Commons Sitting of 21 June 1920

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward) reported His Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 16th day of this instant June, as followeth:—
I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the first Section of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910, two Judges may be appointed to the High Court of Justice to fill vacancies in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Bill,
To be read the Third time To-morrow.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
Filey Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Hastings Tramways Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Lowestoft Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Dover Harbour Bill [Lords],
South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till to-morrow.
Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
Weardale and Consett Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Southampton Extension) Bill,
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [17th June] as relates to the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [Lords] be now considered.—[Mr. Parker.]
So much of the Lords' Message considered accordingly.
Ordered, That a Select Committee of Four Members be appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords to consider the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [Lords], as requested by their Lordships.—[Mr. Parker.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Mr. Britton, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Sitch, and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson nominated Members of the Select Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—[Mr. Parker.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    PATENT LICENCES (GERMANY).
    Mr. MANVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an application for the renewal of a licence granted by a German company to an English company under a German patent (which licence is deemed cancelled under Article 310 of the Treaty of Peace) has to be made to the mixed tribunal referred to in Articles 304 and 310 of the Treaty in default of agreement between the parties; whether the tribunal will sit in England or elsewhere; whether such tribunal has been appointed and whether any rules of procedure exist; and, if not, when is it proposed to set up the necessary machinery to enable an English licensee to compel the renewal of a licence under a German patent.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): A British company, which was at the outbreak of War a licensee of a German company under a German patent, has the right under Article 310 of the Treaty of Peace to demand from the German company, within six months after the coming into force of the Treaty, the grant of a new licence, the conditions of which, in default of agreement between the parties, shall be fixed by the mixed arbitral tribunal. It is not yet decided at what place or places that tribunal will sit; it is being established and will, I hope, shortly be fully constituted. Under the Treaty the tribunal will lay down its own rules of procedure.

    GERMAN MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what measures, if any, have been taken against the import of
    1712
    German manufactured goods; what has been the amount in tonnage or quantities of such imports during the last three months; whether such imports are being paid for by raw materials; and to what extent are they to be regarded as part payment of the War indemnity?
    Sir R. HORNE: There are at present no restrictions upon the imports of German goods. The registered imports from Germany during the last three months for which details are available, namely, February to April, were valued at £5,460,000. Of this total, goods classed as wholly or mainly manufactured accounted for approximately £4,000,000, and weighed 33,000 tons. Complete information as to exports to Germany during the same three months is not available, but the total value of the principal exports (including re-exports) was £5,400,000, of which 9 per cent. represented foodstuffs, 46 per cent. raw materials, and 45 per cent. manufactured goods. No imports from Germany during this particular period were to be credited to reparation.

    INCANDESCENT GAS MANTLES.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increasing extent to which incandescent gas mantles are being imported into this country; whether in the month of November, 1919, the total import, valued at £1,880, was increased during the two succeeding months to £25,619; whether, from the 1st February to the 8th May in the current year, the import reached a figure of £35,804; and whether, in view of the serious consequences of this import to the employers of British workpeople, he will take appropriate steps to safeguard the industry and prevent unemployment?
    Sir R. HORNE: The statistics quoted by my hon. Friend are substantially accurate. The Government is carefully watching the position, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly as to this and cognate cases.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one British company has practically a monopoly of gas mantles, and that their shares have risen from 2s. 6d. before the War to 35s. at the present time?

    ENGLISH CRÊPE (FRENCH EMBARGO).
    Captain MARTINasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the hardship inflicted on English workpeople caused by the French Government decrees of 25th April placing an embargo on English crêpe, practically the only English silk fabric imported into France, with the result that the Essex silk winding mills are running short time and are having to close on Saturdays and Mondays; whether Italian manufacturers have succeeded in getting concessions on their silks from the French Government; and whether he will make representations to secure similar concessions to Great Britain considering that we import from France something like £20,000,000 worth of French silk?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the serious effect on the English crêpe industry of the French import prohibitions. Inquiry has been made as to the admission into France of silk fabrics from other countries, but a definite reply has not yet been received. Representations have already been addressed to the French Government regarding the admission of English crêpe, and I am hopeful of the result.
    Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that the Italian manufacturers have secured concessions?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell my hon. Friend the exact particulars with regard to that point.
    Mr. HURD: Would that not be a pertinent matter to raise with the French Government?
    Sir R. HORNE: No doubt it would if the facts be as suggested.

    OIL.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if any agreement has been entered into by the Government with those of France, Italy and other European Powers that this country shall supply them with a percentage of oil obtained within the British Empire or countries under British protection; and whether such agreement, if any, is for general, commercial, and other purposes,
    1714
    or is only to cover their naval and military requirements?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I have been asked to reply. Certain reciprocal arrangements have been entered into with France in regard to oil supplies. No restriction has been placed on the use to which oil covered by this arrangement is to be put. No agreements are in force with other European Powers.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: When will the House of Commons be informed of the particulars of this reciprocal arrangement?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot say now.

  PROFITEERING ACT.

    COTTON.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Committee appointed under the Profiteering Act have reported as to the reasonableness of the increase in the price of Messrs. Coats' cotton?
    Sir R. HORNE: A Report has been received from the Sub-Committee appointed to inquire into the reasonableness or otherwise of the increased price of sewing cotton. The Report, which is at present receiving the consideration of the Board of Trade, will be published at an early date.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the conclusions of the Board of Trade be published with the report?
    Sir R. HORNE: My right hon. Friend asks about conclusions, and I am not sure exactly what he means, but any action which the Board of Trade thinks it necessary to take will undoubtedly be made known at that time.
    Mr. E. WOOD: Will this report include any review of these figures by a form of chartered accountants?
    Sir R. HORNE: All the figures put before the Committee have been reviewed by the Committee itself with the assistance of chartered accountants.
    Mr. THOMAS-STANFORDasked the President of the Board of Trade

    1715
    whether the Central Committee on Profiteering has yet reported on the profits of the Bell Spinning Company?
    Sir R. HORNE: As I promised in my reply to the questions put by the hon. Members for Kettering and Plaistow on the 10th May, the attention of the Central Committee under the Profiteering Acts has been called to the case of the Bell Mill Company, Limited, of Oldham. The Central Committee are obtaining detailed information from the company as to their profits, but I am informed that the investigation is not yet completed.

  TRANSPORT.

    COASTWISE SHIPPING (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. PERCYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government propose to continue the subsidy on coastwise shipping after this month and, if so, for what period; and what is the present cost of such subsidy to the country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Coastwise Subsidy Scheme will terminate definitely on 30th June, 1920, and a notice to that effect appeared in the public Press on the 17th instant. The amount of tonnage carried under the scheme up to the end of May was approximately 1,200,000 tons and the average refund in respect of claims already settled has been about 15s. a ton.

    RAILWAY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual cost of salaries and allowances of all kinds paid to the Government officials concerned in the control of the railways during the War.
    Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to reply to this question. The working of the railways of which possession was taken on the outbreak of War was controlled by a Committee of General Managers known as the Railway Executive Committee, who acted on behalf of the Board of Trade, which had no staff for the purpose.

    MOTOR CAR HEADLIGHTS.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the event of the Committee on the Lighting of Motor Cars failing to find any solution of the problem of dazzle from the headlights of motor vehicles, he will take steps to prohibit the use of headlights in areas where adequate street lighting exists.
    Colonel YATEasked the Minister of Transport whether he can arrange for the issue of a police regulation prohibiting the use of dazzling headlights in well-lighted streets pending the introduction of the proposed legislation.
    Mr. NEAL: As the hon. Member is aware, the Minister of Transport has no power under existing legislation to make any order prohibiting the use of headlights. The Interim Report of the Committee on Lights on Vehicles recommended that pending the solution of the dazzle problem the candle power and size of apertures might be limited. Experiments are still proceeding on the subject of dazzle.
    Viscount CURZON: Have we to wait until some indefinite date before anything can be done to put an end to this abuse?
    Mr. NEAL: If my Noble Friend means by an "indefinite date" one very far ahead, I do not think that is an accurate assumption.
    Colonel YATE: Cannot the police issue a regulation prohibiting the use of dazzling headlights?
    Mr. NEAL: The police have no power to do so.

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (PNEUMATIC TYRES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Lord Ashfield that experiments were being carried out, and probably a large number of public service vehicles would be equipped in the near future with pneumatic tyres; whether his Department is represented at such trials; and whether special attention will be given to the possible grave danger resulting from the bursting of such tyres on public service vehicles?
    Mr. NEAL: The Minister of Transport is kept informed of the progress of the experiments referred to in the first part of the question, though my Department is not represented at the trials. The point referred to in the last part of the question has not been overlooked.

    MOTOR CHARS-A-BANCS.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether there is any limitation to the size of the motor chars-a-bancs which are permitted to make use of the narrow country lanes in Great Britain; and whether, in view of the great inconvenience and danger caused by this form of traffic, he can see his way to give an undertaking that motor vehicles above a certain size should be strictly limited to the main roads of the country?
    Mr. NEAL: The size and weight of chars-a-bancs, as of other heavy motor vehicles, are regulated by the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904. Highway authorities are empowered under Section 8 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, to make application to the Minister of Transport for an Order prohibiting the use of such vehicles on roads which do not exceed 16 feet in width, or on which ordinary motor-car traffic would, in his opinion, be especially dangerous.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: In the absence of any movement by any particular council, has the ordinary user of the road no redress against these gasolene juggernauts?
    Mr. NEAL: I must not be taken to assent to that description of them. The ordinary user of the road has redress in case of negligence on the part of owners or drivers.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Has the Ministry of Transport, of its own volition, power to restrict the use of these chars-a-bancs in country lanes?
    Mr. NEAL: No, Sir; only on the application of the county council or local council concerned.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these "gasolene juggernauts" are the ordinary method by which common people take their holidays?

    RAILWAYS (FUTURE POLICY).
    Sir BURTON CHADWICKasked the Minister of Transport (1)
    1718
    whether, in order to promote the utility of the Parliamentary discussion of the Estimates of his Department, he will circulate to Members of the House, before those Estimates are discussed, a draft of his proposals for dealing with the railways, so that they may have ample opportunity of carefully considering it;
    (2) whether he expects to be able to recommend to Parliament this Session the future policy of his Department with regard to railways generally; and whether, in view of the economic and financial position of these undertakings, he can expedite his announcement?
    Mr. NEAL: The Minister of Transport proposes to lay before the House a statement on the policy which the Government intends to submit to Parliament with reference to the future of railway undertakings, when the Estimates are discussed on Thursday next. I regret I am unable to accept the suggestions of my hon. Friend.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: As these Estimates will come newly to many Members of this House, will there be another opportunity of discussing them?
    Mr. NEAL: No doubt there will be many opportunities, as the policy will necessitate legislation.

    ROAD GRANT, WALTHAMSTOW.
    Mr. JESSONasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Essex county council, through which the Government is making its road grant to Walthamstow, proposes to allocate only £12,500 to the Walthamstow urban district council, subject to that body spending a further sum of £65,000 upon improving the road surfaces of their district; if he can state why the East Ham borough council is to receive £72,000 for the same purpose, seeing that, while the respective populations of both districts are about the same, the road surface of Walthamstow is considerably greater than that of East Ham; and if he will state why Walthamstow is treated in this manner?
    Mr. NEAL: No true comparison can be instituted between the grants made to an urban district council which is only responsible for the maintenance of district roads and those made to a county borough which is responsible for the maintenance of all highways within its

    1719
    administrative area. The grant of £12,500 made to the Walthamstow urban district council is towards the improvement of district roads, and forms part of a total grant of £351,000 made to the Essex county council towards the improvement of main and district roads within its area. East Ham, being a county borough, is responsible for the maintenance of all highways within its area, and it was in respect of this that the grant of £72,000 was made.
    Mr. JESSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say why such a great distinction is made between two authorities which are on practically the same level?
    Mr. NEAL: That raises the question of the distinction between main roads and secondary roads. The classifying of main roads is now being undertaken, and it is the policy of the State to subsidise main roads at a greater rate than bye-ways which are district roads.

    RAILWAY RATES AND FARES.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, before any increase in railway charges for passengers and goods is sanctioned by the Government, a full statement will be presented to and the approval of Parliament obtained?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It has been decided by the Government, with the approval of the House, that the railways must pay their way, and, in our opinion, the necessary rates must be imposed as soon as the Advisory Committee has reported.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the House to have no voice whatever to the Government making arrangements which result in railway rates being increased to all the traders of the country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think this was fairly fully discussed, and it was decided that an Advisory Committee should be appointed to state the rates which were necessary to make the railways pay their way. That policy is being continued.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Has the Government considered the point that raising the rates may possibly diminish the revenue?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes. It is obvious that there is a point where the increase of rates will defeat its own
    1720
    object. In the meantime, we must impose rates which will prevent a charge on the Exchequer.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Advisory Committee to report as to the necessity or not of an increase in railway charges?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee, I understand, is now sitting. I expect their Report immediately.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Transport whether workmen's fares on the railways have been increased proportionately with those of other classes of passengers to meet the increased cost involved by the various increases in wages granted to railway workmen?
    Mr. NEAL: No increase has been made in the fares charged in respect of work-people travelling on the railways. The matter was referred, at the instance of the Cabinet, to the Rates Advisory Committee for their consideration on 5th May, 1920.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks it is fair that workmen should be exempted from paying their fair share of the increase due to the raising of wages to men in their own class, and that the members of the middle classes should always have to pay the piper and never be allowed to call the tune?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Transport whether in any further increase of railway fares which may be made on the advice of the Rates Advisory Committee the same consideration will be given to those whose business or profession entails constant and long-distance travelling as is given to those privileged to use workmen's tickets?
    Mr. NEAL: The Rates Advisory Committee will, I am sure, take into consideration all relevant considerations affecting the various classes of the community which travel on the railways when the question of any further increase in fares is under review. As regards workmen's fares, I refer the hon. and gallant Member to Question 69 on the Order Paper to-day.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is not the question of the raising of fares being considered at the present moment?
    Mr. NEAL: The same Committee is considering it, but whether they will be able to arrive at a conclusion on both matters simultaneously I cannot tell.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have you asked them or will you ask them to consider the question of workmen's fares?
    Mr. NEAL: That was referred to them.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will they also be empowered to consider the charging of fares to railway directors?

    RAILWAY POLICE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the railway general managers and the representatives of railway police failed to come to an agreement at the conference held recently to consider conditions of service and the formation of an organisation similar to the Police Federation, he is prepared to appoint a committee on the lines of the Desborough Committee so that both sides may have an opportunity of presenting their case to an independent tribunal?
    Mr. NEAL: I understand that negotiations are still proceeding.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to apply to the railway police the recommendations of the Desborough Committee with respect to the appointment of chief officers; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the committee recommend that no person without previous police experience should be appointed as chief constable in any force unless he possesses some exceptional qualification or experience which specially fits him for the post, any opportunity has been given railway police officers to apply for the position of chief officer in the police department of the Great Central Railway and the detective department of the Midland Railway, to which new appointments are to be made?
    Mr. NEAL: The conditions of service of the railway police are at present the subject of negotiations between representatives of the railway companies and
    1722
    of the men concerned. The appointment of chief officers is a matter within the discretion of the individual companies, and I have no knowledge of the circumstances of the two cases to which the hon. Member refers.

    ROADS (DANGER WARNINGS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken by his Department to deal with the question of dangerous and blind corners in rural and urban areas; and can special attention be given to the use of reflecting devices, such as mirrors, in cases where it is impossible to remove the danger by other means?
    Mr. NEAL: Highway authorities have been invited to submit proposals to the Ministry of Transport for the improvement of dangerous and blind corners, and as funds become available grants will be made in aid of such improvements. Reflecting devices have been tried by highway authorities, but have usually failed in their object owing to the difficulty of preventing their destruction.

    RATES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Rates Advisory Committee is composed of members nominated by himself or other Government Departments and is designed to stand between the travelling and trading public and their right to have matters of vital importance to themselves decided on the floor of the House; and will he consent to a member being added to the Committee nominated by the Middle Classes Union and Association of Commercial Travellers?
    Mr. NEAL: The Rates Advisory Committee, in its functions and composition, was determined by Section 21, Sub-section 1, of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and it was in every sense the creation of the House. It is not open to me to adopt the suggestion contained in the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. I do not, however, agree with the description of the Committee's functions as indicated in the first part of the question, and I do not think that any Committee has more fully commanded the general confidence of the travelling and trading community.

  MUNITIONS.

    EXPORT LICENCES.
    Captain W. BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a list of persons to whom, in the course of this year, licences have been granted for the export of munitions, stating in each case what was the destination of the goods in question?
    Sir R. HORNE: As the number of licences issued amounts to several hundred, a very large proportion being for export to British possessions, and for single weapons, such as sporting guns, revolvers, etc., I fear it is not feasible to take the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Captain BENN: I presume the right hon. Gentleman will have no objection to the list of licensed exporters being inspected?
    Sir R. HORNE: None whatever.

    TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MATERIAL.
    Major GLYNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what sum has been realised by the sale of insulators (both glass and china), telephone and telegraph cables, telephone and telegraph instruments, and telegraph poles thrown up by the Army for sale by the Disposal Board since the Armistice; whether the Disposal Boards intends to take any action for the collection and sale of such material at present in position in many parts of France and Flanders; and what has been the reason for these articles not being placed at the disposal of the Post Office authorities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): The reply is rather lengthy, and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer referred to:
    The total sum realised since the Armistice by the sale of the material in question in this country is £68,484. A considerable amount of telephone and telegraph material which complied with the specifications laid down by the Post Office has been purchased by that Department. With regard to such stores in France and Flanders, it is not possible to give the amount realised by the sale of specific articles, inasmuch as for the
    1724
    most part they have been sold in bulk with other stores. The cost of collection and the shortage of personnel available precluded the possibility of dismantling the material in fixed routes, and most of it has been sold to the French Government. I understand that a quantity of the stores in dumps and depots has already been transferred by the military authorities to the United Kingdom. The remainder has been collected by the Disposal Board in France, and will be offered for sale if not required by the Post Office.

    AUCTIONEERS.
    Mr. E. WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the inequitable distribution of disposal business with regard to surplus Government property among those auctioneers qualified to undertake it; and if he will say for what reason the firm of Messrs. Morgan, Short and Company, of Harrogate, a town endowed with excellent train and other facilities, has so far been denied a share in this business, in spite of repeated applications?
    Mr. HOPE: I cannot admit the assumption in the first part of the question. Special care has been taken by the Disposal Board to obtain accurate information through the Auctioneers' Institute, and otherwise, as to the qualifications of auctioneers throughout the country; but it is necessary for the Board to rely on their Controllers for the selection of the firms best qualified to dispose of particular classes of material. I can assure my hon. Friend that the firm of Messrs. Morgan, Short and Company, of Harrogate, will not be forgotten if a suitable opportunity for their employment presents itself.

    INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (CAPACITY).
    Lieut.-Colonel G. DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether records are available showing the productive capacity of the industrial establishments of the country at the time of the Armistice for each class of war material and equipment; whether such records have been kept up to date; and whether any provision has been made for their being periodically revised in the future?
    Mr. HOPE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The records were complete at the time of the Armistice, but have not since been revised. The third part of the question should be addressed to the War Office.

  RUSSIA.

    RUSSIAN SAILORS, CARDIFF.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the position of Russian sailors in Cardiff and other sea ports who belong to British unions; whether these men are not permitted to serve on English steamers sailing for America and Canada; and whether they are prohibited from returning to Russia?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have no recent information to indicate that Russian sailors are meeting with exceptional difficulty in getting employment, but I will make inquiries and will inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it a fact that they are not permitted to sail for America or Canada in British ships?
    Sir R. HORNE: Not, according to my information.

    BATUM.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the British commander at Batum is supported by or is supporting soldiers of the old Denikin White Government against the Georgian Government; and whether the Georgian Government, in reply, have arrested some members of the Entente Mission at Tiflis?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Russian Government have made peace with the Georgian Government and come to a settlement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen a statement to that effect.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there no official information?

    SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to
    1726
    issue a statement concerning the progress of negotiations with the Russian Soviet representative, M. Krassin?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no further information to give on the subject.
    Mr. MALONE: Has an ultimatum been presented to the Soviet delegates, and if it prove unacceptable will this House be given an opportunity of knowing all the facts and discussing the matter before the delegates are asked to leave the country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any ultimatum.

    MURDER OF CAPTAIN CROMIE.
    Commander LOCKER - LAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of Captain Cromie's murder by the Bolsheviks in Petrograd has been formally discussed with M. Krassin; whether M. Krassin has expressed disapproval of this murder on behalf of his Government; and what steps M. Krassin proposes to take in order to compensate Captain Cromie's family?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The question referred to has not been included in the formal conversation with M. Krassin, to the negotiations with whom at the present stage it does not appear to appertain.

    MURDER OF MR. GOLDINGER.
    Commander LOCKER - LAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Boris Goldinger, who was attached to the British naval armoured cars in Russia as interpreter, was recently murdered by the Bolsheviks in Russia; whether he is aware that his wife, who is an Englishwoman, was left with a young child in a Bolshevik prison in Moscow; whether the Bolshevik authorities have refused to move in the matter; and whether M. Krassin has been urged to secure her immediate release and the return of herself and her child to this country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My information is to the effect that Mr. Goldinger was shot in the spring of this year, but I am not aware that his widow is in prison in Moscow. As regards the third and fourth parts of the hon. and gallant

    1727
    Member's question, the case of Mrs. Goldinger, who is a British born widow of a Russian subject, has been brought to the notice of the Soviet Government's representative at Copenhagen. His Majesty's Government have every sympathy with Mrs. Goldinger, and will continue their efforts on her behalf.

    BRITISH NAVAL PRISONERS, BAKU.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give any information regarding the report that British naval prisoners at Baku are being subjected to brutal treatment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): The only information available is that which has just been given by the Prime Minister in reply to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Battersea South.
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information with regard to officers and men of the Royal Navy captured at Baku, and reported to be retained there in a condition of slavery by the Soviet Government; whether, in the event of the receipt of reliable information to the effect that they are not being accorded proper treatment as prisoners of war, he will at once take steps to arrest and accord similar treatment to all members of the Soviet forces who may now or in future fall into our hands, and will he at once take steps to terminate all negotiations with the Soviet representative, pending satisfactory treatment being accorded to our men?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The information available is only irregular and intermittent, but we have reason to believe that the British prisoners in question have not been properly treated. His Majesty's Government are taking all possible steps in the matter, and M. Krassin has been informed that the unconditional release of all British prisoners is a condition precedent to any result of the negotiations.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    EXPORTS.
    Captain TUDOR REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether
    1728
    he has now been made aware of the fact that certain collieries in South Wales and elsewhere have been, or are about to be, closed down in consequence of the recent Order restricting the export of coal; and, if so, whether, to prevent the unemployment and loss involved, he will consider the advisability of revoking or modifying the Order?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The Coal Mines Department is aware of only one colliery, situated in Northumberland, which closed down in view of export restrictions. The matter is in the hands of the local Coal and Coke Supply Committee, and it is understood that the colliery has re-started. As regards the remainder of the question, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to him of 16th June.

    PORT OF LONDON (DUES AND CHARGES).
    Mr. FREDERICK GREENasked the Minister of Transport what increases he has directed in the rates, dues, and charges of the Port of London Authority; and whether any steps have been taken to ensure that such increases are not more than are required to enable the authority to meet its increased working expenses?
    Mr. NEAL: In order to enable them to meet the increase in dockers' wages, the Port of London Authority applied for further increased charging powers. On the recommendation of the Rates Advisory Committee, a direction was issued taking effect on the 10th of May increasing the authority's charges by a maximum of 135 per cent. and, in the case of grain, 150 per cent. over those in force on the 22nd of April, 1917. The increases represent a 65 per cent. additional to the percentage increases already in force at the time of the direction. The Committee recommended that any direction should be subject to reconsideration in case it should appear from the Authority's accounts that the increases were more or less than sufficient to provide the income necessary for the proper working of its undertaking and for satisfying its legal obligations. The Minister of Transport has called upon the Authority to furnish statements at

    1729
    an early date, showing the actual effect of the increases both in cost of working and in revenue.
    Mr. GREEN: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to indicate the results of the inquiry to the House when they are received? When does he expect the Port of London Authority to supply the necessary information?
    Mr. NEAL: Certainly, a statement will be available for Members of the House. The Ministry are pressing the Authority to expedite the information.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    OIL CONCESSIONS.
    Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister if the granting of concessions for oil getting in Mesopotamia is conditioned by the terms of the mandate and the League of Nations; if so, in what degree; if it is under consideration to grant concessions to other than companies registered in the United Kingdom; if so, to what companies, to what extent, and under what conditions; if he will state when he will be able to declare the oil policy of the Government in Mesopotamia; and what opportunity will be given this House to discuss such policy before it is put into execution?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The terms of the mandate have not yet been formulated, and it is therefore impossible to state the conditions which it will impose. Until the future Government of Mesopotamia is constituted there can exist no authority competent to grant new concessions.
    Captain BENN: Is Mesopotamia the subject of the reciprocal arrangements referred to by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade in an answer this afternoon?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it true that the future Government of Mesopotamia has been communicated to our representative in Mesopotamia to be published this week?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I believe some general statement similar to that made in 1918 will be made.
    Major BARNES: What opportunity will the House have of discussing the Government policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Many opportunities. I believe one will occur on Wednesday.

    BRITISH FORCES.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, as the expenditure on the military forces in Mesopotamia and Persia, to be borne by the British taxpayer, is at the rate of £475,000 per week, or £24,700,000 a year, as against an estimate of £16,000,000, he can give some idea of the commensurate value that will accrue to Britain through this great expenditure?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would not be possible to discuss the general policy to be adopted in Mesopotamia by question and answer. An opportunity for such a discussion will, I understand, occur on Wednesday.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will it be in order to discuss the general policy as to the future of Mesopotamia on the Army Vote?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know whether it will be in order, but I think it will be very difficult to prevent any general discussion, owing to the fact that it is in military occupation.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Do the Government propose to go on spending at the rate of £24,700,000 a year on Mesopotamia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can answer that at once by saying "No."
    Mr. C. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an intense public feeling against this excessive military expenditure in the Middle East?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know there is a very strong feeling, which is probably shared by the whole House, that it is desirable to cut down expenditure, where possible. The question as to where it is possible must be considered in each case on its merits.
    Captain W. BENN: Will it be necessary to introduce a Vote supplementary to the Vote already presented to the House for Mesopotamia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to say now. The hope was that the military

    1731
    forces in Mesopotamia would be gradually reduced during the year. Whether that hope will be realised or not I cannot say.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    DISARMAMENT (GERMANY).
    Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the information contained in the German wireless of 10th June with reference to the progress of disarmament has now been checked by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control; whether the Zeitfreiwilligen (Reichswehr Reserves) and Einwohnerwehren (Civic Guards) have actually been disbanded; what answer has been given to the German Government with reference to their request to retain the Sicherheitspolizei (armed constabulary);
    (2) whether he is satisfied with the progress that has been made by the German Government in the surrender and destruction of artillery, machine guns, small arms, and small arms ammunition; and, if he is not satisfied, what steps are being taken by the Supreme Council to ensure the effective carrying out of the Peace Treaty in these respects?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control have not yet been able to report as to the truth of the statement made in the German wireless, but they are examining into it. Official orders have been issued by the German Government for the disbandment of the Reichswehr Reserves and Civic Guards, but these orders have not so far been completely obeyed. In regard to this subject, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House on the 29th April. Since then, some progress has been made, but this question, as my hon. and gallant Friend will have seen in the official communique from Hythe, is engaging earnest attention of the Allies.
    Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the House know as soon as the inter-Allied Commission has reported whether the conditions have been carried out in view of the great anxiety which prevails on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Not only this Government, but all the Allied Govern-
    1732
    ments attach the utmost importance to the complete disarmament of Germany.
    Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the German Government to carry out the terms of the Peace Treaty with reference to the surrender and destruction of aircraft?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I have been asked to reply. This matter was raised on the 15th instant, and I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies which my right hon. Friend then gave to questions put by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. Hall).
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous answer was by no means a definite one, and can he not add anything to it?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir, I cannot.

    BULGARIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether Bulgarian troops who surrendered to the Allied Army commanded by General Franchet d'Esperey in accordance with the terms of the Armistice of 29th September, 1918, and were retained as hostages for Bulgaria's good faith and also for the purpose of repairing the railways in Macedonia, were handed over by the Allies to Greece and Serbia; whether, at the present moment, although the railways have been repaired and the Treaty of Peace has been signed seven months ago by all the belligerents concerned, Greece still retains in captivity some 15,000 Bulgarian soldiers and Serbia 12,000; and whether he can give any information as to the conditions and treatment to which these prisoners are subjected and as to the reasons why they are not released?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is, I am informed, no record in the War Office as to whether these prisoners were handed over by General Franchet d'Esperey to the Greeks and Serbians. The matter was one for arrangement between the supreme command of the Allied Armies of the Orient and the Bulgarian Government. With regard to the last two parts of the hon. Member's question, I understand that the Council of the League of Nations have decided to refer this matter to Dr. Nansen for

    1733
    unofficial inquiry and for such action as he may find it possible to take.

    TURKEY.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister (1) whether any provisions exist in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey regarding the future sovereignty and government of the former Turkish provinces of Yemen and Asir respectively; whether there still exists any treaty between this country and the Said Idrissi of Asir; if so, whether this treaty recognises his authority in Asir and, if so, throughout the province of Asir; whether the subsidy paid to the Said Idrissi during the war for his co-operation against the Turks has now ceased; whether he is now free to enter into treaties with other Powers;
    (2) whether the Imam Yahya of Sanaa has been recognised by the Allies as the successor of the Sultan of Turkey to all rights hitherto possessed by Turkey in the province of Yemen, including control of the commercial ports, the Yemen, Hodeidah, and Mocha; whether steps are being taken to arrange a treaty with the Imam Yahya regarding trade between the Yemen and the Aden protectorate; whether the good offices of the British Government will be offered in securing a peaceful settlement between the rival claims of the Imam Yahya and the Said Idrissi in Western Yemen; and whether the Indian battalion will be retained at Hodeidah until some friendly arrangement between these two rulers regarding the government and use of that port has been reached.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and last parts of the first question is in the negative; to the remaining three parts of the question in the affirmative. The future of the Arabian Peninsular, exclusive of the Hejaz, is now under discussion between the principal Allied Powers, in favour of whom Turkey is, by the terms of the Peace Treaty, to renounce all rights and title therein. Until a decision has been reached by the principal Allied Powers as to the future of the Arabian Peninsula, exclusive of the Hejaz, it would be premature to say more than that the good offices of His Majesty's Government will always be offered in securing a peaceful settlement between the independent rulers of Arabia.
    Mr. PALMER(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he could
    1734
    make any statement as to the decision of the Government to accept the military aid of Greece in dealing with Turkish Nationalists?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no special statement to be made on the subject. As a matter of fact, it is now under discussion at Boulogne. Greece is one of the Allies, and Greek troops will, if necessary, be used, like others of the Allied nations concerned, by general agreement of the Allies and acting on the advice of their military advisers.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have yet come to any decision in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on the 12th May.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask when the Government will be able to give a definite reply?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer on the 12th May was that the natural time for that decision is when the Bill comes on, and it will be given then.

  PALESTINE.

    HIGH COMMISSIONER.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister the terms of Sir Herbert Samuels appointment to Palestine and the salary allocated to the office?
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether the appointment of Sir H. Samuel as administrator of Palestine will involve any expense to the British taxpayers; and whether he will give an undertaking that no expenditure whatever in this connection shall be incurred without the sanction of Parliament?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Sir Herbert Samuel has been appointed High Commissioner in Palestine for the purpose of instituting a civil administration to replace the existing military administration. His salary has been been fixed at £E4,000 a year; the question of granting him in

    1735
    addition an allowance as frais de representation is still under consideration. These emoluments will be paid from the Palestinian revenues.
    Mr. HOGGE: On what Vote will it be taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It will not appear on any Vote; it will be paid out of the Palestine revenues.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Supposing that the Palestine revenues be not sufficient to pay it, will it fall upon the British taxpayer?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a supposition which I do not like to anticipate.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman content to go out and rely upon his salary being paid out of the Palestine revenues?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Cannot we have an opportunity of discussing Palestine affairs on the Foreign Office Vote, as in the case of Egypt?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Undoubtedly, if the House desire it.
    Captain W. BENN: Are we to understand that the Mandate has already been settled for Palestine?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
    Captain BENN: Then how can you appoint a Governor?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: You must take preliminary steps to set up a civil administration. I should have thought that that was desirable from every point of view.
    Mr. MALONE: Will a special Bill be laid before the House, as in the case of Naura?
    Mr. PALMERasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can state the estimated annual cost of the High Commissioner for Palestine and staff, and what sum or sums are to be spent in setting up the new regime in Palestine; will that cost fall upon the British taxpayer; and, if so, under what Vote will discussion be possible in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to give actual figures, as no decision has been arrived at as to the composition of
    1736
    the staff of the High Commissioner, but I hope that no part of the cost will fall upon the British taxpayer.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Sir B. CHADWICKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the long Sundays which the public naturally spend out of doors, thereby postponing till the last moment their evening meal, he will consider the desirability of changing the times in which alcoholic refreshments can be supplied from, as at present, 6 p.m. till 9 p.m., to 7 p.m. till 10 p.m.?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what has already been said on this subject.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Prime Minister has communicated with the Control Board, as promised, and, if so, what answer has been given?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot communicate the answer, but I am sure the promise my right hon. Friend made has been carried out.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the urgency of the question, would the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Liquor Control Board at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister promised the other day, when I was present, that the representations made would be communicated to the Board, and I am sure that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the quantities of beer, spirits, and wines sold by retail upon licensed premises in the city of Carlisle during the years 1917, 1918, and 1919, respectively, and the total retail prices received in respect thereof during the same years?
    Mr. HOPE: I regret that I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford on the 3rd March last to the hon. Member for Clay Cross.
    Captain W. BENN: Why is it impossible to give the information? Surely it must be in the possession of the Ministry?
    Mr. HOPE: We have no information in the possession of the Ministry, and the Central Control Board are of opinion that the labour involved would be out of proportion to the advantage to be gained.
    Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say that no such figures are returned immediately by the Ministry referred to?
    Mr. HOPE: I cannot say. I can only go by the information supplied by the Central Control Board.

  IRELAND.

    MR. G. G. DUFFY, M.P.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the seditious propaganda which the hon. Member for South Dublin County has been carrying on in Paris for the last twelve months or more, he has given orders that the passport issued to him shall be withdrawn?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: For the reasons mentioned by the Prime Minister in answer to a Question on this subject, the Government have not adopted the course suggested in the Question.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that any subject of King George, whether loyal or disloyal, is entitled to a passport?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the question. The question is whether it should be withdrawn. That would be useless unless we simultaneously asked the French Government to expel this gentleman. In my view, to take that course would be to attach an amount of importance to this matter which it does not merit.

    ATTACKS ON MILITARY AND POLICE.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the numerous successful surprise attacks in Ireland on despatch riders, sentries, and small bodies of military and police, the Government intend by temporary orders under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, subsequently to be confirmed by legislation, to confer on the military and police in that country such powers of initiative as will place them at least on an equality with the forces of disloyalty and sedition who attack them?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Henry): The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask whether some steps cannot be taken to give the policemen and soldiers some opportunity of defending themselves before they are attacked, in view of the fact that they are so often attacked unawares, and killed before they have an opportunity of doing anything?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great shortage of light motor cars at the disposal of the police forces in Ireland, and that the only means available are to send heavy Army motors, which are heard miles off; and will he see that light cars, which can take soldiers and police to the scene of action quickly and silently, are obtained?
    Mr. HENRY: I will represent to the proper quarter the hon. Gentleman's views on the question of motor-cars. As regards the other question, it is obviously impossible to define by a Defence of the Realm Regulation who shall shoot first.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Would it be wise to send over to Ireland the motors now used by the Ministry of Transport?

    POLITICAL SUSPECTS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement regarding the new court for the trial of Irish political suspects; will the court try those already detained; will the proceedings be public; and will the evidence of witnesses be given on oath?
    Mr. HENRY: I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to this matter at present.
    Captain BENN: In the meantime will those detained on suspicion only be detained, or will they be released?
    Mr. HENRY: If my recollection serves me aright, no one is at present in prison.

    ADEN PROTECTORATE.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether the Aden Protectorate is now under the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Colonial Office, or the War Office; who is the principal re-

    1739
    presentative of the British Government in Aden and from whom he receives his instructions; whether inland trade between Yemen and Aden has now been restored; whether we are in complete possession of the whole of the Aden Protectorate; and whether the pre-War frontier is to be maintained?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The supreme authority in the Aden Protectorate is the Resident and General Officer Commanding, who receives his instructions from the Foreign Office and War Office through Field Marshal Lord Allenby on political and military questions respectively. Until a final decision has been reached on the future administration of the Middle East, the India Office continue to exercise internal administrative control through the Government of India, under whom the Protectorate was before the War. Inland trade between Aden and the Yemen is liable to interruption owing to the hostile attitude of the Imam of Sanaa, who has on various occasions sent officials into certain outlying parts of the Protectorate which are not normally occupied by British troops. The Imam's encroachments are being resisted by the tribes within our frontier, and there is at present no necessity for further measures to be taken.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will steps be taken as soon as possible to get into touch with the Imam Yahya, so as to ensure that this penetration shall not continue; and is it not a fact that he is most anxious to come to terms with the British Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like notice before giving a definite answer to that question, but my recollection is that we have made many efforts in that direction.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Lieut -Colonel JAMESasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to state whether a Bill to deal with increased pensions for necessitous pensioners of the State, whose pensions have up to date been on the pre-War scale, will be introduced at an early date with a view to ensuring its passage before the Adjournment of the Rouse in July?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to name a date when the Government will be prepared to introduce the Bill for giving legislative effect to the concessions to pre-War pensioners?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The necessary Bill has now been drafted, and I hope that it will be possible to introduce it at a very early date.

    AGRICULTURE BILL.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong opposition in Wales to the Agriculture Bill, he has considered the advisability of establishing a Board of Agriculture for Wales and a Welsh Land Court, on similar lines to those constituted by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Why is Wales treated differently from Scotland in this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman knows there are many particulars in which Wales and England act together, whereas Scotland has been treated separately. This is one of them.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Wales wants to act separately, like Scotland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is always dangerous for any individual, however well he knows a country, to speak for the whole country.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a unanimous demand from Wales for a Secretary of State for Wales, and will he give facilities for that Bill in order that we may get separate treatment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not arise. Wales is unlike any other country if there is a unanimous opinion about anything.
    Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he can see his way to insert a Clause in the Agriculture Bill now before Parliament by which the transfer of land for agri-

    1741
    cultural purposes can be made as easy and simple as in the United States of America, where 10 or 1,000 acres costs only 50 cents for registration of the transfer of ownership in place of the costly conveyancing methods in vogue in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): It is quite impossible to deal with this complicated matter in the Agricultural Bill. An elaborate measure for simplifying the transfer of land is now being considered in another place and should reach this House at an early date.
    Major EDWARDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether any steps have yet been taken to introduce legislation on the lines of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Agricultural Machinery?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave in answer to his question on 21st April.

    VIENNESE CHILDREN (HOSPITALITY).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in connection with the reception of children from Vienna in this country the children of Czech parents are being purposely passed over; and whether, in view of the fact that there are over 200,000 citizens of Czech nationality in Vienna, he will endeavour to see that the children coming to this country are chosen not merely by their nationality but by their needs?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, I am not aware of the allegations contained in the first part of the question. Thirty children of Czech parentage were received in this country in the first party, and the suggestion contained in the last part of the question is the normal practice.

    OPEN SPACES BILL.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in view of the growing difficulty experienced by sports clubs in all parts of the
    1742
    country to obtain the necessary ground, the Open Spaces Bill, which would enlarge the powers of local authorities in this matter, is practically a non-contentious measure; and whether, in the interests of physical culture and the social wellbeing of the people, he will grant facilities for the passage of this short Bill this Session?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that it is impossible at the present stag; to give any promise in regard to a Private Bill.

