major LLOYD-GREAME

I may not have the chance later on of urging the point and therefore I would like to take this opportunity of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman in the same sense as I would have done if I were advancing my own Amendment. My right hon. Friend on the Second Reading said that he wished to extend as large a measure as possible of social justice under this Bill. I think I could give him the opportunity of satisfying his desire of extending a complete measure of social justice if he will accept the figure of one hundred. In this matter I hope to have the support of hon. Members opposite, who will now have the opportunity of giving practical expression to their desire to support workers with brains as well as with hands. There are, of course, brains on both sides. Frankly, I think, as I stated on the Second Reading, the strongest possible case can be made out for the middle class in this matter. They have given up an enormous amount during the War and have lost a large proportion of their numbers. They have made less out of the War than any other class of the community. I, therefore, think at this intermediate period, when the whole object of this Bill is to enable the people who are coming back to start again, that they are entitled to consideration. Moreover, it is between these limits of £50 and £100 that you have the hardest cases of all, and the biggest proportion of increases being made both by way of raising rent and enforcing premiums as a consideration for granting new leases, and also by people being compelled to purchase at absolutely outrageous prices in many cases. What I am asking is, I submit, not unfair to any party to this transaction. It is not unfair to the Government, because I am not asking the Government to give any money for this purpose. It is not unfair to the landlord, for two reasons. In the first place, these were not uneconomic-rented houses before the War. These houses were let at rents which satisfied the landlord as an economic investment in 1914. I should be perfectly willing, if my right hon. Friend will meet me in this, to agree to a further provision being inserted which would put upon these tenants a reasonable extra cost for repairs. But I have a strong objection to them being compelled to pay far more than the economic rents. The argument was also raised that it is unfair to do this because it will affect private enterprise and throw the burden on to the State. The President of the Board of Education particularly guarded himself in that respect because he has excluded from the operation of the present Bill any houses which are now being constructed or may hereafter be constructed. Therefore private enterprise is left absolutely free. I should like to draw attention to one other consideration, and that is that the lower you place your rental limit in this respect, the greater will be the competition for the houses within the limit. That was very clearly put in the Minority Report of Lord Hunter's Committee by Mr. Neville and Mr. Rider, in which they said: In our opinion the absence of any restriction of rents on houses not falling within the restrictions imposed by these Acts is bound to accentuate the demand for houses which are restricted and thus lender the problem of housing the working classes still more acute, which will remain until schemes of house-building mature. There is an abundance of information that the tenants of houses outside the scope of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, are being made to pay much higher rentals presumably to meet the landlords increased Income Tax. I submit that the figure of £100 is not unreasonable, and if it is accepted you will not be doing any injustice to any landlord, since the interests of landlords have been reasonably safeguarded under this Bill, while at the same time you will be doing as far as you can that complete measure of social justice which you say it was your desire to achieve.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if on this Amendment we took the discussion on three subsequent Amendments which deal with the same point as to the amount. I shall put the Question, "That the word 'fifty-five' stand part," so as to enable that discussion to take place.

Mr. N. M'LEAN

I have an Amendment further down on the Paper; how would that be affected?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is another matter.

Mr. M'LEAN

I desire to know if it would be ruled out?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think so.

Mr. CLYNES

I desire to support the views which have been urged upon my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill by the three hon. Members who have preceded me in the Debate. There is nothing that I can recall with which I do not fully agree. Though usually those of us who rise from these benches speak specially in the interests of those who are termed the working classes, we recognise that in regard to a measure of this kind there ought not to be any very precise class distinction as between those who are termed manual workers and those who are employed in other useful spheres of service. I especially endorse what has been said as to the very material sacrifices of the middle classes of this country during the course of the War, and I submit that that is a very good reason why the Government should broaden as far as possible the purpose and objects of this Bill, so as to extend very material and urgent relief to a class which has not been able during the period of the War to secure relief for itself in quite the same degree as very large numbers of industrial workers have been able to do. It is well known to us that a very large proportion of the brain workers and the middle-class employés of this country engaged in numerous businesses have not been able to secure the same advances in their salaries as the working classes have been in respect of their wages. That was particularly true in the first two and a half years of the War, when very serious suffering indeed was endured by very large sections of the middle classes. I am certain that those of us on these benches lose nothing in respect to the weight with which we may urge our own claims by admitting the justice of the claims of other sections of the community, and this is a case distinctly in which we can very well join hands and ask that the provisions of this Bill should be extended to this class. A further reason which I would urge upon my right hon. Friend is this, that during the period of the law which we are now proposing to amend there was a class of house not under that law occupied by persons of the middle class, and it is well known that the rents of those houses were materially increased and that they are constantly now being increased in different parts of the country. Some of my hon. Friends who have had to come almost for the first time for a long stay in London in connection with their Parliamentary duties have had some experience of this very lively enterprise of house hunting, and they have found not only how difficult it is to secure a habitation and a home, but how very costly it is to meet the charges which they are required to pay when any likely place does meet their eye. I think we shall not be completing this task and that the Government will not be making a good job on what is really a very good opportunity unless they do meet the views which have been urged by my hon. Friends who have pressed this Amendment, and accordingly those for whom I can speak on this side of the House are whole-heartedly in favour of the Amendment.

