HC Deb 01 July 1920 vol 131 cc851-81

This Act shall apply to any premises used for business trade or professional purposes as it applies to a dwelling-house, and as though references to "dwelling-house" and "dwelling" included references to any such premises, but this Act in its application to such premises shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section five:
  2. (b) Paragraph (i) of the same sub-section shall not apply.
  3. (c) Sections nine and ten shall not apply.

Lords Amendments:

After the word "purposes" ["professional purposes as"] insert the words "or for the public service":

After the word "dwelling-house" ["references to 'dwelling-house'"], insert the word "house."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "modifications" insert a new paragraph. (a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of section (2):— (c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding thirty-five per centum of the net rent.

Read a Second time.

Dr. ADDISON

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

This is the Amendment to which I referred in my opening remarks relating to business premises. There is a provision in the Clause that 25 per cent. increase of rent might be charged in respect of repairs, or, in respect of other matters —mortgage interest, and so forth-15 per cent. In place of the 15 per cent. it is proposed that 35 per cent. should be substituted, making the total 60 per cent. in all. The effect of their lordships' Amendment in regard to business premises would therefore be that they should be subject to an increase of 60 per cent. in the first year, instead of an increase riot exceeding 40 per cent., which applies in the cases of houses brought under the Act for the first time. This provision was debated at considerable length, and, although the Government moved against it, it was carried by a large majority. For the reasons which I have mentioned —I would remind the House that the Clause was pressed on the Government— I need scarcely say that a controversy between the two Houses would delay the Bill. If the Bill be not passed to-morrow there is nothing otherwise to prevent eviction, although there is something to prevent increase of rent. It is the hardship arising from eviction that I am anxious to avoid. Although we regret that their Lordships took this course, I hope that hon. Members will not disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I sincerely hope that hon. Members will press their objections to this change. We had considerable controversy upstairs on the proposed inclusion of business premises. After a great deal of effort we succeeded in getting minor protection for a comparatively limited class, but a very important class, the tenants of business premises in this country. I am entitled to say that the occupiers of business premises for which we got protection are a class which find it very hard, from many points of view, to make a living, because they consisted, in the main, of the smaller shopkeepers of the country. Under the Bill as it stood they would be entitled to protection, but now it is suggested that, in granting any increase afforded to him, it is suggested that 60 per cent., rather than 40 per cent., should be added in the case of their rental. Beyond all question the leading part of the Bill was the case based on the repairs. In the case of the overwhelming majority of shops very little in the way of repairs has been undertaken by proprietors, and what repairs have been effected have been executed by the tenants. I think that is unjust and imposes a financial burden upon them. On these grounds, and because the present protection is already limited, I hope the House will divide in opposition to the Amendment which has been proposed in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST

I should like to support the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in protesting against this Amendment. This matter was thoroughly thrashed out, not only in Committee but also on the floor of this House. The House deliberately came to the conclusion that there should be no differentiation whatever between the case of business premises brought in under this Bill and the dwelling house. They came to the conclusion that 40 per cent. was the proper maximum addition to the standing rental of business premises, and no reason has been given to make this differentiation and to increase the permitted addition of rent from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. I read the Debate which took place in another place in, connection with this question, and the only argument adduced in support of increasing the rent of business premises was that the tenant could pass on this increase of rental to the consumer. In a very large number of cases he is quite unable to pass on the burden of the increased rent. Take the case of the small professional man—the barrister, the solicitor, the doctor—he has no opportunity of passing on this increased burden to the consumer. Even if he had, the community would be no better off. Take the case of the shopkeeper. His rent is increased 60 per cent. He is told he can pass it on to the consumer, but the country will suffer from any passing on of this particular burden. I am afraid that their Lordships are very remote from the actualities of social and economic life in our great cities to-day. There is no doubt that those sections of the middle classes most affected by the inclusion of business premises are men who at the present time cannot be regarded as prosperous. They have not shared in the rise in remuneration which has fallen to the lot of many other sections of the community. I know many cases where these small business men, including professional men and many ex-service men, are unable to meet the increased burden of life at the present time. These men by nature are the pillars of Society, and they are being driven into rebellion against the existing social order because of the hard economic facts they have to face. If this Amendment is persisted in it means increasing the burden of life on men who expect it and deserve relief.

Major HENDERSON

I know full well that the hon. Member opposite knows that feeling on this question in Scotland is very acute, and I see no reason why shops in Scotland or in England should be treated on a different basis to ordinary house property. One should not forget that shops put under this Bill are, comparatively speaking, only small shops. The very large shops in Regent Street, in London, in Princes Street, in Edinburgh, or in Sauchiehall Street, in Glasgow, do not come under the Bill These are the class of shops which have a large margin of profit. The shops brought under this Bill have not a large margin of profit, and they cannot be expected to meet a large increase of rent. I feel that we ought to register our protest against this Amendment by refusing to accept it. I realise that if another place to-morrow takes no notice of our protest we may have to look upon it from a different point of view; but as we have already objected to certain other Amendments, I see no reason why, when we get an Amendment of this kind, which is really the most important of any on the Paper, we should not register our protest and maintain the position which we formerly took up.