    FINANCE BILL.
    Sir A. FELLasked the Prime Minister when the Finance Bill will be taken in Committee; how many days will be given for the Committee stage; and if in any case it can be arranged that the corporation tax, being a new tax involving changes of the principles of taxation, shall have adequate time given for its consideration instead of the 30 minutes' time which was all that was allowed for it on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolutions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to answer the first two parts of the question. But, as I stated on Thursday last, the Finance Bill cannot be taken this or next week. As regards the last part of the question, I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, when the Debate was brought to an end at 8.15, and not resumed after 11 o'clock by the general desire of the House.
    Sir A. FELL: May we in any case receive an assurance that sufficient time will be allowed for discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: By Statute we are bound to have it through by 5th August. It will be introduced in plenty of time.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right. hon. Gentleman give good notice before he proceeds with the Committee stage?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. Probably it will be taken the week after next.

    SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) ACT, 1919.
    Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister (1) when the Orders in Council under Section 1 (a) of the Sex

    1743
    Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, will be laid upon the Table; whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing them;
    (2) whether the Government intend to lay upon the Table Orders in Council under Section 1 (a) of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, in order to give effect to the recommendations contained in the recent Report of a Committee of the National Whitley Council on the admission of women to the Civil Service, or whether they intend to proceed without Orders in Council?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Many of the recommendations of the National Whitley Council Joint Committee can be carried into effect without Order in Council; others will require to be authorised by a general order revising the Civil Service (Consolidating) Order in Council of 10th January, 1910. It is possible that a special Order will be required, having regard to Section 1 (a) of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, to deal generally with the admission and status of women in the Civil Service, but I am not yet in a position to say this definitely. Any such Order will be laid on the Table in accordance with Section 1 of the Act.
    Major HILLS: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. Member knows, by the terms of the Act it is laid on the Table for 30 days.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Captain TUDOR REESasked the Prime Minister whether the letter which he addressed to the spending departments last August resulted in any and, if so, what economies; and whether, if he is satisfied with such result, he will address another communication to them with a view to reducing the sum which they continue to expend?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The letter referred to has proved useful in helping the Treasury to secure the co-operation of Departments in the reduction of their staffs. The process is necessarily a gradual one, but in the case of certain Departments the Government have decided at the instance of the Treasury to appoint special independent Com-
    1744
    mittees to carry out test investigations on the spot.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether an opportunity can be given to discuss the question of limiting public expenditure to a definite proportion of the estimated national income?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A general financial discussion would, I think, be very desirable. It can be taken on the Treasury Vote, and I should be glad if this Vote were asked for at an early date.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would it be possible, in anticipation of such a Debate, that the Treasury should provide a White Paper showing their estimate of what the national income is?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treasury have no estimate made by themselves of the national income. It has been explained over and over again that many estimates have been made, but none of them official.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: When the Treasury gives such reply as it may be able to give, will Estimates be presented showing the amount required for the expansion of industry, so that we may know how far taxation should go?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If any attempt were made to give that figure, the difference of opinion would be greater still.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it be possible to publish a White Paper showing the economies actually effected since the Budget was introduced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that. It will be his desire, I am sure, before the Debate, to give the House all possible information.

    TESCHEN.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information with regard to the present situation at Teschen?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The situation in Teschen is troubled, owing to the apparently growing local opposition to the solution of the territorial claims of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia by plebiscite. The Ambassadors' Conference

    1745
    at Paris is actively engaged at this moment in the endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has Czecho-Slovakia accepted the idea of a plebiscite, whereas Poland has refused?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think both have accepted.
    Lord R. CECIL: From whom is the opposition now coming?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is coming entirely from Poland. I do not know.

    WAR TROPHIES (PUBLIC AUTHORITIES).
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister what public authorities have declined to receive and exhibit war trophies?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. A certain number of public authorities have declined to receive certain War trophies, mainly on the ground of want of accommodation for guns. Some authorities, however, who have refused guns, have accepted smaller trophies. I may add that the number of applications for guns is largely in excess of the stock available.
    Captain LOSEBY: Generally speaking, in those public authorities which have declined to receive war trophies, is there not a majority of individuals who did their best to prevent the country winning the War at all?

    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (SALARIES).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Transport whether the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that the outlay on the salary list of the Ministry of Transport should be cut down from £416,000 to £346,000 is to be carried out; and, if not, for what reason?
    Mr. NEAL: The Select Committee on National Expenditure do not recommend any reduction in the current outlay in salaries of the existing staff of the Ministry, but on the contrary, approve certain increases. The Estimates framed
    1746
    in December last were cast so as to cover certain contingencies and possibilities which have not arisen, and it has been found possible to reduce the margin for vacant posts. In order that hon. Members may be fully informed upon this and other matters, the Minister of Transport has submitted revised Estimates to the Treasury and arranged for the same to be presented forthwith.
    Mr. KILEY: Am I to understand that the Ministry of Transport propose to limit the expenditure to £346,000 for the coming year?
    Mr. NEAL: That will appear better when my hon. Friend sees the revised Estimate which, I hope, will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning.

  ALBANIA.

    BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on what date an English official representative to Albania was appointed; whether he has yet reached that country; and, if not, the reasons for this delay?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The definite appointment of a British official representative in Albania has had to be deferred in view of the fact that certain unforeseen difficulties have arisen since the reply which I returned to the hon. and gallant Member's question of the 10th of May. The desirability of such an appointment is being borne in mind.
    Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman say what are the unforeseen circumstances?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: At the moment I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given.

    CHIMARA.
    Mr. HILTON YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary for Affairs whether the Greek district of Chimara has been occupied by Albanians; if so, whether the lives and property of the inhabitants of the district are in peril; and whether it is proposed to take any measures for their protection?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I have no official information as to the progress of events in Albania. From

    1747
    unofficial sources, however, I learn that the Albanians have occupied both Chimarra and Santi Quaranta, and that their attitude towards the Greek inhabitants has so far been not unfriendly. I fully share my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety as to the present position of the Greek colonies in Northern Epirus. The situation is both obscure and delicate, but I have little doubt that the Italian and Greek Governments are in communication on the subject and will do all that is possible to prevent these populations from being seriously endangered.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will steps be taken to see that the Foreign Office are correctly informed in regard to matters in Albania?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We are most anxious to be informed, but, in view of the difficult circumstances it has not yet been possible.
    Lord R. CECIL: How long have we been without any representative in Albania?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot say at the moment.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    ALLOTMENTS, ST. NEOTS (HUNTS).
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if the attention of his department has been drawn to the application of ex-service men for land for allotments and small holdings in the St. Neots district of Huntingdonshire; if fields Nos. 147, 148, 150, 158, 159 and 161 on the Ordnance Survey map, being part of Marshall's Farm and situate on Cemetery Lane, St. Neots, representing a total are of 57 acres 1 rood and 19 poles, have been inspected and passed by a representative of the Ministry as suitable for small holdings; and whether, in consequence, it is proposed to make this land available for the applicants by Michaelmas next?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the farm referred to has been inspected with other land in the neighbourhood by the Ministry's District Commissioner, and the County Council have been
    1748
    in negotiation for the purchase of this property, with a view to supplying ex-service applicants at St. Neots and Eynesbury. The numbers of the fields and the area, however, are not exactly as stated by my hon. Friend. In reply to the last part of the question, I have only heard this morning that the owner has accepted the Council's offer, but can make no further statement at present.

    TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the reason for refusing to receive a deputation from the National Ex-Service Men's Union of Temporary Civil Servants; if he will also explain why he is not prepared to give preferential treatment in respect of employment to ex-service men in the Civil Service; and if the Government is prepared to set up an Arbitration Court upon the matter, and to abide by its decision?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The reasons why there would appear to be no need to arrange for a deputation to be received from the association referred to have already been stated on the 19th ultimo, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancaster. The other parts of the question are covered by the answer given on the 8th instant to the hon. Member for Ealing.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHEAT EXPORTS TO GERMANY.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked (1) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if he can give any information as to the reported undertaking to deliver 9,500 tons of wheat from England to Germany for cash; whether the exporters are the British Government or private dealers; what is the contract price per customary quarter of wheat; whether the wheat to be exported to Germany is British-grown wheat; if so, whether the British producer is to receive a controlled price considerably below the free market price for the benefit of German consumers; and whether the Minister of Agriculture, who recently warned the country of an approaching shortage of foodstuff, was consulted in regard to the transaction and gave it his approval;

    1749
    (2) the Minister of Food whether any engagement has been entered into with the German Food Minister for the supply by this country of wheat to Germany; if so, will he say what quantity has been promised to Germany and within what limit of time it is to be delivered; and whether the transaction is to be taken as indicating that there is no danger of shortage of wheat in this country, and that the recent warning to the contrary by the Minister of Agriculture may be disregarded?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. No wheat has been sold or promised by the United Kingdom to Germany, but in order to meet a serious emergency caused by short arrivals, His Majesty's Government agreed at the end of May to advance to Germany 9,800 tons of flour. This was shipped direct from West St. John to Hamburg, was paid for, and has already been replaced without inconvenience or loss to the British consumer. The remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    WOOL.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what quantities of wool are at present held by the Government in this country, if any further consignments are arriving to the order of the Government, for what further period it is intended to maintain the Wool Control Department; if wool is held here on the joint account of the Home and Dominion Governments; and if can give an approximate figure of the profits made by this Department for the last financial year for the Home and Dominion Governments?
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked whether the Australian wool-growers are to receive a portion of the profits made by the Government on the re-sale of Australian wool; and, if so, what is the amount so payable to those growers?
    Mr. HOPE: I have been asked to answer these questions. The answer to the first part of question No.15 is in the affirmative, by virtue of the agreements of 1916 and 1918. The figures for the
    1750
    last financial year cannot be given, but the amount due to Australia up to the 31st March,1919, is £6,486,991. The quantity of wool held by the Government in this country is approximately 690,000 bales, and as under the agreements the Government has purchased the wool clips of Australia and New Zealand up to the 30th instant, large further consignments will in due course arrive in this country. No Government control of wool now exists, but it will be necessary to maintain the wool section of the Ministry until the Government purchases of wool have been disposed of. The wool referred to is the property of the British Government, but the Commonwealth and Dominion Governments are interested under the agreements in the profits realised on the sale of wools used for other than British Government purposes.

  INDIA.

    RAILWAY OFFICIALS (PENSIONS).
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the case of those officials of the State railways of India who are 60 years of age, and who were retired before the War on a pension or were given a lump sum on completion of their service, and who find it quite impossible to exist on that pension or the interest of the invested money at the present time?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend is considering whether it would be proper to grant some relief from Indian revenues to retired officers of the Government of India similar to that recently announced by His Majesty's Government for pensioners of the Imperial service, but pensioners residing in India must be considered as well as those in this country, and in any event it would be difficult to justify in the case of the latter any relaxation of the income limits applicable to officers of the Imperial service.

    BOMBAY (RESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATION).
    Mr. SWANasked whether the advisory rules committee appointed by the Government of Bombay have recommended that there should be no residential qualification in that presidency?
    Mr. PARKER: My right hon. Friend is not aware what the recommendation

    1751
    of the Bombay Advisory Committee was on this point. The question is under consideration by the Joint Select Committee.

    BENGAL PRESIDENCY (LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY).
    Mr. SWANasked whether the Government of India propose to allot to the Bengal l'residency the largest number of seats on the Legislative Assembly as compared with other provinces; and, if so, what are the special reasons justifying such a course?
    Mr. PARKER: My right hon. Friend gives the hon. Member the answer supplied on behalf of the Government of India to this question when it was put in the Indian Legislative Council—
    "In determining the number of seats to be assigned to each province the Government of India have endeavoured to give due weight to all the relevant factors, including population, political development, and commercial importance. They consider that on this basis Madras, Bombay and the United Provinces should be allotted the same number of seats, and that Bengal is entitled to one seat over and above this number."

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL DYER.
    Colonel ASHLEY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have decided to restore Brigadier-General Dyer to the Army?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): No, there is no truth in that statement, which has been published in a great number of newspapers. The Army Council are still awaiting a statement which Brigadier-General Dyer is being allowed to submit. He expressed an opinion that he would be able to make his statement by Wednesday last, the 16th, but he asked for a few more days' delay to enable him to complete his statement. That is how the matter stands. All statements to the contrary are without any kind of foundation.
    Colonel ASHLEY: When the statement is investigated, will the Army Council be able to come to a decision on that statement, or will there have to be a further Court of Investigation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That would be prejudging the discussion which is going to take place.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman knows of the progress of the proceedings before the Army Council, is there any likelihood that the Debate on this subject will not take place next Monday?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. I think that there is a considerable chance that we shall not be able to have the Debate next Monday. We certainly ought not to take any course which appears to deny reasonable facilities for the preparation of the statement, nor do I suppose for one moment that there would be any intentional delay in making the statement; and after that there should be a certain period for consideration and discussion by the Army Council. I think it quite possible that I shall have to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make representations to those concerned to postpone the discussion for a little longer in both Houses of Parliament.

    CALIPHATE DELEGATION (SYAD HUSSEIN).
    Colonel WEDGWOOD(at the end of Questions): I desire to call attention to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley Division (Lieut.-Colonel James) on 15th April last, and the answer in writing of the Secretary of State for India, and to ask you whether you, Mr. Speaker, have received any letter from Mr. Syad Hussein respecting this question, which makes a charge of criminal and dishonourable conduct against an honourable man, and, if so, whether you will communicate the letter to this honourable House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mr. Syad Hussein, and I communicated it to the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley. I know nothing further with regard to it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that there is no reply from the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not ask him any questions.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from that that a charge of a personal nature may be made in this House about British citizens, and that they have no opportunity of testing that charge or bringing it before any sort of Court?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry to say that that is a matter which occurs almost daily. Members make use of their privileges here in order to make all sorts of statements.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that that is generally reprobated from the Chair?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a special privilege that hon. Members have. I should be reprobated if I attempted to interfere.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you not usually exercise some sort of censorship over questions, and when they make personal attacks on people do you not prevent their being put on the Paper? That, at least, is my recollection of your usual procedure. Do I understand that in the case of Indians this does not hold good?
    Mr. SPEAKER: What I reprobate is personal questions from one Member as to another Member. I do not like these questions with regard to persons outside the House, but I have not the power, even if I had the wish, to stop the putting of them.

  POST OFFICE.

    PRESS TELEGRAMS (FINANCIAL Loss).
    Colonel BURNasked the Postmaster-General in view of the deficit in the postal service as a whole, what part of the deficit is on account of the loss on press telegrams; and the amount of the receipts and the proportional expenditure under that heading?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The Revenue from press telegrams is estimated to amount to £125,000 a year. Expenditure cannot be apportioned with exactitude between press and ordinary inland telegrams, but I have no doubt the estimated pre-War loss of £200,000 per annum on press telegrams is considerably exceeded, though the rates were increased on 1st January last.

    TELEPHONIST'S PROMOTION, BRADFORD.
    Mr. SWANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telephonist at Bradford, whose number on the seniority list was 25, was recently promoted over all her seniors for the
    1754
    position of provisional supervisor; whether this telephonist was an efficient operator; whether she had had experience on all positions in the switch room; and whether, having regard to the discontent which is caused by the promotion of junior officers, he will have the matter carefully considered with a view to finding a more equitable system?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am aware of the case referred to. The telephonist in question was an efficient operator and was selected to fill a provisional post as assistant supervisor because she was regarded as an officer of outstanding capacity and better fitted for the higher duties than those whom she passed over. She has acted on the higher duties for nearly a year with complete success. A telephonist at a large exchange is not required to serve at all positions in the switch room. I do not consider that it it inequitable to promote an officer regarded by her superiors as the most. highly qualified of her class.

    GAS WORKERS (THREATENED STRIKE).
    Colonel NEWMAN(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether the National Union of Gas Workers has decided in favour of an immediate general strike involving over 1,000 municipal and private undertakings; whether he is aware of the determination of the general public that this essential public service shall be carried on by voluntary effort should the Union refuse to submit its case to arbitration, and what steps is he proposing to take?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): In connection with claims for an advance of wages and certain rearrangements in regard to overtime rates, week-end payments and holidays, the Unions connected with the National Federation of General Workers have recently taken a ballot on the question of a stoppage of work to secure their claims. This ballot, the results of which were declared on 3rd June, showed a large majority in favour of a stoppage of work, and accordingly notices have been tendered and will expire on Saturday, 26th June. My Department have been in close touch with the representatives of the employers, and with the representatives of the Unions during the last few

    1755
    days, and at my suggestion a joint meeting was held on Tuesday last. I regret to say that the meeting did not arrive at a settlement. My Department have since remained in touch with the two sides, and my hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that I am fully aware of the importance of the dispute, and that I shall lose no opportunity of utilising to the full the services and powers of my Department in an endeavour to effect a settlement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I wish to ask a question in reference to the Notice of Motion which stands in the name of the leader of the House, regarding the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, in view of the fact that there are eleven pages of Amendments put down by Members representing all shades of opinion in the
House, and that 20 of these Amendments are Government Amendments, he will not press the House to carry the Report stage and Third Reading to-night, but that, with the goodwill of everybody concerned—as everyone realises the urgency of the measure—he will be content with getting the Third Reading by dinner time tomorrow?
Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as this House is concerned, I should be glad to acquiesce in that request, but the Bill must be law by the 30th June. Arrangements have been made in another place, I learn, and it is necessary that the Bill be passed to-night. I hope, therefore, that the House will pass it through its remaining stages to-night.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 30.

Division No. 147.]

AYES.

[4.8 p.m.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

Collins, Col. Sir G. P. (Greenock)

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Haslam, Lewis

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Hills, Major John Waller

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

Hinds, John

Barnston, Major Harry

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hood, Joseph

Barrand, A. R.

Curzon, Commander Viscount

Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Dawes, Commander

Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Bennett, Thomas Jewell

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Dixon, Captain Herbert

Hurd, Percy A.

Betterton, Henry B.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

Duncannon, Viscount

Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Blair, Reginald

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Edgar, Clifford B.

Jephcott, A. R.

Blane, T. A.

Edge, Captain William

Jesson, C.

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Borwick, Major G. O.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

Brassey, Major H. L. C.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Breese, Major Charles E.

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

Briggs, Harold

Gardiner, James

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.

Gilbert, James Daniel

Lindsay, William Arthur

Brown, Captain D. C.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Glyn, Major Ralph

Lloyd, George Butler

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Grant, James A.

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Butcher, Sir John George

Greig, Colonel James William

Lynn, R. J.

Campbell, J. D. G.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

Casey, T. W.

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Cautley, Henry S.

Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Macmaster, Donald

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Hancock, John George

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Chadwick, Sir Robert

Hanna, George Boyle

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

Mallalieu, F. W.

Preston, W. R.

Taylor, J.

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Prescott, Major W. H.

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Manville, Edward

Pulley, Charles Thornton

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Martin, Captain A. E.

Purchase, H. G.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Moles, Thomas

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Rankin, Captain James S.

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Tickler, Thomas George

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.

Turton, E. R.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Waddington, R.

Mosley, Oswald

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Mount, William Arthur

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Wason, John Cathcart

Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

Whitla, Sir William

Nall, Major Joseph

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Neal, Arthur

Seddon, J. A.

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Simm, M. T.

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Steel, Major S. Strang

Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

Parker, James

Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Pearce, Sir William

Stewart, Gershom

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Sturrock, J. Leng

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Percy, Charles

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Sutherland, Sir William

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

Hayward, Major Evan

Rose, Frank H.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Hogge, James Myles

Royce, William Stapleton

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Irving, Dan

Swan, J. E.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Lorden, John William

Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Briant, Frank

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

Donald, Thompson

Myers, Thomas

Williams, Aheurin (Durham, Consett)

Glanville, Harold James

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

Gretton, Colonel John

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hallas, Eldred

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Major Barnes and Mr. Lawson.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES) BILL.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I wish to ask for your ruling and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which, I respectfully submit, is of supreme importance to the rights and privileges of this House. It will be within your recollection that on 25th March last, as the result of very prolonged negotiations between the promoters of the London Electric Railway Companies (Fares) Bill and the Members for the Metropolitan area, a compromise was reached in regard to that Bill. The compromise was that the London Members would not offer opposition to the Second Reading on conditions that the promoters accepted a definite mandatory instruction from this House to the Committee. The mandatory instruction was moved by the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull), and was to the effect that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed, to inquire into the financial position of the various companies named in the Bill,
1758
and to amend the Bill as follows: (a) so as to provide that the maximum fares to be charged in excess of the fares which the companies are now authorised to charge shall not be more than are required to provide from time to time for working expenses, efficiently maintaining and renewing the undertaking and a reasonable return on capital. The two essential points there are, first, that there shall be an inquiry into the finances of the companies in the combine, and, secondly, that the Committee itself shall fix such fares as shall be sufficient only to provide for a fair return. When the Bill came before the Committee on 9th May there was submitted by the Ministry of Transport a Memorandum involving two essential things which were contrary to the express mandatory instructions of this House. The first was that the Committee itself should not inquire into the finances of the companies, and the second was that they should not fix the fares, but that they should delegate to the Ministry of Transport that duty. When that Memorandum came before the Committee

1759
it took everybody, promoters and opponents alike, by surprise, and there was an adjournment. Subsequently, on the fourth day of the Committee meeting, the Chairman of the Committee gave a ruling that the Committee had found the preamble proved, but he took an opportunity of protesting against the conduct of the Ministry of Transport in the following words:
"We desire, however, to express some surprise at the action of the Minister in suggesting to ns in a Memorandum, considerable alterations in the Bill as passed by the House of Commons on Second Reading, and apparently at that time accepted by him. It would have been in the opinion of the Committee more suitable if the Minister had communicated to the House at the time of the Second Reading the views he ultimately put before us."
The Committee, in spite of this protest that considerable alterations had been proposed by the Ministry of Transport, formally report that, "in pursuance of Standing Order 105A, a Supplementary Report of the Ministry of Transport relative to the Bill was laid before the Committee and considered by them. The Committee inserted in the Bill the Clause annexed to the Supplementary Report and also amended the Bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Ministry of Transport." The two points upon which I would ask, respectfully, for your ruling and guidance are these: First of all, is it competent for a Government Department to make recommendations to a Private Bill Committee of this House, which recommendations are contrary to the express mandatory instructions of this House; and, secondly, is it competent for a Private Bill Committee, having received express mandatory instructions from this House to perform a certain duty—in this case to fix fares, according to the finances as they are ascertainable of the company, to give a fair return and only a fair return—to delegate that duty to a Government Department?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put his two questions very clearly. It is not competent for me to interfere in the matter. I have no control whatever over the Ministry of Transport, nor over the Committee of this House. The House of Commons has control over both, and when this Bill comes on for Third Reading?—I believe it
1760
is down for Third Reading to-morrow—it will be open to the hon. and learned Member to point out wherein he considers that the Ministry of Transport have violated the instructions of the House, and wherein he considers that the Committee have not carried out the instructions of the House. I notice that in the Report of the Committee they specially say:
"The Committee, in accordance with the instruction of the House of 25th March last, have inquired into the financial position of the companies named, and have amended the Bill so as to give effect to the instruction."
Primâ facie, that is the view that the Committee take, but of course that does not conclude the matter. It is open to the hon. and learned Member to raise any objection on the Third Reading and to call the attention of the House to any points wherein he thinks that either the Ministry of Transport or the Committee have not fulfilled the desire of the House.
Mr. EDWARDS: Arising out of that reply, may I respectfully ask as to two points. First of all, as you are aware, it is not usual for the evidence that is given before a Private Bill Committee to be circulated among Members of the House. I must put my point in an interrogatory form. Are you aware that in this particular case there are no copies of the evidence available? That is my first point. Secondly, inasmuch as this raises a matter of grave principle concerning the control and privileges of this House over the Committee, would you give directions, or arrange for them to be given, that this Bill be not put down for Third Reading until the evidence, together with the Memorandum from the Ministry of Transport and the Report of the Committee, are in the hands of the whole of the Members of this House who desire to have them. Of course, on the face of the Report one is bound to accept your ruling that primâ facie it does show that there has been a compliance by the Committee with the instructions of the House, but I submit, when the evidence is in the hands of Members, that they will not only see that part of the instructions have not been carried out in reality, but also the precise reasons which transpired before the Committee why that part of the instruction was not carried out. Therefore, I would ask for your guidance and ruling that this Bill shall

1761
not be taken until the Members of the House are enabled to have all the evidence which will place them in such a position that they can arrive at a right judgment, as the trustees for the privileges and traditions of this honourable House.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Report of the evidence taken is the private property of the promoters of the Bill or of the petitioners against the Bill. I have no control over that matter and the House has no control over it. It is taken at the expense of the parties; the House and the country have been put to no expense in regard to it, and it is entirely the private property of those particular persons. With regard to the fixing of a date for the Third Reading of the Bill, that is entirely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means under the Standing Orders.
Mr. EDWARDS: There is, I believe, a Standing Order which enables this House to give an instruction for the printing and publication of the evidence. I believe it is Standing Order No. 161 or No. 162. All I would ask is that such arrangements be made that the Third Reading of the Bill be postponed, to enable the necessary Order to be given by this House for the printing and publication of the evidence.
Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will communicate with the Chairman of Ways and Means. The whole direction of Private Bills is his business.
Captain W. BENN: Have we any means of securing the presence of the Minister concerned (Sir Eric Geddes), in view of the fact that he persistently absents himself from his place in this House?
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member wish me to send the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring him here?

BILL PRESENTED.

  MINISTRY OF MINES BILL,
  "to establish a Ministry of Mines and to regulate the coal industry, and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein," presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by Mr. Shortt, Mr.
  1762
  Munro, and Mr. Bridgeman; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Mr. Blair, Sir William Davison, and Mr. Gilbert; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Charles Barrie, Captain Hotchkin, and Captain Reginald Terrell.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The first new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) ["Discretion of Relief to Poor Tenants"] should come as an Amendment to Clause 5, and the second new Clause of which the hon. Member has also given notice ["Increase of Rent to Flats"] should come as an Amendment to Clause 2. The third new Clause ["Net Rent to Flats"] should come as an Amendment to Clause 12. The new Clause standing in the names of the hon. Member for Hulme (Major Nall) and the hon. Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst) ["Occupation of Unoccupied Dwelling-houses"] is beyond the scope of the Bill. The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) and other hon. Members ["Restriction on Recovery of Possession, etc., in the Case of Strike or Lock-out"] should come as an Amendment to Clause 5. The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Hood) ["Voidance of Notice to Give up Possession of Dwelling-house"] should come as an Amendment to Clause 5. The second Clause standing in that hon. Member's name ["Prohibition of Sale of Dwelling-house"] is beyond the scope of the Bill. As to the Clause standing in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Grey) and the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Gilbert) ["Application of 32 &33 Vict., c. 67, Sch. 3"], I am doubtful. I think it is beyond the scope of the Bill, but, in any event, it should not be in the form of a new Clause, but should come as an Amendment to Clause 16.

  INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Permitted Increases in Rent.)
    1.The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall,
    1794
    subject to the provisions of this Act, be as that is to say:—

    (a) Where the landlord has since the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen incurred, or hereafter incurs, expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of the dwelling-house (not including expenditure on decoration or repairs), an amount calculated at a rate per annum not exceeding six, or in the case of such expenditure incurred after the passing of this Act, eight per cent. of the amount so expended;

    (b) An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly or other period which included the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen;

    (c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount equal to fifteen per cent. of the net rent:

    Provided that, except in the case of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply. the amount of such addition shall not during a period of one year after the passing of this Act exceed five per cent.;

    (d) In further addition to any such amounts as aforesaid—

    (i) Where the dwelling-house is one to which Section fourteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act. 1909, applies, or where in any other case the tenant is not under any express liability for repairs, an amount equal to twenty-five per cent. of the net rent; or

    (ii) Where the tenant is under an express liability for part and not the whole of the repairs, such lesser amount as may be agreed, or as may, on the application of the landlord, be determined by the County Court to be fair and reasonable having regard to such liability.

    (2) At any time or times after the date of any increase permitted by paragraph (d) of the foregoing Sub-section the tenant may apply to the County Court for an Order suspending such increase, and also any increase under paragraph (c) of that Sub-section, on the ground that the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation, or is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair.
    The Court on being satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority or otherwise that any such ground as aforesaid is established, and on being further satisfied that the condition of the house is not due or hot wholly due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of express agreement, shall order that the increase be suspended until the Court is satisfied, on the report of the sanitary authority or otherwise, that the necessary repairs (other than

    1795
    the repairs, if any, for which the tenant is liable) have been executed, and on the making of such Order the increase shall cease to have effect until the Court is so satisfied.
    (3) Any transfer to a tenant of any burden or liability previously borne by the landlord shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as an alteration of rent, and where, as the result of such a transfer, the terms on which a dwelling-house is held are on the whole less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms the rent shall be deemed to be increased, whether or not the sum periodically payable by way of rent is increased, and any increase of rent in respect of any transfer to a landlord of any burden or liability previously borne by the tenant where, as the result of such transfer, the terms on which any dwelling-house is held are on the whole more favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, shall be deemed not to be an increase of rent for the purposes of this Act.
    (4) On any application to a sanitary authority for a certificate or report under this Section a fee of one shilling shall be payable, but if the authority as the result of such application issues such a certificate as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the fee from any subsequent payment of rent.
    (5) For the purposes of this Section the expression "rates" includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by the landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded.
    (6) Any question arising as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible under this Section shall be determined on the application either of the landlord or the tenant by the County Court, and the decision of the Court shall be final and conclusive.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), after the word "repairs" ["decoration or repairs"], to insert the words "and any expenditure incurred in road-making and paving".
    This Amendment is designed to meet what I think is a difficulty. The local authorities are only able to take over streets when they are more than two-thirds built upon. In the country, and particularly in London, there are scores of roads which are not two-thirds built upon, and they are in a defective condition, but the local authorities cannot take them over. If they are left in that condition, mud accumulates in the winter time, and dust in the summer time, to the inconvenience of the occupants of the houses. Such roads are a source of ill-health, and seeing that their improvement would mean capital expenditure, that will not be incurred unless some
    1796
    return is made on it. Roads and paving are very necessary to make houses convenient to the public. I proposed this Amendment in Committee, but was not successful in getting it put into the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to give the point some consideration.
    Major NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): As my hon. Friend the proposer of the Amendment has said, it was not accepted in Committee for reasons which were then stated, and I do not think it ought to be put in now. I quite agree there is a primâ facie ease, but it must be borne in mind that we are now specifically allowing an increase of rent in respect of alterations and improvements, while in the case put by the hon. Gentleman practically no repairs or improvements have been undertaken since 1914. Therefore it would not be fair to charge the tenant for improvements which had not been made. We must also remember that in fixing the rent of dwellings the owner takes into account any expenditure which will be likely to be incurred in respect of road-making. During the War it was not possible to get these improvements and alterations effected, but nevertheless the owner of the property has been in receipt of whatever he has put on in respect of these improvements which he has not carried out. It would not be fair, therefore, to deal with this particular matter in the way proposed.
    Colonel GRETTON: This is expenditure which must be incurred in many cases, as the houses are built with the obligation to make and maintain the roadways. It is a matter usually of contracts. If the expenditure has been incurred, then the matter should, I submit, receive a little further consideration from the right hon. Gentleman before he decides to refuse the Amendment.
    Sir F.LOWE: The gist of the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that there had been no road-making. In the case of structural alterations the landlord is allowed to charge additional rent, and I do not see why an allowance should not be made here.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I know as an administrator that in many cases rent has been charged for road-making which

    1797
    has not been done, even when ordered by the local council. Therefore I do not think it would be right to accept the Amendment, seeing that the owners have taken the matter into consideration and have been receiving whatever they charged for the road-making.
    Amendment negatived.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1, b) to add the words "or in the case of a dwelling-house for which no rates were payable in respect of any period which included the said date, the period which included the date on which the rates first became payable".
    This is an Amendment which I agreed in Committee to insert, as to houses which did not pay the rates in 1914, and it is to fix the time at which the rates begin, and that is taken as when the house first began to pay rates.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (c).
    As this Amendment raises the general question of the increases to be accorded under the Bill, I may, perhaps, be allowed a little latitude in explaining its purpose. Many of us, not merely on Second Reading, but also in Committee, indicated that we believed that in the long run houses would require to come to an economic rental and that unless that was achieved there could only be some form of subsidy or other economic disease to which we were opposed, but we also made it clear that in our view the cumulative burden which is imposed on tenants under this Bill is altogether too severe. In moving the deletion of this 15 per cent., which applies to increased mortgage interest and other items, I think it is fair to point out that there are three other heads of increase which are conceded to landlords before we touch this question at all. In the first place, they have been given either 6 or 8 per cent. of the amount expended on structural repairs or alterations, spread over a yearly increase in the rent; in the second place, they have been given, or will be given if a later part of the Bill is adopted, 25 per cent. down in respect of repairs; and in the third place, under this Bill in the Clause which the House has just adopted, there is transferred to house tenants in this country all increases in
    1798
    owners' rates since August, 1914. It is unnecessary to mention that the first two items of themselves would constitute a considerable addition to the rent, but when we take into account all increases in owners' rates since August, 1914, and remember that these rates are rising, that is a third line of increase which adds a very great burden and compels us to look at the one Clause of this Bill upon which we can fasten by way of trying to reduce the cumulative increase. We have fastened at the moment on this 15 per cent. because we believe you are going under this Bill not merely to add 40 per cent. to house rents in this country, but also the increase of owners' rates to which I have referred.
    Competent assessors in Scotland have pointed out that a house in Glasgow, for example, which was entered in the valuation lists at £10 in 1914 will fall to pay, everything included, in the year 1921–22 not less than £22, and that is a very striking figure, which is applied to what I might call the poorest class of house property. The same return has made it clear that if we go to the other end of the scale and take a house at £90, the increase in owner's rates in Glasgow for the period in question has been not less than £18, and the presumption is that that is under this measure transferred to the burden on the tenant. We feel very strongly that while we must more or less come to economic conditions in house letting at the earliest possible moment, this increase is altogether too severe, and that it is necessary from a national point of view, from the point of view of the tenant, and I believe also without substantial injustice to the landlord, to try to reduce this amount. The sphere in which we believe at the moment the reduction may most effectively be introduced is in this sphere of the 15 per cent.
    It may be argued by the Minister of Health that the 15 per cent. is required in view of increased mortgage interest and so on, but I think we are bound to set against that the other tendencies and proposals of the Bill and to say that even if this is excluded the landlord has 25 per cent. now from what he may obtain by way of allowances under the head of repairs. Many hon. Members on the Committee who did not share our views with reference to this Amendment conceded that the cumulative increase under the Bill was too severe, and they thought something could be

    1799
    accomplished to spread the burden over a certain number of years, or, at all events, to reduce the aggregate amount. I feel that repairs are urgently necessary. They must be overtaken, and I also concede that some fund must be provided from which these repairs may be executed, but that follows later. I want to make it clear that we are not discussing that at the moment, and we are not entitled to prejudice the consideration of this Amendment by the argument that repairs cannot be overtaken unless a very substantial increase is accorded to the landlord. On the broad ground that the cumulative increase is really out of proportion to what we should allow at the present time as part of the process towards obtaining economic rents, I beg to move this deletion, and I trust that hon. Members will support us in a course with which many of them in Committee expressed sympathy.
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend has put his case to the House with moderation, but, if I may say so, I think his arguments were perhaps necessarily a little beside the point. The proposal in this paragraph (c) is a very simple one. It is that in respect of property which was previously under the provisions of the various Rent Restriction Acts we should allow during the first year, on account of the increased rate of money, an extra ½per cent., which represents 5 per cent. increase on the net rent. That is all that the law provides with respect to the increased money charges on property already under the provisions of these Acts. Nobody will pretend that during the course of this time anybody who wants to build a house can borrow money at ½ per cent. increase over the rate at which he could have borrowed it at previously. In respect of the properties which are above £75 a year in London which come under these Acts for the first time in this Bill, it allows an increase of 15 per cent. during the first year, but the other property is only 5 per cent. during the first year. How is that 15 per cent. made up? I may say that this is a recommendation of Lord Salisbury's Committee. Five per cent. of it represents ½ per cent. increase on borrowed money, and the next 5 per cent. represents another ½ per cent.;
    1800
    that is to say, that 10 per cent. out of the 15 per cent, is equivalent to an increase of 1 per cent. of money lent on mortgage, and that is all that it represents. I am certain that the experience of everyone in the House is that a man who can borrow money on mortgage for this class of property at only 1 per cent. more than he had to pay for it some time ago is a fortunate person. At all events, nobody could say it is excessive. The remaining 5 per cent. is for the man in respect of his own money that is in the property. That only applies to houses which come under these Acts for the first time, but in respect of property already under, the total increase in respect of this heading during the first year is 5 per cent.
    My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment quoted from a Report by the Corporation of Glasgow in which it is shown that a house for which a person was paying £13 3s. 4d., including his share of rates, in 1914 may at the end of the time be £22 4s., which looks an alarming increase, but the point I wish to make is this, that that is not due to the Rent Restriction Acts, but to the local rates, and there is no particular reason why we should alter what is fair and right, and even necessary, in respect of anybody who has to get money to build houses because the rates go up in varying degrees in different localities. More than two-thirds of that increase there quoted was on account of the increase of the total rates and would have occurred notwithstanding this proposal, so that in that respect it does not represent at all events the operations of these Acts. What does this proposal amount to? Supposing we take it at the maximum, which is 5 per cent. in the first year on any house that is already under the Acts, and supposing you take such a house for 9s. a week, the 5 per cent. is on the 9s. less any rates which that included in 1914, and that figure is called the net rent. Supposing the rates were 2s. in 1914, this would be a 5 per cent. increase on 7s., which amounts to about 2½d. or 3d. a week. In respect of a house which comes under the Bill for the first time, which is a house of more than 30s. a week rent, so that it is not a poor tenant such as those to which the hon. Member referred, the 15 per cent. would apply. This provision of 5 per cent. in respect of property previously brought in, and 15 per cent. in respect of new property, was

    1801
    put in because people cannot borrow money to build houses or obtain money to support this class of property under previous rates of interest. We have to recognise facts, and, unless we face them, we shall destroy the very foundations of the finance for all this class of property. Therefore, I think it is not reasonable that we should mix it up with any question of local rates, and I hope the House will not agree with the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major HENDERSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (1, c) after the word "apply" to insert the words
    "but not including any house referred to in paragraph (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section twelve of this Act if the standard rent or rateable value was less than that mentioned in the aforesaid Sub-section."
    The object of this Amendment is to try to rectify what appears to be an anomaly in the Bill. This particular Amendment was moved in Committee, but, owing to the Minister's unavoidable absence, the decision on the matter had to be delayed until the Report stage. As the Bill stands at present, houses which were formerly under the previous Acts are only to receive an increase of 5 per cent. during the first twelve months, and houses brought within the Bill for the first time are to receive an increase of 15 per cent. Houses brought within the Bill for the first time, apart from the houses of a higher rental, also include houses which are partially used as shops, and the result of the Bill at present is that a house at a rental, say, of £10, because it is purely used as a dwelling-house, will only have an increase of 5 per cent. in the first year, whereas alongside it you will get a house, also used as a shop, paying a rental of £10 a year, liable to the full increase of 15 per cent. That does not seem very just or very wise, as it will lead to a great deal of discontent in a large number of cities, because people who live in houses partly used as shops will have their rent increased more than persons living next door, whose actual net rent is the same. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, which really is intended to rectify what, I believe, was a slip in the drafting of the Bill.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment would introduce, I suggest, needless com-
    1802
    plexity in the operation of these Acts. The fact is, that certain definitions were embodied in the previous Acts under which premises were brought in, and if you look at Sub-section (2), paragraph (ii), of Clause 12 it will be seen that
    "the application of this Act to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premise is used as a shop."
    Those places where the house has been used partly as a dwelling-house and partly as a shop come into the operation of the Bill for the first time, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, but we have taken a clear line generally throughout the Bill, whereby property which comes under these Acts for the first time may be charged an extra 15 per cent. during the first year in respect of mortgage interest, and so on. Either the premises were in the Act before or they were not. If they were in before, 5 per cent. is charged; if not, 15 per cent. is charged. My hon. and gallant Friend seeks to make a dwelling-house, say, of £76 a year in London bear a 15 per cent. increase, but a house of £50 a year with a shop, which also comes in for the first time, shall not bear any part of the 15 per cent. I suggest that a person who rents a business premises with part as a dwelling-house is on that account probably better able to pay the 15 per cent. than a person who is a mere tenant, and has no means whatever of passing on any of his charge to anybody else. There is an Amendment later on relating to business premises, which possibly is also controversial, but I think to introduce this retrospective discrimination—because that is what it comes to—so that places below the previous limit should only pay 5 per cent., and, if above the fresh limit. 15 per cent. in respect of business premises, would be hopeless to disentangle. It is a clear, logical and fair way of proceeding to say that the 5 per cent. shall apply only to those previously covered, and the 15 per cent. to those not previously covered. It is a logical and easily understood distinction, and I hope the House will assist me in maintaining it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major HENDERSON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1, c) to add the words
    "Provided also, that where there is no mortgage on the house the total increase