Sir A. YEO

I think the right hon. Gentleman must be seized of the fact, that the House has made up its mind, so far as its constitution at this moment is concerned, to expect that the Government shall increase the value very considerably. Though I have an Amendment down on the Paper that £85 should be the value, I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend who has asked that the figure should be raised to £100. I am sure that after the expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes) this House will speedily come to a decision and get this matter cleared off the Paper. There is no question about it that in all parts of the country people are not only being threatened with eviction, and having notices held over their heads with a view to getting out of their houses if they do not buy, but there is a very serious increase, in the letters in to-day's post, of cases of landlords who are insisting on raising their rents over the heads of the people to the extent of 25 per cent., 30 per cent., or even 50 per cent. If we do not increase the rateable value very soon and get this matter put right, there is no doubt about it that we shall bring upon our own heads and upon the heads of the Government more serious trouble than we care to appreciate. There is no question about it, whether it be for the middle class or the working class, that the Government are doing the right thing in bringing in this Bill, and I am quite sure that the time of the House will be saved if the right hon. Gentleman will say from that Bench now that he is prepared to give us the increase to £100.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I differ very much from the hon. Member who has just sat down in some of his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Clynes) drew a very eloquent picture, with which I entirely agree, of the sufferings of the middle-class. He said, quite rightly, that manual labour has received very much larger remuneration during the War than brain labour in comparison with what it received before. He pointed out the difficulties and the sufferings of the middle-class, and I am the last person to differ from him in what he said, but what is the logical outcome and what is the effect of the Amendment? We are to make the landlord suffer in some form or another. If this Amendment is carried, a very different class of property will be brought within the scope of the Act. I am not interested in any way in house property, and I do not therefore speak from my own point of view, but those who know about this matter know that house property in a very large number of cases, such as flats and so forth, is kept in proper repair by the landlord and could not be let otherwise. Repairs that cost £20 at the beginning of the War will cost more than £50 to-day. You have to get plumbers and people of that kind in, and all of them ask, of course, for more wages. Why should there not be a rise in the price of a flat which is let under those circumstances? How can you possibly make both ends meet if you do not? Again, I would point out that in a large number of cases this property, valued at £60 or £70, as the case may be, is owned by people of the middle-class. I am almost sorry to say that I spoke on the Second Heading of this Bill, because my intervention then has brought me so much correspondence since, and it has come from small people. The last letter I got was from a widow, and it is always fashionable in this House to introduce a widow whenever there is doubt about a question. I think even a bachelor is entitled to a certain amount of justice. In this case, a widow owns a certain amount of property of comparatively small houses—about £60 or £70—in the suburbs of London. She writes: I see the suggestion is made for an extension of the measure. I do hope you will oppose that in every way. Then the figures were given me as to the position. Certainly the rents are not excessive at the present time. The houses could be let at a very much larger sum. I simply say that if you are extending in this way an absolutely uneconomic Act, you may be doing an injury to the landlord. All the questions about repairs, which were raised in previous Amendments, do not apply here. This class of property must be kept in repair or it could not be let. The cost of repairs has gone up very largely, and in this class of property you will find sub-letting more common than in other forms of small-class property. I do submit that, though it may have been justifiable in 1915 to pass what was admittedly an uneconomic Bill to protect people who had to go to some places to earn wages, it is very unfair to extend it to a particular type of property running from £55 to £100. I know a certain class of flat property, the tenants of which went to the War, and in the interval the flats have been let to the general public. The understanding has always been that the people would come back to the property. It would even affect such property as that.

It has been suggested that some hon. Members find great difficulty in getting houses when they come to London. It is very desirable that they should get houses, when they come to London, but the effect of this Bill will be that they will not be able to get houses, because sitting tenants will be allowed to remain at the present vent, which will make it far harder for others to get houses. Those who try to get rooms find they have to pay very highly indeed for them, and if you extend the scope of this Bill it only hits the head landlord, and not the tenant who sublets. I asked on Friday whether this Bill did extend to furnished houses which were sub-let? and the Lord Advocate—I think it was—answered that certainly it did apply to furnished houses. I do not think that can be correct, and I do not think the subletting of furnished houses to tenants would be affected by this Bill at all. Therefore, if hon. Members have found difficulty in getting houses or rooms in London, this Bill, instead of helping them, will rather hurt them, because the present tenant will be able to keep his holding and sub-let it at any price he likes. Although possibly I am in a small minority, there is another side to the question of justice in this case. Though it may be justifiable in the case of small holdings, when people cannot protect themselves, you must certainly leave the question of contract open in the case of large holdings, including Hats of £80, £90, and £100 a year. A Bill of this kind, which is admittedly uneconomic, and is only justified in order to meet an emergency for a certain class of property, should not be extended in the way indicated, because there is no justice in it, and appeals on behalf of the middle class are absolutely beside the mark. The landlord has had to suffer with the rest of the community.

Mr. RENDALL

This Amendment is very popular, just as the Bill is popular. Hon. Members supporting the Bill, and moving Amendments to enlarge the number of houses that are to come under it, of course realise that they are speaking for the large majority in their constituencies, and therefore are eager to support a Bill which has got a large number of persons behind it.

Mr. ROWLANDS

It does not affect us.

Mr. RENDALL

I am not speaking of every Member, but of many Members, and, therefore, the actual right or wrong of an Amendment is apt to be put on one side, whilst hon. Members think of the amount of popularity they expect to gain by expressing opinions and moving Amendments which will extend the scope of this Bill. I do not know why they stop at £100.

Sir K. WOOD

Why does my hon. Friend stop at £55?

Mr. RENDALL

I suggest that when, the original Bill was brought in that would have been a very good time for hon. Members to move Amendments of this kind. I was present at those discussions, but I do not remember any Labour Member proposing to extend this Bill to people who pay rents of the kind which we are now talking about. It Was rather curious that we should have spent the whole of yesterday in criticising the Government for not taking restrictions off trade, but to-day a particular kind of trade—and a very valuable kind of trade—is to be penalised, for, after all, the building of houses by those persons who built them was of enormous advantage to us when the War came, and building became impossible. I do not for a moment suggest that they were philanthropists, but in providing these houses where they were badly wanted in particular places was of great advantage to the State, and why you should select this particular class, whose labour and whose property were of such advantage to the nation, for a special penalty, I cannot understand. Personally, I am quite open to say now that I am fully in favour of the nation buying and controlling a great many of the industries of this country. I am not at all ashamed of the fact that I am a Socialist, but my Socialism has always meant that, if the State takes anything, it pays full market value for it. The hon. Member opposite smiles, but that has been the doctrine of Socialists for a great many years.

Colonel THORNE

Who is going to decide the full market value?

Mr. RENDALL

It is perfectly well known to be what a thing will fetch at the time you sell it in the open market, and that market value is the value that would be paid by the State if it were going to buy out the railways. I, therefore, cannot understand why, when the State wants to interfere with control or to commandeer property, the property of certain persons, that it should not be willing to bear the burden which it is desirous of casting upon the owners of that particular property. It seems to me to be justice, and what the owner of the property ought to have. After all, when you consider that the owners of other kinds of investments in this country are practically unfettered—or will be in a very few weeks—as to the income they derive from their investments, when you remember that the Labour party—I will not say all, but many of them, and certainly the rest of the House—have got one desire, and that is to free the individual so that he may carry on his trade apart from all State restrictions, it is the more extraordinary that we should now be placing restrictions upon one trade unless—and this "unless" is very important—the community is prepared to pay the owner of that particular kind of property for anything that it takes from him. This, I say, seems to me to be justice.

In regard to this particular Amendment, I would suggest that the persons whom it is proposed to benefit by it have not made any claim to be benefited by it. There has been no demand in the country, so far as I have been able to see, from the newspapers, or by resolutions from public meetings; there has been no vocal demand of any kind from those whom this Amendment seeks to benefit, to try to get under the cover of this Bill. Why they should be introduced into the Bill at all I cannot understand. We all regret we all think it is a pity that these restrictions are required. The only justification of these restrictions is that the community really needs that they should be imposed for the benefit of the community. But there has been no argument placed before the Committee that I have heard this afternoon or evening which says that the particular persons covered by this Amendment, and proposed to be benefited by it, have been injured, or wished this remedy given to them. It seems to me to be a mistake to increase the scope of the Bill in the way suggested.