Captain BAGLEY

It seems to me that this Amendment is introducing a differentiation between two sets of business premises. So far as I can gather, this Amendment deals only with business premises which are not part of a dwelling house. Where business premises are part of a dwelling house the rent can only be increased by 40 per cent., but business premises which happen to be lock-up shops can be increased by 75 per cent. The strongest argument in favour of the Amendment is that the tenant can pass on this extra charge to the consumer. If we are to accept that as the excuse for increasing rents over and above the 40 per cent. laid down in the Bill, it seems to me remarkable that members in another place overlooked the fact that railwaymen are on a sliding scale under which they are able to pass on increases in their rents to the consumers, because as soon as rents go up and increase the cost of living they will be able to get an increase of their wages. Therefore, if we admit that the fact that a tenant can pass on an increase to the consumer is a reason for departing from the general lines of this Bill, we shall be in a hopeless muddle. I do not admit that the tenant can pass this on. You may have a number of small businesses, parts of dwelling houses where the rents are increased 40 per cent. On the other hand, you may have a number not parts of dwelling houses, which may have their rents increased 75 per cent. Do you suppose that if there are two shops in one street one can increase its charges? That is not a reasonable argument. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be rejected. The difficulty I am in, however, is this. I realise that the shopkeepers do not object to a reasonable increase of rent. They want security of tenure, and the Minister has told us that if this Bill is not passed to-day evictions may take place. I know many cases in my own constituency where people are under notice to leave. Therefore, if I vote for the rejection of this Amendment I shall be voting for the delay of this Bill, with the possible result that some of those tenants may be ejected.

Mr. LORDEN

I cannot understand the hon. Member who has just sat down suggesting that the rent of business premises can be increased by 75 per cent. At the most it can only be 60 per cent.

Captain BAGLEY

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I made a mistake.

Mr. LORDEN

This Clause was put in Committee by a majority of two, and the Government at the time resisted the Amendment, but I am inclined to think it would be a dangerous thing to imperil the whole Bill for the sake of an Amendment upon which we were so evenly divided. The Lords have not cut it out; they have simply added an additional rent. As far as my experience goes the main question is not one of rent when dealing with business premises but it is more a question of eviction and loss of business. I think it will be a case of God save you from your friends if we are to disagree with this Amendment because the result will be that probably you will get it thrown back upon you again and some of the evictions will take place.

Mr. A. SHORT

I wish to offer objection to the way we have been treated in connection with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman in speaking to this Amendment offered no argument whatsoever in favour of the action of the Lords. Rather he was against the proposal that has come from the other House and the only ground upon which he recommends the House to accept the Amendment is that if the Bill is not passed to-day evictions will take place. It is not the fault of members on this side of the House that such a thing should occur. The fault lies entirely with the Government. Why did they not bring in this Bill a considerable time ago? Why did they not make provision to cope with this difficulty? It is no use hon. Members getting up and saying if this Bill does not pass evictions will take place. That is a responsibility which must fall on the shoulders of the Government. And does any hon. Member assume that public opinion would tolerate anything in the nature of wholesale evictions if this Bill is not passed to-day? If there is anything in the nature of wholesale evictions there will be something like a counter revolution. The Government knows very well that that sort of thing is not likely to obtain. The time has arrived when this House of representatives, democratically elected, should assert its authority, and having in mind that it came to this decision after a long discussion it is not right that it should tolerate interference from another House. I hope the House will go to a Division and record its vote against the Lords Amendment.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I would like to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Col. Hurst). This Amendment divides small business premises into two classes. First there is the class in which there is some dwelling accommodation, such as one room occupied as a bedroom, these being treated under the general provisions of the Bill as dwelling-houses and their rents may be increased by only forty per cent. Other small business premises are liable to have their rents increased by sixty per cent. although they may be premises of similar accommodation from a business point of view and the two may be competing with one another. That is an irrational position and introduces another element of unfairness into ordinary business competition. On the question of possible delay if we reject this Amendment, I would like to point out that we have rejected other Amendments to-night, some of them on the motion of the Minister himself, and this Amendment, if rejected, would go with the other rejections which have been moved and carried. I have no doubt or hesitation about undertaking a struggle or a quarrel with another place on this question. It is a question on which the other House could not afford a contest with this House.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

I hope this House will not imperil this measure by disagreeing with the Lords Amendments. The sooner we get back to freedom in dealing with all commodities including houses and land, the better for the country. Dwelling houses are in an exceptional position because people do require somewhere to house their families and to bring up young citizens of the future, but shops are on a different basis, and therefore the whole question of business premises has been referred to a Select Committee who are going into the matter at the present time. This, therefore is not a question of the same urgency as the main question dealt with in the Bill, the question of dwelling houses. This would be a very unfortunate case to choose for controversy with the other House, seeing that this subject did not form part of the Bill when it was introduced. Shops were only added to the Bill in Committee upstairs by a very small majority,—I think two or three,—and the proposal has throughout been opposed by the Government. My Friend opposite pointed out that what is really of importance to small shopkeepers is security and not the small increase of rent, and I hope the House will not disagree with the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER

I venture to suggest that this is a very unfortunate Amend-

ment, for two reasons. I take it that one of the reasons for giving the owner the right to increase rent is that the returns from investments in property have been comparable with the returns from investments of another character. If that is one of the reasons for this Bill an Amendment of this character is going to draw a very invidious distinction between different classes of property. One man may have invested his money in cottage property and upon that he is going to get an increased return of fifteen per cent. as far as the rent is concerned and twenty-five per cent. on the repairs, but if his next door neighbour has invested his money in business premises the return in that case will be far greater. If this Amendment is passed there will be an agitation among the owners of cottage property to have their rents raised in an equal ratio to give them an equal return upon their investments, and the effect of this Amendment, in the minds of those investors, will be, instead of satisfying them with the provisions already made for an increased return, to start another agitation. As this point has been elaborated a very great deal I am not going to attempt to deal with it at any length, but it is very unfair to draw this invidious distinction. There are very small shopkeepers and some large shopkeepers whose rents are comparatively high, and if this Amendments is passed it means that an additional expense over and above what will be incurred in part dwelling houses part shops will be incurred by those which are wholly business premises. The Government and the House will be serving the best interests of all concerned by defeating this Amendment so that we may have uniformity all round.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 96 Noes, 48.