    1803
    under this paragraph shall not exceed 5 per cent."
    The Minister, in discussing a previous Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), explained that 10 per cent. of the 15 per cent. was to cover the increase of 1 per cent. in the mortgage interest. I can quite understand there is a considerable justification for that, and I do not propose to dispute that point for a moment. I can also quite understand that the 5 per cent. is intended to be some compensation to the landlord for the restrictions placed upon him under this Bill, and for the alteration in the general value of property; but, as this paragraph is framed at present, the landlord who has mortgaged his property gets the extra 10 per cent. in order to pay the increase on the mortgage, while the landlord who has no mortgage on his property gets the 10 per cent. for apparently no reason at all. The hon. Member in front of me (Mr. Lorden) laughs, but perhaps he will let me proceed. I can quite understand the 10 per cent. in his case may be said to be compensation, because he has put the whole of his money into property, whereas the other man has borrowed somebody else's. But if you are going to pursue that argument, so far as I can see you come to the very illogical conclusion that anybody who has put his money into any kind of investment which has decreased in value owing to the war is to receive some sort of compensation. I do not know if the Minister proposes to compensate every investor in stocks and shares because they have depreciated as a result of the war, but that seems to be the logical outcome.
    There is another matter in connection with this, and that is that this particular paragraph, of all four paragraphs, does not, to the man-in-the-street, justify itself. According to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move to the Schedule, all the other three paragraphs give some reason why the increase is to take place. In the first case, it sets out the amount that is spent on alterations. The second sets out the increase in the rates, and another the repairs. This particular one does not say anything, but refers the unfortunate tenant to an Act of Parliament, which, perhaps, he has not seen and never will see. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider the reframing of that
    1804
    particular portion of his Schedule, so as to explain that to the ordinary man-in-the-street. There is no reference whatever to any increase in mortgage, but simply a reference to an Act of Parliament which, as I may say, the ordinary person has never seen and probably will never see. On that account, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this Amendment. I quite realise that if the Amendment were put into operation in the case of two tenants side by side, one would be better off than the other if he happened to be living in a house not mortgaged. I quite realise the objection which the Minister will raise on that point, but I feel he has given no sufficient explanation at present as to why the landlord of a house which is mortgaged and the landlord of a house not mortgaged should be treated in exactly the same way.
    Captain COOTE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    5.0 P.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. and gallant Friend evidently wishes us to say that if a man has spent his own money in building a house he is to be worse off than if he spent anybody else's in building it. That does not seem to me to be either common-sense or equity. What are we out to do? We are taking a step, which everyone recognises is essential, though we are a long way from it, to make house-building self-supporting. That is what we are seeking to do, and could anything be imagined which would be a greater handicap to house-building than to say that if you have got money enough yourself to build houses, and you build houses with it, you receive 1 per cent. Less than if you have not got money enough yourself, and have to borrow from some-body else? Could you possibly imagine a greater handicap to the encouragement of building than a proposal of that kind? It would destroy any reasonable hope that anyone with money would ever put it into house-building, which is what we want to encourage, and in every case it would have to be made clear whether the man had borrowed the money to build a house, or whether it was his own money.You might have half a dozen houses in the same row, some of which the persons concerned built for themselves, and some of which had been built with borrowed

    1805
    money. I suggest the Amendment is quite unworkable and grossly unjust.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1, d, i), after the word "for" [is "responsible for repairs"], insert the words "the whole of the ".—[Dr. Addison.]
    Mr. HOOD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, d, i), to leave out the words "twenty-five" ["twenty-five per cent."], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty".
    I think it will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that during the War many houses had very little or no repairs done to them. Therefore the landlord in that respect is not prejudiced under this Clause. As I understand it, it is not usual, or at any rate it is infrequent, to do repairs to various classes of property at intervals of less than five years. Calculating that under this Clause the landlord would get in that five years an amount equal to the rent of a year and a quarter. My proposal is to reduce that amount from 25 per cent. so that the land-lard would get, not a year and a quarter's rent, but the rent of one year.
    Mr. HURD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: Various Amendments, of which this is the first, have been put on the Paper, raising the general question as to whether the 25 per cent. should stand or whether another figure should be substituted for it. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what your ruling might be, or what the wish of the House might be, but we are dealing with a point on which I do not want to make the same speech twice.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This raises the whole question. If the House decide to keep the 25 per cent., then that makes an end of all the other Amendments.
    Dr. ADDISON: I make the observation I did in the hope that we might get a general discussion on this Amendment. In Lord Salisbury's report a great deal of attention was given to this subject, which is one thoroughly familiar to most people. This increased rent is proposed in respect of property which is in repair, or is to be put into repair. There is no question, I think, that the cost of these repairs is at least 2½ or 3
    1806
    times as much as it was before the War. There is no doubt also that owing to the high cost a large number of houses are falling into a state of serious disrepair. This only intensifies the urgency of the housing problem. I think it is most necessary, therefore, that we should determine to take such steps as we can to secure that what houses are good enough to be kept in repair shall be put or kept in repair, because pro tanto this increases the housing accommodation available and makes it of a better kind. The hon. Member opposite, who was a member of Lord Salisbury's Committee, has suggested that this increase should be spread over some years. There is an Amendment on the Paper which later raises that issue, but the Government have decided to, ask the House to support the proposal that is here. It is well that we should face this business at the very beginning, because I am perfectly certain unless we do face this point, notwithstanding the unpopularity which of a certainty attaches to the Minister of Health, and may attach to other people for this increase, we shall not get the repairs executed; and that is the thing you have got to look at. If, for example, 20 per cent., 10 per cent., or 5 per cent. were substituted for the 25 per cent., what then? Nobody denies the increased cost of repairs, or suggests that houses can be put in repair for smaller sums. Neither of these propositions is denied, and the question is, What is the most likely way of getting the repairs done? That is the only practical question remaining.
    If you are to get the repairs done you must provide, at all events, say, a sufficient percentage to enable those concerned to find the money in the interval to repair the houses or to borrow on the increased rent they are getting. If you spread the thing over three years, and make it 5 per cent. in the first year, and 10 per cent. in the two subsequent years, it will mean that large numbers of small owners of houses, those, say, with one or two houses, who are quite impecunious persons, and dependent upon their houses for their living—a very precarious living for a good many just now—would not do the repairs, that they will wait until the whole of the three years have gone before they do any repairs, or, at all events, they will leave it for a long time. It is of the utmost importance that we should stop this decay in houses which are worth keeping up.

    1807
    Therefore I think it highly dangerous and detrimental to the interests of housing if we can postpone the operation of this provision or spread it over a long period. Other Amendments will raise various aspects of this question—as to how the repairs are to be executed, what is to be the standard of repairs, and so on. But the main question now is: what provision should we insert in the Bill to enable people to carry out the repairs? Secondly, ought we to do it here and now, or spread it out? These are the two questions. The 25 per cent. represents on an average the increased cost of repairs, which is nearly 2½times that of pre-War times. My experience suggests to me that 25 per cent. is not an outside figure at all. What the House should continually bear in mind is, that this 25 per cent. is not an increase on the rent which the tenant will normally pay to the landlord. It is not 25 per cent. on what is called the standard rent; it is the rent minus the allowance for rates—and that is all the difference! The amount in the case of the ordinary house represents about 18 per cent. on the average of the ordinary standard rent. That is a distinction which must not be forgotten. This may be an unpopular proposal, as I said on the Second Reading, but I am sure it is a necessary proposal, and I hope the House will support me.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I gather from your ruling on this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, that we are likely to consider the whole question of the allowances for repairs on this occasion. In view of that, I take it, that it will not be necessary to move subsequent Amendments on the Paper. For myself, I am quite content to discuss the question of the Amendment which is now before us, namely, that we should reduce this sum from 25 per cent. to a lesser amount. In the Committee stage of the Bill we on these Labour Benches frankly recognised that the repairs policy was perhaps the most important part of this measure. We have also recognised that it is in the interests of the tenant that repairs should be overtaken at the earliest possible moment. Quite frankly, however, all we can do with the diminished opposition this afternoon is to try to shape this Bill in order to make it—we think rightly—more just to the tenants than it is
    1808
    now. I should be very reluctant indeed to embark on any policy which was going to make it difficult for small proprietors especially to repair their property. On the Second Reading we heard that a good deal of property was mortgaged, and that many proprietors were incapacitated from earning their living, were getting very little from their property, and were entitled to all the protection and to all the justice we can give them in this House. That by no means exhausts this question.
    We pointed out at the same time that in all cases the rent fixing was done by prudent proprietors with the possibility of repairs in front of them, and beyond question the rents had been fixed on the basis of repairs which during the War, and for a considerable period before the War, had not been done. But the fact is that in many—in a majority of cases—a very large number of proprietors who had that protection have executed no repairs at all. I am not blaming them for that. In many cases it was physically impossible. They could not get labour or materials. A hundred and one more urgent needs came from the War.
    We must, however, keep that clearly in mind in considering the question of repairs; that for five or ten years at the very least a very large number of proprietors, quite automatically—for I do not say they sought benefit; it is none the less true they obtained it—obtained a real advantage in not being called upon to execute the repairs which were provided for in the rent of the properties they had let to their tenants. We cannot omit that consideration in the discussion of this question.
    The other proposal which we made in Committee, and discussed at considerable length, was a proposal to modify the incidence or burden of this Bill in the direction of making the aggregate allowance for repairs 15 per cent., and spread it over three years—an average of 5 per cent. per annum. A great deal of ridicule was poured upon that proposal from two points of view. In the first place, it was said that unless a substantial sum was given no repairs would be undertaken, and no arrangements made to execute them. Surely, however, hon. Members can see that it does not very much matter at the present time what you

    1809
    give the proprietors. You might give them 50 or 70 per cent., but you can neither get labour nor material in a very large number of cases to execute the repairs. In short, it is a physical impossibility, so that the aggregate amount which you offer must be undermined to that extent. In the second place, the Secretary for Scotland argued that the amount suggested would not buy paper, paint, or paste, and he sought to turn the proposal out of court on that head. What we actually proposed was 15 per cent. in all. It is spread over three years, but it is inevitable that the landlord gets it. He gets that now in addition to the 15 per cent. he has obtained under the previous Section, and over and above the allowance for structural alterations which he may obtain, and, still more, over and above the undeniable advantage he gains from the transfer of the whole increase of landlord's rates from August, 1914, to the shoulders of the tenant. We have always contended that it is idle on the part of the Government to consider one Amendment or one provision under this increase by itself. We must look to the aggregate effect of these increases and try to ascertain whether this means 40 per cent. or something more. I think I am entitled to plead the great increase in local assessments by way of a passing argument. I take it that both the Salisbury Committee and the Committee have kept in view what house tenants have to carry in the next three or four years under this legislation. I do not think any rating authority has seriously disputed that the burden will be more than 40 per cent. when we regard the local rates.
    I have already conceded that sooner or later house rents must come to an economic level. I believe the reply to this is a subsidy, to which I am opposed. I say this Bill is too violent in its operation. We have got nothing on the point of structural alterations, we have been defeated on the 15 per cent. and as regards the increased mortgage interest, and we have no concession from the point of view of the transfer of the landlord's rates, and therefore we are bound, in justice to the tenant, to fasten upon this Section, and try and spread the repairs over two or three years. So far from penalising the repairs, I believe they can be overtaken from the already accumulated benefits. The 20 per cent., or the 15 per cent., or
    1810
    the 25 per cent., whatever the allowance is under this Section, does not stand alone, and the other things must be kept in mind. On these grounds I hope the Government will make this Bill more easy for great sections of the community with fixed incomes, and the enormous number of soldiers and sailors dependants who have only a pension. I am not without hope that even yet the Government will agree to modify the burden under this Bill, and make this measure easier for the masses of the people than I am afraid it is at present.
    Captain COOTE: It seems to me that under this proposal the landlord gets his 25 per cent. whether he does the repairs or not. That is to say, he gets it provided he does not allow the house to fall into such a state of disrepair that the tenant can go to the County Court and get a suspension. I see it is proposed at the end of the Amendments in the Schedule that the tenant can only apply for such a suspension after the increase has been in force three months. Therefore, whatever state of repair the house may be in, the landlord can still reap considerable advantage from this increase. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make this increase in some way conditional upon the repairs actually being carried out. The carrying out of the repairs is an important matter. That is what this Bill is intended to promote, but it is clear that as it stands it does nothing of the sort, and it gives the same treatment to the good landlord as it does to the avaricious landlord. If this point cannot be cleared up, I should be compelled to vote for the reduction of this amount to 20 per cent.
    Mr. HALLAS: In proposing what he admits to be an unpopular measure, I think my hon. Friend will agree that we are not acting on this side in a very popular manner this afternoon. When I signed the reservation to the Salisbury Committee's Report agreeing to a total increase of 30 per cent. in the rents, there followed a tornado of communications in my direction condemning me, so far as the owners were concerned, that the percentage was not enough, and condemning me, so far as the tenants were concerned, that the amount was too much, and from both sides I have received a great many abusive communications. I have been told I have lost almost the whole of my

    1811
    support in the particular Division I represent because I have agreed that a 30 per cent. increase should be permitted under this Bill. Consequently, the question of popularity applies to both sides in this particular.
    We have to consider two matters. We have to consider the point of the amount and the method by which that amount should be collected. The question of a 25 per cent. increase for repairs seems to call forth the emphatic comment that it is wrong to consider the cost of repairs from the point of view of repairs remaining to be executed. We should consider the cost of repairs also from the point of view of the large sums paid by tenants during many years with respect to repairs that have not been executed. I submit in all seriousness that almost every owner in the country is in duty bound to put his house into a proper state of habitability without charging a single extra penny with respect to the rents he has already received. When I made the statement in Committee upstairs that there were many houses that have not been repaired for five, ten, or even fifteen years, I seemed to invoke considerable surprise. May I turn for a moment to the report of the evidence of the Rent Restrictions Act—I mean Lord Salisbury's Committee, and I refer particularly to the evidence of one witness, namely, the representative of the Property Owners' Association of Birmingham? I put to him this question: "Would you be surprised to learn that there are a great many houses of that class at rents ranging from 4s. to 9s. a week in Birmingham that have not been papered for twenty years?" The answer I received was: "I know dozens myself." I further said: "And that in many cases the paper is hanging in strips from the walls,' and he answered, "Yes." I was content myself to place the maximum at fifteen years, but I received an assent from this witness that there had been even a period of 20 years during which houses have not been whitened or papered or put into a decent condition of repair.
    Not only do we object to the total amount that is to be imposed by this Bill, but we object to the method. It has been impossible to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of the psychological aspect of this question. It surely is a very different proposition
    1812
    to impose an increase of 10 per cent. one year, and the same amount for the second and the third year, which is different from placing the whole burden of the increase upon the tenant at once. We want to see this Act come into operation with the least possible friction. We are as anxious as any other section of this House to promote peace and contentment in the country, but we cannot for a moment believe that there will be any other result but the most serious trouble by the imposition of such an increase of rent as this at one fell swoop. It means in a word that so far as the great mass of the property in this country is concerned the increase in rent and rates the tenants are going to pay is very nearly double the amount of the rent that was paid before the War. That is going to be followed by an industrial movement for increases in wages to enable the tenant to pay. It is going to be followed by a general increase in the cost of living, and thus the operation within the vicious circle continues. It is an axiom of economic law, which cannot be denied, that as rents go up so must wages. We believe that if the increases were gradually imposed there would be much less likelihood of strikes, industrial unrest, and troubles of that character. The whole process would be more just, and we insist upon the statement that a 30 per cent. increase as a total would amply suffice for all requirements.
    Mr. LORDEN: The hon. Member for the Duddeston Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hallas) said something with regard to paper hanging in strips on the walls and places not being repaired for 15 years. I have always heard that Birmingham was a model municipality, and I cannot imagine where their sanitary authorities are that have allowed that state of things to exist. It seems to me to show some want of business or neglect to allow such things to happen. I have a return in my hand from Birmingham showing how this 25 per cent. would work, or even the increase during the period. It refers to a house rented at 6s. a week before the War. The net rent is £12 10s., and the amount for repairs £2 10s. I accept for the moment that the increase of cost of repairs is as two-and-a-half to one, which is suggested by the Salisbury Committee. Anybody who knows anything about building does not attach the least impor-

    1813
    tance to that statement, because the proportion is nearer four times. The men are getting treble the wages they were receiving before the War, and they are not producing more than half the work. I speak with knowledge on this subject, and I say that two-and-a-half times is not sufficient. This report shows distinctly that a house rented like the one I have mentioned pays £3 15s. extra for repairs for the first year, to which must be added the extra half per cent. increase in mortgage interest which equals 15s. upon a £150 mortgage. This makes a total of £4 10s. The 30 per cent. will give an interest of £3 15s., which is less than experience shows to be the fact. Under the Order he is entitled to charge another 10 per cent. I am taking the whole of the charges. You cannot deal with them in sections. Those who take on the 15 per cent. must add the 25 per cent. in order to arrive at a comparable figure. The expenses will be £4 10s., plus 15s. a total of 5 guineas, and the authorised increase will be £3 15s., plus £1 5s., a total of £5, leaving a deficiency and not allowing anything for increased management expenses. These figures concern cases where people are dealing with large blocks of property.
    I hold in my hand a paper from Derby, which shows that a large number of houses are held by small people in small numbers. There are 1,755 persons who own one house, 594 own two houses, 235 own three houses, and 244 own four houses. There are thus 2,828 people who own four houses and less. These people are going to be hit very hard. They will not have sufficient to pay for the repairs as they come along. What does it mean to a man with a house rented at £12 10s. a year? You are not going to put it on the rent plus rates. You are putting it on the net rent. Take that at £10 per year; the owner will have £2 10s. in one year for repairs. It does not want much imagination to consider how much can be done to a house for £2 10s.; and that is only for one year. He would have to spend £10 on a house before he could get any real repairs done. The money is being given out in doles. It is an extraordinary thing that while labour is entitled to its wages increases, while its wages are being doubled and trebled, and in some cases, for unskilled labour, quadrupled, the poor person who owns a
    1814
    house, on which he depends partly for his living, will have to spend the whole of the increase in repairs, and will also have to live on practically nothing for, at any rate, one year. You are giving, in fact, a very small increase for repairs; 25 per cent. is the lowest possible amount that could be put on. It will by no means cover the cost of repairs. There is another point with regard to the three months' extension. Some speakers talk as if owners are going to make a huge fortune out of that extension. But three months is perfectly ridiculous. They could never do anything in three months. I doubt very much if they will be able to do much in twelve months. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the very minimum he can grant is 25 per cent., and I hope the House will not agree to any alteration at all in that.
    Mr. MYERS: The point made by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Murray) has not been answered by any speaker. The hon. Member declared that the rent of a house is based upon certain expenditure being incurred for repairs year by year. For a period of years landlords and owners of cottage property have taken their rent and have not carried out their side of the bargain, and now that there is an accumulation of arrears of repairs, substantial consideration is to be extended to them on that account. The hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Lorden) made rather extravagant statements with regard to the people who are carrying out the repairs. He claimed that they have trebled their wages, and do not do more than half the work they used to do. I do not think the hon. Member will find much support for that statement. Even if the question of repairs is recognised, it is going to be exceedingly difficult to carry them out, for the simple reason that there is only a certain total of labour available in the country, and the Minister of Health is strongly appealing that it should be utilised, as far as possible, for the erection of new houses. I am inclined to agree that his appeal in that direction is meeting with a very poor response, as all over the country business and other premises seem to be roping in all the available labour. Having regard to the fact that the labour is required for new houses, even if owners of cottage property are willing to carry out repairs, it

    1815
    will be exceedingly difficult for them to secure the necessary workers. I would ask whether any property owner in this House, or, indeed, whether any hon. Member would declare that, under normal conditions, extending over a period of years, anything approaching 25 per cent. of the net rent has been expended on repairs. It is safe to say that, under normal conditions, nothing approaching that figure has been put down by owners of cottage property for repairs, and therefore I object to this penalty for repairs being put upon the tenant.
    It is part of that vicious principle which suggests that everything can be passed on to the consumer. We are dealing with this question of the excessive cost of repairs on that basis. Assuming that an owner of property requires to have repairs done, he has to pay higher charges for materials, but there is no question of tackling this evil of high prices at its source. It is simply a matter of accepting existing conditions and passing the extra charges on to the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt has before him the Report of the Committee on Trusts. In that Report it is specifically stated that prices are tremendously inflated for nearly all things needed for building operations and for the repairs of houses. These things are controlled and manipulated by the trusts of the country. The builder has to go to the sources of supply for the materials he requires. He makes no question of challenging that agency. He accepts these things as they are and passes the imposition on to the owners, who in turn pass them on to the tenants of the house property. I would suggest that while this 25 per cent. cannot be justified on any ground set forth till now, it will be still more difficult to justify it if we take into consideration some of the causes of the increased price of materials. There is one further point in connection with this matter of repairs. The principle governing repairs is not general in all parts of the country. We can go into one part and there we find in connection with cottage property that the owner of the property accepts responsibility for some of the internal amenities of the house, while in other parts of the country the property owner keeps himself more specifically to the external requirements of the building. Having regard to all
    1816
    these circumstances, I join in the appeal to the responsible Minister to take ail these questions into serious consideration with a view to some modification being accepted in regard to this 25 per cent. increase.
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: We have been given to understand that the whole of this proposed increase of 25 per cent. is to be spent on repairs. I gathered on the Second Reading there was to be inserted some provision to ensure that the repairs should be carried out, and I would join with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) in the hope that the Minister for Health will see a Clause is inserted to ensure that this increase of rent shall not merely be a premium to bad landlords.
    Dr. ADDISON: I would remind the hon. Member who spoke last that in Committee we accepted two important provisions, the object of which was to secure the very point he mentions. If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (2) of this Clause he will find words have been inserted providing that on appeal the increase of rent may be suspended if the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation or is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair, and later on, in order that the responsibility for appealing should not rest solely on the shoulders of the tenant, we inserted a provision enabling the sanitary authority also to certify that repairs have not been executed. These are two very important alterations made with a view to covering the point advanced by the last speaker.
    Sir F.LOWE: There is another point which should not be lost sight of, and that is the necessity for allowing landlords time in which to carry out the repairs. With the best will in the world, that work cannot be carried out in a short time, because there is difficulty in securing both labour and material. I should like to deny what has been said by one of the previous speakers about the condition of houses in Birmingham. I know a great deal about small house property in that city, and I venture to assert that the majority of the houses have been kept in a fair state of epair—quite as good a state of repair as could be expected—during the War. There are comparatively few in the condition described by the hon. Member. In my opinion, the time allowed

    1817
    by this Bill for carrying out the repairs is not sufficient. It ought to be very much extended. The majority of good landlords wish to carry out repairs; they will wish to spend the 25 per cent. increase which they are to be allowed on the rent on that very purpose, but we must give
    them reasonable time in which to do it, otherwise they may decline to accept the obligation.
    Question put, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 49.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES.

    [5.45 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Astor, Viscountess

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Llv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Parker, James

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Percy, Charles

    Barrand, A. R.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hinds, John

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Blane, T. A.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jesson, C.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Briggs, Harold

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Kiley, James D.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Casey, T. W.

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Lorden, John William

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Macmaster, Donald

    Turton, E. R.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Dawes, Commander

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Edge, Captain William

    Mitchell, W. Lane

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Morrison, Hugh

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Foreman, Henry

    Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Gardiner, James

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Younger, Sir George

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Briant, Frank

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Greer, Harry

    Bromfield, William

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Hallas, Eldred

    Hancock, John George

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Simm, M. T.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Mosley, Oswald

    Swan, J. E.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Taylor, J.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Myers, Thomas

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Hood, Joseph

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Tootill, Robert

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Irving, Dan

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Robertson, John

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Mr. Lawson and Mr. R. Richardson.

    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, d, ii) to leave out the words, "tenant is under an express liability," and to insert instead thereof the words, "landlord is responsible".
    This is merely a drafting Amendment, for the purpose of bringing the paragraph into accord with previous paragraphs.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, d, ii) after the word "repairs," ["for part and not the whole of the repairs"], to insert the words, "or where the tenant has voluntarily carried out any repairs for which the landlord is liable".
    This paragraph, as just amended by the Minister, allows the landlord, where he is only partly responsible for the repairs, to receive less compensation than he would otherwise receive under paragraph (d). There have been many cases, particularly during the War, where, although the landlord was entirely responsible for the repairs, the tenant has executed them, because, for some reason, he has been in a better position to do so. The result is that the house, as it stands at present, is in better condition than would otherwise have been the case if the tenant had left the landlord to execute the repairs, and the landlord, owing to the War, had been unable to do so. As the paragraph stands at present, however, where a tenant, of his own free will, has spent money on executing repairs for which he was not legally responsible, he is to receive no compensation or consideration. I maintain that a tenant who has carried out repairs, and thereby put his house into better condition, should receive some compensation. Otherwise, the 25 per cent. which the landlord is going to get is not going to be spent, in such a case, on repairs, because the
    1820
    state of the house will not justify it—not through anything that the landlord has done, but because of something which has been done by the tenant. In cases of that kind it is only fair that the tenant should receive some compensation, and it would be left to the Court to decide what the amount shall be.
    Captain COOTE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think this Amendment would make it exceedingly difficult to administer the Act. We have recognised existing agreements under which the landlord is responsible for repairs, and agreements under which the tenant is responsible for repairs, and also cases where there is a special agreement between the two parties. This is a case in which the tenant has done something, as many tenants do, which is not within the letter of any agreement, and it is suggested, I take it, that the County Court shall take the matter into consideration and allot varying proportions of the increase in rent to the different parties. I think it would be exceedingly difficult, and would raise all kinds of controversial questions. The Bill makes definite and specific provision for the three main classes of cases. Probably most of us, at one time or another, have done something in the way of repairs which normally would fall under the responsibility of the landlord, but we have not made a claim on the landlord. We wanted the thing done promptly, and that was the consideration that we got out of it. I think it would be quite hopeless to bring all these odds and ends of details into the County Court, and make various difficult calculations as to the apportionment of this 25 per cent. I think the Bill is quite straightforward, and recognises the different kinds of agreements and what the parties are required to do under them. What they voluntarily do on either side, outside any agreement, should not

    1821
    really, I think, be brought before the Court. It would make matters exceedingly difficult, and needlessly complicated.
    Major BARNES: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have given this matter a little more favourable consideration. We all recognise that every tenant, for his own convenience and comfort, does a great many things which he ought to look to his landlord to do for him. During the past three or four years, however, a class of cases has arisen, which have been, perhaps more numerous than the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, in which the landlord has refused to do things which he ought to have done, and the tenants have done them simply because they were not able to carry on without them. There have been a number of cases within my own knowledge in which, owing to the fact that rents were limited by the Act, landlords have refused to do things which came well within their province, and have practically forced the people in occupation to carry out such repairs. Whether the exact form of words suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would meet these cases, I do not know, but they seem to me to be sufficiently numerous to justify some attempt to deal with them. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able, if not to accept this particular form of words, to introduce some words into the Bill, either here or in another place, which would enable a tenant, who can demonstrate that during the last two or three years he has carried out what were really landlord's repairs, and put the property into decent condition, to come before the County Court and get some relief.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I rather hope the right hon. Gentleman will further examine the question, and see whether words cannot be drafted to deal with this point. In broad equity, it seems clear, that where a tenant has carried out repairs for which the landlord ordinarily is responsible, the 6.0 P.M. landlord should not get the full 25 per cent. that is going to be allowed, and the Court should be able to take into account, apart from any written agreement, the actual facts which have taken place. That is all I suggest should be done, namely, that you should put in words empowering the Court to
    1822
    take into account, apart from legal agreements, actual occurrences which have taken place in respect of the carrying out of these repairs. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will examine the matter with the Government draftsman, and see that words are inserted, if necessary in another place, to cover the point.
    Mr. LORDEN: I can quite imagine a very extraordinary set of circumstances arising if these words are put in. I had a case before me not very long ago, where a man had taken to himself a second wife, and she did not approve of the papers on the wall. The place had all been papered within three years. How are you going to differentiate between these difficulties? Here is a difficulty that arises to my mind at once, and it arises where people do not like these things. It was not my property, but I was concerned with some others in the management of it, and we said, "What is it going to cost?" The tenant said, "£50." We said, "The house does not want doing, but you evidently want to make the place nice, and we will allow you £20 towards the repairs." How are you going to deal with a case like that? The Bill is complicated enough already, and you are going to have enough litigation about it. Every tenant who thinks he will get sixpence off his rent, will go to the County Court, and you will have to enlarge your County Courts, and add to the number, because you are going to make bad blood between landlord and tenant more than ever before. I hope we shall not have any further complications put into this already over-complicated Bill.
    Mr. BRIANT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reconsider the question. Anyone who is familiar with small property, as I am, knows a great many cases where a man is a handy man in himself. He has got tired of asking the landlord. The landlord gives reasons, sometimes perfectly justifiable—lack of labour for instance—and sometimes quite unjustifiable, for postponing necessary repairs. I can give instances where in despair, tenants have bought paper and paint and whitewash and done the work themselves, being anxious to keep the house neat and respectable. I think some allowance should be made for this class of man who has looked after his own house. I see the difficulty of devising

    1823
    words, but it is so important that a man should be protected who has done work which should rightly fall upon the landlord's shoulders, that I hope the Minister will reconsider the whole question with a view to seeing if something could not be devised by which these cases—and they are real cases and there are many of them—should be met in some way.
    Dr. ADDISON: In response to the numerous appeals which have been made to me, I may say that I discussed this in great detail with the draftsman. I see the point my hon. Friend has put, and I also see that in many cases the tenant might do repairs which were perhaps not required, and you would have a great complexity of cases arising which would make a lot of work without any material return. I do not think the point is of sufficient importance to keep us very long. I will discuss it again, but I must say my impression was, and still is, that the introduction of any such words as these would raise many more difficulties than it would settle. I will look into it again and see whether we can devise any form of words.
    Sir F.BANBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not look into it again. The matter seems to me to be very clear. In the first place I doubt very much whether the Amendment is in order, because it proposes to give compensation to a tenant who during the War has done something which he was not legally bound to do. That is outside the scope of the title of the Bill. The Bill deals with the increase of rent and matters with which the landlord has to do. It does not give compensation to tenants for work which they have voluntarily done and which they might not have been legally compelled to do. As to the landlord charging this 25 per cent. when the work is not necessary, Sub-section (a) of the Clause provides that
    "The tenant may apply to the County Court for an order suspending or reducing such increase on the ground that such expenditure is or was unnecessary in whole or in part, and the Court may make an order accordingly."
    If you are going to say to the tenant, "If you have made any improvements or whitewashed the ceiling during the War and you were not legally bound to do so, you can go to the County Court judge and claim compensation," not only will you
    1824
    open up a vista of endless litigation, but you will be doing something which I believe is outside the scope of the Bill, and it would be doing a great wrong to a number of people who apparently are considered by hon. Members opposite—I think one of them used the expression—avaricious landlords, whereas, as a matter of fact, if you take the bulk of the landlords of the country, and especially those to whom the Bill applies, they are far worse off than the tenants, and if the word "avaricious" is to be applied to anyone it is to the tenant, who is probably getting three times the wages he got before the War and refuses to the landlord the small amount of justice which he would get under this Bill.
    Mr. SWAN: I hope the Minister of Health will give this serious consideration. I can speak from personal experience in mining areas, knowing the kind of property there is there. I know large numbers of men who have been compelled to do repairs which the landlord would not carry out, because in the first place the property was not considered, even by the local authorities, as fit for human habitation and was not worth repairing. But because of the great dearth of houses the local authorities tolerated them. Then we have the kind of property belonging to owners who are not philanthropists as the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) suggests, but who have altogether a different conception as to the sanitary and health conveniences of the property from those held by the occupiers of the houses. I know certain owners of slum property which will be tolerated in the future who considered the property was a sanatorium, but the occupiers had a different opinion. The owner would not do the ceilings. They took steps themselves to stop the rain coming through. I am sure many hon. Members could give innumerable cases where that has been done. The present tenant followed men who considered that the house was a very eeconomical one; in fact it was not only a dwelling-house, but it was a convenient place for the study of astronomy. But the new occupier did not care to study astronomy while lying in bed and looking through the roof. He preferred to put a new ceiling up. This is common throughout the mining areas. Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider that an individual with a different point of view

    1825
    from that of the previous occupier who put a ceiling up was not entitled to some consideration? These are the things we are continually faced with owing to the scarcity of houses and the difficulty presented to local authorities in supplying decent houses. This kind of property will continue for years to come, and if the owners know that where repairs have been done by the occupiers they are going to have some consideration the probability is that they will not increase the rent to the amount which is permissible in a former Clause. On these grounds I hope consideration will be given to the Amendment.
    Mr. HOHLER: I really hope the Minister of Health will not further consider the matter. My recollection is that under the Acts dealing with the housing of the working classes in regard to property of the value of £50 or under the landlord has the legal liability to repair. If, therefore, he omits to perform his duty and the tenant does it he has a perfect right in the law at present to recover against the landlord. Surely that is all that you want. I cannot for the life of me see the need for considering the Amendment or increasing the difficulties of the Bill. If people understood what the law was these supposed grievances would not be raised.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It will be poor comfort to a small tenant to be told that if he understood what the law was he
    would be at liberty to bring an action against a rich landlord. I sincerely hope the Minister of Health will accept this Amendment. I am sure on the face of it no one can dispute its justice. The only question is whether it will give rise to practical difficulty in working I do not believe it would. I have read the Clause over very carefully with these words in, and it seems to me quite clear that in the great majority of cases it would be a matter of arrangement between the landlord and the tenant how much should be allowed off the rent the repairs which had been done. These repairs have been done by tenants, especially what are called decorative repairs, on a large scale during the War. I supported the Minister in the last Division because I am sure for a good landlord the increase of 25 per cent. is not an atom more than it will cost him to do the repairs that he is bound to do, but if these words are not put in it will very unfortunately result that a bad landlord will have an advantage over a good landlord, because the bad landlord who has not done the repairs and has left them for the tenant to do will pocket the money, while the good landlord will have to spend that money in doing the repairs. I very earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment.
    Question put: "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 198.

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Robertson, John

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Rose, Frank H.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Irving, Dan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Briant, Frank

    Jesson, C.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Swan, J. E.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawson, John J.

    Taylor, J.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Tootill, Robert

    Glanville, Harold James

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Myers, Thomas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Hallas, Eldred

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Hancock, John George

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Major Henderson and Captain Coote.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Barrand, A. R.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Briggs, Harold

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Blane, T. A.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Purchase, H. G.

    Casey, T. W.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Cautley, Henry S.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsev)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Kiley, James D.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Dawes, Commander

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Seddon, J. A.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Simm, M. T.

    Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

    Lorden, John William

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Macmaster, Donald

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Foreman, Henry

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Forrest, Walter

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Gardiner, James

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Turton, E. R.

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N)

    Morrison, Hugh

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Greer, Harry

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Parker, James

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Hinds, John

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Percy, Charles

    Younger, Sir George

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Hood, Joseph

    Perring, William George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1, d, ii) to add the words
    "Provided that the cumulative increase in net rent payable in any one year in respect of any dwelling-house under Sub-sections (a), (c), and (d), shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third per cent. exclusive of any increase on account of rates."
    My Amendment does not affect the eventual amount of the increase of rent that is to be allowed, but it does affect the time at which the cumulative increases of rent shall become due, and I move it entirely in response to a speech made by the Minister of Health in Committee. Speaking on an Amendment of a similar character moved by the hon. Member who
    1828
    moved the last Amendment (Major Henderson),he said:
    "I take it that what my hon. Friends are aiming at is that, notwithstanding the provisions in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), all these things added together in respect of increases in rent shall not, at all events in the first year, amount to more than so much."
    He went on to say:
    "There is a good deal to say for that proposal. It is really a question as to the way in which the increases should become incident upon the tenant. That is really the point in question, and perhaps my hon. Friends will allow me to explore that between now and the Report stage, or, if necessary, to refer to it later on in Committee if any appropriate place occurs. I am quite sure that this Amendment as it stands would not do at all. I see the general purpose of it, which is to say, 'Notwithstanding all these increases,

    1829
    which we accept, only a certain proportion is to come in the first year.' The balance may come in the second year. Perhaps my hon. Friends will allow me to think it over, and either suggest another Clause, if I can frame one, or bring up something on the Report stage."—[0FriciAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 14th June, 1920, cols. 91–92.]
    I am now bringing something on the Report stage. Apart altogether from the working-class houses, we are bringing into the operation of this Bill property in London up to £105 a year ratable value, and I suggest that in case of what may be called the lower middle class tenants to put on at one moment the whole of the increase of rent due under the Sections which we have just passed would cause very grave embarrassment, particularly to the tenants of houses between £50 and £105. Take the case of the man who has been accustomed to pay £105 for his house. He comes under the operation of this legislation for the first time, and he may suddenly be faced with an increase of 40 per cent., plus a certain percentage under Section (a), and plus the increase of rates. We all know the type of man who lives in this particular class of house. Probably he is the junior professional man. He is in many cases the man with a fixed income, and suddenly to increase his rent by one-half is a very large jump, which would upset his family budget completely. Therefore, I do think that we ought to insert some limitation of the cumulative increases under these Sections that may take place in the first year. There is a great deal to be said for that, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the object of this Bill is to make house building self-supporting. I do not think that is so, because it will not have that effect. Any Rent Restriction Act will continue the present paralysis in regard to houses. We are forced to pass this Bill, because unless we do so we shall have very great evil resulting, even greater than the cessation of house building. We shall have people turned out of houses and real commotion up and down the country, unless we continue these War-time restrictions in respect of houses. It is regrettable, but we are forced to legislate an evil lest a worse evil arises. When that is the basis of this Bill we should insure, if we can, that the increase we allow shall not be unnecessarily burdensome. In Scotland in particular, where the rating system is
    1830
    different, there is the gravest apprehension, in many cases a reasonable apprehension, that the combined effect of all these increases allowed in this Bill will be oppressive in their character, and will constitute such an increase as will prove burdensome to many classes of tenants. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the increase shall not exceed one-third in any one year. Landlords and tenants will then know exactly where they are, and the increase seems to be a reasonable one in the first year.
    Sir F. LOWE: On a point of Order. May I submit that the Amendment is entirely inconsistent with the portion of the Clause which we have already passed. We have said already that certain increases shall be allowed. It is possible that those all added together might exceed one-third in a year. Therefore this Amendment would nullify what has already been done.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member is laying down too hard and fast a rule in seeking to prevent the hon. Member from moving this Amendment. It has always been the custom of the House to allow a discussion on an Amendment of this character, and I propose to accept this one, but I think that I would be justified in not allowing further Amendments cutting away what the House has already decided.
    Captain COOTE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am very glad to hear your ruling, because this is not in any sense a sentimental or worthless Amendment, but one which raises an entirely new point of principle. The object is to prevent a poor tenant being absolutely overwhelmed in the first year by the whole of the increase allowed by the Bill coming upon him at one and the same time. The position is somewhat similar to the position under the Peace Treaty if I may draw the analogy. The German Government have repeatedly asked for a sum to be specified as a fixed indemnity. We may think that right or wrong, but undoubtedly the tenant, as does the German, wants to know where he stands. If all the increases permitted by this Bill were to take place at one and the same time, the total increase would be, I think, 42½ per cent. Therefore the Amendment proposes an abatement for the first year in the case of all houses to which all these

    1831
    increases would apply of about 10 per cent. I submit that is not an unreasonable proposition. I am hopeful that the Government will consider it favourably, because of the very strong language in Committee of my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) with regard to this point. He was as definite as Ministers of the Crown ever allow themselves to be on any question in promising that he would give most favourable consideration to this question, and if this Amendment does not meet the case in its wording, I feel sure that if the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said on that occasion he will consider putting in words to meet the point to cover what is a real danger and probably a real obstacle to the success of this Bill. Hon. Members on both sides say they want to make this Bill work. The Government know very well that various threats have been put forward. I am not arguing that we should bow to these threats. Nobody should bow to threats either of passive or active resistance, but at the same time I submit that the probable effect of the Bill must be considered, because it is not properly understood. This Amendment would give those time to look around who feel that they may suffer from a grievance.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not wish to qualify in any way what I said in Committee on this point. I have examined this question very sympathetically to see if something should be done, and I have also realised, as the Mover of this Amendment has realised, though I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Coote) has done so, that the class of houses to which this Amendment must be applied, and the only class of houses, are those which are brought in for the first time. My hon. and gallant Friend speaks of poor tenants being overwhelmed. It is true that there are plenty of poor tenants who live in the bigger houses, perhaps poorer than some of those in smaller houses, but I take it he was not using the words in the general sense, or suggesting that the 10s. a week house would be in any way affected by this Amendment. That is not so. Those houses are already in, and they can only be subject, with one exception, to a maximum rise of 30 per cent. during the first year. The exception is where in paragraph (a) the landlord has since the 4th day of August, 1914, carried out structural improvements or alterations. In that case
    1832
    I think we could fairly assume that there are very few cases where that has happened. During the course of the War, and even since, there have not been many cases where the small classes of property owners have been able to do any more than keep the houses in repair. I wish that they had been able to do that. The fact that they have not been able to do it is one of the reasons for this Bill. The number of cases where an increase could be charged in respect of material alterations or improvements is practically negligible, so in the case of all these houses the maximum rise under this Act is 30 per cent. Therefore this applies only in the Metropolitan area to houses between £75 a year and £105.
    I did look into this question, and found, as my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment found, that it could only be put forward in the case of the new houses. You could not make it general in its operation. The only question is with regard to the new houses, "Will you have the increase 33½ per cent. or 40 per cent.?" That does not raise any questions of ambiguity. We include houses of that kind for the first time, because Lord Salisbury's Committee found that tenants of these houses could be subject to unreasonable eviction, or increases of rent, not of 40 per cent., but 100 per cent., and sometimes more. Therefore we fix 40 per cent. as the figure which ought to cover repairs, etc., and is reasonable in the circumstances. Frankly, I do not think there is as much in this point as I thought there was when I discussed it in Committee. I think that my hon. Friend who moved it sees that. It does not raise any question of general principle; it does not propose to alter the way the figures are made up. I think that the great safeguard these houses are now getting for the first time is cheaply purchased, in the circumstances of the moment, at 40 per cent. by the people who are brought in and relieved of anxiety as to evictions or much greater exactions, and I think that the House, on the whole, should adhere to the figures, which were examined very carefully by the Committee.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "three" ["three months"] and to insert instead thereof the word "nine."