Mr. ROWLANDS

Would the hon. Gentleman like to spend a day going through the correspondence we have received?

9.0. P.M.

Mr. RENDALL

I am quite prepared to admit that once you put a Bill on the floor of the House that everybody who thinks, or hopes that he may get some benefit from it, will write letters to hon. Members. That is quite apart from the general management. After all, we have to remember that this Bill is not going to cover the case of new property that will be built after it has passed. That is to say, if a man builds houses after this Bill has become an Act, that man will be able to charge a rent which is above the standard rent. So far, it may be said, that the Act will, therefore, not discourage building. It however remains the fact that the builder and the person who has got land for building will feel that they have had three Acts passed in the last three or four years which do restrict the profit the landlord may get from his property, and they will feel that it is extremely likely that another Bill may be passed that will bring into the scope of these various Acts the property they will build. Consequently, a man looking at it in that way will not build. A builder will feel that the whole position of house property is in jeopardy. He will not put his money into it. So far as private speculation and private building is concerned, men will be at a loss to know what is likely to happen—certainly for the duration of these Acts. They will interfere with the absolute possibility of building small, and even big, houses inside the radius which this Bill will deal with until it comes to an end. That is an extremely serious matter. There is another thing. There can be no selling of any property covered by this Act. There may be a forced sale under exceptional circumstances. The holder will not know what his property is worth, and the would-be purchaser will not know, and will, therefore, be unwilling to take the risk of buying something which the State has decided he will not get more than a certain income from for a certain period of time, while at the end of that period the State may again intervene, whether for or against the property it is difficult to prophesy. Can hon. Members of the Labour party, or indeed in any other quarter of the House, realise what would happen if you were to say concerning a certain article in this country, "You shall not buy or sell that article for two years"? That, most people would urge, is a most extraordinary thing to say, and to say it by legislation. If may be necessary to say so in this case. I quite agree that it was necessary to pass the original Act, though there is something to be said against that form of legislation; but to say that the State should interfere in respect of property letting at £70, £80, or £100 per annum, seems to me to be doing something quite unnecessary, something which has not been asked for, and which will be a great block upon capital and a great block upon property as an investment, and place the latter in a category where no man will touch it. It will make house property stink in the nostrils of the British public. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite may smile.

Colonel THORNE

Hand it over to the State!

Mr. RENDALL

Exactly, if the State will buy it at the market price, I am in favour of it. But I am speaking of something now of which I really know. If tomorrow someone comes into my office and inquires about house property, what answer can I give him?

An HON. MEMBER

Say it stinks in the nostrils!

Mr. RENDALL

That really is the only answer I could give. In saying that you are saying something which so far as I can see is, I think, going to be the effect of this restraint on property in this country. I cannot think the extension of this Bill beyond what is actually necessary is desirable. I submit that the proposal in the Bill goes as far as we ought to go. I hope, therefore, that the Government will feel that the Amendment which has been proposed should be refused; that they will see that to pass the Bill in the form introduced is right. I honestly believe that that is so far as the need has been proved to exist. To go beyond that need would be disastrous.

Captain Sir H. NORRIS

I happen to be one of those abominations known as landlords. I should like to state at once that as far as I am concerned I have never given a tenant notice to quit, nor have I ever raised my rent. In regard to the Bill itself, I must confess I do not like it. I think it seeks to impose upon one particular class of the community restrictions which have never been imposed upon another. It is supported by hon. Members who in their own occupations have not hesitated to charge for their pianos and mangles 100 to 150 per cent. above the charges of pre-war days. In regard to the standard rent I am bound to confess that if you are to impose restrictions upon houses of which the rental value is £55 per annum, the Bill ought to be extended to those of £100, because I can see no reason why the one class of landlord should be taxed over and above any other class. If landlords are to be protected in that way, the same measure of justice ought to be measured out to all alike. So far as I am personally concerned, I hope the Government will extend the limit to £100, or even wipe away the limit altogether.

Major NEWMAN

This Bill is only a temporary one, for two years at outside, and at the end of two years we are told the landlord is to reap his reward. He is now able to turn out his tenants and raise his rent and recoup himself, but if in two years' time he is to have a chance of raising his rent 10 per cent. he is not doing so very badly. I am very sorry the two classes of houses have been mixed up in the discussion—that is, the house of the working man and the house of the middle class. It is evident that what the working man dreads is having his weekly rent raised, but what the middle-class man dreads is being turned out of his house. He does not mind paying 10 per cent., 15 per cent., or 20 per cent. more rent if he can only stay in his house, and it is being turned out when he has nowhere else to go that is upsetting him.

Some hon. Members have stated that they have received no letters of complaint from the middle class, but I have had many such letters every day, and I do not think there are many hon. Members who can say truthfully that they have not had letters to a similar effect. The hon. Member opposite said that people who sold pianos were able to get more money for them, and the same applied to mangles, and therefore he asked why should the landlord not be able to get more rent? People do not live by pianos or mangles alone. Suppose a tenant is turned out. He has to go somewhere, and at present there is nowhere he can go. Therefore, it is not a case of pianos or mangles, but the man has to go somewhere. For two years we have given him the chance of staying in his house, and at the end of that time something may happen. For two years the middle-class man has a chance of staying in his house. I rather hesitate to put before the Committee the remarks of a German made a good many years ago. Bismarck once told the public "that a citizen in Germany should eat below his means, should dress above his means, and pay rent according to his means." You may take as a general standard that a man should pay rent to the extent of one-eighth of his income. No man feels this hardship more than the man who has got £500 or £600 a year. Before the War that man could have taken a house rented at £65 or £75 a year. If that man is now turned out he will find it impossible to get any house at all. I think the limit ought not to be lower than £75. I think these men with fixed incomes which have half the purchasing power they had before the War should, at any rate, when paying a pre-war rent between £65 and £75 a year, have the protection which this Bill gives. I support the Amendment before the House, but I do not bind myself to the figure of £100.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS

I support the Amendment to make the limit £100, because it is the highest that has been named, and I do so because I believe every class of the community should have protection and justice, and people who live in those houses are entitled to the same fair play as other people. I think the landlords of this particular class have been very fortunate during the time the principal Act has been running. The Bill before us and the principal Bill that we have been living under as far as small property is concerned for some considerably time was necessitated because of the War, and because building had been stopped, and it has been stopped for nearly five years. I do not think there will be many houses ready for habitation much under another two years, so that there will practically have been seven years without any new houses. I think people are entitled to protection because of that position. Looking forward, I do not think there will be houses in any sense of sufficiency for the next ten years. For a long time in the history of this country there has been a scarcity of houses. Landlords had more than one applicant for every house before the War commenced, and there will now be twenty or100 applying for every house, and if there is not some restriction landlords can got what price they like and exploit to what extent they like. I think these people are entitled to the protection of the Government, and that is why I am pleading that this amount should be raised from £55 up to £100, which is the highest figure we have. It is not a matter that will affect my Constituency, which is concerned chiefly with small workmen's houses, but I have risen because I feel that every class in the community is entitled to the same measure of justice.