Division No. 173.] AYES. [1.38 a.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. Borwick, Major G. O. Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Bridgeman, William Clive Falcon, Captain Michael
Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Farquharson, Major A. C.
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Fildes, Henry
Baird, John Lawrence Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Ford, Patrick Johnston
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Forestier-Walker, L.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cope, Major Wm. Forrest, Walter
Barker, Major Robert H. Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Barnett, Major R. W. Curzon, Commander Viscount Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Barnston, Major Harry Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Freece, Sir Walter de
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.
Betterton, Henry B. Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland Edge, Captain William Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Blair, Reginald Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Gould, James C
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Stevens, Marshall
Green, Albert (Derby) Molson, Major John Elsdale Sturrock, J. Leng
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash Sugden, W. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Murray, John (Leeds, West) Sutherland, Sir William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Haslam, Lewis Neal, Arthur Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Hood, Joseph Pollock, Sir Ernest M. Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Raper, A. Baldwin Whitla, Sir William
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rogers, Sir Hallewell Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Roundell, Colonel R. F. Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Shaw, William T. (Forfar) Young. Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Lorden, John William Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Loft-Williams, J. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Loseby, Captain C. E. Steel, Major S. Strang Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Parker.
NOES.
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P Robertson, John
Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Royce, William Stapleton
Billing, Noel Pemberton- Grundy, T. W. Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hall, F. (York, W. B., Normanton) Sexton, James
Briant, Frank Hartshorn, Vernon Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Bromfield, William Hayday, Arthur Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bruton, Sir James Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Sitch, Charles H.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) Hirst, G. H. Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Cape, Thomas Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. Spencer, George A.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Johnstone, Joseph Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Casey, T. W. Lawson, John J. Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Lunn, William Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Mills, John Edmund Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Dawes, Commander Morgan, Major D. Watts
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Glanville, Harold James Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W. Major Barnes and Mr. Swan.

Lords Amendment:

In paragraph (a), after the word "purposes' ["professional purposes and"], insert the words "or for the public service."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At end of paragraph (a), insert a new paragraph (b)The following paragraph shall be added after paragraph (g) of the same subsection: (h)The premises are bonâ fide required for the purpose of scheme of reconstruction or improvement which appears to the Court to be desirable in the public interest.

Read a Second time.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment to leave out the words "purpose of scheme of reconstruction or improvement which appears to the Court to be desirable in the public interest," and to add instead thereof the words "purposes of a public scheme of reconstruction or improvement."

I desire, as I understand I am in order in doing so, that this Amendment be altered in a way which I believe will be ac- ceptable to the majority of members of this House, namely to this effect, that instead of reading as it does on the order paper it should read "the premises bonâ fide required for the purposes of a public scheme of reconstruction or improvement," and that the rest be deleted. That would have the effect of altering the Amendment to one which afforded recovery of possession only in the case of a public scheme of reconstruction or improvement, and excluded the recovery of possession as we regard it on a mere pretext which might not be well founded and would probably involve hardship for the people we are seeking to protect by this Clause.

Mr. SWAN

I beg to second the proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON

I sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I am quite certain the words he proposes to insert together with the words he proposes to omit will not help him towards his purpose, because if you hon. Members will look at the words as they are on paper to provide for purposes of re-construction and improvement which appears to the court to be desirable in the public interest. they will see that the Amendment ties it up to the public interest. This is decided by a case before the court. My hon. Friend would have it "a public scheme of reconstruction." What is a public scheme of reconstruction? That, I think, it would be very difficult to define. Does that mean a scheme of reconstruction solely undertaken by a public authority? Reconstruction in connection with, say, a gas company? Would that be reconstruction? Then he omitted the words as to who should decide. The whole of our Amendment as it stands, which I think is a fair one, is tied up to a reconstruction scheme which the court holds to be desirable in the public interest. It is not for the purpose of furthering some private purpose, but it is desirable in the public interest. It is tied up. I am sure the words in the Amendment are really much better than those proposed by my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will not serve any reasonable purpose by insisting on them.

Mr. BILLING

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would inform us what constitutes the Court? I think that in itself is a deciding factor. The hon. Member who proposes the Amendment to the Amendment suggested that it should be a scheme introduced and advocated by municipal or other bodies. If a reconstruction scheme is taking place, or a public body recommends that the work should be done, I cannot see why the hon. Member takes exception to the Court. Does the hon. member suggest that the Court in question should not give its sanction, and what distinction does he make between the Court and a municipal body which makes a municipal scheme? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what Court has the authority to do it, and what is intended by the Amendment with reference to the question that it should be necessary to have the sanction of a Court.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST

I view this Amendment with great apprehension. It opens up an avenue for driving a coach and four through the Act. In the City of Manchester, where this question is acute, protection would be withdrawn, if this Amendment is carried, from a great number of those very business tenants for whose benefit this portion of the Bill has been designed. In a very large proportion of these cases, where there are great blocks at present occupied by small tenants, the proposal to give them notice to quit and eject them is due to the idea on the part of the owners of reconstructing these premises so as to bring in larger rentals or to provide accommodation for the extension of their businesses. Therefore, in most of these notices a case can be made out that they come within the Amendment as being notices given in pursuance of a scheme of reconstruction or improvement. Then comes in the question of public interest. In most of these cases a scheme of reconstruction or improvement carries with it proposals for so improving the premises that they will command a higher rateable value, and it might well be interpreted by a County Court that alterations which increase the rateable value of an urban centre are in the public interest. If that is the case it will follow that the tenants for whom this protection is designed will be deprived of their security. Let me give one illustration I know of a great block in Manchester where the tenants are under notice to quit given by a trade combine whose idea is to rebuild these premises in order to extend the premises of that combine. If this case went before the County Court the Court would undoubtedly take this as being a typical scheme for reconstruction or alteration. It might also very well say that it was in the public interest, because it would add to the rateable value of that portion of the city. The consequence is that the very people for whom these Clauses relating to business premises are framed will be deprived of that benefit.