    1833
    The period of three months which is provided is one in which it would be utterly impossible for the small owner to carry out repairs. It really comes to this. You will have the owner saying: "I will not have time to accumulate enough to put the house into repair." It is extremely important that you should give these owners a longer time to accumulate some funds. There is another point. However much you desire to have these repairs done in nine months, you cannot get them done. There are not the workers to carry out these repairs. I will give one reason. It is that the Government are having such a lot of repairs done totheir buildings all over the place, and they are monopolising a very large number of the mechanics who should be on other buildings. The proposal of the Bill is likely only to create trouble. The Bill will become inoperative altogether, if the period is retained as three months, in the case of a very large percentage of owners, and particularly of the small people who own one, two, three or four houses, on the proceeds of which they are trying to live. I am extremely anxious to see the Bill become an Act, but I want it to become a workable Act.
    Sir F. LOWE: I beg to second the Amendment. I think the period of three months is wholly inadequate, and that you cannot possibly expect to get the repairs done in that time. We all know how scarce labour and material are. However willing a landlord might be to carry out repairs, it would be a practical impossibility for him to do so. There is to be considered the effect upon the building of new houses if you abstract all the labour and all the material necessary to repair hundreds or thousands of houses in three months. I know the Minister of Health is anxious to do all that he can for the building of new houses. I should have thought that he would not have put this obstacle in the way of that being done. Personally, I think it would be much wiser to make the term one year, instead of the nine months suggested by the Amendment, because the object is to get the repairs carried out generally.
    Dr. ADDISON: I quite agree that there will be a large number of owners who, with the allowance which we have already sanctioned, will not have
    1834
    accumulated enough in three months, owing to the increased cost of repairs, fully to discharge the cost of doing the repairs, but they will have obtained a surety that they will be entitled to higher rents if the repairs are carried out, and thereby I believe they will be able to get sufficient credit. How long is it reasonable to ask tenants in such cases where repairs are wanted to go on paying the increased rent before the repairs are done? All we provide here is that the landlord shall have time to turn round. If, at the end of three months, either the tenant or the local authority goes to the court, the Clause provides that the court may suspend the increase for a time. If the repairs are done then the increase will go on again. I quite agree as to the state of the labour market. It does not materially improve housing accommodation to get existing property repaired, but it is a great advantage to have it done. Having regard to the other provisions of the Clause, and to the fact that otherwise a tenant would be going on paying an increased 25 per cent. for nine or twelve months in a large number of cases in respect of repairs which had not been executed, I think the proposal of the Bill is a fair compromise.
    Mr. SWAN: I hope the Minister of Health will not accept the Amendment. We have no burning ambition to see the Act carried out; we opposed the concession of the grant for repairs. If the tenant has to pay for repairs it is only reasonable that they should be carried out. In many cases those repairs ought to have been executed long ago.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words, "and also any increase under paragraph (c) of that Sub-section."
    I am rather surprised there has been nothing done in regard to this, because in Committee the learned Attorney-General said:
    "I would suggest in regard to this that it should be postponed in order that we might consider the last three lines of this particular Sub-section."
    I rather anticipated some Amendment on the Paper dealing with the matter. As the Bill stands, the mortgage interest can be increased, and the owner has to bear the expense of that without getting any return whatsoever in the way of an

    1835
    increased income. It has been distinctly pointed out that the 5 and 10 per cent. were put on to cover the increase on mortgage interest. It does not cover it. There is a complaint in one of the newspapers even to-day pointing out that in many cases this Bill does not in any way help those who have agreements running, and you will find tenancies of houses with rentals between £36 and £105 are held by agreements for at least three years in most cases. It seems unreasonable that you should give with one hand and take away with another.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. HOOD: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the words, "or decoration".
    Unless these words are inserted the landlord might continue to get his 25 per cent. increase in rent, and leave the tenant to do the decorations out of his own pocket.
    Mr. HURD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    D. ADDISON: I do not think that this will help the Clause. It might introduce a good many controversies as to what should be regarded as decorations, and there would be endless complications. People generally understand what is meant by "a reasonable state of repair". After all, this is a Sub-section which would be interpreted by a County Court judge. He would deal with it as a common-sense person, and decide a case on its merits. The words we have adopted are those generally used in Acts dealing with such matters.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the words "from some cause other than subsidence in a mining district."
    7.0 P.M.
    If the want of repair is due to subsidence in a mining district, that should be no reason for prohibiting the landlord from getting the increase of rent to which he would otherwise be entitled. There are a great many houses in mining districts which are otherwise in a proper state of repair and where the landlords have done all they can to keep them in order, but which, owing to subsidence are injured in some way. As
    1836
    the Clause stands, the tenant might be able to say, "I do not complain that you have not papered and painted the house, but it is cracked owing to subsidence, and therefore I say it is not in a reasonable state of repair, and you ought not to be allowed to increase the rent." That is felt as a great hardship by a large number of small people who have a house or two in the mining districts. I think it is a greater hardship because the Government have stood in the way of dealing with this question of subsidence ever since last Session. There was an attempt to deal with the general law on subsidence, but the Government objected to the Bill brought in and said that they would deal with the question themselves. They have not done so. The position is that these properties are injured from circumstances entirely beyond the power of their owners to control, and you are now going to put those owners in the position of being taken into the County Court, not because the house is unfit for human habitation or because it is otherwise out of repair, but because it has been injured by subsidence. It will be no answer for the landlord to say that it is fit for habitation and that he has done what was reasonable to put it into a state of repair. The object of this Amendment is to protect the small owner, and I hope the Government will accept it, and also that before very long they will deal with the question of subsidence as a whole, and, meanwhile, they have no right to place upon the owner of this property a double hardship.
    Mr. HANCOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment deals with the case where a house in a mining district has more or less collapsed and is in a state that you cannot repair it.
    Mr. MYERS: You cannot blame the tenant for that.
    Dr. ADDISON: The Amendment says, notwithstanding that position, the landlord is to be allowed to charge an increase of rent in respect of repairs, although he cannot put the house in repair.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It does not.
    Dr. ADDISON: That is the effect of the Amendment. In the case of an unrepairable house, increased rent is to be charged, according to the Amendment, for repairs which cannot be effected.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not the meaning of the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I daresay it is not the meaning, but it is the effect.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
    "if the house is over-crowded to the extent of more than two persons per room, or if the house contains three rooms or less, or if the house is one in respect of which a closing order has been made under Sections 15 to 17 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, etc., 1909, and such closing Order has not been determined."
    This Amendment raises the whole question as to whether the low type of cottage property which exists in this country should be excepted from the provisions of this Bill. The Amendment does not interfere with any increase of rent which comes from the cost of repairs. It does challenge the position as to whether the poor type of house which exists all over the country should be penalised further. Any addition to the rent for a large number of houses in this country is adding one injustice to another. The census of 1911 set forth the fact that one-tenth of the entire population are living in the overcrowded condition of more than two persons per room. That standard of overcrowding is set up by those responsible for the census return. Most Members of the House are acquainted with the very serious defects which have arisen from the point of view of public health, domestic discomfort and the like, from the overcrowded condition under which a large section of our population live. Comparisons have been made by medical men in various parts of the country and the investigations have disclosed the fact that in many of these areas where these overcrowding conditions prevail the stature and weight of our children are tremendously lower than in the case of similar aged children in areas where better housing conditions prevail. In the manufacturing towns all over the north of England there are the back to back houses. I read a statement in the Press not long ago that 75 per cent. of the entire working class population of Bradford lived in the back to back type of house. I am acquainted with a large number of houses of this character which are in existence in the city of Leeds. In the borough where I happen to reside one-
    1838
    half of the entire houses are of the back to back type, and we know the conditions which prevail in houses of that character. It might be convenient to some hon. Members to find dining room, sitting room, scullery, nursery, and washhouse all combined in one, but it is tremendously irritating to the average working man when he comes into one of those places on a dirty wet day, and it has certain effects in other directions to which social reform agencies have had to direct attention. Those back to back houses in the industrial towns have existed for half a century and in some cases longer. They have paid for themselves many times over in the rent gathered and those houses to-day would sell in the open market for a considerably higher sum than they cost to erect in the first instance, not because they are worth that sum as pieces of bricks and mortar, but purely from the point of view of the War-time scarcity of housing accommodation. We say, having regard to the objectionable circumstances which surround houses of this character, where people are overcrowded, we ought not to put on an additional penalty in the shape of an increase of rent.
    The Amendment further provides that the exception shall be exercised in those houses which contain three rooms and under. That part of the Amendment is directed to working-class dwellings of a character which is well understood. It may be urged that there is a class of house, say a three-roomed flat in London, which would come under these conditions. That is not the house which is aimed at, and if that argument is advanced we should be prepared to accept some modifying provision which would rule out that class of property. There are about 8,000,000 dwellings in England and Wales and over a quarter of those are dwellings of three rooms and under. In Great Britain as a whole over 10,250,000 of people out of over 40,000,000 live in houses of three rooms and under. Houses of three rooms and under which are recognised working-class dwellings have either only one living room or only one sleeping room, and whichever of those conditions apply it is an undesirable state of things. Those of us who have had the privilege, or rather the penalty, of residing and living in houses of this character know exactly the penalty that is imposed upon our working-class popu-

    1839
    lation who have to live in them. The latter part of the Amendment deals with the question of closing orders. Under the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 and the Inspection Regulations, some good work has been and is being done, but some of the work would hardly come inside that observation. In some cases the operation of the Inspection Regulations perpetuate an undesirable type of cottage property. Certain repairs are said to be necessary, and when those have been carried out, the house has been declared officially fit for habitation. But even then it is very often not a desirable kind of house.
    In 1913 and 1914 over 22,000 closing orders were made against houses in England and Wales. These orders are determined when the houses are made fit for habitation, and having regard to the operation of the War, the repairs that were necessary to these houses in which 22,000 closing orders were made have not been carried out, and it is safe to say that at this moment a large proportion of these houses are still occupied. They stand condemned, just as back-to-back houses stand condemned, by Act of Parliament, and they ought not to be brought within this Act and a further penalty imposed upon the people who have to occupy such houses in the way of an additional rent. There are anything up to a quarter of the working-class houses in this country to-day which it would be a penalty to occupy if they were absolutely rent-free, and if that indictment is considered extreme, I would call to my assistance the Ministry of Health to present to us all the statistics that they have tabulated from the point of view of the adverse effect of bad housing on the health of the community. Infantile mortality is at bottom caused by bad housing, and the great problem of tuberculosis has been established to be one of bad housing; even the great Dr. Koch himself made the pronouncement that it is the overcrowded dwellings of the poor that we have to regard as the real breeding places of tuberculosis, and it is out of them that the disease always crops up anew.
    If these are facts which are suggested by medical testimony, surely the objectionable conditions of these houses are sufficient without imposing any additional penalty on the people who live
    1840
    in them. This House has endeavoured as far as possible to protect the working-class community from a certain type of profiteer, the profiteer who deals in certain commodities which the working people purchase. The working people are at present purchasing housing accommodation of a very inferior type, judged by both the standard of domestic comfort and the conditions of health that come from them, and even if the penalty which is imposed on the working people is not adequately understood by them, that is no reason for suggesting that the penalty is not there. In all the circumstances of the case, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take into serious consideration this type of cottage property and not assist, as this Bill is going to do, to restore slumdom as a business proposition and give a new lease of life to a great quantity of undesirable cottage property in the country.
    Mr. SWAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I am sure it will get the sincere sympathy of the Minister in charge of the Bill. It would be a very serious thing if people who, through no fault of their own, have been compelled to live in these overcrowded houses and have had to trudge the country up and down to try and get accommodation are to have another penalty imposed on them by an increase in the rent. In 1914 in the county of Durham we had 28 per cent. of overcrowding. In my local area it was the highest in the county, namely, 43 per cent., and in the neighbouring urban district it was 41 per cent. That state of overcrowding has not diminished, but has been intensified, because there have been no houses put up, and to suggest increasing the rent of these back-to-back houses would be nothing less than criminal. I hope we shall have reasonable consideration given to this Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman on humanitarian grounds and that it will be made incumbent on the local authorities to see that these houses are closed and replaced by good houses.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friends have raised a very important question. I do not suggest that their remarks went beyond what the case merits, but I suggest that they went beyond the effect of

    1841
    their own Amendment and certainly of the Bill. I agree that it would be a mistake of the first order to do anything at all in this Bill or any other Bill which would perpetuate the continuance of slumdom. That is a proposition which no one would question, and certainly as Minister of Health I count myself as second to none in my enthusiasm in that regard. Therefore I need say nothing as to the evil of that class of dwelling, but the question here is whether you are going to allow that undesirable or condemned or semi-condemned property shall bring to its tenants this increased charge whilst the property itself is an abomination. I say that an examination of the Clause as it stands, with what we have already passed in regard to repairs, should really remove the fears of my hon. Friends. We do not want that to happen, of course, and I can assure them that that fear was quite in our minds in framing this Clause. In the first place, if a Closing Order has been made against the property, even if it has not been made effective owing to the shortage of accommodation generally, no local authority or county-court judge would say that that was a reasonable case for an increase in the rent owing to repairs having been executed, because they have not been executed. The next safeguard is that it will be the duty of the sanitary authority carefully to watch the operation of the Act and to see that no property which they have condemned or which they are prepared to condemn, and which is not put in a proper state of repair, should be able to take advantage of the provisions of the Act. So far as the definition of the number of rooms which a house may contain is concerned, I think my hon. Friend will agree that you might have a perfectly well-equipped little place with a couple of old people living in it, and in a perfect state of repair, and that that should not be a case exempted from the Act. As to the definition of the number of persons per room, that again would lead to infinite complication. Generally, however, the case is the risk of buyers of slum property putting on an increased charge when they ought not to. The Clause is so drafted as to secure that a slum is not a desirable property and could not come under the Bill; and, finally, I claim that no reasonable county-court judge would allow an increase of rent in respect of
    1842
    such property that had not been repaired. Therefore I think my hon. Friends' fears are quite groundless and the Amendment unnecessary.
    Captain LOSEBY: I think the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment have put some of us in rather a false position. I know we shall be pilloried in voting against the Amendment on the ground that we support the continuation of the appalling state of affairs in certain dwelling-houses in particular parts of the world. I happen to know that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Myers), and who referred to my own constituency, is not exaggerating, and I know that in East Bradford some of the back-to-back houses and others are too appalling for words. I do not dissociate myself from one word that he said about that, and if by supporting his Amendment I thought we could do anything to render impossible the continuation of that state of affairs, I would support it. I would only say, however, that I think the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health went right to the point, and that my hon. Friends opposite must look to another Bill for a remedy for this particular state of affairs. So far as protection is possible under this Bill, I think we have it in Sub-section (2). We do not help things if, having said that no landlord can get this increase if a house is not fit for human habitation, we say to a man who is prepared to do certain repairs, "Yes, you may do those repairs, but you shall get no economic return for them." It would inevitably mean that such repairs as are possible, and will be done in these dwelling-houses, would, if this Amendment were accepted, not be carried into effect. I am only afraid they would go from bad to worse. I sympathise sincerely with the Mover and the Seconder, in whose motives I most profoundly believe, but I am afraid the Amendment would not meet the case, and, therefore, I for one shall vote against it.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I sincerely hope that Members who sympathise with the Mover of the Amendment will show that sympathy in the Division Lobby. While I am very enthusiastic for improved houses, and up against the things which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend, I know that the low ideas and the grievances of a century cannot be remedied in a day. If there were sufficient suitable

    1843
    houses, people would not dwell in the houses under consideration and pay rent for them. My soul is vexed when I hear people sometimes speak of a house being fit for human habitation. I can take you to large masses of the population who are living in houses that were condemned as unfit for human habitation 50 years ago, and are occupied still. They have paid for themselves over and over again. It cannot be pleaded that it is a case of the lone widow who has her all invested in house property. It is property owned by rich corporations, and to give them the opportunity of increasing the rent is only prolonging the life of property that ought to have been swept out of existence long ago. The expenditure on Sanatoria that has got to be met is because of this bad housing. Members need not be afraid of being put in a false position. They will only be put in a false position when they place it in the power of landlords who own these houses to increase rent, when the houses ought to have been swept away long ago.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Every hon. Member will sympathise with the object of the Amendment, and I would appeal to the Minister to see whether he cannot go part of the way to meet the object and purpose of the Amendment. As he has said, two parts of the Amendment are fairly met already, because if a closing order has been made against any of these houses I do not think any Court would hold that to be a house reasonably fit for human habitation. I think he has fairly met the House on the question of three rooms, because undoubtedly there are any number of proper houses where only two people live which you could not reasonably close because of three rooms. But when you come to the question of overcrowding, and taking the standard which his own Department has set up, that is, over two people per room, there you get a condition of thing, which is absolutely in keeping with the Clause which has passed through Committee That Clause says that rent shall not be increased where the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation. It does not cover the question of overcrowding, but I submit that a house with more than two people per room is as unfit for human habitation as a house which is structurally unfit. Therefore, logically, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman cannot refuse
    1844
    to incorporate into this Clause this-further protection against putting a premium on the continuation of property which is not reasonably fit for human habitation. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot find words which will meet the spirit of the Amendment, in so far as it deals with the important question of overcrowding, which is a tremendous curse, and a tremendous hindrance to the health and well-being of our large industrial towns.
    Dr. MURRAY: I rise to say a word or two in support of the object and principles of this Amendment, although not perhaps accepting every word of it. I think everything that strengthens the Bill in the direction of discouraging slum property or overcrowded dwellings ought to receive sympathetic consideration. The principle has already been accepted in the Bill that in the case of houses not reasonably fit for human habitation the landlords should not be permitted to increase the rent. I am not at all sure the principle is a very sound one, because cheapness is an attraction to some people, and I am not at all sure that the principle should have been embodied in the Bill that increased rent should not be allowed in the case of slum property. All people are not keen sanitarians, and some people are quite willing to go into slum houses if they can get them cheaper. However, the principle has been embodied in the Bill that increases on the' rent of some slum property shall not be allowed, and, therefore, I think it should be emphasised in this way, and that the property included should be more specifically mentioned, as indicated in the Amendment. It is not necessary to stress the evils of overcrowded and slum dwellings. We know that tuberculosis is really a house disease, and it is only in houses of that type that, generally speaking, we get it. Therefore it is incumbent on the Minister of Health to do everything in his power to discourage people from dwelling in property of that kind. Seeing that the principle is embodied in the Bill, and believing the Amendment will strengthen the Clause, I am prepared to. support the Amendment.
    Captain ELLIOT: It is very difficult to understand this long manuscript Amendment handed in at the last moment, and I think it is a great pity that we have to

    1845
    consider what the Labour party regard as an important Amendment in this form. Do I understand aright that it is actually proposed that if a man has an overcrowded house he is to be able to say to the landlord that there shall be no increase of rent? If so, it seems to me that it is a reactionary step. If he can take in lodgers and overcrowd his house, he can say there shall be no increase in the rent. I have no doubt it is due to my own stupidity that I do not properly understand the Amendment, but I wish
    to show how difficult it is to understand a long manuscript Amendment handed in on the Report stage. I should like one of the Labour Members to say whether my interpretation is correct, namely, that a man overcrowding his house can forbid a landlord on that account to raise the rent. It seems to me to be a premium on overcrowding.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 192.

    Division No. 150.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hallas, Eldred

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hancock, John George

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Robertson, John

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Briant, Frank

    Hogge, James Myles

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Briggs, Harold

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Bromfield, William

    Irving, Dan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tootill, Robert

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Lawson, John J.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Donald, Thompson

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Mr. Myers and Mr. Swan.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Foreman, Henry

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Forrest, Walter

    Lorden, John William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Freece, Sir Walter de

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gardiner, James

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Glanville, Harold James

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Grant, James A.

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Blane, T. A.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Morison, Thomas Brash

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hinds, John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Hood, Joseph

    Parker, James

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Perring, William George

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Dawes, Commander

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, J.

    Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Simm, M. T.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Turton, E. R.

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Vickers, Douglas

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Waddington, R.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Sutherland, Sir William

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words
    "Provided that for the purposes of this Section the rent shall not be deemed to be increased where the liability for rates is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, if a corresponding reduction is made in the rent."
    This Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend is more or less of a formal character, and is intended to carry out the promise he made in Committee. The effect of it is to allow the landlord to transfer the liability for rates to the tenant, so that after the transfer the tenant will pay the rates directly to the local authority; but it is provided that in that case the rent is reduced by the amount of the rates, so that the tenant is no worse off. The Amendment does not alter the liabilities or responsibilities which affect either landlord or tenant.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words, "payable by" ["shall be deemed to be payable by him"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "repayable to."
    I desired to move this in Committee, but I was not quite prepared with chapter or verse from the Salisbury Report. The Salisbury Report provides for one week's notice of increase of rates, after this Bill become law. The summary of principal recommendations says:
    "18 (a). An authorised increase of rent to cover an increase of rates should be due and recoverable after one week's notice to the tenant.
    (b) The landlord shall have power to carry the increase of rent into the next ratal period until the new rate is made, or until the full amount of the increase has been recovered from the tenant, whichever is the earlier."
    1848
    Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 of the Bill says:
    "For the purposes of this Section the expression 'rates' includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by the landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded."
    These words, "payable by" seem to necessitate some slight alteration. The point is that the rates should be repayable to the landlords. It may be the intention of the Bill, but the language is certainly very involved. I beg to move in order to make the matter clear.
    Mr. PERRING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so in order to give the Minister an opportunity to reply. I understand that rates are made and levied every half-year in the majority of cases, though in some cases for the year. If this Bill passes, say, by the 24th of June, it will be in the middle of a rate made from 1st April to 1st October. The effect would be that rates, if payable by the landlord, will not be recoverable from the tenant, and the landlord will be called upon to pay the increased rates of the current half-year's charges. In many parts of London and the provinces the rates have been increased in the current half-year by 25 per cent. The effect of that would be that in the last quarter of the current half-year, from 1st of July to 1st of October, the landlord will have to pay that 25 per cent. increase, and not be able to recover it from the tenant. If the Minister in charge of the Bill can assure me that that is not so, I have nothing more to say. In respect, however of property which is rated on £60, £70, or £100 a year, the difference, which may be a matter of £10 for the three months, would be charged on the landlord, and would not be recoverable from the tenant.
    Mr. MORISON: I understand the point of the Mover of the Amendment is to make certain that the landlord shall not have to pay the increase in the rates for which he is not otherwise liable. I wish to assure my hon. Friend that the Bill as it stands is quite correct, and has been framed in order to give full effect to the recommendations of the Committee. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (1, b), they will see that it is there expressly provided that any increase in the rates for the time being payable by the landlord may be passed on to the tenant. Therefore it seems quite clear that the Bill is correct.
    Mr. LORDEN: I only wanted an expression of opinion on this point from the Minister, because it was far from clear. Under these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Limitation as to permitted increases in rent.)
    8.0 P.M.
    (1) Nothing in this Act shall be taken to authorise any increase of rent except in respect of a period during which but for this Act the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession, or any increase in the rate of interest on a mortgage except in respect of a period during which, but for this Act, the security could be enforced.
    (2) Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, where the rent of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies is increased, no such increase shall be due or recoverable until or in respect of any period prior to the expiry of four clear weeks, or, where such increase is on account of an increase in rates, one clear week, after the landlord has served upon the tenant a valid notice in writing of his intention to increase the rent, accompanied by a statement of the amount of the proposed increase, and—

    (a) where the increase is on account of expenditure on improvements or structural alterations, by a statement of the improvements or alterations effected and of their cost; and

    (b) where the increase is on account of an increase in rates, by a statement showing particulars of the increased amount charged in respect of rates on the dwelling-house; and

    (c) in any other case by a statement of what the landlord alleges to be the standard rent and what the landlord alleges to be the net rent of the premises, and the percentages of any proposed increases.

    Where such a notice has been served on any tenant the increase may be continued without service of any fresh notice on any subsequent tenant.
    Mr. MORISON: I beg to move in Sub section (2) to leave out the words
    "accompanied by a statement of the amount of the proposed increase, and—

    (a) where the increase is on account of expenditure on improvements or structural alterations, by a statement of the improvements or alterations effected and of their cost; and

    (b) where the increase is on account of an increase in rates, by a statement showing particulars of the increased amount charged in respect of rates on the dwelling-house; and

    (c) in any other case by a statement of what the landlord alleges to be the standard rent and what the landlord alleges to be the net rent of the premises, and the percentages. of any proposed increases."

    and to insert instead thereof, the words
    "which notice shall be in the form contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or in a form substantially to the same effect. If a notice served as aforesaid contains any statement or representation which is false or misleading in any material respect, the landlord shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds unless he proves that the statement was made innocently and without intent to deceive."
    This Amendment carries out a promise given in Committee. It is purely a matter of form, and not substance, and, as it carries out in another form the purpose of the Bill, I do not think I require to detain the House by giving any detailed. explanation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MORISON: I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "such a notice" and to insert instead thereof "a notice of an increase of rent which at the same time was valid."
    This is a small drafting Amendment consequential on the preceding Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Restriction on right to possession).
    (1) No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—

    (a) any rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid, or any other obligation of the tenancy (whether under the contract of tenancy or under this Act) so far as the same is consistent with the provisions of this Act has been broken or not performed; or

    1851

    (b) the tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or the condition of the dwelling-house has in the opinion of the Court deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person; or

    (c) the tenant has given notice to quit, and in consequence of that notice the landlord has contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house or has taken other steps as a result of which he would in the opinion of the Court be seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession; or

    (d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for any person bonâ fide residing or to reside with him, or for some person in his employment or in the employment of some tenant from him, and (except as otherwise provided by this Sub-section) the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available; or

    (e) the landlord became the landlord after service in any of His Majesty's forces during the War, and requires the house for his personal occupation, and offers the tenant accommodation on reasonable terms in the same dwelling-house, such accommodation being considered by the Court as reasonably sufficient in the circumstances;

    and, in any such case as aforesaid, the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.
    The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this Sub-section—

    (i) where the tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord, and the dwelling-house was let to him in consequence of that employment and he has ceased to be in that employment; or

    (ii) where the landlord gave up the occupation of the dwelling-house in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the War; or

    (iii) where the landlord became the landlord before the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house to which Section Four of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest. (Restrictions) Act, 1919, applied, became the landlord before the fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies but
    1852
    the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, became the landlord before the twentieth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty, and in the opinion of the court greater hardship would be caused by refusing an order for possession than by granting it.

    (2) At the time of the application for or the making or giving of any order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any such dwelling-house, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, or in the case of any such order or judgment which has been made or given, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and not executed, at any subsequent time, the court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order or judgment, or postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as it thinks fit, and subject to such conditions (if any) in regard to payment by the tenant or arrears of rent, rent, or mesne profits and otherwise as the court thinks fit, and, if such conditions are complied with, the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order or judgment.
    (3) Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passing of this Act, but not executed, and, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, or where it subsequently appears that the order or judgment was given under conditions which were not then fully apparent to the court and for a purpose not at that time disclosed, the court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
    (4) Notwithstanding anything in Section one hundred and forty-three of the County Courts Act, 1888, or in Section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, every warrant for delivery of possession of, or to enter and give possession of, any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, shall remain in force for three months from the day next after the last day named in the judgment or order for delivery of possession or ejectment, or, in the case of a warrant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, from the date of the issue of the warrant, and in either case for such further period or periods, if any, as the court shall from time to time, whether before or after the expiration of such three months, direct.
    (5) An order or judgment against a tenant for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house or ejectment therefrom under this section shall not affect the right of any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let to retain possession under this section or be in any way operative against any such sub-tenant:
    Provided that any sub-tenant so retaining possession shall upon the making of such

    1853
    order, or the giving of such judgment against the tenant, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move in Subsection (1, a), after the word "paid" to insert the words "and is in arrear for twenty-one days."
    I move this Amendment because I have two subsequent Amendments which hinge very much upon it. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to them in order to explain the effect of the insertion of these words. The next Amendment I refer to is in Sub-section (1, b), after the word "is" to insert the words "proved to be." My third Amendment is in Subsection (1), paragraph (e), to leave out the words "considers it reasonable to" and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    The whole thing hinges together. In Committee the Minister of Health said it was not reasonable to make such a provision, and there must be some latitude left to the County Court Judge to deal with this matter, because if the tenant was in arrear he must have some latitude. I think there should be some definite decision, and the Judge should have some definite ground to go upon. I read during the Committee stage a letter written by a County Court Judge to the paper on this very Bill, pointing out that it should not be left to the discretion of the Judge, and the word should be "shall." If this is not done we shall be getting different decisions on the same point given all over the country.
    I think if you have got a tenant who is in arrear for 21 days, and if it is proved clearly to the judge that there is a nuisance, the judge should not have a discretion in the matter, and he should give a decision for possession. I have letters which I read to the Committee in which it was pointed out that a soldier had come home, and let his house in 1914 to a man of military age, who came home, and he then gave the tenant legal notice. The judge put him off for six months, and then when the new Act came into force the judge gave him another six months. Under the circumstances it seems to me that where you have a definite proposition, and this is definite, we should have something definite, and it is extremely important that we should know where we are, and the judge should
    1854
    not go on varying these orders, so that nobody knows when they can get possession. You have given the tenants every latitude, and they do not desire to have it in this way, and it would be better for them to know that any offence under Clause 5 would compel them to give up possession of the premises. I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way to deal with this matter so that there must be something definite, and I hope we shall decide to insert the word "shall".
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has been moving his first Amendment, I do not follow his argument, and I do not see the applicability of his remarks.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. C. PALMER: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It is one which puts too close a term with regard to the arrears. We know there are many people in hard circumstances, and if it were possible for a landlord to come in after 21 days and demand a judgment, it would inflict a great hardship, and for these reasons I ask the Government not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. MORISON: This Amendment was moved in Committee, and the object which my hon. Friend has in view is to establish what I may call a general time limit in the Bill, to be applicable universally, and he wishes to say that if the rent is in arrear 21 days then the county court judge shall have no option but to grant an order for possession. I do not think that is a proposition which will be generally accepted. In any case, I should not like to say it would be effective because the judge could not do what he considers to be just in matters of this kind. The contract of tenancy usually makes its own arrangements, and it is far better that that subject should be left on that footing with discretion to the judge in any particular application to do what he thinks right in view of all the circumstances.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), after the word "occupiers" ["annoyance to adjoining occupiers"], to insert the words "or has been convicted of using the premises for an immoral or illegal purpose".

    1855
    I understand that the Government is inclined to accept this Amendment. The first part of the paragraph deals with the cases of tenants guilty of conduct causing a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers. I wish to add to a tenant convicted of using the house for immoral or illegal purposes. No one would have any desire to give security of tenure to the keeper of a brothel or to those responsible for such a use of the premises. We do not want to protect that class of people.
    Mr. MORISON: I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: What is meant by the word "illegal"? I want a clearer definition of that before I accept the Amendment, because many things are considered illegal which the hon. Gentleman would not care to make a ground for turning a tenant out of a house. We all agree in providing against the immoral use of a house, but I do want some fuller explanation of the word "illegal" in this regard.
    Mr. MORISON: I take it the term "illegal" in this case would bring within the meaning of the paragraph houses kept for gaming or betting, as well as for immoral purposes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir F. LOWE: I desire to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but which hash been handed in.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to be an Amendment which affirms the general law of the land. I think the hon. Member ought to have put it down, in order that we might have had an opportunity of seeing it.
    Sir F. LOWE: May I explain? The previous Sub-section says that possession may be obtained when the tenant has given notice to quit. I wish to insert a further Sub-section to provide that possession may be obtained when the term of the agreement has expired, which is much the same thing.
    Mr. SPEAKER: But when the time has expired he has gone, and it is open to the owner to take possession.
    Sir F. LOWE: Say there is an agreement for a term of three years, expiring on the 24th of this month. A few months
    1856
    ago the landlord sold the house on the understanding that the purchaser could obtain possession on the 24th. Now the tenant who has been in possession for the three years which have expired refuses to go. I want to make it possible for the purchaser to obtain possession at the end of three years. It seems to me to be much the same thing as obtaining possession after the tenant has given notice to quit during the War.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Under the law of the land, cannot the owner apply to the County Court?
    Sir F. LOWE: If this Bill is passed as it stands, he cannot turn the tenant out; cannot make him go. I want it to be possible under this Bill to make him go. As is is, although the agreement has expired it overrides the general law and the tenant cannot be turned out.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: How does it apply to weekly tenancies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the matter is so important, I am astonished that the hon. Member did not hand in his Amendment, so that everybody might have had an opportunity of seeing it in print. As it is nobody has seen it.
    Sir F. LOWE: I did hand it in on Friday night after the House had risen. I sent it specially to Mr. Webster (the Clerk Assistant).
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am told it was posted on Friday night.
    Sir F. LOWE: Yes, it was posted in the House.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, d), to leave out the words "or to reside."
    The Sub-section as I propose to amend it will read:
    "the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any person bonâ fide residing with him,"
    and so on. I move this Amendment with some confidence because the words I seek to omit were not contained in the original Bill. In Committee the Minister in charge moved to insert the words "or to reside," and in doing so he admitted that he had some misgivings as to their full purport. He also said he was quite willing to reconsider the matter on Report, and it is on account of that that I beg to

    1857
    move this Amendment. I submit that the words which I propose to omit are open to a very wide construction. In fact, in defending the words in Committee the Minister said that the Courts might rule that a man's mother-in-law might not live with him. We none of us object to mother-in-law, and she surely would be a bonâ fide person under the paragraph. The substance of the Amendment is this. The Bill wishes to protect the position of the tenant as it exsited at the time of the War. These words introduce a future into the matter, because they say anybody who may be going to reside. Therefore I submit they are open to this possible interpretation in the Court, that a man might get his daughter-in-law or her husband to agree to live with him and might say, "I have no sufficient accommodation and therefore I require possession of the house because my daughter-in-law is going to reside with me in the future." That is going much further than the Committee intended, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will allow it to revert to its original form and omit these words, because they might enable possession to be obtained of a house on grounds that were not intended.
    Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Apart from the points of view which my hon. Friend has opened out, these words hardly seem necessary. The paragraph says that the house may be obtained by the landlord "as a residence for himself, or for any person bonâ fide residing or to reside with him." That would seem to imply that he must be in the dwelling-house himself, and, therefore, if he has the power to get the dwelling-house for his own occupation, the words seem to be unnecessary. Presumably, having the house for his own occupation, if he wanted anyone to reside with him there, he could effect that without the powers given in this Bill.
    Mr. MORISON: It is quite true, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson) said, that the words "or for any person bonâ fide residing or to reside with him," were put in by the Government in Committee. I am afraid, however, that the Amendment goes further than my hon. Friend would, I think, really wish, and I am sorry we cannot accept it. The words which it proposes to leave out are necessary to cover a case where the landlord has given
    1858
    up his house, owing to the fact that his establishment has been broken up by the War, and now wishes to resume occupation I am informed that there are cases where landlords have given up their houses in consequence of their children taking up War work, and where, now that the War is over, the family wish to be re-united in their own house. It is true that the words are elastic, but I should like to point out that a check is put upon any abuse of the latitude they allow, by a Government Amendment to Clause 17, enabling the court to revoke the Order if the provision has been improperly applied. I venture to suggest that my hon. Friend's purpose will really be served by that Amendment which we have put down on the Paper.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and of the new Sub-section which, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the Government propose to move, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MORISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, d), after the word "his" ["or for some person in his employment"], to insert the words "whole-time".
    This Amendment, and a consequential Amendment of a similar character in the same line, are moved in order to carry out an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in Committee. The object is to secure that the intention of the Act will not be defeated by allowing the landlord to recover possession in respect of a person who is only in his employment for a week, or, it may be, only a few hours.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1, d), after the word "the" ["or in the employment of some tenant from him"], insert the words "whole-time".—[Mr. Morison.]
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, d), after the word "accommodation" ["alternative accommodation reasonably equivalent "], to insert the words
    "situate in a locality reasonably equivalent in respect of accessibility to the tenant's place of business, and in respect of the general type or character of its inhabitants and."
    Sub-section (1, d), as it stands, gives a very wide discretion to the County