Captain R. GUINNESS

I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. In my Constituency there are a large number of people living in moderately large houses, and they will find themselves turned out into the street at an early date unless the limit is raised, because many of their houses have been bought over their heads, and I can see no other remedy than that of bringing the value of their houses within the scope of this Bill. For these reasons I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

May I add my few words of appeal to the Government? This Bill has been brought about because of certain well-advertised mischiefs. Those mischiefs exist as much in the case of houses between the rents of £50 and £90 as they do in the case of houses between the present limit of £35 and £55. I was glad to hear from the Labour Benches the declaration that regardless of the wealth or poverty of tenants they are entitled to the protection of the State where there is an attempt to exploit them through abnormal circumstances which are entirely due to the War. Judging from the speech of the Minister for Education last Friday, the attitude of the Government rather seems to be that they are dealing with the case of the wage-earning class. Even supposing that to be the case, the wage-earning class are, if anything, more affected in the case of houses rated between £55 and £90 than they are in the case of houses rated between £35 and £55, because when you come to the more highly rated houses you have a state of things which is peculiar to what I may call war conditions Houses of from £50 to £80 or £90 are comparatively large houses, and you have cases of two or three tenants of the wage-earning class combining to go in with a common tenancy. That is so in the case of my own Constituency of East Ham South, and it is much more the case in other places, and particularly in munition areas. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman) speaks of having received certain letters. I do not suppose that I should be exaggerating if I said that since this matter was raised, ten days ago, I have had something like 5,000 letters from different parts of the country, apart altogether from the letters which have been received by the organisation.

Mr. JOHN JONES

That is more than the Prime Minister's bag.

Mr. EDWARDS

I am sorry I did not hear the interruption of the hon. Member. The vast majority of those letters are from people living in houses which are rated above the limit provided for in the Bill, and they tear that they are going to be turned out bag and baggage on 25th March or at the June quarter without any remedy at all. If the Government are really sincere, as I believe them to be, in trying to prevent the mischief of these people being turned out into the street unless they are prepared to subscribe to an unconscionable contract that some landlords are attempting to put upon them because of the abnormal War conditions, then I beg of them to manifest that sincerity by raising the present limit to such an amount as will enbrace the whole of the mischief.

Mr. N. M'LEAN

This Amendment only affects England, but I am interested in it because later on I have a similar Amendment with regard to Scotland. I wish to suggest to those Members of the House who have been finding fault with us for wishing to have the rent increased that we are taking the matter up from a purely business point of view. One Member wanted to know why yesterday we were opposing restrictions and why to-day we are in favour of them. The restrictions that we were opposing yesterday were upon things that in the main are plentiful, but the restriction which we are supporting to-day is upon a thing which has a scarcity value. We have to look at the matter from this point of view. Everything that is produced by labour and that is consumable, whether clothing or furniture or anything that is manufactured, becomes of less value the more that we use it, but during this War the landlord has upset the economic theory and has shown that the more you use a house that is produced by labour the more valuable it becomes. The more that has been received by some of them has not been because houses have increased in value but because houses have become more scarce, and because they have been able to put a monopoly value upon them. [An Hon. Member: "No!"] I say yes. [An Hon. Member: "And I say No!"] I have letter beside me proving it. My hon. Friend on the other side (Mr. Clement Edwards) said that he had received 5,000 letters, and if the rest of us are getting letters at the same rate I am afraid that the Post Office authorities are being severely taxed. Housing accommodation has become scarce because of the action of the Government during the War in withdrawing all licences to build houses. Consequently, it is only just and right that the Government to-day should increase the limit to cover the people whom we are asking to be covered. Unless that is done; there will be a greater outcry from a larger section of the community. It is no use saying that this matter only affects a few. It affects a great number. It affects people all over the country, in Scotland as well as in England, although according to the bill one would imagine that we pay lower rents in Scotland than you do in England. I can tell you that so far as convenience and accommodation go houses are more expensive in Scotland than in England. Yet you are giving us a lower rental. I have letters, though not 5,000—I do not intend to read them all—some of which I will read, showing that this Bill is not going to touch people who have moved into a better district in order to give their children a better environment, and who have received notice to quit. I have a notice to quit in my hand. It was sent on by a tenant who has received notice to quit at the May term. Because he refused to purchase his house at an increased price of £300 over its pre-war value, he has been asked to leave the house at the May term coming along in Scotland. This man must be protected, and I hope the Government, as they have been pleaded with by hon. Members in various parts of the Committee, will agree to extend the limit up to £75 a year, even if they cannot extend it as high as £100.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)

I have listened with very great care to the Debate on this matter. We have reached the kernel of the Bill, and one therefore thought it right to let the Debate develop before the answer of the Government was given. I have been impressed by the speeches that have been made. The Committee will agree that the questions which have been raised are not only important but also difficult. The difficulty is this, that with a Bill of this kind you can try to be logical, but it is very difficult. You have, in the last resort, to be arbitrary in fixing your figures, and there are bound to be hard cases on both sides whichever figure you happen to fix on. Therefore, it becomes necessary that one should proceed with considerable caution in extending the ambit of the Bill as it has been presented to the House of Commons after very full care and deliberation. You may hit very hard people whom you do not intend to hit hard in the course of extending the ambit of the Bill now before the Committee. One has to remember that not only are all owners of small houses not rich people, but that neither are all tenants of small houses at all times poor people. It may be the case that they are in many instances, but you must remember the case which has been referred to, that of the widow. It is very often cited in this House, and it is sometimes received with derision. But, in this particular case, it ought not to be, as many members of the Committee must have received letters, as I have done, from persons extremely hard hit by the operations of the Act which it is proposed to amend. I have known of cases in my own Constituency where there, have been old ladies of straitened means who possess a certain amount of small house property, and who, in consequence of the increased cost of living and of repairs, have been by its operation reduced almost to penury. One has to remember the cases on both sides of the line, the case of the impecunious owner as well as of the impecunious tenant. In these circumstances it behaves one to proceed with considerable caution in extending the operation of this Act. But, after listening to the Debate and to the speeches, I would suggest to the Committee that the most reasonable compromise which might be arrived at would be that the Government should substitute for the figures now in the Bill the following figures: £70 for London, £60 for Scotland, and £52 for the provinces. If that is done, the Committee will observe that the figures in the existing Act of Parliament, which were very carefully considered—I remember very well being concerned with the consideration of these figures when the Act was passed—would be exactly doubled in London, in the provinces, and in Scotland. Accordingly, if the Committee take that course they will follow a certain principle which was embodied in the original Act, which has been put into operation since that Act was passed, and which on the whole, although there may have been hard cases on both sides, has worked with success. I therefore recommend this concession by the Government as fine of considerable value, and while it does not meet the higher Amendments which have been moved, it is, I think a reasonable proposal, and it follows the principle in the original Act.

