NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Definition of Standard Rent.) (Hansard, 25 March 1919)

§ Mr. CLYDE

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

5.0 P.M.

I understand that the motive behind this Amendment was in every respect an excellent one. The idea, I understand, was that there are cases in which philanthropic building schemes, either for veteran soldiers or for others, have been already started, and are now in operation, in which the arrangement is that the rent is what I think this Section means by the word progressive, that is to say, the rent begins at a comparatively small figure and gradually rises from year to year. As expressed, of course, the Amendment is altogether unlimited and would apparently apply to any case in which the rent stipulated for was liable to change, either 269 annually or otherwise, by way of increase from time to time. It would apparently apply, for instance, to the case of a tenancy which was fixed at X pounds for three years of the first three years of the period covered by it, and then was to increase to X plus Y for the next term of years under the tenancy. Therefore, obviously, in any view it is framed far too widely, but the question really is whether the House shall be recommended to accept this Amendment at all. I think the ruling consideration in making up one's mind about that question ought to be this, that this is, after all, only an amending Bill to the Act of 1915. We made no exception of this kind in 1915, and it seems a very doubtful thing to introduce exceptions of this kind in this amending Bill in 1919. I have no doubt that if this kind of legislation were intended to form a permanent part of our law in this country it would be necessary to face the case which I understand this Amendment was introduced in order to meet. But this Bill, just as much as the Act of 1915, is intended to meet an exceptional state of affairs, and is in turn temporary in its application. Therefore, on the whole, it seems to us that it would be unwise to attempt to do in 1919 partially what this House did not think fit to do at all in 1915. In any case, the area which would actually be covered by this Amendment is exceedingly small, and, on the whole, we recommend the House not to agree with the Lords Amendment in this respect.