    1859
    Court judge on the question of alternative accommodation. The Court has to be satisfied that "alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available." The object of the Amendment is not to fetter the discretion of the County Court judge, but to add, for his guidance in determining what is alternative accommodation, two elements which are not provided in this Clause as it stands. It is clear that the giving of absolutely unlimited discretion to any Court results in uncertainty in the law, and everyone knows that that is to be deprecated. Such uncertainty, in the case of County Courts, may lead to the position that, while on a certain set of facts, a litigant can obtain one result before one County Court judge, in the neighbouring County Court area, on precisely analogous facts, he is unable to obtain the same redress. In arriving at what is alternative accommodation, the Bill, in its present form, misses two points which I have embodied in the Amendment. This House has itself recognised the need of giving certain indices to a County Court judge as to how he should exercise his discretion. There was no question of alternative accommodation in the original Act; it was inserted for the first time in the Act of 1919. It is clear that accommodation is not reasonably alternative unless it is roughly equidistant from the man's place of business, and that ought to be regarded in the exercise of the discretion of the County Court judge.
    The second point, in my view, is even more important, because you may have accommodation equal in accessibility to a tenant's place of business, and also equal from the point of view of accommodation—that is to say, the cubic capacity of the building—and yet not reasonably alternative according to the spirit of the Bill. To take a London example, there is the case of a tenant against whom ejectment proceedings are commenced, who lives, say, at Richmond, and to whom alternative accommodation is offered, we will say, in Houndsditch. That may be absolutely equidistant from his place of business, and may contain as many rooms of the same cubic capacity, but obviously it is not alternative accommodation which ought to satisfy a County Court judge. Certain suburbs of Manchester are largely occupied by
    1860
    clerks, warehousemen, and others of the same type, whose families have lived for generations in the same locality. They have deep roots in the soil of their own particular suburbs. They have their own churches, chapels, clubs and places of recreation, and they have their own friends. It is not alternative accommodation according to the spirit of this Bill to offer to tenants in areas like that other accommodation in another portion of the city where, perhaps, all the neighbours are unable to speak English, and belong to another nationality altogether. These things, are occurring in the City of Manchester at the present time. The object of the Amendment is to lay down, as sign posts to a County Court judge when he exercises his discretion on this important question of alternative accommodation, the two points which are mentioned in the Amendment, namely, first, that the accommodation offered ought to be equally accessible from and to a man's place of business, and, secondly, that it ought to be in a locality which is not absolutely alien in character, and in the nature, tone and nationality of its inhabitants, from that in which the tenant has resided, perhaps, for many years.
    Major NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think a proper and indeed a full reply to the hon. Member is that the words in the Bill cover all that he reasonably requires without the addition of these words, which would create serious embarrassment in many ways. What the Bill requires in respect to alternative accommodation is that there shall be a reasonable equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects. That clearly covers such a case as he mentioned of a man working at Richmond, with a house at Richmond, and certainly it could not be said that alternative accommodation was available somewhere else a long way off, for instance, Hounsditch. Surely no one would contend that that was equally suitable in all respects. It clearly was not. It was 12 or 14 miles away and would be clerly unsuitable in a very important respect, namely, geography. I would also suggest, apart from the fact that the words in the Clause I am sure quite really cover all that the hon. Member contends for in any practical fashion, it gives a sufficient discretion to

    1861
    the County Court Judge to decide the case on its merits in a practical way. If the words were inserted they would create grave embarrassment. This is what he suggests the County Court Judge should do. He should inquire whether the alternative accommodation was suitable, not only as to the locality, but also as to the general type and character of the inhabitants of that new locality. Just fancy a County Court Judge having to engage in a roving commission as to the character and policy of the inhabitants of different localities. We are asking the County Court Judges to do a lot in the Bill. I am not certain that we are not asking them to do too much. I am certain if we were to ask them to undertake an inquiry as to the character of the inhabitants of particular districts we should be placing on them a responsibility which any Member of the House would be sorry to have to discharge himself. I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment is unnecessary, and, further, if it were inserted it would be greatly embarrassing to all concerned.
    Amendment negatived.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after paragraph (d), to add a new paragraph—
    "(e) the landlord is a local authority or a statutory company and the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory duties or powers of the authority or company, and the court is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or".
    This is an Amendment I undertook to bring up in Committee. It adds to the class of cases where the existence of alternative accommodation is not provided. It was pointed out that there might be cases where, notwithstanding that there have been no arrears of rent, and the rest of it provided in the earlier part of this Clause, the inability to secure possession, let us say of a cottage, might hold up a great railway company from making a new siding or a new tunnel, or something of that kind. Clearly that would be unreasonable. Whilst the proposal in Committee might have left it open, I think, to statutory companies or organisations seeking to obtain possession of cottages to use the power in an improper fashion, in the interval we have sought to frame the Amendment in such a way as to secure that this permission
    1862
    to obtain premises can only be used where the premises are really required for the purposes of the undertaking, and it is not simply sufficient for the statutory companies to require it; but the Court must be satisfied that the premises are required for the purpose of the execution of the duties and powers of the company, which I am sure is a very important qualification. Then with regard to statutory companies it is fair and right that we should put the burden of alternative accommodation on them, and in order to meet the point that people might be evicted without alternative accommodation we have provided that the Court should be satisfied as respects the alternative accommodation. The Amendment is so framed as to avoid the hardship of the absence of alternative accommodation, and it will also enable a company performing a statutory or public duty not unduly to be hindered in its work.
    Sir H. NIELD: It will, perhaps, be convenient if I make the observations I have to make in regard to this now, rather than on the Amendment of which I have given notice to the Minister's proposal.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): If the hon. Gentleman desires to move his manuscript Amendment he will have to do it in his present speech or else he will lose the opportunity.
    Sir H. NIELD: I propose not to make another speech, but to move it formally.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Even so, only one speech is allowed, and moving an Amendment counts as a speech. Why not move it at the end of the hon. Member's remarks now?
    Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "or a statutory company."
    I desire to point out how I believe this Amendment came to be moved by the Minister. He will correct me if there were any other considerations which moved him. The Middlesex County Council introduced a Bill as far back as 1912 or 1913, for the construction of a long-wanted road, called the Great West Road, to avoid that terrible congestion through the Brentford High Street which has been embarrassing for many years, and now that the motor traffic is so

    1863
    prolific it actually blocks, as it were, one of the Great Western outlets from London to the Bath Road and practically the whole of the West of England. So bad had this become that the County Council had to come to Parliament and get a Bill through for the making of a very wide road in order to relieve this terrible congestion. The War, of course, stopped the development of the scheme, although the Bill was passed and notices were served and properties acquired to make this 80-foot wide road all the way through, and then the Council has been unable since the War ceased to proceed with its work. The House will hardly realise that the whole of that big project to relieve this desperate condition of traffic leaving London on the West is being held up by a few cottagers whose houses are in the authorised scheme of route and who, notwithstanding that accommodation has been provided for them within a mile in some Army huts, relying on the existing law, have declined to move out, and a large Parliamentary scheme for the benefit of the whole community using the west roads out of London is held up by these few obstinate people, who are living in cottages which ought long since to have been condemned by the sanitary authorities and who persistently refuse to take advantage of the alternative housing accommodation which the Council have afforded by buying these large Army huts, reconstructing, repairing, and restoring them to make them comfortable. I think the question of alternative accommodation ought not to be allowed to interpose in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The introduction of these words, allowing a big undertaking of that sort to be hung up when we are dealing with persons such as I have described, ought to be removed from the proposed Clause. Most statutory companies are under an obligation to re-house people, railway companies for instance. Therefore I propose to leave out the words" or a statutory company." I also desire to leave out the words, "and the Court is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation."
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and learned Member has made out a case in support of my Amendment, but I do not think
    1864
    he has in the least made out a case for the Amendment he now proposes. He proposes, in the first place, to leave out the words "or a statutory company," which would include a railway company. He has not in the least made out that his Amendment covers the case of the Middlesex County Council, who have been held up from making a road. That is a case which my Amendment is intended to meet. There has not been a case made out for leaving out the words "or a statutory company." The hon. Member also wants to say that a county council or a local authority should not have thrown upon them the obligation to provide alternative accommodation. We are throwing that deliberately upon private individuals, and I do not see why it should not fall upon a county council.
    Sir H. NIELD: They are carrying out a statutory duty, which makes all the difference.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We had better keep to the first Amendment, and not mix it up with a subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott).
    Sir H.NIELD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "company" ["statutory company"] to insert the words "or other statutory authority."
    This is a manuscript Amendment. There are a certain number of undertakings which are in precisely the same position as local authorities or statutory companies; but which would not be covered, so I am advised, by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment; for example, the Port of London Authority, the Metropolitan Water Board, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Clyde Navigation Trust, and other undertakings of that character. They are statutory undertakings, but they are not local authorities, and they are not definitely statutory companies. My Amendment seeks to bring them into the same position as statutory companies.
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am willing to accept the Amendment, but I am advised by the draftsman that the better way would be, instead of using the words "statutory company," to use the words "statutory undertaking," which would cover all the cases which the hon. Member quoted, as well as the case of the statutory company. If he will withdraw his Amendment and move it in that form I will accept it.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I am not a lawyer, but, if I can be assured that that will cover my point, I will gladly accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request.
    Dr. ADDISON: I give the assurance that it shall do.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "company" ["statutory company"], and to insert instead thereof the word "undertaking."
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "company" ["or company"] and insert instead thereof the word "undertaking."—[Mr. Marriott.]
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "and the court is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or"
    My first Amendment was intended, as the Minister has explained, to meet the case of statutory undertakings, or local authorities, which are under certain obligations to the public to provide certain facilities, such as was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Nield). I submit that in those cases the words which I propose to leave out are redundant and unnecessary, for this reason: that under the Housing of the Working Classes Act where a company or local authority are authorised by their several Acts to acquire dwellings occupied by 30 or more persons of the working class they are at the pre-
    1866
    sent time unable to turn out those occupants until their housing scheme has been approved by the Local Government Board or held by them to be unnecessary, and the scheme prevents the tenants being turned out until the new houses are available for occupation. The definition of working classes is exceedingly wide. It includes mechanics, artisans, labourers and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers and persons not working for wages but working at certain trades without employing others except members of their own family, and persons whose income in any case does not exceed 30s. a week. Therefore the working classes are already fully protected by the special Acts, and these words which the Minister proposes to insert are unnecessary. They are not merely unnecessary from the point of view of re-housing the working classes, but they are also exceedingly deleterious to the purpose which I have in view in my following Amendment and which the Minister has agreed to facilitate.
    As has been pointed out, they would hit a very important public body which is desiring to carry out a very important public improvement. They would also hit a railway company in such a case as this. Suppose a railway company has bought two or three acres of land with a villa standing upon it, in the vicinity of which a factory is about to be erected. The villa is brought within the scope of the present Bill. The railway company maintains that the objects with which it had been entrusted by Parliament are entirely frustrated by the position of that single villa. I venture to put it to the Minister that he has gone beyond the necessity of the case by inserting the words which I am anxious to omit. Before the necessity for the utilisation of this site, or whatever it may be, has arisen, it is very likely that some years may elapse, and meantime the railway company, instead of keeping this villa, or whatever it may be, vacant, lets it to a tenant on an undertaking which is very clearly set out in all companies' acts and leases. I take this from the common form of the London and North-Western Railway Company:
    "The landlord may, after the expiration of fourteen days' notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to do so, which notice may be given at any time, re-enter upon and take possession of the whole of the said land or premises, or any portion thereof they may require, for the purpose of their railway or works connected therewith with-

    1867
    out the payment of compensation to the tenant."
    I am exceedingly grateful to the Minister for his attempt to meet the case which I ventured to put forward in Committee, but by the insertion of the words which I am proposing to omit he has, I submit, vitiated his amiable intention.
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The question is one of extreme importance to railway companies. In addition to what has been said by the hon. Member for Oxford, you may have a case where a company has already performed all its obligations under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, where men have already been provided on the site, which is about to be developed, with houses out of which they may be removed, and yet, because, owing to the War or some other reason, development has been arrested for a short time, and through kindness these men have been allowed to remain, the work may be indefinitely held up. This is one of the cases where it is not necessary to call upon railway companies to provide alternative accommodation.
    Dr. ADDISON: I regard the words which my hon. and learned Friend seeks to omit as an essential part of the Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend put a case. It was obvious that there was a case to meet, and we are trying to do so, but I have still to hear why an obligation which we impose upon private persons with respect to alternative accommodation, should not equally apply to statutory companies. Where the railway company or the local authority have provided their houses somewhere else, then they have provided the alternative accommodation, and no reasonable County Court judge would hold that they had not. The case is less applicable in respect of a local authority because they are housing authorities, and the county council even, if it has a housing scheme, would be made the housing authority under the existing Act. The main point is that where a railway company has acquired property and wants the property for the use of the undertaking, it is only fair that it should have it. My hon. Friends object that it should be required to provide or secure provision of alternative accommodation. We
    1868
    think that we are bound to cast that obligation upon it, which, in view of special emergencies we are casting upon others, the private individual who buys a house cannot get into it himself unless he can secure alternative accommodation,a fortiori that ought to be so also in the case of a company which has big public responsibilities and large funds behind it.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the operation of the Act of 1903 in this respect, that the railway companies are already under that Act?
    Dr. ADDISON: That only provides for 30 persons or more. It does not insure the unfortunate people who might happen to occupy one or two cottages, and whom we are bound to protect by this Act, the same as anybody else. The obligation which rests upon a private individual ought, in common fairness, to rest upon a statutory company, and I could not on any account accept an Amendment of this kind.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: I would put to my right hon. Friend a case as to which, perhaps, he will be good enough to explain how he would meet it. There are some isolated statutory undertakings, such as water companies, in the country, far away from towns, and in the case of these undertakings it is absolutely necessary that the houses attached to them should be maintained, and should not be left vacant. For instance, there might be houses of engineers and other officials in isolated districts. What would my right hon. Friend say if such houses became vacant, because the presence of an engineer might affect the whole question of the supply of water for that district? In regard to railway companies, the proposal might have some effect on the safety of trains, and in the case of gas companies, which are placed away from the town, one could imagine a difficulty arising. How would the Government propose to deal with cases like that?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would suggest that the hon. Member read a Sub-section further on, where we say that the provision of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition where the dwelling-house was let in consequence of employment. The engineer of a gas company or water

    1869
    company would come under that Subsection.
    Sir H. NIELD: I am very sorry to see the Minister chafing under criticism from these benches. Surely we have had very little opportunity to criticise him or the Government on this Bill. All hon. Members except those on the Standing Committee were excluded from discussing it. They worked under great pressure, and to-day we are to have the 11 o'clock rule suspended. The Government is indeed trying the patience of some of its very loyal supporters by legislating in this way. I cannot help criticising my right hon. Friend with some warmth, because he infers that we have treated him rather badly. He was brought up for the medical profession and not for the law. He cannot see any difference between the obligation of a private individual and interference with the exercise of a statutory duty put upon an authority by an Act of Parliament of a special character.
    Dr. ADDISON: It is a similar obligation.
    Sir H. NIELD: Indeed it is not. Can you get a mandamus to get anyone under this Bill to do anything? You can get a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench against those authorities that have been directed, say, to construct waterworks or railway to carry out their duties. What a condition of impotence would the Courts be reduced to, if in answer to a writ of mandamus to enforce a statutory duty you had to plead that three or four, or it may be six, obstructive tenants desired to abuse this, and if you had to go to the County Court judge to prove alternative accommodation. We are indeed arriving at a condition of things which would make the performance of their duty by public authorities perfectly hopeless. I refer of course to statutory authorities which wish to carry out their statutory duties. Let me quote a case. I know that for weeks—I was going to say for months—a man who had been in the employ of a dock company and a canal company and voluntarily threw up his work in order to get more pay as a Metropolitan policeman, claimed to remain in possession of his lock-house, until repeated applications were made to the authorities to turn him out. He then tried to get further time, and the authorities were
    1870
    put to many pounds of expense. That shows the way in which the Act can be abused. Although such a case is covered in the subsequent Sub-section to which reference is made, I illustrate it as showing how tenants behave under the Act. I ask the House to pause before they permit big and important undertakings, specially authorised by this House to carry out certain duties, to be obstructed by a few tenants who insist vexatiously on remaining in their houses and paying no rent, at the same time preventing the undertaking from going forward. The elimination of these words is absolutely essential. I am not going to make a statement as to the action of County Court judges in dealing with cases. The County Courts are overburdened with work. The return days in some cases are as much as a month distant. I agree that the Metropolitan Courts have frequent sittings, but their arrears are such as to make it impossible, when you put in your claim, to get a return day for a month or six weeks. Are great undertakings to be held up for such reasons?
    Dr. MURRAY: Although we have had a great deal of vehemence from the other side of the House, I do not think a case has been made out for the Amendment. I see no reason why the tenant of a public authority should not have the same right as the tenant of an individual landlord. An hon. Member has referred to villas. Where is the Middle Classes Union? The occupant of a villa is entitled to some consideration in this legislation. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had some connection with the Middle Classes Union, and that he would seek to protect the interests of middle-class people who live in what are popularly called "villas." It is just as difficult for these members of the community to find alternative accommodation as it is for the working classes. Therefore provision should be made for them. I think it is a good thing to have a few people able to show that there is some individual liberty left in Britain yet, and that it is possible to hold up a big statutory company. If the statutory company comes in a reasonable way to these people, it will find it possible, by some compensation if in no other way, to get them moved. I am very glad the Minister of Health is adamant on the subject.
    Major GRAY: I cannot completely endorse the view of the Minister of Health to the effect that a statutory company or a local authority is in precisely the same position as the private individual. The private individual is seeking to obtain possession of a house for his personal convenience. The statutory authority is compelled to take possession of a house in order to carry out some public improvement. The local authority, in the exercise of its functions, is already bound to make provision for the re-housing of people who may be displaced in the carrying out of an improvement scheme. It is true there is a certain limitation; the local authority which establishes a re-housing scheme is not required to satisfy all the other alternative conditions as regards rent and other conditions in the re-housing. It is obvious that in a particular case there may be an authority which will have to carry out improvements, and it will be important that they should re-house the people in exactly similar circumstances. I am speaking particularly with regard to London. We have had many re-housing schemes and we have had to dishouse many persons; we have had to do that to our great regret, but I do not think we could always satisfy the words of this Bill. If the Minister who is in charge of the Bill cannot accept the Amendment which is now before the Committee, I hope the Clause will be carefully scrutinised in another place and that words will be put in which will give satisfactory protection to the people who are displaced, but will not leave it possible for a few obstinate people to obstruct a local authority in carrying out a public improvement which is of an urgent character. There are many of these housing schemes and other schemes of other public improvement which are long overdue. The local authority has got to do its best with them, and they may in some cases have to displace the existing tenants. They may have to turn them out of their places they are now in, but they can hardly place, them in the same circumstances expressly as they are to-day. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question, because I think that the local authorities should be assisted in the discharge of its public duties, and they are not exactly in the, same position as a private individual.
    Viscount ELVEDEN: An hon. Gentleman opposite has been appealing for liberty, but he attempts to draw a distinction between the liberty that is to be given to a local authority and the law that is to be laid down by this House to the country. What he has said would lead to the obstruction of many public improvements which ought to be carried out. Whether it is a railway company or a water company or a gas company, or even a town council, it is entitled to some other treatment than that which is given to an individual. The individual may, have to suffer, I agree, but when Parliament has decided upon certain action it has gone beyond the individual and it has laid down the will of Parliament. In that case it over-rides the individual, whether that individual be greater or lesser, and it puts in his place a statutory obligation to carry out certain things, and that obligation is placed upon certain public authorities. I understand that the Minister is prepared to admit that a few individuals have been able to obstruct desirable public improvements for a long time. I think it is a serious thing that we should have the laws on the Statute Book over-ridden in this way, and that people should be able to obstruct these laws, some of which are about to be set up and place powers in the hands of public authorities. I hope the Minister will give us some concession. I think the Amendment is really one of substance, and that it ought to be favourably considered.
    Sir F.BANBURY: I notice that some hon. Members opposite cheered as I rose. I thank them for the manner in which they have received me. I assume that it means that they are going to vote for the Amendment, and that would only show, I think, that they have a considerable amount of common sense. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) to give us some attention in this matter; he has shown very great moderation in these discussions to-day, and I earnestly hope he will continue to do so, and that he will listen to the arguments which are being so convincingly put forward by my hon. Friends who sit on my right and on my left-hand side. With one of them I think I disagree more than I agree at times, but he has just said that in his opinion something should be done to meet the view put forward in the

    1873
    Amendment. The Government has already taken a step to safeguard the interests of what I will call the poorer classes of tenant, for want of a better word. I am sure that where the local authorities or a statutory company or some person who is under a legal obligation is desired to do a certain thing and they proceed to do it, they must re-house the people whom they turn out in the course of fulfilling their obligations. That is the law of the land. But now we come to the additional Clause which is put into the Bill because certain parties were supposed to be in difficulties in regard to the point. I think, unless something is inserted such as is asked for by my hon. Friends, that there will be a difficulty. It should not be possible for only one person to hold up an improvement which the local authorities desire to carry out. What is to happen? You may go to a County Court judge, who may decide. But one County Court judge may decide one way, and another may decide another, and then they have to decide that suitable accommodation has been provided. But what is "suitable accommodation"? The other day I saw a case where a tenant said that the stairs in a particular house were too steep, and therefore the tenant would not go to that house because that was looked upon as a drawback. And, therefore, I say that we ought to do something so that a public improvement shall not be held up because one or two people may say that they cannot get suitable accommodation elsewhere. This seems to be a reasonable proposal. The right hon. Gentleman will expect some support from us in the course of the evening, and I think he might assist us and try to concede what is, after all, a small point.
    Mr. SWAN: We congratulate the Minister of Health upon his stand on this question. The Amendment to the proposed Amendment would be very unjust. Of course, we are not surprised at the attitude which has been taken up by some hon. Members. If this Amendment were adopted, certain companies might be prepared to go to huge expenses to get rid of men who had criticised the companies. That would result in such men having to clear out of the district in which they were living. The proposer of the Amendment said that this was simply in harmony with the law of 1903. The hon. Member seems to have forgotten
    1874
    that there has been a Great War since. It might have been reasonable and proper in 1903 to give a local authority or a business concern this particular power, but in those days houses could be easily obtained, and to-day they cannot be got. The private individual has to find alternative accommodation, and surely it is only reasonable that the local authority or private concern should do likewise.
    Sir J.BUTCHER: I think the House ought to be very careful that in removing one injustice they do not perpetrate a greater injustice. There is a very clear distinction between the position of the private owner and that of the statutory company which has certain obligations to fulfil. Take the position that the statutory company wants one or more houses which are absolutely essential in order to enable it to carry out a statutory duty. It cannot carry out that duty unless it got the houses, and it would be failing in its duty unless it got the houses. Large sections of the public would suffer, as in the case of the railway companies, unless that statutory duty was carried out. Therefore the House will see that it is not only a question of injustice to an individual, but that it may be a question of inflicting grave hardship on very large sections of society. The right hon. Gentleman says they can get possession if they supply alternative accommodation, but alternative accommodation under this Bill is of a very special character. It has to be reasonably equivalent with regard to rent and suitability in all respects. It is not always easy, and indeed in many cases it is absolutely impossible, to get that alternative accommodation. We are thus faced with the two alternatives, that is, the statutory obligation to get these houses in order to confer benefits on the public, and, on the other hand, the impossibility of supplying alternative accommodation within the meaning of this Bill. The case could be met by providing that the company should give adequate compensation, and that would prevent it doing anything harsh or capricious. I urge my right hon. Friend, if he cannot accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to undertake that in another place he will introduce words which would meet such cases as have been pointed out, and which, while doing no real injustice to the sitting tenants, will enable the companies to

    1875
    carry out their statutory duties to the public.
    Mr. G. JONES: I find myself in sympathy with the object of the Minister of Health, but I do not agree with the form of words. I think the House would be very much assisted if he would give us a few instances of the particular cases he has in mind. I would make this suggestion. The statutory companies are hound to fulfil certain statutory duties, and if you do not let them have the land they cannot possibly carry them out. Those companies are liable to action at law in the form of an injunction or for damages if they do not carry out those duties. The question of the exercise of statutory powers is different. You could say that they must provide alternative accommodation where they proposed to exercise the statutory powers, but do away with the necessity of providing alternative accommodation where they have to exercise statutory duties.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken draws attention to the fact that there are certain statutory duties which must be performed and that companies have certain statutory powers which they may or may not exercise. I am still, I am afraid, quite unconvinced as to the question of alternative accommodation. We propose in the Amendment to remove the limitation of the existing statutes, and we say that where that is the case you should at all events have the same obligation cast upon you as we cast upon a private individual to provide alternative accommodation.
    Sir F.BANBURY: A public authority or a statutory company, knowing what the law is, buys a piece of land with workmen's dwellings on it. They know they cannot use them unless they provide alternative accommodation, and they knew that when they bought the land. But suppose they have a duty to perform in order to perform which they would have to use a piece of land on which there is a single big house. They bought the land not knowing that this obligation was going to be imposed on them.
    Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Member could not have made a better case for
    1876
    my Amendment, because my Amendment would enable the company to use the land, whereas before my Amendment was on the paper they could not have used it at all, and therefore their position is by so much the better. The only question that arises is whether we ought in common fairness to ask them to provide alternative accommodation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) referred to the Act of 1903, but what are all these Acts? They are to do with a post-War emergency, and this one is limited to three years in its operation. These important undertakings with their legal advisers know that much better than the private individual, and we say that, new housing accommodation being so scarce, where a person requires a house, except on this or that condition, he must provide alternative accommodation if he wants to turn out the tenant, because of the existing emergency. It is true that in the case of a railway company they are discharging a public duty, and my Amendment is enabling them to do it, and I say that it is fair and reasonable under these special circumstances to attach this condition. Is there any case either in commonsense or in equity why in this emergency we should not require an important county council, say, to do what we require a private individual to do? There is no justification whatever for such a distinction. In the case of a railway company, all they have got to do is to form a public utility society under the new Housing Act. We find 75 per cent. of their capital and 50 per cent. of their loan charges in the first seven years and 30 per cent. afterwards, so let them build houses as a public utility company. If it is a local authority, they are protected above the burden of a penny rate. They have no risk, they are supported by the public finance, they rest upon public funds, and I think the least we can ask them to do is to discharge this elementary duty. I am anxious to do my best to assist these important companies to do their work, but I think it is fair and reasonable to attach this condition.
    Sir F.BANBURY: I am rather inclined to think the right hon. Gentleman has convinced me by the argument he has used that a local authority or a company may build alternative houses. I think there is something in that argument, and that is all I wish to say.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has taken exception to the reception which has been given to his Amendment, but I paid a warm tribute to him for attempting to meet us, and I expressed my personal obligation to him; but although he has attempted to meet us, he has not succeeded in doing so. Our point is this, that there is a real, broad distinction between the private individual and a statutory company carrying out a Parliamentary duty. We shall be perfectly prepared to accept the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), and in another place we shall be entirely prepared to add words to make it clear that every compensation will be given for disturbance.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, e), to insert
    "or
    (f) the dwelling-house is required for occupation as a residence by a former tenant thereof who gave up occupation in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the War."
    This is an important Amendment and is in conformity with other changes which have been made in the Bill. We have provided that where a man who gave up his house in order to join the Forces has come back home he may be entitled to get possession of his own house without being called upon to provide alternative accommodation. I think that Amendment was thoroughly right. This Amendment, however, goes a little further, because I think that having accepted in Committee the principle with regard to the owner of a house, there is no reason for refusing it in the case of a man who was a bonâfide tenant. I have heard of large numbers of cases of ex-service men up and down the country who gave up their homes to fight for their country, and they come back again and find somebody who has never been an inch away from his native heath to serve his country installed in a house of which perhaps the ex-service man has been a lifelong tenant. They think it is a serious hardship, and I must say I think so, too. Therefore, with the qualification, of course, that the house must have been given up in con-
    1878
    sequence of the man going into His Majesty's Forces, and he is a bonâ fide tenant, I hope the House will agree to the Amendment.
    Mr. LAWSON: I think most people were delighted when they saw that this Amendment had been moved in Committee and carried, but there is a point which occurred to me, and about which I should like to ask the Minister of Health. Assuming that a man has served and come home and bought a house, of which he was not formerly the tenant, or which did not previously belong to him, and the tenant living in it had also served during the War, what would be the position of the man who is the tenant of that house?
    Dr. ADDISON: He would have two choices open. He might require the house as landlord under the following Sub-section for personal occupation, and if that house were occupied by a tenant, who was also an ex-service man, he could fall back on the Amendment I am now proposing.
    Captain COOTE: Do I understand the effect of this Amendment would be that it would be incumbent upon a landlord, on the application of a man who has been in the Army, to turn an existing tenant out of his house in order to give it to the ex-service man? I ask it by way of explanation, as I am in thorough agreement with the proposal.
    Dr. ADDISON: In this particular case, where the house is applied for, and the landlord has lodged his application with the Court requiring the house for the former tenant, he has not to supply alternative accommodation.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I do not intervene in any spirit of opposition to this proposed Amendment, but I am bound to point out that the Amendment was not considered in Committee, and I think there are one or two considerations which probably we can plead with some force in this Debate. Let me make it perfectly plain that we agree with the preference to the ex-service men. If this were merely a contest of ex-service men and civilians nothing more would be said, but it must raise a very acute and difficult contest between ex-service men and people who perhaps have suffered more severely because of war conditions. Let

    1879
    me cite at least two cases. Supposing the applicant for resumption of tenancy is a man who has served in the forces but has not been out of the country. Let us suppose he has returned in perfect health and strength, and he finds that the house is occupied by the widow and children of a man who has given his life for his country. I think the House would agree that, as between the able-bodied man and the widow and children, there is not the slightest doubt that the second rather than the first is entitled to the preference. Then take the case where the applicant is a soldier who has returned, having served abroad or at home and is not disabled, whereas the existing tenant is a man who is severely disabled. There again most hon. Members would agree that the preference should go to the man whose needs are greater as the result of common service. This is not a contest between civilians and ex-service men, but it is a contest between people who have commonly suffered because of War service. In this Clause, with which I personally sympathise, I find nothing which would form a substantial safeguard against cases of real hardship such as I describe. It might be argued by the Minister that a case like that would be fully considered by the county court judge under the Clause which makes it necessary for the judge to consider whether it is reasonable that such an order should be made, or such a judgment should be given, but I should like to see some specific reference, either here or in another place, to make it plain that it is to be the duty of the judge to have regard to competing claims of people who have commonly suffered by war conditions, and to give preference to those who, in the opinion of any ordinary man, would appear to have suffered most.
    Captain LOSEBY: I should like to say one word in reply to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He has put the case of a disabled soldier and the case of a widow in possession of a house. I have only this to say, that, first of all, he will be dealing with a man of a particularly chivalrous type, who, I believe in the majority of instances such as these would not make the application he is entitled to make, but, even if he did make it, then we must fall back on equity, and equity alone. That ex-soldier would be in pos-
    1880
    session of that house, and the occupant of that house had he not left it owing to his country's need, and I think if we fall back on equity alone he is entitled to it. I cannot see great substance in the argument of the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that that application would not be made except in very exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. INSKIP: There is one small point which perhaps my right hon. Friend might be prepared to consider later on. Of course, this Section only refers to orders or judgments for the recovery or the possession of any dwelling-house. The right hon. Gentleman might secure that a returning soldier should not be left unprotected if he is entitled to be protected, and he should be at liberty to make application, whereas it is left to the application of the landlord, who might be quite unprepared to assist the returning soldier. Perhaps attention will be given to that point in another place.
    Major Sir K.FRASER: Might we have a definition of what is a bonâ-fide tenant?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. Wilson): The order cannot be made unless the tenant or the applicant for the tenancy comes within the proposed Amendment, and even if he is brought within the proposed Amendment no order can be given unless it is considered reasonable to make such an order. It is only right that the Court should have this discretion.
    Major HAYWARD: Perhaps someone, before we leave this Amendment, on behalf of the Government, will deal with the very important question raised just now by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Apparently, as the Bill stands at present, the Court is never to move except at the instance of the landlord. If the tenant wants to exercise such rights as he can under this Amendment, he can only apply through the landlord. If that is so, it is obvious that it is only if the tenant can secure the goodwill of the landlord in the matter that he can exercise these rights at all.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think the law can be set in motion on the application of either party, but I will have that aspect of the case looked into.
    Major EDWARDS: If a man was compelled to join His Majesty's Forces or His

    1881
    Majesty's Navy, and there is a desire to get back the house which he occupied before he joined, is such an applicant to be considered in the same light as an ordinary ex-service man? I am thinking particularly of conscientious objectors.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: There is one point. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in relation to this Amendment whether it will be possible to make such arrangement as is contemplated so that a landlord who consents to make application on behalf of the tenant does not use it as an occasion of obtaining increased rent?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir J.BUTCHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Subsection" ["specified in paragraph (d) of this Sub-section"], to insert
    "(i) Where the landlord has bought his house through a building society or otherwise and paid for it by instalments and requires the dwelling-house for occupation as a residence for himself."
    My desire is that the existence of alternative accommodation should not be a condition of the owner getting back into his own house. The sort of case I want to meet is this: We all know of the workman who buys his house through a building or provident society, paying for it by instalments. In that case, when he has become owner of the house, he should be entitled to go back to it if he wants to. It would be an exceedingly great hardship that the man who has really paid for a house for the purposes of residence, and who is compelled by the exigencies of his work to go away for a time and let the house, when he comes back, is not able to get possession. A case in point is that which has occurred in my own constituency in York. He is paying for it, or has paid for it, over a term of 20 years. He is in the service of the North-Eastern Railway Company. Some little time ago he was called upon in the exercise of his duties, as a North-Eastern man, to leave York and live in Darlington for a time. His family lived with him at Darlington. He let his house at York. Subsequently his duties called him back to York. He still remained in the service of the North-Eastern Company. He goes back to York, but, under the existing law, cannot get into his own house, cannot get another house, and cannot even get lodgings for himself and family. Here is this unfortunate man
    1882
    who, having provided himself with a house, is unable to get into it owing to the accident of this Bill, which was certainly not framed for this kind of case, but for a quite different class of cases.
    The object of the Bill was to prevent landlords and others turning men out of their homes for merely capricious purposes. The object of the Bill, surely, never was to prevent the owner of a house acquired under such circumstances as I have described getting back into it, after he had necessarily vacated it for a certain time. The only possible answer that I can think the Minister will give is in paragraph (iii) at the bottom of the page on which we are. He may tell me that if the landlord, that is, this working man, had bought this house before a certain date, all would be well, and that the court might think it a greater hardship to refuse an order for possession than to grant it. I do not know how that might be, but what I do suggest is that a man in the position I have described ought not to he obliged to go to the court, and take the chance of satisfying the court that it would be a greater hardship than otherwise if he were not allowed to go back to his house. The Bill ought to make tha provision I have suggested to enable the man to go back without further trouble. My Amendment is so narrowly drawn that it could not create any injustice, but will remove one.
    10.0 P.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: I must confess that I was quite unable to follow the illustration which was given by the hon. and learned Member. In his illustration he mentioned a period of 20 years, but I would point out that in that case the conditions do not apply. Where a man became a landlord before the 30th day of September, 1917, the 20 years mentioned do not come in, and such a case would be outside the scope of this Bill. Under these circumstances, I see no justification for departing from the general conditions of the Bill. This provision was put in to protect those who had bought their own houses before that date, and according to the arguments that have been put before us in the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member, he could only have begun three years ago. We all sympathise with the other case he mentioned, but unfortunately, the conditions of this kind of legislation are that, except in the

    1883
    cases specified, where a person requires a house for his own occupation he should be required to provide alternative accommodation. That is the provision of paragraph (b), which is no new invention of mine, but I think I have made it a great deal more reasonable in its operation. The person has to provide alternative accommodation with the exceptions of which we now approve. Why should a man who happens to pay for his house by instalments be any more exempt than a man who pays for it in one lump? If he bought the house before 1917, all right, he does not need to provide alternative accommodation.
    Sir J.BUTCHER: In that case he has to go before the Court and prove a case of hardship, and he would not be given possession unless he could prove it was a greater case of hardship for him to be kept out of possession.
    Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the Bill he will see it is provided that
    "The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this Sub-section (iii) where the landlord became the landlord before the 30th day of September, 1917, or, in the case of a dwelling-house to which Section Four of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919, applied, became the landlord before the fifth day of March, 1919, or in the case of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply."
    That is not the house mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend. That is a new house. The case attempted to be made out is that if a man pays by instalments he should be exempt from the obligations generally prevailing, that is to say, if he pays 10s. or 15s. a week by the method suggested, whether he has bought it through a building society or otherwise, he is exempt from all the obligations of the Bill. It would make the whole Bill a dead letter.
    Mr. PALMER: The point is that he requires the dwelling-house for his own accommodation.
    Dr. ADDISON: That applies, anyhow. Under paragraph (d) it is provided that the dwelling-house must be, reasonably required for occupation by himself. The
    1884
    point is that in such a case he has to provide alternative accommodation, except in certain cases, and if this Amendment were accepted nobody would be required to provide such accommodation. Everybody would take care to pay for his house by instalments. I suggest that the Amendment is quite unjustifiable and entirely contrary to the purposes of the Bill. I cannot therefore accept it.
    Mr. PALMER: The idea is that this should apply to cases where the house was bought before the Act came into existence. It is an endeavour to protect the small man who paid for his house in small amounts. I think my right hon. Friend has rather missed that point.
    Dr. ADDISON: But this Amendment would do exactly the opposite of what is intended by the Bill. We want to protect the tenant from being unjustifiably evicted from his dwelling. If this Amendment were carried what would occur would be that any man buying a house would pay for it by instalments.
    Mr. PALMER: But this Amendment applies to cases of the purchase of houses before the beginning of this legislation.
    Sir F.BANBURY: That is as I understand it. If a man ten or twelve years ago, or at any rate before the War, decided not merely to subscribe to a building society, but to pay so much a year for his house, it might be that, having thus acquired the property, he now cannot get possession. I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, as framed, will not secure the object in view, but if he will alter it and make it apply only to people who buy through a building society, I should be inclined to support him.
    Major HAYWARD: I am not sure that the Amendment will secure the object my hon. and learned Friend has in view. I have had a good deal to do with transactions in this class of property and I would point out that the people who buy houses are not limited to those who borrow money through building societies. Many men in the same class buy their houses, not through building societies, but by means of private mortgages. I am sure, that, even if this Amendment were accepted, and were altered to cover building societies of a similar nature, it would do nothing to meet the view my hon. and learned Friend has in mind.
    Sir J.BUTCHER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "has" ["Where the landlord has"], to insert the words "before the commencement of this Act."
    This will make clear the meaning and the original intention of the Amendment, which, I venture to say, my right hon. Friend has not understood.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Captain LOSEBY: In view of the fact that my hon. and learned Friend has risen again, I should like to say that, for my own part, I cannot see that there is any great substance in the Amendment. If the landlord purchased his house prior to 1917, he does not have to provide alternative accommodation. If he purchased it after 1917, he knew full well the conditions of the tenancy, and, therefore, in my humble opinion, he stands in no stronger equity than the tenant now.
    Proposed Amendment, as amended, negatived.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (i).
    It may seem fair and reasonable, under normal conditions, that, when a workman occupies a house because of his employment, he should, when he leaves that employment, give up the house. I do not think we should spend very much time in discussing that point if we were under normal conditions. Legislation of this class, however, is being enacted because of the scarcity of houses, and, that being so, I cannot understand—probably the Minister of Health will be able to explain—why a large mass of workmen are being denied, under this Bill, the advantages that were conferred upon them by a previous Act of Parliament. I speak more generally of the mining community, although what I am saying applies with equal force to men engaged in the iron and steel works. For the last three years the miners have been protected by the Rent Restriction Act. Under this proposal the miners, and the iron and steel workers, will lose that protection. I have an intimate knowledge of the coal mining industry as far as Scotland is concerned, not only from the standpoint of representing the workmen, but from the standpoint of being the Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Coal Trade Conciliation Board,
    1886
    which deals directly with any disputes between the employers and the workmen. During the last three years, although the workmen have been protected by the Rent Restriction Act, I have never heard a single complaint from the employers because the miners were so protected. This is not the case of an obstinate workman refusing to leave a house. In these mining areas, as the Minister of Health knows, housing is, perhaps, more scarce than in any other industrial area. In some of these areas two families are living in two rooms. The Minister of Health knows the scarcity of housing in these areas. But the fact that a miner or an iron and steel worker happens to be working for a colliery company or an iron and steel employer who owns houses and has to leave his employment does not make houses any more plentiful. We have a right to ask the Minister of Health why this class of landlord should be put in a much better position than any other class of landlord. I should have some sympathy if it was a question of sheer obstinacy, but it is not. There are hon. Members opposite who will perhaps claim to know more about mining than I do. If so, they know that men in these areas are continually changing from one colliery to another, and from one class of work to another, not because they desire to change, but because the nature of their work compels them to change. Hon. Members opposite will tell me that the miner can protect himself. I know he can. But I am fearful about this protection in one direction. You want industrial peace, and I hope neither the Minister of Health nor the Government nor any Member of the House will take it that I am uttering a threat. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am merely pointing out a danger. We have never allowed eviction to take place from any of our colliery areas merely because of the whim of employers. If the large colliery companies endeavour to evict a single workman the miners in those areas will cease work, and it will be a case of industrial chaos simply because the miners are being denied the right of this legislation.
    Sir F. HALL: Is not that a threat?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No, it is a statement.
    Sir F. HALL: It is a threat.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not to be intimidated by statements of that kind. I know the men too well and I know the conditions. I have never been an exponent of direct action, but have stood out for constitutional action. Men of that stamp are being left outside the protection of the Act, and are at the whim of a tyrannical manager, and that makes men who are in favour of constitutional action probably turn to the other side. It is opposition and statements thrown like that that sometimes make an individual who is in favour of constitutional action take the other step. There are probably 700,000 men in the mining industry. I hope the Minister of Health will give due consideration to the claims of the mining community the same as to any other section of workers.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should like to make clear the position of the miner in Northumberland and Durham, where we have to-day a peculiar set of circumstances. The house which the miner occupies is selected by his employer, and he has no say as to where he lives, which is a very important matter so far as this proposal is concerned. Let it be remembered that his house is part of his wages. If the owner cannot find a house for the man, he pays him 2s. to 2s. 6d. per week in lieu of house. Hon. Members will agree that that is 6s. to 10s. a week less than the man would have to pay if he rented a house other than that of the company. If this proposal is allowed to go through, and the owner at any time can evict a man from his house because he is leaving his employment, it means that you are throwing the man and his wife and family into the street. I can remember cases of collieries where over 1,000 men were thrown into the street because they refused to accept the dictum of their employer. Hon. Members will agree with me that in some respects employers are not always right. Why war should be turned upon the women and children, who, at any rate, are innocent, and they should be thrown into the street, I cannot understand. If the Bill goes through as it stands, that is what will happen. It happened in connection with a colliery in my own locality in 1877, and I shall never forget it as long as I live, and it
    1888
    happened in 1901 in a neighbouring colliery. These things make us very fearful of such a proposal as the one in the Bill, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter from that point of view. I trust he will consider it, not only from the point of view of the men, but in the name of humanity for the women and children, and that he will give some protection to them from the working of a miserable revenge in respect of anything that a man may do to gain what he considers to be his right. Let us, at least, protect the women and children in any dispute between employer and employed.
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friends who have moved and seconded this Amendment have made the Clause a subject for more anxious controversy than the case warrants. As to the dire eventuality that has been shadowed forth, I do not think that any colliery company would be so silly as to act in the way described. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We are talking of what may be done within the next two years under this Act, and that particular eventuality would not arise under this Section. This is not about a strike or a lock-out. I shall have something to say about that on a later Amendment. This indicates clearly where the hardship may be just as much on the one person as on the other. My hon. Friend gave no illustration. He did not draw our attention to any colliery company which had acted in the way described during the operation of the Rent Restrictions Act.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I had not in my mind the question of a lock-out. It is with the men who occupy the colliers' houses as a condition of employment. I could give a number of cases where strikes took place because of managers trying to evict men.
    Dr. ADDISON: The only point here is that where a man has a house which he has taken as part of his employment it is suggested that this case should be covered by the requirement for alternative accommodation. Clearly that is a case where you should make an exception in the question of alternative accommodation. I do not think that my hon. Friends have put any case to show that you should not do so. If there were a new shepherd who could not get into the