An HON. MEMBER

When the right hon. Gentleman refers to London, does he mean the Metropolitan Police district, as referred to in the Act?

Mr. MUNRO

Yes.

Major NEWMAN

Docs the £70 mean the rateable value or the standard rent, or both?

Mr. MUNRO

What I propose is to substitute these figures for the figures in the Bill. The Bill will then read In the care of a house situated in the Metropolitan Police district, including the City of London, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house, or part of the house, exceed thirty-five pounds, and neither exceeds seventy pounds. It is a perfectly simple proposal to substitute these three figures for the figures now in the Bill.

Mr. JOSEPH JOHNSTONE

I think the Secretary for Scotland has met us fairly well in regard to these figures. I had down an Amendment to apply to Scotland the figure "sixty" in lieu of "forty-eight," and so far as I am concerned I am perfectly satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has offered us. I quite agree with all he said about the effect of this Bill, that it is to meet abnormal conditions, and that the most clamant conditions just now is not the amount of the rental but the scarcity of houses, with the threat that people are going to be turned out into the street with nowhere to go. Now, by the raising of the limit, the Secretary for Scotland has met us fairly well, and a large measure of protection will be given to a class of people with no protection at the present time, and who have been pretty helpless throughout the War. This concession should be taken as the right hon. Gentleman has offered it, and it will then allow us to go on and pass the Bill. So far as I am concerned I heartily welcome the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. ROWLANDS

I am pleased to think that the Secretary for Scotland has broadened out the measure somewhat, and I wish he could have seen his way to have gone at least as far as my Amendment asks, and to have made £75 the limit. Then I think it would have met the great difficulty of the position of a large number of firms. But I suppose, if the Government will not go any further, the best thing I can do is to accept this offer, and withdraw my Amendment. I do not see any other course open to me. I am very pleased that we have got so far as we have, although, while we were about it, I think the Government might have gone a little further and have come to a compromise between the amount mentioned in my Amendment, and that asked for by other people. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In paragraph (a), at end, leave out the word "fifty-five" ["fifty-fire pounds"], and insert instead thereof the word "seventy."—[Mr. Munro.]

Mr. J. JOHNSTONE

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to leave out the word "forty-eight" ["forty-eight pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sixty."

This is in accordance with the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. BUTCHER

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after word "the" ["the rateable value"], to insert the word "net."

As a matter of fact there have been cases in the Courts quite recently—there was one in the County Court in Yorkshire where there was a lot of discussion, which cost something to decide—as to whether the word "rateable," in the old Act, meant gross rateable or.net rateable, and the decision was that it meant net rateable value. That, I understand, is the intention of the authors of the present Bill, because in the Debate on the 7th March, when the Second Reading of the Bill was under discussion, the hon. Member for Cambridge asked the Lord Advocate whether net rateable or gross rateable value was intended. The answer of the Lord Advocate was that in England it was meant to be net rateable value, and we, therefore, propose to make it quite clear by inserting the word "net" in this case.

Mr. MUNRO

I accept that Amendment on behalf of the Government.

Sir J. BUTCHER

My right hon. Friend will not forget that that will involve on Report a consequential alteration in an earlier part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (c), leave out the word "forty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "fifty-two."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Major NEWMAN

I beg to move, in paragraph (i), to leave out the words fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and to insert instead thereof the words twenty-fifth day of December, nineteen hundred and eighteen.

Mr. FISHER

I shall be happy to accept that Amendment.

Major NEWMAN

There is only one point I would like to raise. Is the 25th December a convenient day or should it be the 24th?

Mr. FISHER

I am advised that the 25th is the more suitable date, but I will inquire, and, if necessary, amend on Report

Mr. RAWLINSON

Surely the Government has submitted this Bill as one carefully thought out! It is somewhat extraordinary when an hon. Member gets up to move an Amendment, the purport of which he is not allowed to describe, the Government accept it. Before the question is put, and before this most drastic change is agreed to—and I am not saying that it is good or bad—I submit the Government should give some sort of reason why they are going to make the Bill retrospective in this way to the extent of three months.

Mr. RENDALL

I hope I shall not be accused of wasting the time of the Committee, but I think we are justified in asking for an explanation of this Amendment As far as I understand it, the standard rent is going to be dated back to 25th December. For the main body of houses covered by this Bill that may be all right, but suppose, after the 25th December, the rent of a house has been put up by £10, from £50 to £60, and in the course of January the owner decides to sell and meets a purchaser who is willing to give so much for the property on the basis that the rent is £60 per year. At that moment there is no law which interferes at all with the landlord asking that amount of rent from the tenant, and consequently the purchaser is perfectly justified in saying, "the house is worth so much, inasmuch as the tenant is paying £60 per year, and I will therefore purchase it at that price." At that time there will have been no interdiction or restriction in regard to the rent. There is a willing vendor and a willing purchaser at the higher rent. Now it is proposed by putting the date back to December to lay it down that £60 is not the standard rent, and that the actual rent which can be recovered from the tenant will be not what he has agreed to pay but what he was paying in December. It will be, in fact, £50 instead of £60. That seems to be very unfair to the purchaser who has bought, believing he can recover the rent of £60. Now we are going retrospectively to pass a law which will say to him he shall not get £60, although the tenant has already agreed to pay that amount, and he is to lose the £10 simply because the tenant agreed to pay it after 25th December. I say that is robbing the purchaser to the extent of £10 per year, and I cannot conceive that anybody in this Committee will think that that is a just proposal. I cannot see any answer at all to the argument which I have ventured to put, and therefore I think you are bound, unless you are going to compensate all the purchasers who have bought under such circumstances, to stick to the date in your Bill, and to say that the rent being paid at that date shall be the rent of the house. It would be outrageous to take any other course, and I suggest that this Amendment ought not to be accepted. If it is accepted we should have some explanation of the reasons which have induced the Government to take that course.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

There is another point which has to be borne in mind. There have been a great many contracts entered into, and it will need a saving clause inserted to deal with non-fulfilment of those contracts if you make this legislation retrospective. There may be cases where people who lived in more highly-rented houses—rents above these figures—decided to economise and sell and go into smaller houses, and this new provision may render their position worse than before. Whichever way you turn there is going to be some heavy injustice done, and I want the Committee to consider the amount of trouble, friction, and litigation which will most certainly arise if you make this legislation retrospective. I do not think that this Amendment has been adequately considered by the Government. Surely they do not realise that if it is inserted in the Bill there will simply be no end to the trouble that will result.