The real test in all these cases of ejectment is not so much the object of the property owner; it is really the need of the tenant. Take two tenants both owning tenancies under exactly the same circumstances, with a notice to quit served on both. The hardship would be equal to both. Why should one be turned into the street because his premises happen to be owned by some combine, or some other proprietors who wish to reconstruct the premises, and another man in the same circumstances, except that his landlord has different objects, be left in possession? The time test for dispossession is the need and hardship inflicted on the particular tenant and there is no reason for this differentiation at all. I view this Amendment with great distrust, and hope it will be seriously considered by the Minister before he advises us to accept it.

Major BARNES

I would ask the Minister if he could see his way to accept some words which would leave the court to balance the gain to the public interest with the amount of hardship that would be inflicted on the tenants. If the court same to the conclusion that the gain to the pubic interest would outweigh the other, would it not be possible to include some provision for compensating those who were dispossessed. I realise that it may not he at all a wise thing to hang up for three years great schemes of reconstruction. That might seriously affect development. On the other hand, I think this Clause may well have the effect of depriving large sections of the people of the benefits of the Bill. I daresay every member in this House knows a similar

case to that of Manchester. I have one in mind in Newcastle-on-Tyne where the same results will follow. I am sure it is not the wish of the right hon. Gentleman to deprive anybody of the benefits which this Bill is designed to bring to them, and perhaps before we pass from the Amendment he would say whether it is not possible for him to accept some Amendment that would have the, effect, if not altogether of saving these people from being dispossessed, of giving them some compensation should that happen.

2.0 A.M.

Mr. T. WILSON

I would suggest that the right hon Gentleman disagrees with the Lords Amendment. I take it that there will be no hardship if the House disagrees with the Lords Amendment.

Question put, "That the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the said Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 33.

Division No. 174.] AYES. [1.59 a.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. Farquharson, Major A. C. Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Fildes, Henry Neal, Arthur
Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. Ford, Patrick Johnston Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Forestier-Walker, L. Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Forrest, Walter Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fraser, Major Sir Keith Raper, A. Baldwin
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Frece, Sir Walter de Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Barker, Major Robert H. Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Barnett, Major R. W. Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Barnston, Major Harry Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Gould, James C. Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Betterton, Henry B. Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Billing, Noel Pemberton- Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P. Scott, A. M.(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland Green, Albert (Derby) Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Blair, Reginald Greenwood, William (Stockport) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Borwick, Major G. O. Gritten, W. G. Howard Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Bridgeman, William Clive Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Steel, Major S. Strang
Bruton, Sir James Haslam, Lewis Sturrock, J. Leng
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Sugden, W. H.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Sutherland, Sir William
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Hood, Joseph Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Casey, T. W. Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Cope, Major Wm. Johnstone, Joseph Whitla, Sir William
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.) Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)
Curzon, Commander Viscount Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lorden, John William Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Dawes, Commander Lort-Williams, J. Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Loseby, Captain C. E.
Edge, Captain William M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Molson, Major John Elsdale Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash James Parker
Falcon, Captain Michael Murray, John (Leeds, West)
NOES.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Hayday, Arthur
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Hirst, G. H.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Glanville, Harold James Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Graham W. (Edinburgh, Central) Lawson, John J.
Briant, Frank Grundy, T. W. Lunn, William
Bromfield, William Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Mills, John Edmund
Cape, Thomas Hartshorn, Vernon Morgan, Major D. Watts
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.
Robertson, John Sitch, Charles H. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Royce, William Stapleton Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Sexton, James Spencer, George A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Shaw, Thomas (Preston) Swan, J. E. Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Griffiths

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."— [Dr. Addison. ]

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I voted against the second Amendment because I thought it did not improve the Lords Amendment. But I want to offer some opposition to the original Amendment. This introduces another distinction between dwelling-houses and business premises, and the distinction is this, that. in the case of business premises there may be an eviction if they are required for the purpose of public improvement. If it is a desirable ground for eviction, why should it not apply to dwelling-houses as well as business premises. Why should a dwelling-house be allowed to stand in the way of a public improvement? If this Amendment were desirable at all it ought to have been applied all round, and I propose to vote against it.

Mr. SPENCER

I should like to support the view of the last speaker. I have had, in my own constituency, my attention drawn to more than one case of business men who have had notice to quit on some pretext or another. While it is a very great hardship for working-men to have notice to quit their premises and to have no suitable premises to go to, it is undoubtedly more hard when it comes to the case of business men. In the particular cases to which I am referring the men devoted the greater part of their lives to building up the businesses. Their whole livelihood depends on the success and continuity of those businesses, and yet if at any time there was a desire to take over those premises for any kind of structural improvement which might be considered to be of a public character, those business people could be turned away from their businesses without any alternative accommodation. When there is a shortage of accommodation of the character of business premises we should be putting a very great hardship on a very large number of business people, small and great, if we passed this Amendment which the other House is seeking to impose.