    1889
    shepherd's house, he would have to walk miles to his work, which would be a serious disadvantage both to himself and to the sheep. The shepherd's cottage must be let as part of the business of the shepherd, and clearly it is not reasonable in a case of that kind that the requirements as to alternative accommodation should apply. Victimisation by colliery companies or any other employer of individual men might arise anywhere. There is nothing new about that, but here we have given the man very great protection against such arbitrary acts. He is in a stronger position than before, but while we have strengthened the position of the man by these Acts we must have regard to the facts of life, and in every case where the occupation of a house is an essential condition of the man following his employment, it is clearly unreasonable to require the provision of alternative accommodation. The case referred to, therefore, is not likely to occur. Certainly it would not occur under this Section, and hon. Members do less than justice to the strength of their own organisation. I am certain that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain would see to it that that kind of thing would not occur.
    Major HAYWARD: I am exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give way in some measure to meet the case that has been put. My hon. Friends were referring particularly to the case of miners' houses in a mining community, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that in very many of these cases practically every house in the mining village belongs to the colliery company, and that if the miner lost his occupation it would be in the power of the colliery proprietor to eject him. This, I understand, is a new provision which was not in the Acts for which this Bill is to be substituted. I cannot see what distinction there between this case and the case which was defended so eloquently just now by my right hon. Friend in reference to houses required by a statutory undertaking. Every argument that my right hon. Friend used then applies with equal or greater force to the present case. I hope, therefore, the Government will reconsider their position in the matter.
    Mr. PALMER: I fancy I am somewhat of a democrat. When I listen to my
    1890
    Friends on the Labour Benches I wonder whether landlords have any rights at all. Here is a case in which my hon. Friends talk as if the only people existing in this country are miners. Surely there are such people as caretakers, part of whose wages is included in their accommodation. There are such people as men of the fire brigade, part of whose wages is included in their accommodation. There are farm hands and scores of cases in which wages and house accommodation are part of the payment they receive for their work. I cannot understand the narrow attitude which my Labour friends take on these questions. Surely a man who owns a house or an employer has some rights. I think this Sub-section is a straightforward and honest, Sub-section, and, much as I may dislike voting against my Labour friends, I shall feel it my duty to support the Government if the question goes to a Division.
    Capt. LOSEBY: I think I see the point of the Labour Members, although they are suffering under a misapprehension. It appears to me that they have misread the words "let to him in consequence of that employment," or, at any rate, are afraid that the meaning of those words will be stretched. On the other hand, I think nearly every Member of this House sees the point of this particular Sub-section. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Minister to give an assurance to my Labour friends that the particular case outlined will be covered. I think there is a slight possibility of the words "let to him in consequence of that employment" being misunderstood by the Courts.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I should like to refer to the way which Members who have spoken have chosen to prove the need of their Amendment. Supposing a bank manager takes to evil courses. He cannot be got out of the bank buildings, and has a right to stop there for ever. Suppose the chaplain or manager of a hospital, Or almshouse, or sanatorium, or reformatory takes to evil courses. He cannot be got out of the place, but must be left there. These gentlemen seem to think of nothing but mining villages. When I read this I thought of people employed in responsible offices, and it is absurd to say that you shall not be able to get rid of anyone who does something—it may be less than

    1891
    criminal—which renders him absolutely impossible as an employé and that he shall be able to stay on and prevent the institution being carried on. You have the manager of a bank who has just been convicted of drunkenness insisting on remaining. The Amendment has been wrongly drafted. Let it be drafted to suit mining villages, and we will see what it is, but this Amendment would enable every drunken or slightly unsatisfactory bank manager to remain on at the bank..
    Mr. SWAN: I can assure the hon. Member that we do not take such a narrow, circumscribed view; we are a good deal more magnanimous. We are certainly apprehensive of this Clause. Although it may not be the intention of the Minister that any such extreme action should be taken, whereby in the event of a strike a large body of men might be evicted, but the danger is there, and we have lived long enough to see such things take place. We have seen men, women, and children turned out of their houses on to the streets with snow upon the ground, and we desire to guard against the possibility of any one section of the community torturing another. Obviously, that possibility is in the Clause, and we appeal to the Minister of Health to withdraw it, so that our apprehension may be removed. We want to protect the middle class, and, where there is a bank manager—
    Sir C. OMAN: A drunken one!
    Mr. SWAN: Well, even if he be a drunken one, we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    Sir C. OMAN: Stick to your friends.
    Mr. SWAN: I do not know to whom you are referring.
    Sir C. OMAN: The man who is to have the benefit of the doubt.
    Mr. SWAN: I want to protect my hon. Friend against himself. We quite see the possibility that even members of the party on these Benches, if they came into power, might, through partizanship, desire to dismiss a certain individual, and to turn him out of his house. We want to guard against such an eventuality, even where members of the Labour party come into power, as they have done, on the local authorities. We want to protect, not only
    1892
    the mining community, but all classes, so that such a possibility of people being turned into the street shall not occur. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this Clause.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I desire to put a point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—which is one of substance. It is quite clear that those who have moved the omission of this Sub-section have made out a very strong case, and it is equally obvious that if the Sub-section is simply cut out great hardship would be inflicted on the other side. I would suggest that the addition of words similar to those at the end of Sub-section 3 "and in the opinion of the Court greater hardship would be caused by refusing an order for possession than by granting it." [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I think I am entitled to put this point. In the case of the workman, the Court would probably say there would be greater hardship in turning him out, and in the case of the drunken bank manager greater hardship in allowing him to remain.
    Mr. LAWSON: Occasionally there are men who get notice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Hon. Members who voted for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule now want to divide, while I voted against the suspension because I wanted to get home at eleven o'clock. There are men who do not get drunk before they get notice, and I have heard of cases of employers who get drunk. There are cases that need protection in considering this Sub-section. People lose their employment through a quarrel, and some people think it reasonable to suggest that at a time like this it ought to be in the power of the employer to put a man in such a position out on to the street, whatever be his occupation.
    Mr. PALMER: If the house is part of his wages.
    Mr. LAWSON: In normal times it would be a reasonable thing for a man to claim his house, because, as a rule, the tenant would have another house to go to, but in times like these, when we know it is impossible to get a house, particularly at short notice, we think it is unfair to take up that attitude. We may have laid emphasis on the miners' case, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said they can look after themselves, but there are

    1893
    individual employees who are not organised and have not the means to have their case heard publicly, and does this House say that without reference to anybody, without means of appeal, they will allow an employer to throw such a man on to the street? If so, it is typical of the spirit with which this Bill is being dealt with generally.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The case which has been put by my hon. Friends behind me has been put with moderation and a great deal of personal knowledge not possessed by all of us.
    Sir P. LLOYD - GREAME: About drunkenness?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Hendon has been particularly vociferous in his interruptions of hon. Members here who do not often speak, and he speaks frequently without interruption, and he might accord the same courtesy to them as they accord to him. A real grievance has been established by my hon. Friends behind me, and they agree that the cases put by my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill are cases which they do not wish to interfere with—the case of the agricultural worker, where, of course, his employment goes absolutely with his house, the case of the caretaker, and all the other special cases which have been put. Their case is the case of the general area of industrial employment, such as the miners' villages. Now the point I wish to put is this. Cannot my right hon. Friend meet it in some way such as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams)? It is a reasonable request, and it is this, that the Court should be empowered to give their opinion as to where the greater hardship lies, and if the greater hardship lies with the employer the man must go; if, on the other hand, the greater hardship lies with the man, under the special conditions of these abnormal and trying times, he ought to remain. I think that is a very reasonable request, and I hope that if my right hon. Friend cannot see his way at this moment to accept it, he will take it into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman admits, I am sure, that there is a great deal of reason in what my hon. Friends say, and there is good ground for adjusting this before the Bill leaves the House, or, at any rate, in another place.
    Dr. ADDISON: I can quite see there might be a case arising in which someone might take advantage of this provision to inflict unnecessary hardship. I have consulted my advisers. I must say, in principle I see no particular objection to accepting the suggestion of my hon. Friend, except that the words as to greater hardship would scarcely be proper in this connection, because they are concerned with questions of employment. But if I may accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, I would say I will consider the insertion of those words, or words to a like effect, in another place, because I am advised at present that the words "greater hardship" would not be appropriate in that sense. I will undertake to say that something of that sort shall be inserted in another place, but I am not prepared offhand to suggest an alternative form of words. It must be understood that such words will not invalidate the general purpose or intention of the Sub-section, but will avoid misuse and injustice.
    Sir F.BANBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not do anything which may alter a very important provision in the Bill and make it impossible to carry on farming operations. If you say a man is to remain on in a cottage, how can you carry on your farming? You cannot leave that to a court.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will undertake that nothing I put in shall affect the general purpose of this Sub-section. The only question now under discussion is whether the words suggested could be inserted, and I say these words will not do as they stand. I will consider whether, while retaining the general purpose of the Subsection, we can introduce qualifying words which will give the Court sufficient discretion to rule out cases where this is made improper use of.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This Bill is being rushed through on the last day, and we are now told that a very important Amendment must be moved in another place, because the Minister in charge cannot himself draft, or cannot get a Law Officer of the Crown to draft, a few simple words to meet the case. I do not think it is at all satisfactory.
    The points raised by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway have been under discussion for the last twenty minutes,

    1895
    and the right hon. Gentleman could have seen perfectly well how far he could give way. Many of us who represent agriculture see no possible loophole for giving way. If the right hon. Gentleman once puts in a Clause large enough to deal with agriculture, he will ruin the whole situation throughout the country. It is not reasonable that we should have to wait for alterations to be put in, and to come to-morrow night, say, when we may have no chance of discussing them.
    Mr. INSKIP: Perhaps words to the following effect would meet the case: that where the Court is satisfied "that the application is made in good faith".
    Amendment negatived.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, i), to insert
    "(ii) where the court is satisfied by a certificate of the county agricultural committee that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding; or".
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment. to leave out the words "by a certificate of the county agricultural committee".
    The county agricultural committees are not yet in existence. So far as we have been able to do it, we have been trying to come to an agreement as to the constitution of the committee. We have already an enormous amount of work. This proposal will probably involve
    having inspectors sent long distances by motor-car. The person who gives the certificate will be obliged to come before the Court; and thus no certificate can be read in evidence without it being vouched for. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to allow the evidence to be given in the ordinary way, without putting this unnecessary work on the County Courts, which in the future are going to have many and extra duties. Throughout the whole of these discussions it has been assumed that all these cases are going to be tried at the County Court. The probability is that cases of the sort will be tried at the Petty Sessions by the local justices on the spot. They will have such evidence as they require before then. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press these words, but to agree that the words I propose may be omitted.
    Mr. REMER: As I have an Amendment on the Paper which deals with this point. I hope that nothing will be done to delay the passing of this particular Clause, which covers a real grievance. It covers houses in agricultural districts—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The only point we are now discussing is the omission of the words "by a certificate of the County Agricultural Committee".
    Question put, "That the words 'by a certificate of the county agricultural committee' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes,149; Noes,66.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES.

    [11.3 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Hallas, Eldred

    Barrand, A. R.

    Dawes, Commander

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Edge, Captain William

    Haslam, Lewis

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Blane, T. A.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Forrest, Walter

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Briant, Frank

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Freece, Sir Walter de

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Briggs, Harold

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Bromfield, William

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Jesson, C.

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Casey, T. W.

    Gregory, Holman

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Parker, James

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Kiley, James D.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Swan, J. E.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Taylor, J.

    Lawson, John J.

    Perring, William George

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O.(Anglesey)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Tootill, Robert

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Reid, D. D.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Matthews, David

    Remer, J. R.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Robertson, John

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Robinson, Sir T (Lancs., Stretford)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Myers, Thomas

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Neal, Arthur

    Seddon, J. A.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Atkey, A. R.

    Hancock, John George

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hinds, John

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Hood, Joseph

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Clough, Robert

    Lorden, John William

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Manville, Edward

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Elveden, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Younger, Sir George

    Gardiner, James

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Mr. Turton and Sir William Bull.

    Sir W. BULL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "committee," to insert the words, "or by the Ministry of Agriculture."
    Dr. ADDISON: These words certainly cover the case where, I think, a doubt has been established, and I accept them.
    Mr. PALMER: Why should not this matter be left to the discretion of the court? Why do we put it upon the court to deal with a case and leave it no power to decide the matter on its merits? Personally, I hope we shall divide against this also.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to reply briefly to the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made about myself. I think he suggested that I had
    1898
    not read the Amendment, but if he will himself read the Amendment with the Clause he will see that there is a grave possibility of a difference of opinion when a case comes before either a county court judge or the magistrates at petty sessions. First of all there is paragraph (i), then some magic words about hardship are going to be added, and then comes the paragraph contained in the Amendment we are now discussing. It seems to me that two paragraphs are being put in both of which might apply to the same holding, and the magistrates or the county court judge would be at liberty to say that the holding comes under either of them. They are being muddled up. My right hon. Friend shakes his head. If he wanted to make it perfectly clear, the proper course would have been to exempt agricultural tenancies from the provisions of paragraph (i). I understand that he is going to amend this in another place, and I ven-

    1899
    ture to suggest that agricultural tenancies coming under paragraph (ii) might be exempted from the operation of paragraph (i) and the hardship clause. Otherwise we shall have two clauses dealing with the same class of house, and it will be very difficult for the county court judge or the justices to see which really operates. I agree that the paragraph cannot now be amended, as it has been passed, but, as it is going to be amended in another place, I would suggest that my right hon. Friend read his Clause and this Amendment and see if he cannot, as an hon. Friend near me remarks, make sense of the two.
    Mr. REMER: I think the hon. Baronet is mistaken. This paragraph deals specifically with an agricultural house which is occupied by someone else. There is, for instance, the case of an agricultural house which is occupied as a week-end or holiday house by some business man who lives 40, 50, or even 100 miles away. That is a case in which people occupy two houses when they do not need to do so for any useful purpose, and the object of my right hon. Friend is that anyone occupying a house in such a way shall not have the protection of this measure.
    Mr. INSKIP: I want to assist the Government to get the Bill through, but I think this Clause, especially with the words we have passed, is going to be an unsatisfactory one. It will involve in places distant from London sending the Board of Agriculture in some cases a certificate as to whether a landlord in Cumberland or Westmoreland requires a house for his shepherd. I do not know whether that is very convenient. The difficulty which will be found in working the Clause is in the words "where the court is satisfied by a certificate." A court is either satisfied by evidence or acts upon a certificate. It is not quite clear whether a court would give effect to a certificate without forming any opinion of its own, or whether it is to consider the certificate with the rest of the evidence and form its own opinion. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider that before it reaches the House of Lords he will make the Clause more workable than as it stands at present.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment I propose to call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "fit" ["periods as it thinks fit"] to insert the words "or may order the payment of any lesser rent than the increased rent permitted by this Act."
    This Clause merely deals with the recovery of possession, and enables the court to suspend recovery or postpone it or refuse it altogether, but it does not give the court any power whatever of reducing the proposed increase of rent in the case of people who have lost a good deal of income during the War, but may be unable to pay the proposed increased rent. This really is not my Amendment, but the suggestion of the Salisbury Committee itself. Clause 5 of the Report says:
    "While, however, we consider that rents should be increased forthwith, we are impressed with the hardship of the case of poor tenants, whose income has increased very slightly or not at all since 1914, and who yet may be required to pay not only increased rents but increased rates upon a scale wholly beyond their means. We suggest that this hardship should be met by special treatment.… We think that it might be provided that in cases of this kind the Court should have the power to refuse an order for possession and also a power to reduce the rent."
    This Committee is not composed merely of tenants or members of the Labour Party. Its most important member was a joint landowner himself with a large number of tenants of his own. Therefore the last thing Lord Salisbury would have done would have been to propose anything which was unfair to landlords. When the Amendment was proposed in Committee by myself the right hon. Gentleman in accepting it said he would like to reserve power to himself of amending it on Report. Perhaps it is worth while to quote exactly what he said—
    "I think this Amendment is too wide. At the same time we know Lord Salisbury's Committee made a recommendation in respect of poor tenants. My hon. Friend is very anxious that we should not postpone everything until the Report Stage. I will make him this offer that I accept this Amendment on the understanding that we may provide an improved set of words if we find it necessary on Report."
    Unfortunately when we get to the Report Stage we find that there is absolutely

    1901
    nothing in the amendments put down by the Government to carry out the pledge that was given in Committee. After the Amendment had been accepted, one or two members opposed the suggestion and the right hon. Gentleman immediately withdrew the concession which he had made. It is very disappointing when this sort of thing happens, and I do hot think it is a very dignified situation for any minister to adopt, to accept an Amendment and withdraw it afterwards simply because there is a little opposition to it in the Committee. The argument used by the Minister was that the Amendment was too wide. If it is to be left to the Court, the Court will only give the advantage of reduced rent to very exceptional cases. It will be within their discretion only to give this privilege to people whom they believe are in very hard circumstances and have been very hard hit. The other objection of the right hon. Gentleman was that if he accepted the Amendment it would turn the Court into a rent court. It is already practically a rent court, because sub-section (6) of clause 2 says:
    Any question arising as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible under this section shall be determined on the application either of the landlord or the tenant by the County Court, and the decision of the Court shall be final and conclusive.
    Therefore, in an earlier part of the Bill you are making the Court a Court which has to decide whether or not these increases of rent shall take place. I believe these cases will be very infrequent. The Court will only exercise its discretion in very hard cases. It is the duty of this House to hold the scales absolutely even between the tenant and the landlord, and in accepting this Amendment we shall be holding the scales even between landlord and tenant.
    Major HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I am not going to go into the merits of this Amendment, but I do not think the Mover has given a fair description of what happened in Committee. What happened was this: The Minister was away when the matter was discussed, and on his return he thought at the moment that he could accept the Amendment, and he used the words quoted; but when he found that other Members of the Committee very strongly objected to the
    1902
    Amendment-—I strongly objected, because I felt that it upsets the whole Bill—he saw that he made a mistake and refused to accept the Amendment. It was only a minute or two afterwards. There was a Division on the Amendment and it was negatived. It is not fair to represent that the Government accepted the Amendment in Committee. It was refused in Committee on fair consideration, not only by the Government, but by the Committee, and it ought to be refused now.
    Dr. ADDISON: The account which the hon. Member (Mr. Locker-Lampson) gave of the proceedings in Committee was a little lopsided.
    However, the Amendment was much more far reaching in its effects than appeared at first. I say so quite frankly. I have looked into it well and I feel sure that my second impression was correct. I cannot accept this Amendment. Under it the whole of Clause 2 might be set aside by the judge.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This applies only to recovery of possession.
    Dr. ADDISON: There are very wide powers. It would affect a very large number of cases. If it had been desired to vest this discretion in the Judge, Clause 2 was the proper place to do it. It opens Clause 2 very widely in a manner which the House clearly did not intend. It is for Parliament to lay down the principles and let the Committee apply them and not vary them as it may see fit.
    Mr. REMER: Does this cover the case of the man who does not carry out proper repairs to his house?
    Colonel NEWMAN: I gather that the right hon. gentleman will not accept this Amendment because it is too wide. The Committee did recommend that we should deal with the case of the poor tenant. Most hon. Members do not realise the very big increases that are going to be made under this Bill. A man occupying a flat which in 1914 was let at £ 70 may very easily find his rent put up to £ 125, which would be a rise of £ 55 or about 75 per cent. This is a very serious thing for a person endeavouring to live on £ 400 a year which represents the equivalent of about£ 200 before the war. The Salisbury Committee had cases of hard-

    1903
    ship of this sort brought before it and made a recommendation, the recommendation which the Government did not accept, because, I suppose, they thought it too wide and that it brought in too many people, not only the poor tenant but others. As a matter of fact, I had a new Clause down dealing with the case in a straightforward way. I was told by Mr. Speaker that it had to be moved as an addition to Clause 5. My new Clause read as follows:
    "The county court shall have power to refuse an order for possession or to make an order reducing rent where, in the opinion of the court, the tenant has been able to prove that his income has not increased since August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and that reasonable rounds exist for granting him protection and relief."
    If my hon. Friend's Amendment is too wide, perhaps the Government will accept mine or some similar form of words? Upstairs I did not move it because, unfortunately, I relied on a hard promise given by the Secretary for Scotland, who told us that in regard to the poor tenant the Government proposed to consider more minutely whether anything could be done. Very foolishly I relied on that promise. Now, apparently, I have missed an opportunity downstairs to help the poor tenant. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something, even now?
    Amendment negatived.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "or where it subsequently appears that the order or judgment was given under conditions which were not then fully apparent to the court and for a purpose not at that time disclosed."
    This Amendment is moved in association with one which will be dealt with later on Clause 17. In the course of the discussion in Committee it was urged by an hon. Member that judgment might be given on incomplete information and that the person who got the judgment might use it for ulterior purposes. I shall move later, to Clause 17, an Amendment which is to provide that
    "Rules made under this section may provide for enabling a court to revoke or vary any former decision of the court if it appears just to do so in view of subsequent circumstances or of material facts having been concealed from or misrepresented to the court, notwithstanding anything in this Act
    1904
    providing that the decision of a court is to be final and conclusive."
    That has the same effect as the Amendment which I am now moving.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to move in Sub-section (5), after the word sub-let," to insert the words, "before proceedings for recovery of possession were commenced."
    This is intended to limit the protection of sub-tenants against orders for ejectments to cases where the subtenant is in possession under a bona-fide sub-tenancy and has not had his tenancy created after the commencement of proceedings for recovery of possession. It is not uncommon, where proceedings are pending for the recovery of possession of premises, for the defendant in such proceedings to put in a tenant before the hearing in fraud of the incoming purchaser or tenant. As the Minister of Health is willing, I understand, to accept the Amendment, I shall not explain it further.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words
    "Notwithstanding anything in the temporary provisions of this Act or in the provisions of any other Act, or in any agreement, no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house, or part of a dwelling-house, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given if it is made to appear to the Court that the order or judgment is applied for by or on behalf of the employer of the tenant or some member of the tenant's family in consequence of the tenant or that member taking part or being involved, or having taken part or been involved, or intending or being likely to take part or be involved, in any strike or lock-out."
    When we discussed a previous paragraph in Clause 5, we were in danger of confusing it with this Amendment. We then discussed the conditions under which a man who had lost his employment was liable also to lose his house without any regard to alternative accommodation. In this Amendment we are dealing definitely with people who are either locked out or on strike. I am well aware that it touches what during the greater part of last century was a very vexed question, which sometimes caused very bitter feeling, but prior to 1914 there was growing up a much improved spirit in regard to evictions

    1905
    during strikes or lock-outs. Among employers and employed there was growing up a spirit which avoided that bitterness whatever the cause of conflict, and which left a clear ground without employers using that weapon of eviction which had been used in cruder days. Unfortunately, these days we see some tendency to renew those old activities. I regret to say that there have been instances quite recently which go to confirm our fear that in the present shortage of houses there is a danger of a renewal of the spirit which causes evictions, and therefore we think that where there is a strike or lock-out there ought to be a definite provision of exclusion from the operation of some of the Clauses of this Bill which gives landlords more power than they would have had up to the present time. There are several openings in this Bill where the landlord can operate. We think this Amendment ought to be accepted, and in view of the shortage caused by circumstances, over which neither side had any control, the conflict, when it occurs, ought to be free from any suspicion that the weapon of eviction is being used against people in order to cause them to suffer more than they otherwise would. I have moved this Amendment in the most moderate spirit, and I feel it is one which will be appreciated. There are hideous memories behind this method of eviction which we do not want to see restored. We want a spirit of moderation to be exercised.
    Mr. SWAN: I beg to second the Amendment. We appreciate the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman met us on the last point, and we hope he will be equally magnanimous on this occasion. We desire to have the Amendment inserted in order to prevent the fear of eviction.
    Dr. ADDISON: An Amendment somewhat similar to this was rejected in the Committee. This Amendment, while still very wide, is much more accurately drawn. I thought that the place where this class of contingency could best be dealt with would have been in Sub-section (1, i.) after the word "employment" ["in that employment"]. We have, however, passed that portion of the Clause. I had intended at that point agreeing to the insertion after the word "employment" of the words "otherwise than in consequence of a strike or
    1906
    lock-out." That would have met the grievance, and would have prevented taking possession arbitrarily of a house. I think the words are far too wide, but, at the same time, it is perfectly clear that advantage should not be taken of the provisions of this Bill in connection with a bonâ fide strike or lock-out. We have passed the place where the Amendment could be made, but I will see whether someone on our behalf will move to insert similar words to those I have suggested at the end of paragraph (i) in Clause 5.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: May I ask, before this Amendment is withdrawn, whether the right hon. Gentleman's offer, which I appreciate, amounts to a definite promise that these words will be inserted in another place? I think I am in a position to say that if that is the understanding, this Amendment will not be pressed to a division.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say really what he is going to accept? I do not think the hon. Members above the Gangway are going to get much. The part of the Clause to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred only deals with alternative accommodation, and all that the Minister is going to do is to leave out the words which provide that the landlord shall not be bound, in asking for an order of ejectment, to provide or prove to the court that there is alternative accommodation if there is a strike or lock-out. Then what is to happen with regard to the arrears of rent? After all, a landlord is a human being, and is not a person to be shot at right and left. Suppose a strike goes on for eight weeks, and assuming there is no ejectment, and then the strike comes to an end, and there are eight weeks' arrears of rent not paid, does the right hon. Gentleman still mean that the landlord is not to be in a position to eject for non-payment of arrears? It ought to be made clear, because apparently we are not going to have the words here. Again it is a case of the right hon. Gentleman giving some vague promise to have some vague words inserted in another place. We ought to have it made quite clear what those words are before we part with the Bill.
    Dr. ADDISON: If my hon. Friend will look at the provisions of the Bill, he will see that anything inserted here in no

    1907
    way qualifies the first portion of Clause 5. In the case of a man in arrears with rent, whether there has or has not been a strike or lock-out, the landlord has exactly the same powers—no more and no less.
    Mr. LAWSON: With that promise in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Sir P.LLOYD-GREAME: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I think the Amendment is sound, and I am anxious that it should be put in the right place, but is the right hon. Gentleman right in suggesting that it should come in at the end of paragraph (i)? I should have thought the right place would be in paragraph (d) of Sub-section (i), which seems to be the paragraph which controls the whole thing.
    Dr. ADDISON: Paragraph (d) deals with alternative accommodation, and then there are the exceptions to that requirement, and this is one of those cases where alternative accommodation would not be required, because the house is required as part of a man's employment; therefore, I think it is appropriate to put it in where I suggested.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Restriction on, calling in mortgages).
    "It shall not be lawful for any mortgagee under a mortgage to which this Act applies, so long as—

    (a) interest at the rate permitted under this Act is paid and is not more than twenty-one days in arrear; and

    (b) the covenants by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) are performed and observed; and

    (c) the mortgagor keeps the property in a proper state of repair and pays all interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance,

    to call in his mortgage or to take any steps for exercising any right of foreclosure or sale, or for otherwise enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured:
    Provided that—

    (i) this provision shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage, nor shall this provision affect any
    1908
    power of sale exercisable by a mortgagee who was on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and twenty a montgagee in possession, or in cases where the mortgagor consents to the exercise by the mortgagee of the powers conferred by the mortgage; and

    (ii) if, in the case of a mortgage of a leasehold interest the mortgagee satisfies the county court that his security is seriously diminshing in value or is otherwise in jeopardy, and that for that reason it is reasonable that the mortgage should be called in and enforced, the court may by order authorise him to call in and enforce the same, and thereupon this section shall not apply to such mortgage."

    Major HAYWARD: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), "after the word "arrear," to insert the words
    "or in the case of a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage such instalments are paid within twenty-one days of their becoming due."
    This Clause prohibits the mortgagee calling in his mortgage so long as the interest is not in arrear and the covenants of the mortgage are kept, but for some reason or other building society mortgages are exempted from the operation of this Bill. As a matter of fact, the Government in this Bill are merely continuing the exemption which existed in the previous Act, and it is exceedingly difficult to understand why building society borrowers should not receive the protection of this Bill in the same way as any other mortgagor. In their position as landlords they are subject to the same obligations, and I fail to see why they should not have the protection of the Bill in their capacity as mortgagors. It is in order to secure that protection for them that I move my Amendment. I appreciate that the protection should only be extended in the case of building society mortgagors so long as the instalments of principal and interest provided for in their mortgage are kept regularly paid. Taking the two Amendments together which stand in my name, that is provided for. Under the two Amendments, these building society members—for that is who they are—wili have the benefit of the Act so long as they keep up their regular instalments of principal and interest.
    Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: The main reason for the exemption under the existing Acts referred to by the hon. Gentleman is obvious; these operations under the instalment system, extending over a long period of years, would be quite inequitably and unfairly dealt with by putting in the middle of the course of the operations some provisions altering their incidence which only apply, as these Acts, for a limited term, say of three years. It would dislocate building society finance from top to bottom if we were to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I trust sincerely he will not press it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir S.ROBERTS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add a new paragraph-—
    "(iii) Any such Order shall be made, subject to the condition that it shall not take effect if the mortgagor within such time as the court directs pay the mortgagee such sum as appear to the court to correspond to the diminution in the security."
    My right hon. Friend has been good enough to say he will accept this Amendment, which is an exceedingly simple one.
    Mr. A. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Restriction on premiums).
    (1) A person shall not as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies require the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any consideration, in addition to the rent, and where any such payment or consideration has been made or given in respect of any such dwelling-house after the twenty-fifth day of March Nineteen hundred and twenty, the amount or value thereof shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was made or given.
    (2) A person requiring any payment or the giving of any consideration in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the Court by which he is convicted may order the amount paid or the value of the consideration to be repaid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.
    (3) This section shall not apply to the grant, renewal or continuance for a term of fourteen years or upwards of any tenancy.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move in Subsection (1) after the word "any"["any consideration"] to insert the word "pecuniary."
    1910
    12 M.
    Without this word there are all kinds of qualifications which must be brought into account. It would clearly 12M. mean the payment of some sum or other and that is why we propose it.
    Major GRAY: Will this proposal deal with the case of proposing to grant a tenancy on consideration that the new tenant purchases the furniture at an unreasonable price. The newspapers at the present time are full of advertisements of that kind. I suggest that this is tantamount to asking for a premium. It is equivalent to paying key money and I want to know whether the pecuniary consideration would cover a case of that kind. I am informed that it has become a gross scandal and this demand for the purchase of inferior furniture at an extortionate price is preventing many people from obtaining possession and that it is increasing the housing difficulty in large urban centres to a very great extent. Will these words cover a case of that sort? If not does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps before this Bill passes to deal with an evil of that character?
    Dr. ADDISON: These words would apply to such cases, and they would be covered by the words "pecuniary consideration."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1) after the word "dwelling-house" ["any such dwelling-house"] insert the words "under an agreement made."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words
    "Provided that, where any agreement has been made since the said date but before the passing of this Act for the tenancy of a house to which this Act applies, but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, and the agreement includes provision for the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration in addition to the rent, that agreement shall, without prejudice to the operation of this section, be voidable at the option of either party thereto."
    This provision is required where various agreements have been made without full knowledge of the provisions of this measure since the 25th of March, in respect

    1911
    of premises now drawn under the provisions of this Bill and where it is clear that they should be allowed to have those agreements varied or altered. Obviously it is only fair that such a provision should be inserted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (3) to leave out the word" fourteen" and to insert the word "seven."
    Fourteen was in the Bill in Committee but it was altered to seven in a very halfhearted way. It seems a very unreasonable thing in a temporary measure to interfere with bona fide lettings for seven years. There are a great many leases which are renewable by fine only. I have myself a fine to pay in 1920, and under this Clause I shall have the privilege of not paying it, and I am objecting because I do not consider it is reasonable or just.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to second this Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: The period under the previous Act was 21 years, and it was reduced to 14 years, and I think that period is perfectly fair. I think seven years is rather too short a period, and I think fourteen is a happy compromise between seven and 21 years.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert a new Sub-section—
    "(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to abona fide assignment of a lease whether granted for fourteen years or less."
    Take, for illustration, the case of a man who buys the end of a long lease for fifteen years and gives a premium to get it. At the end of five years, supposing he wants to sell it again and he is offered a premium, under the present Bill he would be precluded from doing that. In other words, he will have given a good sum of money two years ago, and this time some one else is willing to give him money for a further two years and he is unable to do it. Surely that is unfair. Where money has passed it ought to be allowed to pass again. If you put in these words, that hard case will be met.
    Major NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not really
    1912
    ascertained what will be the effect of his own Amendment. We have now prohibited the owner, as a condition of granting a tenancy, from charging premiums and so on. The effect of the Amendment would be that, if a tenant is the holder of a lease he may assign the unexpired portion of it to anyone else for any sum he can exact. We should enable the tenant to profiteer in his tenancy, while we prevent the landlord from profiteering in his property. It would make things more unfair than they are at present. We are limiting what the owner of property can do. This would mean that the tenant who is the owner of a lease can profiteer at the expense of his neighbour or of his landlord.
    Sir G.YOUNGER: Would it not also prevent him getting back a portion of the money which he has paid for the lease?
    Dr. ADDISON: The point is that he will not get any premium on the assignment.
    Sir G.YOUNGER: As a matter of fact if he paid £5,000 for a twenty-one years' lease and has only exhausted 7 years, he will be able to get back a portion of the £5,000.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Limitation on rent of houses let furnished).
    (1) Where any person lets, or has, before the passing of this Act, let any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, 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 is yielding or will yield to the lessor 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 in rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be paid to the lessee.
    (2) For the purpose of this section "normal profit" means the profit which might reasonably have been expected from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen.
    Sir A. FELL: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This is a totally new subject affecting furnished houses and apartments. It particularly affects Summer Seaside and