Mr. INSKIP

I agree that some explanation of this position is necessary. Why should 25th December, 1918, be taken as the date? This Clause provides that any excess shall be recoverable if it has been paid by the tenant. We are making retrospective a provision which will have the effect of confiscating the property which a man has come by in pursuance of his right at a time when he received the money. This Amendment is accepted by the Government without explanation and without justification of any sort or description, either on the ground of expediency or of principle. We are entitled to some explanation showing what is the principle upon which the Amendment is based.

Major NEWMAN

May I point out to the Committee that the principle contained in the principal Act is retrospective? That Act was passed into law on the 25th December, 1915, and it was made retrospective to the 25th November, 1915. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When hon. Members speak about retrospective legislation, why do they not observe that the principal Act is retrospective?

Mr. RENDALL

That was for one month; this is for three months.

Mr. RAWLINSON

May I point out the I difference between the Bill as it stands and the Bill as it will be amended? The Bill as it stands is going to operate from the 4th March, which is not the date of the passing of the Bill but the date when the matter was brought forward by the Government in this House. That is a very common and a proper thing to do, but it is very different from passing retrospective measures. I should very much like to know from the Minister of Education any defence he has for retrospective legislation. I am not saying that it is right or wrong in this case, but there should be some explanation. The hon. Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow (Mr. Macquisten) and the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) are both eminent lawyers and know the tremendous importance of passing retrospective legislation, i protest against the Government legislating in this way at a quarter to ten at night without adequate explanation. There may be a good explanation The Amendment may be justified, but it requires a full explanation and justification, because legislation of a retrospective character is likely to do a large amount of evil.

Mr. FISHER

The discussion to which we have listened has brought into very clear relief the difficulties and dangers which surround this kind of legislation. It interferes with the normal operation of contracts; it interferes with private property. It is an undesirable type of legislation. It is emergency legislation. It is legislation introduced in order to meet a particular grievance, very acute, and pressing with great severity upon a class of the community which is very little able to protect itself. It is for this reason, and this reason only, that it is proposed to continue this emergency legislation for a further term. Now the question arises as to whether it is desirable that any power given under the Bill should be retrospective. I can enter entirely into the feelings of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), who, with his usual lucidity and force, explained the dangers of retrospective legislation. But we have to take into consideration two things. In the first place, the principal Act, as has been already pointed out, was retrospective—

Mr. RENDALL

For one month.

Mr. FISHER

It was from December to August.

Mr. RAWLINSON

It was retrospective from the date the Bill was brought in, not from the time of its passing. Following that, this Bill should date from the 4th March.

Mr. FISHER

The Bill passed in December and went back to the 4th August. In fact, it was retrospective to a very much greater extent than the present proposal. That is one consideration which the Committee ought to bear in mind. The second consideration is that as soon as you have this kind of legislation—temporary, exceptional—you have almost, inevitably an expectation that this legislation will be continued. Human nature being what it is—I blame no one—is it not only reasonable to suppose that owners of property would, on the assumption that this legislation is to be continued, take the opportunity of raising their rents before the principal Act was, in fact, continued? That opportunity has, in fact, been very freely taken. It has come to the notice of the Government that between the 1st January and the present date there has been a very large number of cases in which the tenant has been informed that he must either buy or quit. The reason which has prompted the Government to accept this Amendment is that we feel, in accordance with the precedent that was set when the principal Act was passed, that we ought to afford this measure of protection to such tenants who are suffering. Those are the reasons which prompted me to accept this Amendment. I must apologise to the Committee for having accepted it without explanation. I need hardly say I did not desire to be discourteous to the Committee, but I was under the impression that the Amendment would be received with feelings of acceptance, and I accepted it in order to save time.

Mr. S. JOHNSTONE

In Scotland for this class of house taken by the twelvemonth the notice required to be given by the tenant must be before 28th February.

Major NEWMAN

Which class of house?

Mr. JOHNSTONE

The class covered by this Bill. The class that is raised to £60 per annum. The lower rated houses are taken by the month, but this class of house is rented by the year, and in order for the tenant to have his house for twelve months he must take it prior to 20th February, and the landlord, if seeking to put the tenant out of the house or to let to another tenant, must give him notice prior to 28th February. So in Scotland we have had a large number of people who have been warned out of their houses, and if this alteration had not been made to make the Bill retrospective, it would have afforded no redress if the date 4th March had been retained. Therefore I welcome most heartily the proposal, and its acceptance by the Government to make it retrospective.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

I understand the Government has accepted an Amendment to make the date 25th December. I suggest that very serious confusion will probably arise through that date being put in. The 25th is quarter-day. To fully carry out the Government's intention, for which I would desire to thank and congratulate them, the date ought to be 24th December.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

After the word "increased" ["or is hereafter increased"], insert the words "and such increase would apart from this Act have been recoverable." After the word "tenant" ["irrecoverable from the tenant"], insert the words "or the mortgagor as the case may be."—[Mr. Fisher.]

Mr. FISHER

I beg to move, after the word "tenant" ["recovered by the tenant"], to insert the words "or mortgagor."

Mr. RENDALL

I should like to understand what we are putting in.

Mr. MUNRO

This is a purely drafting Amendment. The earlier part of the Clause deals with rent and mortgage interest, and in the latter part of the Clause there was an omission to refer to mortgage interest.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ROWLANDS

I beg to move to leave out the words (ii) in Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section one of the principal Act the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifteen. 10.0 P.M.

I do not know how far this is covered by the alterations which have been made. It varies the dates in the principal Act, and it will want to be altered. If it remains as it is it will not carry back as we have just carried back the date with regard to the previous portion of the Clause, and I think this date ought to be set back the same as the date has been set back above. There has been much discussion about retrospective legislation. I was astounded to hear some of the remarks from legal gentlemen, especially those who were here when the original Act was passed in 1915. If ever you want a piece of retrospective legislation, it was that measure. We passed it in November and December of 1915, and the date fixed for the standard rent was 4th August, 1914. That was very drastic retrospective legislation. What we are doing to-day is nothing compared with it, if you want an example as to how far retrospective legislation can go. If the Clause remains as it is it will be impossible for any person who, during the last quarter, has had his rent raised to get anything back from the landlord, and there are many cases where before the legislation was announced the tenant, under the fear of giving up the house, and no other house being obtainable, submitted to very great extortions indeed I can give you cases where they have submitted to an extortionate increase of rent, three times as large as that within this Act of the 10 per cent. and even more than that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this his serious consideration, and give me his opinion whether he cannot allow this paragraph to go entirely out or else alter the dates to agree with the other dates.