Major HENDERSON

My hon. Friend opposite pointed out that this Amendment seeks to differentiate between shop property and house property, but it goes further than that. Like the Amendment on the previous page in regard to the increase of rent, it differentiates between two different classes of shop property. For that reason it is absolutely illogical. It has been said that this Bill is illogical right through. Probably that is true, but there is no reason why we should make it more illogical. The Minister has given no reason why we should differentiate between two different classes of shops—it may be two people competing with each other in a similar type of business.

Dr. ADDISON

I think my hon. Friends are a little mistaken with regard to this proposal. There is a vast difference between the shop and the dwelling-house. These are only cases where it is a lock-up shop and where the shop is not part of the man's dwelling. There is a great difference between such a shop being bonâ fide required in the public interest for a scheme of reconstruction. There is a difference because in one case the building is a man's dwelling and in the other it is merely a shop. I would really ask my hon. Friends to have regard to the major issue. The same principle is recognised in this Bill where a public authority requires houses for the same purpose. I am sure we all recognise that it would not be in the public interest that a single lock-up shop should be able to prevent a public improvement. Although we have the utmost sympathy with the man, and want to do everything that is reasonable to give him fair security, it is not reasonable that one in that position should be able to obstruct a scheme which is really required in the public interest. There are major interests and minor interests, and this only seeks to protect the public interest. I think this is quite a fair proposal, and I hope the House will support it.

Mr. BILLING

The hon. Member who spoke before the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the whole of this Bill was illogical. I think the attitude that the Labour party adopts is more illogical still. In everything they do and say in this House they are in favour of decentralization of administrative powers and in many cases of legislative powers. Here is a case where the Government are to give power to the courts to decide in small detailed cases whether or not particular premises are necessary in the public interest and yet the representatives of the Labour party suggest that this House should not give those powers to the local courts. Surely the whole claim of Labour in this country is based on the very principles which they desire to deprive the Government of to-night.

Personally, I am in favour of giving the Government this power that the Lords Amendment seeks, and I am in favour of making a differentiation between the residential shop and the lockup shop. In 90 per cent. of the cases the residential shop is that of the small shopkeeper who is endeavouring to build up a business, often in competition with a multiple shop. The average lock-up shop is a multiple shop, which has no residential accommodation, and it is for that reason that I shall do everything in my power to encourage the development of the one-man business—the type of business which produces civility as distinct from servility which the multiple shop produces. Those are the people whose interests I am most anxious to protect. There may be some hon. Members who may be quite clear as to what the point at issue really is.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall)

I should be glad if the hon. Member would be more clear himself.

Mr BILLING

I appreciate the invitation from the Chair and I will endeavour, so far as I can, to make it clear. This is a question of whether this House shall give some alternative, and the only alternative that has been offered is that it shall be left within the power of the municipal authority as distinct from a court to decide whether or not certain evictions shall take place. I would ask the Labour Party to consider that the eviction from the lock-up shop as distinct from the residential shop is one which should be in the interests of the one-man business, and I would appeal to the Labour party to support the Government in this matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

We on these benches appreciate highly the valuable advice which has just been given to us by the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right in his premises. The Labour party always are in favour of decentralisation as far as possible, so that the actual administration of affairs in every locality should be in the hands of the people of the locality, but when he comes to apply these premises—

Dr. ADDISON

Is this in order on this Amendment?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

He seems to think that this Amendment, if carried, puts it in the power of the local authority to decide whether reconstructions are advisable or not. That is not so. If it were in the hands of the local authority we should be in favour of it. That is exactly what we voted for when we voted about ten minutes ago, and when the hon. Member, unconscious of what he was voting for, went into the wrong lobby.

Mr. BILLING

I supported the Government in that Amendment, with the desire of leaving it to the Courts to decide in all these cases, as distinct from having a definition in a somewhat innocuous Amendment which I did not altogether understand. The question before the House I understood, and I voted upon that, and left that which was incomprehensible.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

And that is exactly where the legal mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman led him astray. He is under the impression that a bench of magistrates is a local authority. Benches of magistrates have many good qualities, but they are not local authorities, and this Amendment of the House of Lords does leave it to the bench of magistrates to decide whether a reconstruction is or is not in the public interest. With all my experience of this House and of politics, I am not yet certain what is in the public interest and what is not. When I think of this unfortunate bench of magistrates trying to decide whether a reconstruction scheme is or is not in the public interest, I realise that you are laying upon their shoulders a burden too heavy to be borne.

Dr. ADDISON

It is not a bench of magistrates at all. It is n County Court judge.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

It is a judge. You are asking a permanent official of the Government to decide what is in the public interest Now, what will guide him? [An HON. MEMBER: "Common sense!"] Common sense, which means £ s. d.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME

Is it in Order for the hon. Member to refer to one of His Majesty's judges in that form?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I am trying to point out the difficulty in which one of His Majesty's judges will be put when asked to decide, not what is right or wrong, but whether a matter be in the public interest.

Mr. BILLING

Is not that what the Government are deciding all day long?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The Government may have to decide it; but a judge has to decide upon evidence and the law. If you ask him to say whether or not a reconstruction is in the public interest which involves increasing the rateable value of a town, I think the judge will be bound to hold that anything which would increase the rateable value would be in the public interest, because it did increase the rateable value. There he would have a tangible thing by which he could measure the value of the change. But that is not the standard by which an improvement or a reconstruction ought to be measured. It can only be measured by a local authority which has to consider the views of the electors as a whole, and not merely an abstract question of right or wrong: Will an increase in rateable value be to the advantage of the community or not? Do I make myself clear? A judge can only decide according to rules, whereas the local authority decides according to the general tenor of what their electorate wish. Therefore, we on these benches, while agreeing with the promises of the hon. Member that in every case of greater decentralisation a greater impress is made upon the mind of the locality by the legislature, we disagree with handing these matters over to some county court judge and taking them out of the hands of the elected members of any local authority. Therefore it seems to us that this Amendment, which was carried in the other place, where they represent the idea of the judge rather than of the local authority, we as an elected body, should oppose, supporting the idea of real decentralisation against the bastard form of decentralisation supported by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing).