    1913
    Health resorts. There is intense feeling in the towns where this is understood. I believe in the greater part of these resorts it is not understood at all, and they know nothing whatever of this and the succeeding Clause. If they did there would be petitions and telegrams to Members begging them to vote against the Clauses. In a large number of cases the houses in these towns are of moderate size and the tenants or owners have comparatively moderate incomes which they eke out by letting their houses for a month or two in the summer at a very good rent. When they let them they have to go away and live somewhere else, and at present they naturally have to pay a great deal more. Now they find that by this proposal if they charge more than 25 per cent. more than the profit they made in 1914 they will be liable not only to refund the additional sum but will be liable to very heavy penalties, up to £100, for letting at an extortionate rent. That has to a very large extent stopped the letting of these houses altogether. They fear that they will come under this Clause and be liable to severe penalties if they let them at a reasonable rent. Doubt is felt as to what houses come within the provision of the Clause and I shall be very interested to hear what class of houses would come into it. Is it the houses of £105 a year in London? They would be let furnished at double that rent and they would be £210 a year houses. Then what is the normal profit in letting a furnished house? I defy anyone to say. You may say the normal rent in 1914, but that is not the profit. If the profit is the extra rent which the owner gets in the summer months spread over the whole 12 months it might be a certain sum and you might say that was so much more than he got normally, but it is impossible to assess the normal profit in that way when the houses can only be let for a month or two in the summer. It is quite impossible to say what is the normal rent of a furnished house and I shall be glad to hear what the explanation of that is.
    There is another point. Clause 12 provides that "This Act shall not, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply to a dwelling houses bona fide let at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture." That is in direct conflict with Clause 9 so far as I and my friends can read it. Clause 12 expressly
    1914
    exempts houses let with furniture and Clause 9 is expressly devoted to houses let with furniture. I do not know what the explanation may be, but the two Clauses seem to be totally in conflict. My friends who are anxious about this express great anxiety as to what is the meaning of the Clause and what construction can be put upon it by the Government. So far as we can understand, it will lead to litigation in the case of every single house that is let this summer in what I may call the residential seaside places. In every case a smart solicitor may come to the tenant and say, "What are you paying for the house? I expect it is a great deal more than the landlord got for it in 1914. See if the normal rent in 1914 was not a great deal less than you are paying now. If it was 25 per cent. less you can recover. If you threaten him you will probably get a good deal of your rent back, particularly when he sees that he will be liable to a fine of £100." It is making things so difficult that the occupation of landlords and landladies will be gone for this year, as they will all be expecting litigation with respect to the rents that they get. I know a nice little house which was let before the war at 3 guineas a week. It is now let at 9 guineas, and people are tumbling over one another to get it. That is a perfectly proper and natural rent for the house. People who have made money want to live in that particular spot and do not mind what they pay. The owner of that house when he goes away has to pay a very much higher rent for the house which he occupies, or a much higher price at the hotel where he stays. Therefore, he will only make a small profit out of the letting of his house, and if he has to make renewals of furniture he will have to pay three times more than he would have paid in 1914. Furniture is a thing which may be greatly damaged by the occupier and the owner has a right to say: "I will not let my house unless I get a substantial rent for my house and furniture. If you want to take it you may do so" Under this Clause great difficulty would be created; I do not believe that the Clause has been properly considered or even the next Clause. Therefore, I hope it will be withdrawn.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: With the best purpose in the world the hon. member (Sir. A. Fell) has, I am afraid, added to the nervousness of the landladies whom he seeks to represent. He said they were full of apprehension, and were very unhappy as to what the coming summer would have in store for them. It may comfort the landladies to know that they have been living under the operation of -this sort of Clause for several years. Not a word has been altered. Section 9 has been reproduced, without the alteration of a word. The corresponding Sections have been in operation for some years, and these good ladies are quite unnecessarily alarmed. They have not suffered dire consequences. We are only reproducing Sections of the 1915 and the 1919 Act as part of this consolidating Bill.
    Sir A. FELL: It is since the war ended that the great rise in rents has taken place.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am doing nothing in this proposal which is new. This Clause does not apply to these landladies in the way suggested. In the first place, the ordinary lodger to whom the ladies may let furnished rooms is not a tenant and, therefore, the provisions of the Bill do not apply in that sense.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if I go with a friend to Margate for a fortnight, and we take rooms, that we are not tenants.
    Dr. ADDISON: Not tenants within the meaning of this Bill.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly we are.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am advised by equally learned gentlemen that you are not, and that a lodger who gets a room, coal, and other things, is not, within the meaning of this Bill, tenant of the premises.
    The dire consequences feared by my hon. Friend will not happen because this particular proviso does not apply. The prosperity of these people will not be interfered with in the least by this clause because they can still let their rooms to a lodger, and as regards people going to the county court if anybody takes the rooms from a landlady for a fortnight and thinks that he is charged an exorbitant rent it will take him a fortnight to get
    1916
    his case through and then his holiday will be up. The proviso is not for that class of case and never will be applied to it. I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is so. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. This has been in operation for some years and that has not happened.
    Sir A. FELL: I did not speak of the landlady of the rooms. I said the owner or tenant who let a furnished house, and went out.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know why I did not refer to a landlady. Anyhow the point is that this is not new. It is five years old and these things have not happened because they could not arise out of this class of legislation. As to the 25 per cent. profit the profit would of course have to be the amount which was left after the person had paid all expenses. That would include all the increased cost of living, the cost of labour, wages, etc. These would have to be deducted before any profit would arise and then there would be 25 per cent. increase of profit allowed. That is a very important consideration that ought not to be forgotten. For these reasons I trust that the hon. Member will be satisfied with what is proposed.
    Mr. LORDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which section?
    Mr. E.HARMSWORTH: I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he says there is nothing new in this Clause when it states that they have 25 per cent. increase on the profit and in another part of the Bill it states that it is 25 per cent. increase on the pre-war profit—25 per cent. profit on the pre-war profit. That may not be new, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if a 25 per cent. increase on the pre-war standard is what is meant by the Bill?
    Dr. ADDISON: The whole of these Bills came in after the war began. So it must refer to a pre-war standard.
    Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Will people owning their own houses and letting them before this Bill came into operation only get 25 per cent. over the pre-war profit?
    Sir W. DAVISON: The reason this has not become a matter of moment before was that during the war Ramsgate, Margate and Scarborough were continually being bombed by the German aircraft

    1917
    and naturally people were not very keen on going to live there. Yarmouth and other places that will jump to the minds of Members of their own accord were in a similar position. The people owning houses in these places, who went through very severe times, were told that the profiteers who were in safer places at that time would swoop down in their thousands after the war to take over these houses which these people were keeping together with great fear and trembling and with great risk. Now we are told they shall not have the opportunity of earning the money earned by people making munitions and in other ways and which they are only too ready to pay to people who have suffered during the war. I agree with my right hon. Friend, I do not see how this is to be calculated. Take the place recently in our minds, Ascot. People who own property there will let it to people who agree to give it up for one week in the year for half the rent they could get for the whole year. There are certain periods at certain places which for a time command very high rents, much more than 25 per cent. of the annual rent. Therefore it seems to me quite impossible to fix a definite sum subject to a penalty as suggested in this Clause and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree to withdraw it.
    Mr. C.PALMER: Many of these coast towns, particularly on the East coast, have suffered very severely during the war. They are hoping now to make a legitimate profit on the letting of their houses. I can imagine a case where the house is not let for a fortnight, but let as a furnished house for three months. Is it to be suggested that they shall not make a profit of more than 25 per cent. above the normal in pre-war days? Surely that is putting on them rather a hard restriction, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether, without eliminating this Clause altogether, he might give them a little more latitude and profit than the 25 per cent. in this Bill.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I hope my right hon. Friend, if he is considering anything of that kind, will exercise great care in these hard cases from the watering places, for they seem to be in danger of cutting out the whole point of the Bill. Of course, if you interfere at all with the ordinary law of supply and demand you
    1918
    will create hard cases somewhere, but it is in the interests of ordinary tenants that we passed these Acts originally and are now carrying them on. You have to be thorough in doing this. It is no good saying that a landlord is not to raise his rent if a tenant who lets the house furnished is able to put a premium on it and, if he likes, sub-let it. That is what it would mean if what hon. Members are proposing to do were agreed to. If rents of these houses below £105 are to be stabilised for this period you cannot go behind it and make exceptions to it. You must stabilise it both as regard the furnished and the unfurnished house. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be very careful before he makes any variation lest he should be knocking the bottom out of his own Bill.
    Mr. SEDDON: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. If persons leave their houses for a period of one, two, or three months, do they cease to become the tenants when they come back again? They are still tenants according to the rating authority. Or can there be two tenants of one house? Is not this a question of the wrong terms being used at the present time? The incoming person for a period of holiday is not the tenant of the house according to the rating authority.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to ask a legal question. It appears to me on reading this Clause that the hon. Member for Yarmouth is perfectly right. It is no good to say the Clause is in the Act of 1916 and has not been put into operation. If the Clause really does catch within its meshes the cases put by the hon. Member for Yarmouth, we ought to know. The Clause is perfectly clear—
    "Where any person lets, or has, before the passing of the Act, let any dwelling-house to which this Act applies or any part thereof."
    That means anybody—any landlady—whether my hon. Friend likes being treated as the friend of the landladies or not. Anybody who lets a part of the house again comes perfectly clearly within the provision of this Clause. I am not prepared, with the greatest deference, to accept my right hon. Friend's statement to the contrary unless he is fortified by one of the Law Officers of the Crown. I should like to

    1919
    know how the definition Clause—Clause 12—applies, for it says
    "this Act shall not, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply to a dwelling-house bonâfide let at a rent which includes payment in respect of board, attendance or use of furniture."
    What is the difference between that Clause and the Clause we are now discussing? Clause 9 says any person who lets a dwelling house is under certain liabilities. Under Clause 12 any person who lets a dwelling house with furniture is exempt from the provisions of the Bill, except where otherwise provided. What is the object of putting in this Clause and taking it out under Clause 12? The main point on which I would like to ask the advice of a Law Officer—the Secretary for Scotland is a Law Officer—is whether it is not perfectly clear that the hon. Member for Yarmouth was right and that this Clause applies to anybody who lets houses for any time?
    Dr. ADDISON: I happen to be in charge of the Bill, and will answer this question—that this Bill does not apply to a house let as lodgings save as otherwise provided. The hon. Gentleman asks why that is so. We have provided all kinds of contradictory things already—so much in respect of mortgages, so much in respect of rents, various qualifications affecting the landlord. It had nothing to do with the letting of lodgings and therefore you could not apply the Bill lock, stock and barrel to furnished lodgings. You must add a qualification, therefore we say, "save as otherwise provided," and that means Clauses 9 and 10.
    Sir W.JOYNSON-HICKS: Clause 12 does not refer to lodgings. It refers to whole houses.
    Dr. ADDISON: It refers to furniture. It includes these. Clause 9 says where any dwelling-house or part thereof is let at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture. That is the qualification referred to in Clause 12. Clause 12 provides that this class of house is under the operation of this Bill in respect of Clauses 9 and 10. That is what it means. I would like to say in support of what my hon. Friend behind me says, that there is nothing new in the 25 per cent. We are limiting
    1920
    the landlord. Why should we not limit the tenant? They do earn a living—I hope they will earn a decent living—but if they get a 25 per cent. profit after all outgoings have been met, with the increased cost of prices and materials and labour, they will have done very well. We have treated them more leniently than we have treated the landlord.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if any Law Officer of the Crown will offer an answer to the question whether Clause 9 does not apply?
    Mr. SPEAKER: You have had an answer to that already.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not had an answer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: You have had an answer though you may not be satisfied with it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "twenty-five" ["more than twenty-five per cent."] and to insert instead thereof the word "forty."
    I suggest to the Government that they might give us this Amendment. Undoubtedly there is going to be trouble, whatever the Government may say, over the letting of these furnished houses. I want to put this case to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill: Imagine a house which is let furnished at £300 per year. It is perfectly obvious that the rateable value or the net rent of that house would be far less than £300 per year. It would be something like£80 or £90 per year. Therefore that houses would come within the terms of this Bill. I take it that the 25 per cent. is put in because the landlord is allowed 25 per cent. back on repairs, and that is the reason of the 25 per cent. But surely it is not quite the same thing. Here we are dealing with damage done to such goods as curtains, inkstains on carpets, damage to knick-knacks, breakages of china, and so forth. The other case is that of whitewash, paint, and so on. Surely the two things are perfectly different. My amendment would deal with that matter. Then the cost of replacing these things has vastly increased from 1915 to the present day. What you

    1921
    could do then you cannot do now; therefore, the landlord or the landlady who lets the house to the tenant has the right to more than 25 per cent. Let us increase that from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. We shall be giving these people a chance, we shall avoid unnecessary law suits, and the Bill will be made a good deal easier.
    Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Clause 9 affects a great number of people. It may have been in force before, but that does not alter the fact that it is very unjust to quite a number of people, especially those in seaside resorts and residential resorts of that description. Especially also is it unjust to the East coast, for the reason that the East coast during the war was the scene of bombardment and air raids, which caused people to fly from the East coast further inland, especially to the West coast. Persons owned house property which they let furnished, and perhaps lived entirely on the income they got from those houses which were left entirely empty, and those poor people had their income entirely taken away from them. Such persons to whom I am referring were retired people, women, and permanent invalids and such-like. They were left entirely without any income whatsoever, and they had to mortgage these furnished houses right up to the hilt in order to live. When the war ended they were left in the position that these furnished houses were mortgaged up to the hilt and the rent coming in barely sufficed for their needs. Certainly it did not suffice, and it does not suffice at present, to pay off their mortgage which they had during the war, and which was not their fault. It was owing to the war. The East coast, or a large part of it, was, during the war, really a war area, though never officially so named. These people cannot get reparation money, although these furnished houses were empty entirely owing to the war. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should make some exception in the case of the East coast. I know it is very difficult to make exceptions, but I would point out that, during the war, there were exceptions for the rest of England, and I do not see any reason why the East coast should not be an exception in a different manner in a Bill of this kind.
    Captain W. T. SHAW: I beg to support this Amendment. The people who take these houses have gone for a holiday, and, after all, a holiday is more or less of a luxury. People who do not take holidays appear to be those who live the longest. I think people who want luxuries like holidays should be prepared to pay 40 per cent.
    Dr. ADDISON: While I sympathise with the purpose of my hon. Friends I think they must recognise that we cannot have legislation for selected east coast towns. We all sympathise with them in the losses they had incurred during the war, but they suffered in common with other places, and they also got some considerable compensation from national funds. Other areas suffered during the war, some from air raids, and other things and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to frame our legislation to meet particular sets of cases which occurred during the war. What is the main duty? We are trying to limit the tenant of a house, in regard to letting, on a scale parallel to the limitations which are imposed upon the owner. In this particular case the tenant would get 25 per cent. profit. We have not guaranteed anything of that kind to the owner. We have given him 25 per cent. in order to enable h:m to meet the cost of repairs—a very different thing from profit. The allowance to the owner of the property, if he does Es duty by his property, will vary with the amount of his outgoings, but in this case it is a clear profit of 25 per cent. after all outgoings have been met. It is vastly different from the 40 per cent. which we allowed to the landlord in order to enable him to spend money on the premises. This is an allowance which has worked fairly for some time past and I think no case has been made out for the Amendment.
    Sir A. FELL: I entirely support the suggestion of 40 per cent. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that rents have been raised 100 per cent. throughout the whole of England on these furnished premises, and that it is not excessive. Rents have been at least doubled, and the people do not grumble at having to pay double what they paid before the war, because they know that that is a fair rent. They tumble over one another to get these houses at this 100 per cent. increase. This Bill is intended to protect tenants from being turned out of their houses and prevent your increasing the,

    1923
    rent of a man who is in possession, and thus putting him to great hardship, because he must either pay the rent or be turned out. This Clause applies to people who gladly go down to the seaside and pay these large rents. It is no hardship to them to pay them. What is the hardship to a man who says, "I want to be on the front, I don't mind what the rent is, I will take the place." What this Bill does is to prevent people already in houses from being turned out or having to pay excessive rents. It cannot be suggested that an increase of 40 per cent. will keep any of these people away; they will pay 100 per cent. If this provision is not made we shall find that these houses have been let at 100 per cent. increase, and then we shall have litigation in the county courts and there will be nothing but litigation.
    Mr. PALMER: I entirely support the Government. We have had quite enough of profiteering in these seaside towns. There are thousands of people who want to go to the seaside and do not want to be bled at every turn, and I am of opinion that if they have 25 per cent. profit they have got all that is necessary. That is what the House does not seem to realise—that it is 25 per cent. profit. Any man who is a man of small means finds it very difficult to take a holiday at the seaside, and I hope the Government will stick to their decision.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Penalty for Excessive Charges for Furnished Lettings.)
    Where any person after the passing of this Act lets any dwelling-house to which this Act applies or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and the rent charged yields to the lessor a profit which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and in particular to the margin of profit allowed under the last preceding section of this Act, is extortionate, then, without prejudice to any other remedy under this Act, the lessor shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order that the rent so far as it exceeds the amount permitted by the last preceding section of this Act shall be irrecoverable and that the amount of any such excess shall be repaid to the lessee, but any such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.
    Sir A. FELL: I beg to move, to leave out the words" one hundred" [" one hun-
    1924
    dred pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
    Since the last Clause has been agreed to I can only address myself to the penalty. I think the figure of £100 should be reduced to £10. This provision has created a great deal of alarm amongst many people. They do not know how they stand or what construction may be put upon the word "extortionate." They know they are charging considerably more than in 1914, and it is a most important matter for them. I am quite sure that the moderate penalty of £10 would be quite sufficient to secure all that is required.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to move second Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: What is the offence to which this penalty applies? It is that, notwithstanding the profits they are allowed to make under the last Clause, they have made a profit which is extortionate in regard to the letting of furnished rooms. We have had cases submitted to us which no other word than extortionate could adequately describe. It is not a question of 25 per cent. or 40 per cent. That is not in it. There have been charges of 400 per cent. or 500 per cent.—extraordinary figures—and other monstrous things have been done. If we have limited the landlord in his increase of rent and the tenants have made three or four times the amount of the rent every week by extracting the money out of the people they take into their furnished lodgings, it is a thoroughly unjustifiable thing. We have stopped this practice on the part of the landlord and we ought to stop it on the part of the tenant. If a person has been guilty of an extortion in this way he deserves a severe penalty, and I do not propose to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Statement to be Supplied as to Standard Rent.)
    A landlord of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall on being so requested by the tenant of the dwelling-house supply him with a statement in writing as to what is the standard rent of the dwelling-house, and if, without reasonable excuse, he fails within fourteen days to do so, or supplies a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
    Amendment made: After the word "requested" ["so requested by the

    1925
    tenant"] insert the words "in writing."—[Dr. Addison.]

    CLAUSE 12.—(Application and Interpretation.)
    (1) For the purposes of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires:—

    (a) The expression "standard rent" means the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, where the dwelling-house was not let on that date, the rent at which it was last let before that date, or, in the case of a dwelling-house which was first let after the said third day of August, the rent at which it was first let:

    Provided that, in the case of any dwelling-house let at a progressive rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease, the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent;

    (b) The expression "standard rate of interest" means in the case of a mortgage in force on the third day of August ninenteen hundred and fourteen, the rate of interest payable at that date, or, in the case of a mortgage created since that date, the original rate of interest;

    (c) The expression "net rent" means, where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated paid the rates chargeable on, or which but for the provisions of any Act would be chargeable on the occupier, the standard rent less the amount of such rates, and in any other case the standard rent;

    (d) The expression "rateable value" means the rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house or a part of dwelling-house first assessed after that date, the rateable value at which it was first assessed;

    (e) The expressions "landlord," "tenant," "mortgagee," and "mortgagor" in-chide any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord, tenant, mortgagee, or mortgagor;

    (f) The expression "landlord" also includes in relation to any dwelling-house any person, other than the tenant, who is or would but for this Act be entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, and the expressions" tenant and tenancy" include subtenant and sub-tenancy, and the expression "let" includes sub-let;

    (g) The expression "mortgage" includes a land charge under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897.

    (2) This Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling, where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value does not exceed—

    (a) In the case of a house or part of a house in the metropolitan police dis-
    1926
    trict, including therein the City of London, one hundred and five pounds;

    (b) in the case of a house in Scotland, ninety pounds; and

    (c) in the case of a house or part of a house elsewhere, seventy - eight pounds;

    and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies:
    Provided that—

    (i) this Act shall not, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply to a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board, attendance, or use of furniture; and

    (ii) the application of this Act to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office or for business, trade, or professional purposes; and

    (iii) for the purposes of this Act any land or premises let together with a house shall, if the rateable value of the land or premises let separately would be less than one quarter of the rateable value of the house, be treated as part of the house, but subject to this provision this Act shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of the house.

    (3) Where, for the purpose of determining the standard rent or rateable value of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, it is necessary to apportion the rent at the date in relation to which the standard rent is to be fixed or the rateable value of the property in which that dwelling-house is comprised, the county court may, on application by either party, make such apportionment as seems just, and the decision of the court as to the amount to be apportioned to the dwelling-house shall be final and conclusive.
    (4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, this Act shall apply to every mortgage where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies, or any interest therein, except that it shall not apply—

    (a) to any mortgage comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land if the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is less than one-tenth of the rateable value of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage; or

    (b) to an equitable charge by deposit of title deeds or otherwise.

    (5) Where this Act has become applicable to any dwelling-house or any mortgage thereon it shall continue to apply thereto whether or not the dwelling-house continues to be one to which this Act applies.
    (6) Where the rent payable in respect of any tenancy of any dwelling-house is less than two-thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply to that rent or

    1927
    tenancy nor to any mortgage by the landlord from whom the tenancy is held of his interest in the dwelling-house, and this Act shall apply in respect of such dwelling-house as if no such tenancy existed or ever had existed.
    (7) Any rooms in a dwelling-house subject to a separate letting wholly or partly as a dwelling shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a part of a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling.
    (8) This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after or in course of erection on the second day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bona fide reconstructed by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but for the purpose of any enactment relating to rating, the gross estimated rental or gross value of any house to which this sub-section applies shall not exceed—

    (a) if the house forms part of a housing scheme to which section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919, applies, the rent (exclusive of rates) charged by the local authority in respect of that house; and

    (b) in any other case the rent (exclusive of rates) which would have been charged by the local authority in respect of a similar house forming part of such a scheme as aforesaid.

    Sir C. OMAN: I beg to move in Subsection (1, a), after the word "date" ["before that date"], to insert the words "unless the last letting was on a date more than seven years before the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen; in such a case the term 'standard rent' shall mean such rent as the local rating authority shall hold to have been the rent at which the house would have been let by a lease dated the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
    1.0 A.M.
    This is an appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to do a piece of justice to a very small body of landlords owning a comparatively small number of houses, but people who are abominably hit if the actual words of the Bill as it stands at the moment in Clause 12, Sub-section (1) be carried out. The intention of the Minister is that the standard of 1914 should be taken for the basic rent on which everything should be calculated; but what was being paid in 1914 does not actually represent, in some cases, the value of houses in 1914. That is to say that tenants of houses let far back in the reign of Queen Victoria on a 21 years' lease, and even longer, were not paying
    1928
    what they would have been paying in 1914 if the houses had been let a few years before. They were paying the rent of twenty years earlier. But in the nineties there happened what affected the great part of the letting of houses in rural England, namely, the development of the motor. Houses that were let for a trifle because they were rather inconvenient for the railways, and remote, were, in the early middle nineties or even later—motoring not having yet developed—being let for a trifle, or were sometimes let for 21 years or other long leases. When the motor established itself, pleasant country houses off the road suddenly became enormously more valuable than before they were let on these long leases. Therefore, in 1914 the tenants of these places who got them for a trifle were enjoying what they never would have enjoyed if they had had to take them in 1910 or 1905. The unfortunate landlord was looking forward to the 21 years tenancies being run out in order that he might realise the real value of the house, the rent of similar houses all round about, the level of prices in 1914. The wording of this Clause will present his doing so. It ties him down to the prices of 1895 or 1896. There is nothing that makes a person so keenly aware of the facts of the case as being personally interested in it. May I give an example of the sort of thing I mean? It is the case not of a cottage but of a nice little country house and two acres in Surrey, rather conveniently placed for a railway station, let for a good deal under £100 in 1895. What is that worth, by modern standards, now? I happen to be the unhappy owner of such a property the rent of which by this Bill must be restricted to values of 1895, with the very trifling addition of 15 per cent. which is all that can be added by this Amendment made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I want to appeal to him to look at the case for fixing the rent of such houses at what they were really worth in 1914 as compared to what they were worth in 1895. It is the only fair thing to do. I want to quote something even harder which will be caused by the wording of this Clause, and that is the case of the person who was the occupying landlord in the eighteen nineties and remained so down to 1914. I know a case in Oxford where

    1929
    an owner lived in his house in 1914—he has died since—and had been living there for forty years. According to the wording of this Bill, the rent is to be taken at the last letting before the date of the outbreak of the War. The last time the house was let was in 1869 and therefore by the wording of this Bill the basal standard rent on which everything is to be fixed is Mid-Victorian. I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have mercy on the unfortunate landlords and the unfortunate owner tenants who, by the wording of this Clause, are cut down to Mid-Victorian prices.
    Mr. G. JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I assume the hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Oman) will not be disposed to credit me with lack of appreciation of the quality of mercy; but I confess that I am not quite convinced that in this matter, at all events, there is any new outrage. There is nothing new in respect to these Mid-Victorian tenants. They have been groaning under this burden for the last five years, although they knew it not, therefore, there is nothing fresh, nothing unjust. But I had anticipated something of what the hon. Gentleman has in his mind, and he will see it set out in the next Amendment on the paper, which, I think, is a better way to deal with it. Some of my hon. Friends drew our attention to the question in Committee, and the Amendment is designed to cover cases where the rent by itself is not an indication of the value. I suggest that is the proper way to deal with this matter rather than by the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1, a), add the words "and where at the date by reference to which the standard rent is calculated the rent was less than the rateable value, the rateable value at that date shall be the standard rent."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, f),to add the words "and the expression 'tenant' includes the widow of a tenant dying intestate who was living with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant dies intestate leaving no widow, any member of his family so residing with him, any
    1930
    question as to which member of his family, in the case of more than one so residing, is to be the tenant, to be decided in default of agreement by the county court."
    This Amendment, which I move in a slightly varied form from that on the Paper, was put down in consequence of a pledge I gave to the hon Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). As he pointed out, the present tenant might die, and it is right that the widow or those continuing the occupation should have protection. That, of course, was our intention. But it was pointed out that as the Act was drawn it would not have included the widow, and I am advised that it would be necessary to leave out the word "deceased" in the second line, and after the word "tenant" insert "dying intestate." If the tenant made a will, making somebody his heir, of course the question would not arise. I am also advised that after the words "where the tenant dies" the word "intestate" should be inserted, so that the Amendment would read:
    "And the expression 'tenant' includes the widow of a tenant who dies intestate and who was living with him at the time of his death or where a tenant dies intestate leaving no widow any member of his family so residing with him, any question as to which member of his family, in the case of one so residing, is to be the tenant to be decided in default of agreement by the County Court."
    That makes it as clear as we can what the relations of the tenant are who should he entitled to continue the same protection.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this would also apply to the dependents of women who died. There are a great number of cases of women who earn their living all over the country, journalists and others, who sometimes have old mothers living with them or young sisters. Very often a house is in the name of a sister or daughter. It would be hard if they died and the mother or sister might be turned out, whereas if the relation had been a man they would come under this Bill. I imagine if it is as I suggest it can only be an oversight in drafting. I know cases myself where the wives appear on the rate-books as the tenants, and very often they have invalid husbands living with them. It would be distinctly hard if a wife died and an invalid husband was

    1931
    turned out. I throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that under this Bill they would have some protection.
    Dr. ADDISON: Clearly they should have, and the word "man" should include "woman." I will see that it is put right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2, a), leave out the words "in the case of a house or part of a house."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), to leave out the word "one" ["one hundred and five pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    This Amendment, together with two other Amendments almost immediately following, has the effect of doubling the limits of rental value set forth in Clause 12. If hon. Members will look at page 12 they will see that the statutory protection promised in this Bill to tenants of dwelling-houses applies only to dwelling-houses in London where the present rent does not exceed £105, and in the case of houses in the provinces of England £78. My Amendment only deals with London and the provinces because I imagine that if Scottish members found any fault with the limitation of rent in Scotland they would know how to seek their own protection. So far as London and the provinces are concerned, I submit there is a very good case for the apprehension that is felt about this portion of the Bill, particularly in the case of business premises, which under Clause 13 are also covered by the Bill. My contention is that the present limit is inadequate to give due protection not only to business premises but also to dwelling-houses. The House will recognise that the limitation of the rentals of houses to which these Acts apply is absolutely a matter of discretion and caprice. In 1915 when the first Rent Restriction Act was passed it was only intended to apply to small working-class cottages. In 1919 the limit was raised very considerably, I believe roughly doubled. Now in 1920 it is again raised by this Bill to houses up to £105 rental in London, £78 in the provinces, and £90
    1932
    in the case of Scotland. It is a purely arbitrary selection which defines these limitations of rent, and the classes which are now protected are very different from the classes which were protected in 1915. It is quite clear from the Bill of that year that the type of house which most needed statutory assistance against orders for ejectment consisted of purely working class cottages. At the present time the need is spread over a much larger area in society, and the data upon which the original limitation was founded are now absolutely out of date. Taking the case of dwelling-houses, it is obvious that a very large number of houses rented for £78 in England are not the houses of the wealthy in any way whatever. The new poor are very largely occupiers of houses who pay a rental of over £105 in London and over £78 in the provinces, and in many cases they simply occupy these larger houses because they happen to has e large families, and therefore require more accommodation. I, therefore, respectfully suggest to the Minister for Health that he should consider whether it is not possible to extend the protection to dwelling houses in excess of the somewhat narrowly defined rentals laid down in the case of Clause 12. A new and very important light so far as these dwelling-houses are concerned is thrown upon the operation of this Clause by reading Clause 13. Under Clause 13 this Bill applies not only to dwelling-houses, but also to business premises, and it is quite clear that the protection required by business premises at the present time against eviction either at the end of this quarter or of the September quarter, is required by many businesses of rentals much in excess of £105 or £78. I have another Amendment down on the Paper which seeks to protect all business premises of whatever rentals from actions of ejectment until the Select Committee has reported upon the whole question. Of course, at this stage one cannot guarantee that that later Amendment will passed, and, if not, it means that protection will only be given to business premises of a rental of £78 in the Provinces and £105 in London. In Manchester at the present time there are something like 600 business firms under notice to quit on 24th June, or 29th September, and in nearly all of those cases they have been given no option to

    1933
    purchase nor any option to pay increased rentals. Their position, therefore, is one of the most acute anxiety, and I understand in nearly 80 per cent. of these cases the rents paid are over £78 a year. Therefore, if you really wish to give business premises the protection promised, it is vital that the limits imposed by Clause 12 should be raised, and raised considerably above the £105 and £78 limits. Hon. Members will be very well aware that the actual rents paid by thousands of firms are not always proportionate to their wealth or prosperity. A man may make a very large income in a small shop, whereas a business employing a great deal of labour may make a very small margin of profit. Therefore, you cannot say that by a limit of rent you are protecting people who are struggling for a livelihood and excluding the rich Hon. Members must be well aware that a great many businesses which pay rents much in excess of £105 and £78 are by no means to be regarded as prosperous or beyond the reach of anxiety. In the interests, then, of the middle-class tenants of dwelling houses and still more in the interests of firms occupying business premises, I beg to move the Amendment, the effect of which will be to double the rentals that at the present time are laid down in the Bill.
    Major NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Of course, it is well known that the limit laid down in the Bill of £105 will only touch the fringe of the housing question in an area such as that of the City of Westminster, where the rental is doubled and trebled every time the premises become vacant and it is increasingly difficult for the people who have to leave to find housing accommodation. There is one other point so far as this Amendment is concerned which I think ought to be borne in mind. That is, that I understand that the Ministry of Health is anxious that where possible larger houses should be converted into several flats. The owner of a house that is available for conversion may well pause before he does convert it after the passing of this Bill, for this reason, that if it is a house that he can let for more than £105 a year he keeps clear of the provisions laid down in this Bill. If, on the other hand, he adopts the idea so desirable in these days of converting
    1934
    the house into three or four flats of rentals below these limits, then each separate dwelling so created will come within the limits of the Bill and he is tied and is unable to make any further alterations in that rent. Therefore that man will endeavour to let that place as one house and so the conversion of the larger houses into so many smaller dwellings is delayed. If I am in order in dealing with the second pair of Amendments which affect the provincial rents at the same time, £78 in the provinces again is a very arbitrary limit. It leaves out of the scope of this Bill a whole lot of people in addition to the business premises referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, a whole lot of people thoroughly deserving of protection. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way either to accept the Amendments that are put down to increase these limits or, if he will agree, to withdraw the limits altogether. At the same time the Clause would read quite well if after "dwelling" in line 6 it were deleted down to line 13. I think it would make things much easier and clearer. Why should the landlord who is unfortunate enough to own property in these limits be restricted in the manner set out in this Bill, while an adjacent landlord who owns property beyond the limits of the Bill is in no way restricted. Why should these restrictions be made? Why should the unfortunate tenant in one case have no protection while the other is fully covered? I do not want to take up time unduly, but I do hope my right hon. Friend will either accept this proposal to increase the limits or in the alternative delete them from the Bill altogether.
    Mr. G. JONES: I hope the Minister of Health will accept the Amendment. Now we have business premises included in the Bill the limit is wholly inadequate because except for small shops in the city it will not protect anyone because it is only small offices that are let at £105 a year. I submit that £105 is not the rent of a rich man, taking his rent as a tenth of a man's income and I submit he is entitled to protection as much as any others. I object to profiteering whoever does it. Whether houses or shops are let at a low rental or a high rental, I should like to see all limits abolished and all brought under this Bill. I hope the Minister of Health will see his way clear to adopting the modest suggestion of doubling the limits.
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment. What is its object? What is the fundamental issue? It is that in consequence of the housing scarcity evictions have taken place and notwithstanding other drawbacks we have had to form certain special provisions for the tenants' protection. Everybody agrees that the general effect of this class of legislation upon housing provision is most unfortunate. There is no doubt at the present time we have no other option before us than this. We were bound to pass this class of legislation during the war and are bound to continue it now. I know Members of the Labour Party have criticised it and as the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said, we have got to get back to economic conditions, for the effect of the limitations of rents has been to keep capital away from building houses. The whole effect has been most disastrous upon housing conditions, and yet my hon. Friends want at this time of day to extend this proposal to every form of building. This is a proposal to which we have not been driven at the present time and I hope we shall never get to it. My desire is exactly the opposite. I want to limit the basis of these Acts as much as I can, for I know that they have done more than any other thing to prevent new building. It was with considerable reluctance that we extended the limit to the moderate extent to which it has been extended in this Bill. We recognise the evil influence that these Acts have had on the new provision of building and, therefore, we ought not move one inch beyond what we are compelled to go. Therefore, so far from rejoicing in the present prospect—my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to include every sort of building, from the Bank of England downwards—I say let us limit it as much as possible. We should not spread the influence of this class of artificial legislation. I cannot accept this Amendment, or the others which follow of a like nature.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment will press it to a division. I do not think that the explanation of the Minister of Health is at all satisfactory. He says it is the case that these Acts are preventing building. I think we all agree with him on that. He gives
    1936
    that as a reason for leaving these houses of a higher rental free from the restrictions, and so these houses may be built with much more freedom than the class of house which come under the Rent Restrictions Act. That is not a desirable thing in view of the enormous shortage of small houses which have been prevented from being built, and I think it is a very sound reason for supporting the Amendment which has been moved. I quite agree that this sort of legislation is very undesirable. But to say that a class of people who happen to own small Louses and who have small influence should be treated differently from the owner of any other class of property is very invidious and very undesirable. This legislation has been necessitated by the war and through the exceptional shortage of these houses. Well, the condition applies to the houses of a higher rental, particularly with regard to business premises. That point has been made very germane to this Amendment, because it has been pointed out by the Mover that Clause 13 extends the protection of the Act to business premises. It is an undoubted fact that as recently as during the last six or eight months the shortage of these business premises has resulted in an enormous increase in rents. Take the city which I have the honour to represent (Kingston-upon-Hull). The increases that have taken place there in the rents of shops—and shops not of exceptional prosperity, but some of those which have difficulty in making both ends meet—have gone up 100, 200, and even 300 per cent. That is causing very great hardship and anxiety, and I think the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment, to double the rent, is one which is entirely reasonable, and which, on the grounds of equality, should be agreed to. I hope he will press it to a division.
    Mr. SEDDON: I want to join with those hon. Members who have already spoken in favour of this Amendment. So far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, I hope he will not charge this House at 1.30 in the morning with a lack of clarity, because, if he thinks that, I am going to clear off home. I urge him to get the Bill through as soon as possible. With regard to the arguments advanced surely what was said by the right hon. Gentleman is only half a statement. I have always understood that this was a

    1937
    Bill to prevent profiteering. Profiteering in the class of building referred to has been far more rampant than with regard to the lower priced buildings which this Bill originally brought within its scope. I have here a list of premises to prove the scandalous profiteering which is going on, especially in this class of business premises. I will read them to the House. I think they have been verified and submitted to the Minister of Health. The present rent is £110 per year, the rent demanded is £350 per year; present rent£115,rent demanded £300; present rent £120, rent demanded £300; present rent £120, rent demanded £350. These people have no "bowels of compassion." Evidently those who have been letting houses where the original rents were equal are going one better than each other. If we are out to protect the owner of a shop or a house against undue profiteering, a man who pays a rent of £200 or £300 a year is entitled to protection as much as a man who pays £100 or less. I want also to point out that, so far as business premises are concerned, the present action of the landlords in increasing the rents is not only an injury, but it is creating a good deal of ill-feeling. The right hon. Gentleman says "We do not want to restrict building." But are we going to have what is tantamount to absolute robbery in the hope of getting more buildings put up? We have certain sections in other Acts of Parliament to prevent luxury buildings. Surely nobody who attempts to secure justice for the tenant can claim that this is a just Bill when it allows Clauses like these to permit the infliction of the Shy-lock proposals of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman will not only be doing justice, but he would restrain the cupidity of those people, and if they are not included there will be a great outcry in the country that this Bill is giving license and liberty to the robbers of unfortunate tenants.
    Mr. LORDEN: I should not have risen had not the last speaker given figures as regards the increased rents. He has not given the circumstances. I gave an instance the other day of a rent of £60 a year being put up to £200 a year.
    Mr.SEDDON:Shame!
    Mr. LORDEN: It is not shame at all. The property was well worth it. The
    1938
    people were satisfied; they not only took it up, but also a large liability for rebuilding in the near future, and the property was well worth it. You talk about these things; let us know the circumstances. If the lease has fallen in, and it has been for 99, 80, or 50 years, I imagine those rents have not been increased unreasonably and that they cannot be called excessive. The Salisbury Committee that was set up pointed out definitely that business premises should not be included. You started with houses at a rental of £35; you then went up to £70, and now you are going up to £105. It seems to me that if you go on you will have no houses. You will encourage nobody to build; this limitation will have a most disastrous effect. People will not build if you keep on extending these Acts. Every hon. Member has got up and said how he deplores these Acts, and yet he wants to increase this. There is no rhyme or reason or any sense in that. We want to get rid of these Acts as soon as possible and get back to economic conditions, so that everybody can have a fair deal without interference in these matters. I think the amount should not be increased at all, that it is high enough as it is, and I am sure that everybody who has to deal with property will realise the difficulties you are creating by these Acts.
    Colonel NEWMAN: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has my entire sympathy in resisting this Amendment. I was responsbile for proposing upstairs the Amendment to introduce business premises. The right hon. Gentleman warned us quite fairly what was going to happen. He said that if my Amendment for business premises were accepted every shop and every house of every sort would at once be brought into the Bill and the Bill would have to be extended. I laughed at that. I did not believe it. Well, it has happened; the Amendment has come along. Therefore I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman and am prepared to support him in resisting it. He has promised that a Committee will be set up to deal with the question of business premises, offices, or shops. What the average retailer, shopkeeper and business man wants is something in the nature of a tenants' Bill. If the terms of reference to the Select Committee are wide enough

    1939
    he will be able to do justice to this particular class.
    Dr. MURRAY: I would like to say a word or two in support of the Amendment. I am sorry to disagree with my representative in Parliament the hon. Member for St. Pancras [Mr. Borden] who on this occasion I am afraid does not represent me. I do not see why the owners of small property should be penalised whilst the owners of the bigger properties go scot free. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and, besides that equitable principle, it is a very necessary proposal. Where are the representatives of the Middle Classes?
    Colonel: NEWMAN: I am here!
    Dr. MURRAY: We hear a lot of talk outside about the way the middle classes are being ground between the upper and the nether mill stones, but when it comes to a practical proposal of this sort in the House they have very few friends to support their case. This is really in the interests of the middle classes, and for that reason I support it, because in this part of the House we are not narrow in our sympathies.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I desire to put my own point of view in regard to this matter. I appreciate very highly the action of the right hon. Gentleman in setting up this Select Committee for dealing with business premises, but before his Committee can frame a report hundreds of business men in all parts of the country will be ejected from their premises and will be entirely ruined. I should be quite willing to agree to a larger increase in many cases than is proposed in this Amendment, and I do suggest the Government should take some steps to protect these tenants from eviction until the Committee has reported. If a promise of that kind is given I should be prepared to support the Amendment, but in the absence of any promise I should be bound to support the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment if he goes to a Division.
    Sir F. YOUNG: I am not at all convinced by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman as to why the House should not support this Amendment. I gather from his remarks that his chief and only objection is that it is going to discourage building. The one form of building
    1940
    which is most desirable at the present time is the small cottage; it is in that direction that the greatest need is felt; and yet that is the particular type of building to which the right hon. Gentleman wishes the House to apply the Bill. As regards the other class of houses the scarcity is not so severe, and therefore I cannot accept his argument that by extending the Bill we are going seriously to affect the types of houses which are most particularly wanted in this country.
    Mr. MYERS: I am satisfied that some such provision as is suggested in the Amendment needs to be made so far as business premises are concerned. Business men of my acquaintance inform me that they have a very real grievance in these matters. Mention has already been made of the attempts to raise the rents of business premises. The same evil is operating the other way round. Two or three cases have come to my knowledge of the owners of business premises approaching tenants and suggesting that they should purchase the premises they occupy. If there has been any hesitation on the part of the tradesman, who has probably spent the greater part of his business life there and built up a satisfactory business connection, the owner of the property at once suggests that he will lend the tenant the money at 6 or 6½ per cent. interest. With the value that is put upon the property, the interest that is charged on the mortgage is equivalent to a tremendous increase in the rent that the man is already paying. The Minister of Health stated in the Committee upstairs, I believe, that any penalty which fell upon the tradesman in this way ultimately found its way to the purchaser of the goods, and I believe very largely that that it is so—
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but we are going to have a discussion a little later on on an Amendment to Clause 13. I do not want to have to argue the question of business premises times over by arguing it now. I suggest there is another Amendment which will bring it up properly in a direct form, and that this is a question which had better be discussed there.
    Mr. MYERS: I believe that the charge upon the business premises does find its way back to the purchaser of the goods sold. If we protect the purchaser by a

    1941
    Profiteering Act, we ought to protect him from indirect imposition by the action of the tradesman putting the extra price on to his goods.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-Section (2b) leave out the words, "in the case of a house."
    In Sub-section (2c), leave out the words "in the case of a house or part of a house."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Major HAYWARD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to add the words
    "When a mortgage comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land, and the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is more than one-tenth of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage, the mortgagee may apportion the the principal money secured by the mortgage
    Question put: "That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 27.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES.