Mr. FISHER

I am afraid the Government is unable to accept the Amendment because the effect of it would be that we should have to go back to 25th November, 1915, obviously carrying the doctrine of retrospection a little far. On the other hand, it is quite clear, after the concession which the Government has just made, that the words "fourth day of March" have to be amended to "twenty-fifth day of December," and that Amendment I shall proceed immediately to move.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

May I Have the Government Amendment?

Mr. FISHER

I am advised that I am in error. This 4th of March stands. It is the question of notice.

Mr. ROWLANDS

I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (v).

This raises a very important point. As the Clause stands with this paragraph in it neutralizes, if not entirely abolishes, the amending Act of 1918. In 1918 an amending Act of the principal Act was passed in order to meet a difficulty which had arisen and had become very acute. Anyone who likes to wade through the Debate that took place in 1918 on the passing of the amending Act will realise the importance of the case. Clause 1 of the amending Act of 1918 says: For the purposes of this Subsection the expression 'landlord' shall not include any person who since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, 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. I do not say it may not be necessary to amend the date in the Bill now before the House, but I do think that to pass the Clause as it stands and to abolish the 1918 Act is far too drastic an action. Paragraph (c), which I move to leave out provides: In Section one of the Increase of Kent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, for the reference to the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, there shall be substituted references to the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen. Therefore, you virtually get rid of the whole value of the 1918 Act if this Clause becomes law with the insertion of paragraph (v). We who have had to deal with the case and who are acquainted with many instances of bogus sales of houses for the purpose of getting the tenant out remember the cases that have had to go before the County Court where in many instances we were pleased to find that the County Court judge, saw through the bogus sale that had put up and declined to call upon the tenant to give up possession. I seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not in some way meet this difficulty if he thinks the date of the principal Act which I am asking for goes too far, at least let us have a date coming somewhat between the date in the Bill, the 4th March, and the date of the principal Act.

Mr. RENDALL

Here we are again trying to decide what is to fee done with a perfectly innocent purchaser of property, say, in January or February last or on any other date before 4th March. A man buys property then, and there is no legislation in existence which interferes with his right to get possession of that property by giving the ordinary legal notice prescribed by the agreement between the old landlord and the tenant. Believing that he can give three months' notice, or it may be six months or a year's notice, to the tenant, he very likely gives notice to his old landlord that he will leave the house he is living in. That notice may be expiring now and he may have bought the house for the purpose of occupying it, and have lost any legal right to go on occupying the house he is now living in. My hon. Friend proposes that the expectation, perfectly legal and even moral, which the man has of being able to occupy the house he has bought is to be taken away from him upon the ground that we think it right to make this legislation retrospective. I cannot see that that is necessary and I do not think it is right. I think we ought not to make it retrospective at all before the date on which it was first announced to the public by the Government that they intended to deal with this matter. That announcement was made on 4th March. On that date and not before that date the country had notice of the intention of the Government, and any man who bought property after that date bought it at his own risk, knowing he would not be able to get occupation. The man who bought before that date did so feeling certain that he would be able to get occupation. He had no idea that any legislation would be passed to interfere with his getting occupation. I do not think, therefore, you have the right to make this legislation retrospective and to affect an innocent party who has bought and may have paid a considerable sum for a house, in order to assist a tenant upon whom a perfect legal notice has been served in accordance with the agreement between landlord and tenant. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO

The object of the Sub-section is very easily explained. The Committee will remember that under the original Act passed in 1915 the landlord was entitled to resume possession of his house if he was able to show that he required it for his own use. It was found that people got round the provisions of that Act by purchasing houses and turning out their tenants. Accordingly the Act of 1918 was passed, rendering that process illegal. We proposed that this Section should be omitted, but, after conference with those who advise the Govern- ment on this entirely technical question, I am assured that the acceptance of the Amendment which has been moved would not in any way affect the vitality and the useful operation of the Bill which is now before the Committee. Therefore, I see no objection to accepting the Amendment, and I propose to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RENDALL

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words, (vi) notwithstanding Section one of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, or anything contained in this Act, a person who has entered into a valid contract before the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, to acquire a dwelling-house shall be deemed the landlord under Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act on or after the completion of his purchase. Having regard to the alteration of the date in the Bill to the 25th December, my Amendment will have to read, "a person who has entered into a valid contract before the 25th day of December, 1918."The only object of my Amendment is that there should be no legal quibble as to who is the owner of the property. I suggest that in this matter the man who has entered into a bonâ fide contract for the purchase of a house prior to the appointed day should be allowed to have the rights of a landlord, though the actual conveyance may not have been signed, sealed and delivered. I am not certain that, having regard to the fact that we have put the date back three months, that my Amendment has the value which it would have had if the date had been left 4th March, because it is not at all likely that there will be contracts which have been entered into as long ago as December, 1918, which have not been already completed. Therefore, I shall not press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman says he does not see the necessity for it.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. I can conceive an extraordinary state of things arising out of these cases—I believe there are thousands of them—of what has been called the bogus sale. What would happen if the Amendment were accepted would be that the man of straw who has been made nominal purchaser would be treated as the landlord, whereas the real landlord would still have his power but would be outside the purview of this Act and would, therefore, be able to do things in a way which this Act is intended to prevent.

Mr. FISHER

As the hon. Member has not pressed his Amendment, and for the reasons which have been indicated, I trust that it will be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RAWLINSON

I would like to know from the Secretary for Scotland what the effect of the Amendments which we have accepted will be in the concrete cases to which reference has been made? For instance, where the tenant under a notice to quit had his tenancy determined on the 26th or 28th of December last, and some other tenant has been put into possession, does he save his rights under this Bill as against the landlord? Or suppose that the tenancy has been for some amount, say, £60, larger than that which is allowed by this Bill, is the landlord entitled to recover more than 10 per cent. of this amount, assuming that the rent has been raised since 24th December? If the tenant has paid his rent voluntarily, can he sue the landlord to recover? I understand that he can. Considering the great difficulty of ascertaining people's rights and the advantage of learning before the Report stage the exact position, I should be glad if we could have some rough indication of what is the intention of the Government in reference to the tenants who are paying a larger rent from 24th December.

Mr. RENDALL

Having regard to the fact that there are now a great many contracts between vendors and purchasers, all prepared, which stand to be completed on 25th March, which is a. very usual date In this country, and that many of these contracts contain a clause in which the vendor undertakes to give possession on 25th March, because he has given what is under the existing legislation legal notice, it would be very interesting to the Committee to be told whether a contract of that kind is valid, and if not, how far is it valid, and if a vendor will be able to compel a purchaser to buy his house according to the agreement under the contract, or whether purchaser will be able to say to the vendor, "No; you thought you gave legal notice but the law has been altered, and you cannot compel the tenant to give occupation." The purchaser may then say, "I am not willing to pay the money I promised for this house." I think, when the Government are putting forward legislation which will alter the law and which will interfere with many thousands of contracts, that it is desirable that the general community should know exactly what the legal position will be under the law as proposed.