Sir W. DAVISON

The proposition is that the unfortunate tenant should go before the local authority in order that they may decide whether an improvement should be carried out or not, instead of, as proposed by the Bill, the impartial authority of a County Court Judge.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS

I think we are getting clear on this point, and I should like to congratulate the two hon. Members on the part they have taken; but we have now come to another very interesting detail, the question of rateable value and its effect, and I am delighted to see the Financial Secretary of the Treasury has come in at this opportune moment and I hope he will be able to express his opinion as to how this particular Clause will affect the prospective rateable value of the country. I would not venture to discuss that point myself with such a competent authority present. As regards the powers of the courts, I am perfectly happy at the present moment as regards the powers of the English courts. We have had eminent legal authorities giving their views as regards the English courts; but I should like to have heard the Scottish branch on this subject. As far as this Bill is concerned to-night, perhaps the most notable thing in the Debate has been the absence and the silence of that less hardy portion of the British people who come from the north of the Tweed. Perhaps if I ask them—

Dr. ADDISON

I beg respectfully, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member is discussing all manner of things which have nothing whatever to do with the Question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

We are getting a little discursive.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

Is it in order for a Minister to intervene and try to take the duties of the Chair out of the hands of the Chair?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

A Minister can rise to a point of order.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS

I very much regret if I have offended the Minister in charge of the Bill. I know his interests are very much confined to this part of the country and I would like to have an answer to the question as to whether Scottish Members can really assure the House that we can go into the Division lobby and vote for the Government Amendment and be quite certain that the position in the Scottish courts is secure.

Captain COOTE

I do not intend to indulge in any badinage or hypothesis. What I want to know is this, and it is a simple point: The right hon. Gentleman said it was not unreasonable to draw a distinction between lock-up shops and ordinary dwelling-houses. If a man be turned out of his lock-up shop, will he not be unable to pay his rent and be deprived

Lords Amendment:

At the end of paragraph (c) add "() References to the sixteenth day of June of his livelihood. What is the difference between turning him out of his lock-up shop and his dwelling house? There is a further difficulty. I would ask him to consider whether this Amendment is necessary at all. This part of the Bill to which the Amendment applies is governed by Clause 5 which says that the court shall make an order only when it considers it reasonable to make such an order, and surely such a case as is proposed in the Amendment will come within the jurisdiction of the court.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 35.

Division No. 175.] AYES. [2.33 a.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. Falcon, Captain Michael Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Farquharson, Major A. C. Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. Fildes, Henry Neal, Arthur
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Ford, Patrick Johnston Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Forestier-Walker, L. Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Baird, John Lawrence Forrest, Walter Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Fraser, Major Sir Keith Raper, A. Baldwin
Barker Major Robert H. Freece Sir Walter de Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Barnett, Major R. W. Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Barnston, Major Harry Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Billing, Noel Pemberton- Gould, James C. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Blair, Reginald Green, Albert (Derby) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Borwick, Major G. O. Greenwood, William (Stockport) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Bridgeman, William Clive Gritten, W. G. Howard Steel, Major S. Strang
Bruton, Sir James Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Sturrock, J. Leng
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Haslam, Lewis Sugden, W. H.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford) Sutherland, Sir William
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Hood, Joseph Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Casey, T. W. Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Cope, Major Wm. Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Whitla, Sir William
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Johnstone, Joseph Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.) Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Curzon, Commander Viscount Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lewis, T. A. (Glam, Pontypridd) Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Dawes, Commander Lorden, John William
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Lort-Williams, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Edge, Captain William Loseby, Captain C. E. Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Parker.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Molson, Major John Elsdale
NOES.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Hartshorn, Vernon Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) Hayday, Arthur Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Sitch, Charles H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Briant, Frank Lawson, John J. Spencer, George A.
Bromfield, William Lunn, William Swan, J. E.
Cape, Thomas Morgan, Major D. Watts Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Glanville, Harold James Robertson, John
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Royce, William Stapleton TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W. Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Mills.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Sexton, James

shall be substituted for references to the twenty-fifth day of March."

Read a Second time.

Dr. ADDISON

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

This is to make the retrospective effect of the Bill with regard to business premises refer to the date when the Amendment was first inserted in the Bill.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME

I really hope the House will not pass this Amendment without some consideration. It demands that shops are to be on an absolutely different footing from dwelling houses. It is common knowledge, the whole community knew that when an Act of this kind was passed, it was going to be made retrospective to the last quarter day, 25th March. It was also common knowledge that business premises would be included, and that the restrictions would apply to shops as well as those business premises of a mixed character, where there was a house and a shop. People who want to give notice to determine tenancies are just as alert as—even more alert than—the unfortunate people against whom these rights are exercised. It is no question of simply going back to 16th June last. Ever since 25th March there have been hundreds of cases all over the country where the landlords of shops have been giving notice to their tenants to quit in order to be in time to anticipate this form of legislation. Let us be consistent in this matter. What did we decide when the House was in Committee on this Bill? It was that all premises were to come under the purview of this Act. If these premises are to come within the purview of this Act they ought to have the same rights under this Act, and ouglit to be protected as from 25th March last. If we agree to this Amendment we are really going to camouflage the whole position, and to deprive of their rights an enormous number of tenants who had notice to quit between 25th March and the present time.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

This is an Amendment to deprive business premises of the three months' protection which is given in the case of dwelling houses. I agree that it was known that this question was being considered, but I do not think the distinction can be drawn which my right hon. Friend drew, or that houses of a rental value of from £75 to £105 are given the protection of three months. The landlord there had no notice that this change was being made. They are in exactly the same position as the owners of business premises. There is a class of premises those in which there is some dwelling accommodation attached; they have been given the protection of these three months. Why should this Amendment not apply to them. The argument of my right hon. Friend was an argument for applying it to them. I do not think he has really made out a case for this new Amendment which has been sprung on the House to-day.

