HC Deb 25 March 1919 vol 114 cc263-8

B.—(1) Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, lets, or has before the passing of this Act let the house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the County Court on the application of the lessee that the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit more than twenty-five per cent. in excess of the normal profit as hereinafter defined, the Court may order that the rent, so far as it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit and twenty five per cent., shall be irrecoverable, and that the amount of any payment of rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be repaid to the lessee, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by him by means of deductions from any subsequent payments of rent.

(2) For the purpose of this Section "normal profit" means the profit which might reasonably have been obtained from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen.

Mr. FISHER

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

This Clause has been drafted with a view to dealing with an undoubted abuse of the existing Act which has sprung up. A tenant whose rent is limited by the Act often sub-lets the house furnished at an exorbitant rent, and this Clause enables the County Court to cut that rent down, if it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit and 25 per cent. The Government, after very careful consideration of this Amendment, which deals with an undoubted grievance, have decided that they must ask the House to disagree with it. In the first place, the principal Act distinctly excludes furnished houses from the sphere of its operation, and it would undoubtedly be very inconvenient in a Bill framed for the purpose of extending the provisions of the principal Act to take into our purview circumstances which are distinctly excluded. In. the second place, this Clause under Sub-section (2) imposes a duty upon County Court judges which we feel it would be unreasonable to impose. I put it to the House: How can a County Court judge arrive at a decision as to what would be a profit that could reasonably have been obtained for a similar letting in the year ending 3rd August, 1914? If I may quote the words of an old English writer, he would require "the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon." For these reasons I move that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. RENDALL

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept this Amendment, and all the more because in the Debate on the Second Reading in the House of Lords it was explained that at the time the principal Bill was intro- duced it was understood that these cases would be covered by it. It was stated that it was very regrettable, when a Minister in charge of a Bill made a statement about the meaning of it, that the Bill should not be on all fours with that Minister's statement, and it was hoped that the Lord Chancellor would put the matter right. The Lord Chancellor, in the speech which he made was very sympathetically inclined towards this Amendment. He said that the Government draughtsmen would try and have the matter put right. As a result this Amendment has been most carefully drafted and put down. Now, my right hon. Friend says that it is going to be rather troublesome and would throw a burden upon the County Court judge, but that is no reason for not doing it. When we found that the principal Act was not protecting people against all sorts of abuses and that persons were going from town and buying houses because the principal Act allowed them to turn the tenant out if they bought the house, we very quickly took the trouble to pass another Act to prevent it. One of the greatest abuses from which the owners of small properties have suffered has been the great injury done to their properties by sub-tenants. It has been prevalent in all munition areas, and practically in every part of England, to let lodgings. I do not think I should be putting it too high if I said that 25 per cent. of these tenants have been letting lodgings during the War, and letting them at very high rents indeed. I have had brought before me instances in my own Division where the Weekly rent has been 8s. or 7s. 6d. per week, and where the tenants have let two rooms at 15s. per week each. In other words, the tenant has turned himself into a landlord to the extent of 30s. per week, whereas the owner has only got 8s. The result of allowing these tenants to sub-let has been, of course, to cause a great deal more wear and tear to the houses. Naturally a subtenant, who has a room and is paying 15s. per week for it, thinks that he is paying a very good rent indeed, and he naturally does what he likes in the room. A great deal of wear and tear has, therefore, resulted from sub-letting. We now have an Amendment which really seeks to deal with the matter, and, if I remember rightly, it was passed unanimously in the other House. It had the sympathy of the Lord Chancellor, and the Government's usual supporters were in favour of it. Now when it comes down here the right hon. Gentleman, because it would be difficult to find out what was the normal profit in 1914, says that the Government cannot accept it. It would be very simple to amend this Amendment and make the normal profit definite by saying that if the weekly rent was 7s., then the normal rent of a room should be so much, and, if the normal value was 15s., that the letting value of a room should be so much more.

There would be no difficulty in amending this Clause so as to protect those who are hit, and who will be hit if it is not done. The Government, however, have not shown the smallest desire to be fair in this matter. They want to do something which is extremely popular with a large number of persons absolutely regardless of justice. Apparently, they are going to continue that course to the end. I very much regret that the Minister of Education has been associated with this Bill, because his past career would have led us to hope that he would not behave like this on a Bill of this kind if he could possibly avoid it. It is no use, however, crying over spilt milk, and he has been spilling milk the whole time that the Bill has been under discussion. I hope that he will see fit to reconsider the matter and do what the Minister in the House of Lords said should be done. In my opinion, it has not been fairly considered. No attempt has been made to amend the Amendment to enable it to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has merely said that it would be difficult, in spite of the fact that County Court judges are not very busy just now, because the ordinary commercial work has not come back to them. They could very well deal with this war emergency work, and deal with it quite equitably. I, therefore, very much regret the Government's decision, and still hope that they will reconsider the matter.

Earl WINTERTON

I may say that, as regards my own pocket, I am exceedingly prejudiced by the whole Bill, but I entirely and totally disagree with what has been said by the hon. Member as to the unfair attitude that the Government have taken up on this Amendment. Throughout the Government have taken up a perfectly fair and logical attitude, and I am surprised that one with the point of view of the hon. Member should wish to see the Government adopt a proposal which would practically make the County Court a Rent Court. It is not the function of the County Court to decide the sort of matter that it would have to decide if this Clause were adopted. Surely the whole Amendment is getting away entirely from the real scope of the principal Act and of this amending Bill. What was the object of the principal Act? It was to deal with specific cases of hardship which arose in the letting of small unfurnished houses. It had no reference to the letting of furnished houses. No doubt what the hon. Member has said is true, but that matter should be dealt with by a Housing Bill and not by an amending Bill which applies merely to unfurnished houses. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education is not going too far when he says that it would require qualities which certainly do not exist in the ordinary County Court or County Court judge. I should say that the ordinary County Court judge would be incapable of deciding the questions that he would be asked to decide under this Section, and I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. HOLMES

I hope that the House will not disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. The object of this legislation has been to prevent profiteering in unfurnished houses. We now have an Amendment from the Lords to prevent profiteering in furnished houses. The Amendment will prevent anyone making a profit of more than 25 per cent. out of the letting of a furnished house. The Minister for Education says that it is a good Amendment which has a good principle in it, and the one reason that he advances for rejecting it is that the County Court judge would be called upon to say what was the normal rent which could be obtained for that furnished house on 3rd August, 1914. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that lawyers would advise us that in this country the plaintiff in any action must make out his own case. The onus rests upon him to prove his contention. Therefore, it would rest upon the plaintiff to show the normal rent on 3rd August, 1914, and whether that normal rent had been exceeded by more than 25 per cent. The plaintiff would do so by bringing forward evidence of the letting of furnished houses in the locality in August, 1914, or before. He would be able to go to the local house agents and subpœna them to appear. The County Court judge would not have to decide what was the normal rent; he would merely hear the evidence and decide whether the plaintiff had proved his case or not. I do not think, therefore, that there is anything in the objection which the right hon. Gentleman has urged, and I hope that the House will not agree with the Government proposal.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After Clause 5 insert