CLAUSE 7.—(Exception of New Houses.) (Hansard, 14 March 1919)

§ Mr. N. McLEAN
I beg to move, to leave out the word "Neither" ["Neither the principal Act"].
I wish the Clause to read— The principal Act and this Act shall apply to houses erected after or in course of erection at the passing of this Act. In the case of houses which are in course of erection at present and which may be let in Scotland in May, by the following May there will be a rush of applicants, and the proprietors will be allowed under the Clause to put the rents up. The purpose of the Amendment is that those houses shall be brought under the scope of the Act, and the proprietors shall not be allowed to increase their rents and thereby have a preferential advantage over the proprietors who are being struck at by the Bill as it stands.

§ Sir G. HEWART
I doubt very much whether the hon. Member has considered the effect the Amendment would have if it were adopted. As the Bill stands we propose to except new houses from the operation of the principal Act and of this Act. The effect of this and the consequential Amendment would be that, in terms at any rate, the principal Act and the new Act will apply to houses erected after the passing ofthe Act or in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act. One of the unfortunate effects of this legislation, as has already been seen, is greatly to discourage building. If this proposal were to be accepted that discouragement would be at least greatly increased. But does not the hon. Member see this? The basis of this legislation is a comparison between what I may call the pre-war standard and some other standard. Where is that pre-war standard to come from in the case of the house which is erected after the passing of the Act or is in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act? The basis for comparison does not exist. I do not see how one could make this legislation apply to such houses. It would be making a comparison with something which did not exist.

§ Sir D. MACLEAN
The right hon. Gentleman misses the point I wish to make. I do not wish houses of a similar accommodation to be fixed at the same rate. I do not wish houses which are built or in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act to have the rents fixed in the same ratio as other houses. Let those who build them put on a rent which will meet the exceedingly high building costs. The point I am making is this. A house which may be completed and ready for occupancy at the May term of this year in Scotland will have hundreds of applicants for it. It may be let at a rent which the proprietor of the house considers will cover the cost of erection. In the following May term there will again be such a rush of applicants that the proprietor will be able to raise rents upon the tenants who are sitting, and if they fail or refuse to pay the increase he puts on they can be warned out. They are not covered by the Bill, and the effect of the Amendment will be to protect them and at the same time not give preferential treatment to those proprietors who are building houses at 1636 present over the older proprietors by enabling the new proprietors to increase their rent.