Mr. SPENCER

If it was a hardship, and recognised as a hardship worthy of statutory protection on the 16th day of June, surely it was equally hard on the 15th June, or between the 15th June and the 25th March. The very fact that the Government is seeking to obtain power of protection for tenants of that character is an indication that they have recognised that the hardship amounted to an injustice, and that the injustice must be remedied, I sincerely hope that the Minister will not press this Amendment but will give the occupiers of business premises the same advantage as those who are occupying the dwelling-houses.

Dr. ADDISON

May I say that I am willing to defer to what appears to be the desire of the House. I do not think it will delay the Bill, and therefore I do not wish to press the Motion to agree.

Question put, and negatived.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of the Clause add new Sub-sections— (2)The application of this Act to such premises as aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or the conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any statute or charter (3)This Section shall continue in force until the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.

Read a Second time.

Dr. ADDISON

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in Sub-section (2) of the said Amendment."

The first of these Amendments is necessary, because, otherwise, the Bill will apply to stalls, markets, and so on. The next one raises quite another point.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

Was it a Government Amendment?

Dr. ADDISON

Yes, it was.

Major BARNES

With regard to this Amendment I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to shortening this discussion by disagreeing with this Amendment. What he has put to us is not the whole state of the case. In many cases there are markets in which there are people occupying nut-stalls and shops—

Dr. ADDISON

indicated dissent.

Major BARNES

I have not the slightest desire to prolong this discussion, but this is a substantial Amendment, and it is going to have a serious effect in the city for which I am one of the Members. There are considerable markets there held under regulation—

Dr. ADDISON

This will not affect them.

Major BARNES

This Bill is brought in for the purpose of protecting shop-keepers from being evicted, and it protects shopkeepers who hold their shops from private owners. Shop people who hold their shops from public authorities should have the same sort of protection. You might have a scheme of public improvement carried through to dispossess the local shop-keepers. They would apply to the local authority for market stalls. The market rents would be put up and the people in the market turned out. If we are to protect the shop-keepers at all from the exactions of private landlords, I think we should protect them from the exactions of public authorities.

Mr. BILLING

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) what is meant by "protection by charter." Are we, by supporting this, like to place any local authority in a position which would prevent their making a municipal improvement in a town planning scheme by some old and obsolete charter, which this House should consider in the public interest should be removed. There is an old charter in connection with a river which does not flow very far from this House, which has caused an immense amount of trouble. I think on one occasion King Charles granted a charter for purely domestic reasons, which has caused an immense amount of trouble since. There are many old and antiquated charters in this country. This is kow-towing to these old charters, and by having passed through this House it may place some municipal authority in a position which may prevent it from carrying out a necessary and desirable scheme of town planning or public improvement, because in the middle of a market square some old charter may rule. I think it would be wrong, in the state of the development of our country for making it more '"fit for heroes to live in" and of making it a world cleansed and purged by the solemn tragedy of this War, if for the sake of some old charter we should stand between some municipal authority and the reconstruction of its city. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether we are committing ourselves if we support this.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the words in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

On a point of Order. Is not the last Amendment in two parts?

Dr. ADDISON

On a point of Order. I moved that the House doth agree with Sub-section (2).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Amendment of the Lords is one Amendment, not two.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

Surely it is two.

Dr. ADDISON

On a point of Order. I suggest that there are two Amendments. There should be new Sub-sections (2) and (3), and I moved that we agree with Subsection (2).

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

On a point of Order. Is there not some misunderstanding here? I understand it is possible to move Amendments to the Lords' Amendments and that the right hon. Gentleman has not moved the adoption of the whole of this Amendment, but has specifically moved the adoption of a portion of the Lords Amendment. That is distinctly my recollection of what he actually moved.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not think I want to deal with that point at all. If the hon. Member will look at the Paper, he will see "after line 12 insert new Sub-sections (2) and (3). That is the Amendment of the Lords. The only question I have to put is that we either agree to the Amendment of the Lords, or that we disagree, or that we consider the Amendments to the Amendment of the Lords. The Clerk read the Amendment of the Lords, and the Minister moved that we agree. I cannot go back.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

On a point of Order. I do not wish to dispute your ruling, Sir, in any way, but I want a clear understanding. The Minister has never moved that this Amendment by the Lords should be adopted. I heard distinctly what he said, and he did not move that. He may have mistaken the procedure, but he never used the words "I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." He did intend to move something of it, and I venture to submit this point for your consideration, whether it is possible for you to put to the House an Amendment which has not been moved by the Minister or by anyone in the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The fact is that the Minister moved "That this House doth agree," but whether the Minister meant to move "That this House doth agree to the whole Amendment," or with part, is not a question for me. What was quite clear was that the Clerk read the whole, and that I from the Chair put the question. The House can only discuss a question put from the Chair. I do not want to be too particular, perhaps, or too severe on the point. I can permit an irregularity and go back, although I ought not to do so. If it be the wish of the House to go back, I am pleased to do so. Let the Amendment be divided, and let us take the second part. The question is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Sub-section (3)."