Sir F. YOUNG

I should like to put a case which arises amongst the houses coming under the Bill for the first time and that is the possibility of a tenant going to a landlord and exploiting his very natural desire to get the highest rent possible, offers him, say, a 50 or 100per cent. increase on the rent paid at the end of last year. The tenant in occupation, not being able to pay the increased rent has to go out and the new-comer becomes the occupier at the increased rent. Under this Bill that man who made the offer, having got rid of the other tenant, reverts back to that man's position as regards rent.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

On a point of Order. There is no particular Amendment before the Committee, and there are many Amendments to be disposed of. I suggest time ought not to be taken up asking what I submit respectfully are questions out of order and irrelevant.

The CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and I think the questions are quite in order.

Sir F. YOUNG

I beg the hon. Member's pardon for having intervened in the Debate for once, and the only time. I am putting a concrete case of an injustice which seemed to creep in. I am not opposed to the desire to meet the undoubted difficulties that exist, but at the same time I agree with other hon. Members in saying that the effect of this Clause wants to be most carefully scrutinised to see that whilst we are achieving the good we want to achieve, we are not creating actual cases of injustice.

Mr. R. M'LAREN

Like many hon. Members I have received quite a number of letters from middle-class people who have been very hard hit in this matter. There is, for instance, the case of a man who was asked to buy his house, and was unable to do so because he had not the money, and he is to be thrown on to the street on 28th May next. Will it be possible for that gentleman to retain his house under the concession that has been made which makes the Clause restrospective in certain respects? Many of the tenants in my district are feeling the strain very bad, and would like to know how far they are protected by this Clause.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I hope the Government will give some answer to the series of questions which have been put on matters which require elucidation as to the effect of the retrospective provision as to which difficulties must arise. As this Debate may be read by a large number of people before the Report stage it is certainly, I think, necessary that the questions should be answered so that they may understand where they are.

Mr. MUNRO

The only reason why I did not rise to reply to the questions of my hon. and learned Friend was because they were questions purely of English law, and I did not feel myself competent to advise the Committee upon them without full consideration. If he will put his questions to the Attorney-General, I am sure he will get an answer.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I am willing to put my questions to anybody on the Front Bench who will answer them.

Sir J. BUTCHER

The question that was put by an hon. Friend behind me is really one that we ought to get an answer to, because we ought to know what we are doing. I do not in the least object to the retrospective character of the Bill, but I think we ought to realise where we are going. Under this Clause, as amended, it seems to me that, this might very well happen. The poor tenant, whom we are all desirous of protecting, gets turned out since the 24th December of last year because he cannot pay an increase of rent. The wealthy tenant, who says he will pay 50 per cent. more rent, goes in upon those terms. Then this Clause comes along and says to the wealthy tenant: "You have agreed only a few months ago to pay 50 per cent. more rent, but you can now, under this Bill, go to your landlord, repudiate that contract, and get back the whole of the increase of rent which you have paid." What is the result? The poor tenant, whom we are all desirous of protecting, is out in the cold. The wealthy tenant, whom none of us is particularly desirous of protecting, is in the house and is entitled to repudiate his bargain and get back the money that he has voluntarily paid. If that is really the effect of this Clause, I hope my right hon. Friend will consider it before the Report stage, and bring in something which will prevent this House from passing legislation which has a grotesque character of that sort.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Supposing the tenant has paid the money to a body of trustees, and the money has been spent, and the tenant then comes to the trustees and wants the money back, and they say, "No, we have spent it for the upkeep of our beneficiaries," who is to pay it?

Mr. J. JONES

I am not able to enter into all the legal technicalities now before the Committee, but so far as the ordinary workers are concerned there cannot be any question as to the retrospective nature of the Bill. We want to know where we stand. There is profiteering in working-class houses the same as in middle-class houses. If, when the Bill becomes law, the workers have got to pay a retrospective rent as from a certain date, then there is going to be trouble for somebody.

Sir G. HEWART

I am sorry I did not have the advantage of hearing this, question when it was first put, but, if I under stand the matter, it is this: The Bill, by the Amendment which has been accepted, has been made retrospective to the 24th day of December, and it is asked, What will be the effect where rent has been actually paid in the meantime? As I understand the matter, the Bill provides that where the rent has been paid it will be recoverable, but where it has not been paid it will not be recoverable. But as I understand, there is a real difficulty, and, if I may, I should like to have an opportunity of considering the matter before Report.

Mr. RENDALL

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reply to my question, which is a really important one? There are a large number of contracts between vendors and purchasers for the 25th March on these conditions. The vendor has given to the tenant notices which expires on25th March next. The vendor, in giving that notice, believed he could give it, and that he would be able to obtain possession, and, as the law stood when he made the contract, he was perfectly right in so doing. The purchaser bought upon the understanding that the notice was good, and that on 25th March he would have the legal right to obtain possession. This regulation is going to say to the purchaser, "No, you will not be able to get possession." My question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this: As this sort of contract covers the whole country, it is most important that the business community should know exactly what their position is, and I think the Government in pressing forward legislation of this kind should say plainly what the effect of the legislation will be on such contracts. Unless they do say so, the only result can be litigation in every County Court in the country, and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us, if he can, a reply to that question?

Sir G. HEWART

I will give the best reply I can on the spur of the moment. My hon. Friend is a lawyer, and knows perfectly well that where a contract is rendered impossible to perform by legislation, there is an end to the matter. It may be that will put an end to some of the contracts to which he refers, but I cannot say that it will put an end to all. That is also a matter I should like to consider between now and Report.

Major H. BARNES

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the case I mentioned before, when he was not present, of a tenant who came in on the 25th December, having ousted the previous tenant by an offer of superior rent to the landlord, and has been in occupation since. I would like to know whether it is proper that he, having got in by an offer of a superior rent, and ousted an innocent man who could not afford to pay a higher rent, should now, under this Bill, be able to revert to the rent on the 24th December which his predecessor was paying?

Mr. MADDOCKS

May I be permitted to answer this question, because a case came before the Divisional Court a fortnight ago, and I happened to be counsel in the case. There a lady had, as a matter of charity, been let into possession of a house at a lower rent than usual. She left voluntarily, and another person took the house and let it in flats. She agreed to pay a higher rent, and did so for a certain time. Then she refused and said she would go back to the rent paid by her predecessor. Application was made to the County Court for an ejectment order, and it was granted. When it came before the High Court judges they said as there had been a standard rent fixed in the first instance the landlord could not recover the amount against the second tenant though she had agreed to pay it.