3.0 A.M.

Dr. ADDISON

This part of the Amendment is that this Section shall continue in force until the 24th day of June, 1921. The effect of this Amendment is that the limitation otherwise provided in the Act in regard to premises other than these premises of three years was made inapplicable in this particular class of case, and the protection against eviction and the other safeguards which the Bill provides extend to the 24th June, 1921—that is one year. The grounds on which their Lordships moved this Amendment were practically that we were proposing, by the appointment of a Select Committee to frame special pro- posals for this class of property, and it was considered proper not to tie the hands of the Government for three years. This proposal gives protection for twelve months, and if at the end of that time our other proposals be not sufficiently advanced, it would be quite a simple matter to prolong the statute. I therefore propose that we agree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

The other part of the Act applies for three years, and this Amendment would mean that the application of the Act to business premises shall apply to one year only. It is suggested that the reason for this is that other measures are under contemplation with regard to business premises, and that it would be undesirable to tie ourselves up for a period of three years. I submit that in making the Act apply to these premises for three years we do not tie ourselves up. If other recommendations are approved by us, we can do it at any time by passing the necessary legislation. We do not tie our hands in any way. It is suggested that if the Act applied only for one year we can renew it when the year expires. I am very distrustful of that method. I am afraid time will not be found. We had an opportunity before of renewing the Acts with regard to rent restriction, and we have left it until the last minute. In fact they have actually expired now for three hours. The possibility of the Act being renewed is very uncertain, and I would prefer that it should apply to business premises in the same way as to dwelling-houses for the full period of three years.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

We ought to have some word from the right hon. Gentleman about this matter, because if we pass this Amendment for one year only, it will mean that shops will not have the same amount of protection as dwelling houses. Next Session it will be very difficult for the Government to introduce a fresh Bill. I am confident that if we agree to this Amendment, and accept the fact that shops are only to be protected for one year, it will mean that at the end of one year shops will drop out. I do not know if we want shops to drop out or not, but it appears to be quite certain that that will be the effect if we agree to the Amendment. Those of us who believe that tenants of shop property have as much right to protection as tenants of any other kind of property would view that with dismay.

Mr. SPENCER

I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware how the minds of certain small tradesmen have been perturbed by the uncertainty of their occupancy. One year does not give them enough security. They want to look a little beyond a year. The hon. Member who has just sat down has made a point that this House is overcrowded with legislation, and if this thing be not definitely settled now, it will certainly mean that all reasonable security for tradesmen will vanish at the end of a year. I sincerely hope that it will be found possible to extend the period, even if only for another year. I understand, however, that we cannot amend a Lords Amendment, and that it must be one year or what the Bill originally prescribed. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing a good service to these people whose minds are so unsettled if he could give them to understand that the period would be at least for three years.

Mr. BILLING

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider an Amendment which would read, "to give them such extension as appears to the court to be

desirable in the public interest"? That I am sure would meet the view of the Government, because it would leave it to the same court to which we left the previous Amendment. That I am sure should also appeal to the Members of the Labour party, who are desirous of removing from this House any legislative measure which is possible. If the right hon. Gentleman would permit this matter, which is essentially a local matter, in which local interests are concerned to be a matter of local jurisdiction, it would only be in accordance with the previous Amendment.

Major HENDERSON

I think it would be better for the Government to reject this Amendment. The Government are anxious to encourage trade and business in the country—to try and restore the position which existed before the War—and yet they are proposing to accept an Amendment which will result in keeping these unfortunate people engaged in trade "on the jump" all the time, not knowing whether at the end of 12 months they will be allowed to remain or not. If they think that is the right way to encourage business, I do not.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in so much of the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 42.

Division No. 176.] AYES. [3.9 a.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. Fildes, Henry Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Ford, Patrick Johnston Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. Forrest, Walter Neal, Arthur
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Fraser, Major Sir Keith Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Baird, John Lawrence Freece, Sir Walter de Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Raper, A. Baldwin
Barker, Major Robert H. Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Barnett, Major R. W. Gould, James C. Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Barnston, Major Harry Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Greame, Major Sir P. Lloyd- Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Betterton, Henry B. Green, Albert (Derby) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland Greenwood, William (Stockport) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Blair, Reginald Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Steel, Major S. Strang
Bruton, Sir James Haslam, Lewis Sturrock, J. Leng
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford) Sugden, W. H.
Casey, T. W. Hood, Joseph Sutherland, Sir William
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Cope, Major Wm. Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.) Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Whitla, Sir William
Curzon, Commander Viscount Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Dewhurst, Lleut.-Commander Harry Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Edge, Captain William Lorden, John William Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Lort-Williams, J.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Loseby, Captain C. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Falcon, Captain Michael M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.
Farquharson, Major A. C. Molson, Major John Elsdale Parker.
NOES.
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton Billing Noel Pemberton- Bromfield, William
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Borwick, Major G. O. Burn, Col. C.R. (Devon, Torquay)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Johnstone, Joseph Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lawson, John J. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Lunn, William Sitch, Charles H.
Glanville, Harold James Mills, John Edmund Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Morgan, Major D. Watts Spencer, George A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Swan, J. E.
Grundy, T. W. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Hartshorn, Vernon Robertson, John Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hayday, Arthur Royce, William Stapleton
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Sexton, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hirst, G. H. Shaw, Thomas (Preston) Mr. MacCallum Scott and Mr. Cape.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill reported, and agreed to.