    [1.52 a.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Parker, James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Barrand, A. R.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Pownall, Lleut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hallas, Eldred

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Reid, D. D.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Bruton, Sir James

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Casey, T. W.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Taylor, J.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Vickers, Douglas

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Lorden, John William

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Dawes, Commander

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Manville, Edward

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Younger, Sir George

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Forrest, Walter

    Neal, Arthur

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    NOES.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hinds, John

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgston)

    Clough, Robert

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Myers, Thomas

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greene, Lieut-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

    Lieut.-Colonel Hurst and Major Nall.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Hayward, Major Evan

    between such dwelling-houses and such other land by giving one calendar month's notice in writing to the mortgagor, such notice to state the particulars of such apportionment, and at the expiration of the said calendar month's notice this Act shall not apply to such part of the said principal money as is apportioned to such other land and for all purposes, including the mortgagor's right of redemption, the said mortgage shall operate as if it were a separate mortgage for the respective portions of the said principal money secured by the said dwelling-houses and other such land, respectively, to which such portions were apportioned.
    Provided that the mortgagor shall before the expiration of the said calendar month's notice be entitled to dispute the amounts so apportioned as aforesaid and in default of agreement the matter shall be determined by

    1943
    a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution."
    By Clause 12 Sub-section (4) the mortgages to which this Bill is to apply are defined, and it provides that if any mortgage comprises property which is within the Bill, then in that case the mortgage shall be within the Bill.
    2.0 A.M.
    As every member knows there are some mortgages which comprise several properties together. Some of the properties may be of a rental which would bring them within the Bill and the remainder might be outside. For instance, you might get a mortgage upon an estate which might cover the mansion house and other buildings, and tenants' cottages, etc. Or you might get a mortgage upon a factory with dwelling houses adjoining. It was contemplated that some such thing would happen in the original Act, and it was decided that if ten per cent. of the property comprised in the mortgage was properly subject to the provisions of the Act then the whole mortgage should be brought within the provisions of the Act. I suggest, and I put down an Amendment to that effect in Committee, that that was not the right way to deal with a matter of this kind, and that a better method would be to give the mortgagee in such a case the right to apportion his mortgage money among the two classes of property: that he should be compelled to apportion part of the principal money upon those properties which come within the Act, and the remainder upon the properties which were outside the Act. In doing so I submit it was only carrying out the principles of the Act, because it was never intended that in such a case the Act should apply to mortgages upon properties outside the Act altogether. The object of the Amendment which I have now put down is to enable the mortgagee, and I think I have provided proper safeguards, to make such an apportionment, and if this Amendment be accepted, and it has been intimated that it may be, it will provide that the mortgagee will be able to give notice to the mortgagor apportioning the mortagage upon those moneys coming within the Bill and those which are outside. That notice shall give information with regard to the apportionment and at the expiration of the notice, for all pur-
    1944
    poses, including the mortgagor's right to redeem, that mortgage shall be considered two mortgages—one for the property covered by the Bill and the other for the remainder, and, therefore, that at the time that this Bill becomes an Act it will only apply to the mortgage falling within the Bill. In order to safeguard the mortgagor the Amendment provides that he shall be entitled to dispute the amount of the apportionment, and in case it cannot be settled between the mortgagor and the mortgagee it shall be determined by a single arbitrator who shall be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. If this Amendment be accepted and embodied in the Bill I think it will remove what appears to me to be a real difficulty in the Act as it has been, and will remove a very great hardship which I know has existed in several cases as anybody who has had experience of these matters knows very well. There are a large number of cases of mortgages covering a number of properties of this description. I beg to move the Amendment in the amended form in which I have presented.
    Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. D. WILSON: This matter was gone into in Committee upstairs, and the Minister in charge of the Bill said he would look into it. Having considered it, we are prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been presented
    Amendment agreed to.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (8), to leave out the words "house to which this Sub-section applies," and to insert instead thereof the words "such house to which this Act would have applied if it had been erected before the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and let at that date."
    This is in connection with the proposals as to the question of rating which will affect the new houses. This proposal says
    "for the purpose of any enactment relating to rating, the gross estimated rental or gross value of any house to which this Sub-section applies shall not exceed"—
    That is to say, the proposal passed in Committee was that in the case of houses specially built by a local authority they should not be rated unduly highly be-

    1945
    cause of their high cost, but we should take as their basis of assessment the rent at which the authority let them; and as regards new houses otherwise built in the same locality that basis should also apply. In order to make the words quite clear, it is necessary to leave out the words "house to which this Sub-section applies," and insert the words as I have given them in the Amendment. That makes it quite clear that this provision applies to the new houses.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add a new Sub-section—
    "(9) Where possession has been taken of any dwelling-houses by a Government Department during the War, under the Defence of the Realm regulations, for the purpose of housing workmen this Act shall apply to such houses as if the workmen in occupation thereof at the passing of this Act were in occupation as tenants of the landlords of such houses."
    This is a case where certain houses for example have been acquired by the Admiralty, the War Office and other departments during the war for war purposes and where persons have become the tenants—soldiers, sailors, as the case may be. Owing to the lapsing of the Act it is doubtful whether or not tenants whilst continuing it occupation of these houses are in fact tenants, and it is everyone's desire that they should have as much protection as this Bill gives. This makes it quite clear that they are.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Application to business premises).
    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:—

    (a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section five:

    "(d) the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for business trade or professional purposes, and (except as otherwise provided by this sub-section) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available";

    (b)Paragraph (i) of the same sub-section shall not apply;

    (c) Sections nine and ten shall not apply.

    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "Section five of."
    I do this because I feel that probably it is necessary that tenants of business premises should have some fixity of tenure. Many of them have written to me with regard to these points, but it is not a question of the rent they are so much interested in as it is in the question that they should be able to continue in their premises. If these words are inserted it will have the effect of applying the whole of Clause 5 with the exceptions as printed in the Bill, and it will have the effect entirely of giving them fixity of tenure without making any difference to the rent of the premises until the Committee report. I think it is clearly the Government's intention not to include these business premises as they are included now. The Salisbury Committee say clearly that their grievances existed prior to the war, and could not be removed by the application of the Rent Restrictions Act to business premises. They go on to say that
    "such a remedy would only deal with the fringe and would not satisfy their demands in respect to continuity of tenure, compensation for improvements and compensation for disturbance."
    They give considerable reasons why these business premises should not be included. If this Amendment be accepted there would be a straightforward meaning in line 10 of the same words, and it would have the effect of applying Clause 5 of this Bill, with the exceptions included here, to business premises, and would not affect the question now going before, I understand, a Select Committee. It is important that the thing should be dealt with. By putting in this partial Clause you are upsetting the tenants, interfering with leases falling in, and, generally speaking, upsetting the whole working of this Rent Restrictions Act. It was never intended to apply to premises, and is not suited in its application in any way or shape.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is the Amendment seconded?
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second it, although I confess I do not fully appreciate what exactly the hon. Member wishes to do, but it appears to carry out a suggestion I made the other evening. I am not, as I am sure he is not, keen about any particular form of words. I

    1947
    should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us protection from eviction at any rate until the Committee reports. I wish protection from eviction to apply to all business premises, not merely to these limits of rent, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing at any rate to consider very favourably suggestions of that character. Unless some protection is given, the Report of this Committee, valuable as it may be, will be too late to save a large number of men who are threatened with eviction.
    Dr. ADDISON: I have not had much opportunity of studying this Amendment, but I am quite sure it would not do what the hon. Member wants. It would apply to business premises only, Clause 5 of this Bill. How, could you apply this? You really could not apply it. If it is to be applied to business premises at all it cannot be applied by taking the whole Clause holus bolus and simply applying that. I say, with very great respect, that this is not legislation, and in that respect the Amendment is not an improvement on .the Clause in the Bill. It would spoil it altogether. So far as the Bill is concerned I am sure that if the object of my hon. Friend behind me is to bring the whole thing to naught it would achieve that, and it would make it a dead letter. Perhaps that is his insidious purpose.
    Mr. LORDEN: I do not think so.
    Dr. ADDISON: That would be the effect so far as the law courts are concerned. We are going to discuss Clause 13 later. My hon. Friend opposite makes a more limited appeal. "Cannot you have a form of words that will save the business tenant from eviction?" We have just resisted one, and I hope the House will resist this too. You cannot do it that way. I wish we could. In Clause 5 we set out to try and protect from eviction the tenants of dwelling-houses below a certain rental value. That is what we have tried to do in Clause 5. With the best will in the world we have found that Clause 5 has grown, grown, grown, notwithstanding our best efforts, until it now covers nearly three pages of the Bill. That is in respect of tenants of dwelling-houses, quite a simple proposition. The word eviction has no special legal meaning. It involves, of necessity, the consideration
    1948
    by some court of the circumstances relating to the termination of the tenancy, and you would inevitably bring up all the cases broad cast as to whether it was this type of tenancy or that, as to compensation for goodwill and loss of business. We explored this with the best will in the world to see if there was any short cut, and there is none in the putting in of any form of words of that kind. I am perfectly certain you cannot do it that way. We have spent a good deal of time to see if you can find a short cut. You cannot. You will not be doing any good to the business people whom we all want to help. I have been bombarded with thousands of these cases. We are all sorry, but do not let us be precipitated into doing the wrong thing simply to meet a pressing and insistent demand. We intend to go on with this Committee which has been set up, the form of which is on the Order Paper to-day, together with the terms of reference and the name of the members whom the Government suggest should be on the Committee. We intend to go on with it without delay and that is the proper way to deal with this question. You cannot deal with complicated legal issues dealing with factories and other business premises by putting some formula into this Act. You cannot do it. I wish we could. It would make more trouble for the people we are seeking to help than it would do good. It is the wrong way to do it, and I hope the House will support the Government.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to move. at the end of the Clause, to add the words
    "Provided always that the restriction on the right to possession imposed by section five shall apply to all business premises of whatever rent until otherwise provided by Parliament."
    This Amendment is intended to take the place of the Amendment which was put down in my name on Clause 5 When Clause 5 was reached, you, Mr. Speaker, told me that Clause 13 was the proper place to bring in this Amendment, and I have now put the Amendment in a form more apt. It is not what my right hon. Friend would describe as a "precipitate Resolution." The object of the Amendment is simply to stay all ejectments in the case of business premises until Parliament has received the Report of the Select Committee to

    1949
    which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and is able to base legislation upon that Report. The Bill in its present form is limited to business premises of certain rentals, and in numberless instances where rents exceed such limits notices have been served. These notices have been given, in many cases, by people who are not the original landlords of the premises, but financial speculators who have bought the property and have given the tenants notice to quit. I am not asking the House in any way to prejudge the issue which is going before the Select Committee. I do not want to go into the larger question at all. There is much to be said on both sides. The whole object of this Amendment is simply to retain the status quo until the House is able to arrive at a right and proper conclusion upon this question. I cannot see what objection there can be to this proviso, which is simply intended to preserve the tenants of business premises from receiving irrevocable harm. Their position cannot be fairly dealt with until Parliament has received the report of the Select Committee and has then determined what action is to be taken on the whole question.
    Major NALL: I beg to second the Amendment. I want to assure my right hon. Friend that I do it in no precipitate manner, but simply to help those who have to clear out of their business premises. No provision is made in the Bill for higher rentals, and it is reasonable to suppose that some sort of action may be afforded when the Committee has gone into the matter and this House has had an opportunity of adopting legislation passed on that report. I do hope that the Government can, in the Amendment, adopt a temporary expedient to tide these people over the next few months until the House has an opportunity of deciding that notices of this sort are to be covered or that people should take their chance. In the provincial cities very considerable dislocation of trade will be caused if some temporary measure cannot be adopted to carry over for the next few months.
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not want to repeat the arguments which I have already addressed to the House, but it would be impossible to have a better illustration of
    1950
    the danger of the proposals which I criticised. The Amendment proposes to add at the end of Clause 13 the words
    "Provided always that the restrictions of the right to possession imposed by section five shall apply to all business premises of whatever rental, until otherwise provided by Parliament."
    In other words, throughout the length and breadth of the land, in every factory, warehouse, shop, industrial concern, in the most gigantic shipyard down to the smallest, you are going to stereotype the existing state of affairs until some legislation is passed dealing with this matter. It would have a monstrously desolating effect upon the trade and industry of the country. In the case of a shipyard wanting to extend some slip the whole concern would be liable to be stopped. The same would apply to the extension of any concern or business. I am just as sorry for these people as my hon. Friends. I can only say that you cannot deal with this question in this way. You cannot have a better illustration than this Amendment. It would paralyse business from one end of the country to the other. It would impose more or less of a shadow in the way of any concern, and would simply hold over all business until Parliament had decided. We have tried our best to find some way, with all the best legal advice I can command, to deal equitably and fairly with these cases in a practical form, and you cannot do it. You need an Act of Parliament to deal with it, and I venture to prophesy that Clause 13, which I opposed in Committee, will be found to be very unsatisfactory. Although you are going to leave it in the Bill, I am perfectly certain that in the end it will have been found to do more harm than good. It is not the right way of doing it. This Amendment would paralyse business and bring enterprise to a standstill, because you can always find somebody to object to any enterprise. It will have a desolating effect.
    Major NALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the addition of this Clause to the measure would cause more paralysis than if nothing at all is done to meet these cases?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I think it would have a much worse effect. I know the grievance and I am sorry for it, and I want to limit it just as sincerely as my

    1951
    hon. Friend, but this will not do it. You will create a much worse evil than you are remedying. Can my hon. Friend imagine the case of anybody who wants to make a new railway or a new canal or to extend a big business enterprise—a big shipyard or a cloth manufactory or a cotton mill—and who has to take in a certain amount of property? You will find somebody there with a little hairdresser's shop or a small office, and these people will say, "No; I am going to stand as I am until Parliament has done something or other connected with this class of legislation." We have gone so far as to include property where the limit of rent does not exceed the limit of the rent of houses. As I told the Committee, I think that is a mistake, but you have done it, and we propose to accept it. But it would be wrong in this case, because everywhere where these big concerns come along with schemes there will always be somebody who is holding out for a bigger price, or somebody who wants to object, and no considerable enterprise could go foward if this were on the Statute Book. The complications are much more far-reaching than my hon. Friends have in any way anticipated. I am sure it is a mistaken Amendment, and I should resist anything of the kind, and be doing it in the best interests of the very people they are trying to support.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I am sure there is no Member of the House who does not wish to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for desiring to act in the best interests of the community, and I am sure that he is equally willing to give credit to those who may not be able to see eye to eye to him, and with very great respect I am bound to say that I am unable to follow the argument he has just addressed to the House. He says that if we pass this Amendment and there is a proposal to extend a railway, a canal, or some other big business enterprise somebody with a small shop or a small office or a barber's shop is certain to stand in the way. But the barber's shop and the little office are already protected. These things will stand in the way as the Bill is, just as in Clause 5 the little cottage stands in the way. The form of legislation embodied in the Bill has unfortunately the effect which he has described, and I suggest to him that the addition of business pre-
    1952
    mises could not possibly operate in the injurious way that he describes. If he could give us an assurance that the matter would be considered, and, if possible, protection given in another place, I would have the utmost confidence that he would do his best to redeem any promise that he made. It has been pointed out that in a great many of our large towns there are business people who have given up the whole of their lives and their energy and their capital to build up their businesses, and they are under notice to quit in June. They will be wrecked before this Committee has reported, and that is a state of things for which provision ought to be made. I presume that the Committee will be able to report very soon, and I should hope that it will be possible to have some sort of legislation in the Autumn Session. If that be so, then all these drawbacks, the holding up of great schemes, could only operate, if at all, for a very short time. While I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for his earnestness and his sincerity, unless there is a definite promise of some sort I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division, because this is of great importance to so many business men in all parts of the country.
    Major BARNES: I think it is very difficult for any Member not to be impressed by the forceful and eloquent way in which the right hon. Gentleman has resisted this Amendment. I think he has rather overstated the case against it. I think it is not fair to press Clause 13 against him, because he has told us that he thinks that it will have an evil effect, but still it is going to remain in the Bill, and so we have to face that fact, and I think we may fairly take into account what will be the effect of passing the proposal which is embodied in the Amendment. If the situation is fairly looked at, although the result of Clause 13 and the Amendment will be to stereotype things to a certain extent, yet I cannot conceive that it would restrict developments of the important character that he has mentioned—railways, canals and matters of that kind, because what we are dealing with in this Bill is property which is in the ownership of the people who might be carrying out a scheme of development. Take the case of a shipyard that wants to develop. As far as the property that was in its way was in other hands, that would not affect

    1953
    the development at all, because if a shipyard has got to deal with the property belonging to somebody else, then it is up against the ordinary market conditions, and the owner will have just as much to do with that as the tenant, and the only effect of the Amendment in that case would be that the tenant might be able to bleed the owner. So far as the shipyard is concened, I do not think that the Amendment will have any effect at all. I think it is much more likely to operate in the case of large cities, where you have got great extensions proposed in the case of some drapery premises. There, I think, these might be restricted, but I am not sure that such restriction might be to the disadvantage or to the hurt of the much more important schemes that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. In Newcastle-on-Tyne there is a large drapery establishment which has evidently done very well during the War and is now contemplating very large developments which would require a very considerable amount of property from which people would be turned out who are engaged in business and subjected to serious inconvenience and hardship. That is the sort of development that would be stereotyped for the next two or three years, and I do not think that fact would be injurious to the general trade and I do not think it would hurt the
    right hon. Gentleman in connection with his housing scheme. Even admitting that there would be serious disadvantages for a limited period, I think he would make up in the long run, because it would press forward legislation which everybody has been demanding in the direction of giving protection to town tenants. If the situation at all approximated to that which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House, I think it would lead to expedition in legislation of that kind, so that out of the evil a great good would come. From all these points of view I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he feels that we are in for the penny, might venture, even against his will, to let us go in for a pound. We are taking great risks this Session of all sorts. There cannot be the slightest doubt that this is being pressed on him, not by a few Members of this House, but from a large section of the trading community. If he yields to that pressure it cannot increase his unpopularity in the country. He will agree that all through this Debate there have been desperate endeavours to rescue him from a position of unpopularity. I hope he is not going to be adamant on this point.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 95.

    Division No. 153.]

    AYES.

    [2.45 a.m.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hinds, John

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lawson, John J.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Myers, Thomas

    Lieut.-Colonel Hurst and Major Nall.

    Hallas, Eldred

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Henderson Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Baidwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dawes, Commander

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Edge, Captain William

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Barrand, A. R.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

    Forrest, Walter

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lorden, John William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Casey, T. W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Clough, Robert

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Neal, Arthur

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Parker, James

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Sugden, W. H.

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Younger, Sir George

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Taylor, J.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Reid, D. D.

    Vickers, Douglas

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Recovery of sums made irrecoverable, etc.)
    (2) If—

    (a) any person in any rent book or similar document makes an entry showing or purporting to show any tenant as being in arrear in respect of any sum which by virtue of any such Act is irrecoverable; or

    (b) where any such entry has before the passing of this Act been made by or on behalf of any landlord, the landlord, on being requested by or on behalf of the tenant so to do, refuses or neglects to cause the entry to be deleted,

    that person or landlord shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, unless he proves that he acted innocently and without intent to deceive.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, b), after the word "deleted" ["entry to be deleted"], to insert the words "within seven days."
    This is to give a man a reasonable and fair opportunity of paying.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Minor Amendments of Law [Rep. 11, 28, 22] 32 and 33 Vict., c. 41.)
    (1) Section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, shall have effect as though for the limits of value specified in that section there were substituted limits twenty-five per cent. in excess of the limits so specified, and that section and section four of the same Act shall have effect accordingly.
    (2) It shall be deemed to be a condition of the tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies that the tenant shall afford to the landlord access thereto and all reasonable facilities for executing therein any repairs which the landlord is entitled to execute.
    (3) Where the landlord of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies has served a notice to quit on a tenant, the acceptance of rent by the landlord for a period not exceeding three months from the expiration of the notice to quit shall not be deemed to prejudice any right to possession of such premises.
    Major GRAY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "shall" ["shall have effect"], to insert the words "except so far as it relates to the Metropolis."
    The Amendment deals with Section 3 of the Poor Rates Assessment Collection Act, 1869, and that Section is the one under which compounding takes place. The local authority and the landlord may reach an agreement whereby the landlord shall pay the rates, receiving 25 per cent. commission for the discharge of that duty. In the London area the rateable value of the property on which this compounding may take place is £20. It is £13 in Liverpool, £10 in Manchester and Birmingham, and £8 elsewhere. The House will notice, therefore, that the sum is very much higher in London than outside the Metropolis. The local authorities in London, I am advised, are very much disinclined to see this limit enlarged.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think the Amendment is a perfectly fair one, and I shall be prepared to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "twenty" ["twenty-five per cent."], and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty."
    I do this because in the Committee I desired to move a new Clause and the Minister for Health stated that he did not see how they could deal with a new Clause, but that I should move something in substitution. This is a matter which affects the tenant, but does not affect the landlord at all. You have put on the tenant that he has to bear the increase of rates, whatever that may be, and in this case if you only put on 25 per cent. the compounding amount will be exceeded and the result will be that there will be no compounding in the case of the tenant, and that will put

    1957
    his rates up some 15 per cent. Therefore, I feel that something should be done to bring it into line with what it will actually be. I believe if you work it out it comes that you want 35 per cent., so that the tenant does not have to bear the increase, and that compounding can take place as well. That will be a very great concession to the tenant and many of us are desirous that both the landlord and the tenant should be fairly treated, although, perhaps, one side has had more consideration under this Bill than the other.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: The purpose of the Amendment is to raise the compounding limit. It is clear that we ought not, by the operation of this Bill, to exclude, by the increase of rent which you allow, from the compounding benefits such properties as are already getting the benefit. At the same time I do think we ought, in respect of this Bill, to alter the general compounding basis. Therefore, we have to seek a figure which will secure that properties which now have the benefit of compounding shall continue to receive that benefit. I have gone through the figures and I find that the 25 per cent. we propose in the Bill amply covers the property which has the benefit of compounding. I can assure my hon. Friend that it leaves a considerable margin, and, therefore, there is no warrant for accepting the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Rules as to procedure.)
    (1) The Lord Chancellor may make such rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act, and may by those rules or directions provide for any proceedings for the purposes of this Act being conducted so far as desirable in private and for the remission of any fees.
    (2) A county court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any claim or other proceedings arising out of this Act or any of the provisions thereof, notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of claim or otherwise the case would not but for this provision be within the jurisdiction of a county court, and if a person takes proceedings under this Act in the High Court which he could have taken in the county court he shall only recover the same costs as he would have recovered in the county court.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert a new sub-section—
    "(3) Rules made under this section may provide for enabling a Court to revoke or
    1958
    vary any former decision of the Court if it appears just to do so in view of subsequent circumstances or of material facts having been concealed from or misrepresented to the Court, notwithstanding anything in this Act providing that the decision of a Court is to be final and conclusive."—[Dr. Addison.]

    CLAUSE 18.—(Application to Scotland, and Ireland.)
    (1) This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications—

    (a) "Mortgage" and "incumbrance" mean a heritable security constituted by absolute disposition qualified by back bond or letter; "mortgagor" and "mortgagee" mean respectively the debtor and the creditor in a heritable security; "covenant" means obligation; "mortgaged property" means the heritable subject or subjects included in a heritable security; "rateable value" means yearly value according to the valuation roll; "rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen" means yearly value according to the valuation roll for the year ending fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and fifteen; "assessed" means entered in the valuation roll; "land" means lands and heritages; "rates" means assessments as defined in the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911; "Lord Chancellor" means the Court of Session; "rules" means act of sederunt; "county court" means the sheriff; "sanitary authority" means the local authoritity under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; "mesne profits" means profits; references to levying distress shall be construed as references to doing diligence, a reference to section five of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland), Act, 1919, shall be substitutel for a reference to section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919, and a reference to section one of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be substituted for a reference to section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869:

    (b) Sub-section (5) of the section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall not apply:

    (c) Nothing in the law relating to tacit relocation shall prevent the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied from obtaining any increase of rent to which he would otherwise be entitled under the provisions of this Act:

    (d) Where dwelling-houses have been taken possession of by a Government department during the war under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for the purpose of housing workmen, this Act shall apply to such houses as if the workmen in occupation thereof at

    1959
    the passing of this Act were in occupation as tenants of the landlords of such houses.

    (2) This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:—

    (a) A reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Lord Chancellor:

    (b) A reference to section seventy-five of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall be substituted for the reference to section fourteen of the Housing Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909, and a reference to section fifteen of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838:

    (c) The expression "mortgage" includes a charge by registered disposition under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891:

    (d) The expression "rateable value" means the annual rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts: Provided that where part of a house let as a separate dwelling is not separately valued under those Acts, the Commissioner of Valuation and Boundary Surveyor may on the application of the landlord or tenant make such apportionment of the rateable value of the whole house as seems just, and his decision as to the amount to be apportioned to the part of the house shall be final and conclusive, and that amount shall be taken to be the rateable value of the part of the house for the purposes of this Act but not further or otherwise:

    (e) The medical officer of health of a dispensary district shall be substituted for the sanitary authority under section two of this Act and the issue of certificates and the payment of fees in connection with applications by tenants under the said section shall be subject to regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for Ireland:

    (f) This Act shall not apply to any dwelling-house provided by a local authority under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, or under any of those Acts.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1, a) leave out the word "means" ["'Lord Chancellor' means"] and insert instead thereof the words "and High Court' mean": After the word "Sheriff" ["means the Sheriff"] insert the word "Court."—[Mr. Munro.]
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move in Subsection (1, a) after the word "profits" ["mesne profits' means profits"], to insert the words
    "The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of
    1960
    Agriculture; the twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of June, the reference to the county agricultural committee shall be construed as a reference to the body of persons constituted with respect to any area by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under Sub-section (2) of Section eleven of The Corn Production Act, 1917."
    The first part of the Amendment is purely one of draftsmanship. With regard to the next part, the proposal is that the 28th day of May shall be substituted for the 25th day of June, which is the date proposed at which the operation of this Bill shall come to an end. The 28th of May is the term day in Scotland and in substituting that date I am only following the precedent set in the former Act of Parliament, when the termination of the English Act was on June 25th and of the Scottish Act on May 28th. That is obviously the more convenient date in Scotland, and in moving this Amendment I am accepting the suggestion made upstairs by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Major Henderson). The last part of the Amendment with regard to the Agricultural Committee is of a merely drafting character.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major HENDERSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, a), to insert a new paragraph—
    "(b) Nothing in paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of the Section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall permit any increase in rent in respect of any increase after the year ending Whitsunday, nineteen hundred and twenty, in the amount of the rates payable by the landlord other than rates for which he is responsible under The House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911."
    3.0 A.M.
    Clause 2 of this Bill allows the landlord to put all increases of rates for which he is responsible on the tenant. As the law stood in Scotland until the 1919 Act passed in Parliament, the landlord was responsible for certain rates and the tenant was responsible for other rates. When the 1919 Bill was in the Committee stage, the Secretary for Scotland introduced a Clause applying the Bill to Scotland, and under that Clause any increase in the landlord's rates after 1914 was placed on the tenant. That is to say, he really altered the law of rating in Scotland. Now I am not going to argue as to whether Scottish Members had an opportunity of discussing that or

    1961
    whether they had not, as there are things to be said on both sides, but the Secretary for Scotland in justifying his action on that occasion alluded to the Hunter Report of 1918. Now the Hunter Report which applied to the whole of the country said there should be equality of treatment in this respect as between one part of the country and another. We who argue this question, as opposed to the Secretary for Scotland, maintain that as house property of the same kind and class is dealt with in this Bill, there is equality of treatment in this respect as for similar property there is a limit of £90 in Scotland, and only a limit of £78 in the rest of the provinces. Therefore any increases allowed under Clause 2 are proportionately higher for the same class of property in Scotland than for the same class of property in England. Therefore, the Scottish landlord is obtaining a compensation equal to what the English landlord is getting. It has been argued with regard to this point that the year 1914 in Scotland was a bad year for property, but if anyone is acquainted with the Hunter Report published in 1915, which had to do with Scotland only and, had nothing to do with the other report, it is stated there that 1914 was not a bad year in Scotland for property at all. It was a normal year. Therefore to take 1914 as the date is not unfair to landlords in Scotland as a whole. There is one particular point about this increase which is extremely injurious and unfair, and that is that the assessing authorities in Scotland propose to take these increases in landlords' rates which are thrown on the tenants and count them as increases of rent. Therefore, in a subsequent year, that increase will be counted as rent and will be assessed accordingly. The assessment will be slightly higher and the result will be that the landlord's share of rates will be slightly higher and he will shift it again on to the tenant. That will result in a fresh but diminishing increase in assessment next year and so on until the Act ceases to operate. That is the snowball effect this Bill will have in Scotland if it is allowed to stand as it is at present. I am sure the Secretary for Scotland when he introduced this Clause did not understand this point.
    The Clause as it now stands will result in constant little increases being made in later years, a source of constant annoy-
    1962
    ance to the tenants, and of no advantage to the landlords or assessing authorities. When this point was raised in Committee it was defeated, and the Secretary for Scotland said that after having considered the thing carefully last year it would be impossible for him to go back on something so recently put in an Act, although it does not come into operation until six months after the War, and has not therefore come into operation yet. I can understand his attitude from that point of view, and I can understand certain other arguments brought forward, but I do not want him to think that I have in any way altered my opinion in this matter. I think it would be really better if the Amendment next in order on the Paper were put into operation and carried, but having been defeated on that in Committee I think it very unlikely that we would be able to carry it on report. The Secretary for Scotland promised to consider any Amendment brought forward as a compromise which would stop this question of increases in the landlord's share being liable to assessment. I have tried in this Amendment to effect a compromise between his point of view and the point of view of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I have tried to stabilise the increase and say that after 1920 any further increase shall be paid as formerly by the landlord while any increase between 1914 and 1920 shall be paid by the tenant. It is certainly very rough justice, but it is better than if we left the Bill to stand as it stands at present. In the hope of getting something out of the Secretary for Scotland, I move this Amendment.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It requires a great deal of courage to start to argue a question of Scottish rating at this hour, and I shall be purposely brief. We would not press this Amendment at all but for the great importance of this matter as we regard it north of the Tweed. I second the Amendment because I am quite content briefly and shortly to dispose of the Amendment on the Clause I have on the Paper. In Committee upstairs when our Amendment was rejected my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland indicated that the object of this proposal

    1963
    was first of all to give effect to an agreement which had been reached under the 1919 Act. In the second place, it put the Scottish landlords substantially in the position of English landlords, and he disagrees, as I understand, with our view that this amounted to a fundamental change in the Scottish system of rating. There cannot be the least doubt that if there had been a small increase in rental and a small rise in rates this question would be of minor importance, but I can make it plain that this means a very serious burden to Scottish tenants, especially when we keep in mind that in Scotland a different system of rating obtains from that which we find in England. In Scotland we divide the rate in varying proportions between owners on the one hand and occupiers on the other. That is the system which has been followed for a considerable number of years now. In some of the leading Scottish burghs between 1914 and 1915, the rating year, and 1919 and 1920, the increase in owners' rates in the case of Aberdeen has been, for example, 1s. 6d. in the pound. In the case of Clydebank the increase is practically 2s. in the pound on owner's rates in the same period. In other centres in Scotland it ranges from 1s. 6d. in the pound to 1s. 10d. in the pound, and figures of that kind. It is rather an impressive fact that the largest increases in owners' rates are found in the West of Scotland, where there is more or less violent opposition to this measure. We are exposing Scottish tenants to an endless liability, and one that is not in keeping with the rating system of the country, and it is going to make them liable for limits of rental that it is impossible for them to foresee. I recognise that there may be certain cases for putting Scottish landlords in the position of English landlords, but we submitted in the Committee that the way to do that was not the way which has been adopted in this Bill. I understand that at one time the question of differential percentage was considered, but that it was discarded as impracticable, and that this present method was adopted. The method proposed at all events limits the mischief, and if it were adopted probably we should be inclined to accept that for the time being, although I am afraid that that would not meet the Opposition,
    1964
    so far as this side is concerned. I do trust that when my right hon. Friend replies he will say something on a proposal which undoubtedly he himself made in Committee. I remember distinctly he said that it might be possible "to find some method of stereotyping these increases." Many of us have applied our Scottish powers of analysis and criticism to this question, and we have been utterly unable to devise any stereotyping method of this kind. I hope, in seconding the Amendment—for the future of which I entertain no optimistic hopes—that we shall get some satisfaction in what many of us feel is not only an unjust policy to the tenant, but is a fundamental change in our Scottish system of rates.
    Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend has raised what I recognise to be an important question of principle and policy, and a very intricate question. Accordingly, I hesitated to intervene until I heard the two speeches delivered by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment. The justification for the legislation of last year, to which reference has been made, is exceedingly simple. In England all rates are levied upon the occupier. In Scotland, on the other hand, a part of the rates is levied upon the landlord and a part upon the occupier. The argument which prevailed with me in 1919 was this, that if the landlord was precluded by the Act of 1919 from raising the rent, then that rent should not be further reduced in his hands by a rise in the rates. If that rise took place in England it would have fallen upon the occupier. Accordingly, if the restricted rent paid to the landlord in Scotland was reduced by an increase in the rates, that would operate more hardly against him than against the landlord in England. Therefore, from the point of view of parity, it seems to me that the 1919 proposals were entirely probable. However, in deference to the view expressed with force and eloquence upstairs I did state that before the Report stage of the Bill I would consider whether it was possible to arrive at any compromise. My hon. and gallant Friend behind me has put down this Amendment which is the nature of a compromise. It is a compromise which limits the increase of rents to the amount of any increase which has already taken place, and this really would mean what was said upstairs, stereotyping the increase of rates at the

    1965
    present amount. I have felt a considerable amount of difficulty with regard to this particular Amendment, but on the whole, and as the hour is late, I propose to accept it, and thereby disappoint the pessimistic expectation of my hon. Friend opposite, Mr. Graham.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I cannot agree with any of the speeches I have heard. I am surprised at the position of my hon. Friend, Mr. Munro. It has been said that the Bill changes the system of rating in Scotland. It does nothing of the sort. The rents of the houses are fixed in Scotland as anywhere else. If there had been no restriction on those rents they would have gone up. The whole argument falls to the ground. It does not interfere with the rating system in the least degree.
    Mr. J. TAYLOR: I cannot agree with the hon. baronet who has just spoken. His argument is not correct. The incidence of taxation in Scotland, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, is entirely different from that of England. We have occupiers' rates borne by the occupier alone, and then we have certain rates borne by occupiers and owners. Reference has been made to the fact that rates in my constitutency have been increased by 2s. in the pound. That is in excess of some of the others, but that is accounted for by the fact that under new legislation the water rate in my constituency is borne part by the owners and part by the occupiers, instead of by the occupiers alone, as in some other parts of Scotland. I am glad that the Secretary for Scotland has seen fit to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tradeston, although I would rather he had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh. It is only right that it should be pointed out in this House that there is great unrest on the West Coast of Scotland over the whole of the question of this increase of rent. In the borough of Clydebank 2,000 people have signed a Covenant, following the bad example set them in some other places, that they will not pay any rent whatever if this Rent Restriction Act is passed and any increase in rent is allowed under it. If in addition to any increase of rates, we are going to have any of the landlords' rates hitherto borne by him transferred to the
    1966
    shoulders of the tenant, then I think I can say that that protest will be very justifiable. However, as the hon. Member for Tradeston and the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh have accepted the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland, I have nothing more to say.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (d).
    This Amendment is consequential to the one I moved on Clause 12, which relates to the same class of property.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2, b) to leave out the words "A reference to Section 75 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall be substituted for the reference to Section 14 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, and."
    At the end of Sub-section (2, b), add the words "and a reference to the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland, shall be substituted for the reference to the county agricultural committee."—[Mr. D. Wilson.]

    CLAUSE 19.—(Short title, duration, and repeal.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920.
    (2) This Act shall continue in force for a period of three years from the passing thereof:
    Provided that the expiration of this Act shall not render recoverable by a landlord any rent, interest or other sum which during the continuance thereof was irrecoverable, or affect the right of a tenant to recover any sum which during the continuance thereof was under this Act recoverable by him.
    (3) The enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule:
    Provided that, without prejudice to the operation of Section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, nothing in this repeal shall render recoverable any sums which at the time of the passing of this Act were irrecoverable, or affect the validity of any order of a Court, or any rules or directions made or given under any enactment repealed by this Act, all of which orders, rules, and directions if in force at the date of the passing of this Act shall have effect as if they were made or given under this Act, and any proceedings pending in any Court at the date of the passing of this Act, under any enactment repealed by this Act, shall be

    1967
    deemed to have been commenced under this Act.
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move in in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "for a period of three years from the passing thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words: "until the 24th day of June, 1923."
    This is in order to give a definite date for the termination of the Bill, in place of the provision that the Bill shall run for three years from the date of the passing thereof.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), after the word "the" ["in the Schedule"] insert the word "second."—[Dr. Addison.]

  NEW SCHEDULE.
  First Schedule.
  Form of Notice by Landlord.
  Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920.
  Date
  To
  Address of premises to which this notice refers
  Take notice that I intend to increase the rent of l. s. d. per at present payable by you as tenant of the above-named premises by the amount of 1. s. d. per
  The increase is made up as follows:—

  (a) l. s. d. under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act, being six [eight] per cent. On l. s. d. expended by me since [insert date] on improvements and structural alterations, and consisting of *

  (b) l. s. d. under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section Two of the Act, on account of an increase in the rates payable by me from l. s. d. per to l. s. d. per in respect of the premises.

  (c) l. s. d. under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act, being per cent. on the net rent of the premises. The net rent is l. s. d. The standard rent is l. s. d.

  (d) l. s. d. under paragraph (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section two of the Act, in respect of repairs, for which I am wholly [partly] responsible being per cent. on the net rent of the premises. The net rent is l. s. d. The standard rent is l. s. d.

  *Here state improvements and alterations effected.
  The increase under head (b) will date from, being one clear week from the date of this notice, and the remaining in-
  1968
  creases from, being four clear weeks from the date of this notice.
  †At any time or times, not being less than three months after the day of 19, you are entitled to apply to the County Court for an order suspending the increases under heads (c) and (d) above if you consider that the premises are not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation or otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair. You will be required to satisfy the County Court, by a report of the sanitary authority or otherwise, that your application is well founded, and for this purpose you are entitled to apply to the sanitary authority for a certificate. A fee of one shilling is chargeable on ally application for a certificate, but if the certificate is granted you can deduct this sum from your rent. The address of the sanitary authority is
  Signed
  Address
  †This paragraph need not be included if there is no increase under head (d).—[Dr. Addison.]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I only desire to say one word, and that is to express my regret that, in regard to a measure so important and so wide-reaching as this, the House should have been asked to pass it at such an hour in the morning. I make that remark because I desire to say further that the fault does not lie with the House, nor with any section of the House—for, having sat through this Debate, I am able to say from observation that from beginning to end there has been no element of obstruction in it—and for the fact that we are asked to pass this very important measure at this time in the morning the blame lies with the Government, and with Government alone.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Lords Message [16th June] communicating the Resolution "That it is desirable that the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] be referred to the same Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament as proposed in the case of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Criminal Law Amendment (No.

  1969
  2) Bill [Lords]" be now considered.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  BUSINESS PREMISES RENTS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the position of leaseholders and tenants of business premises and to advise whether any and, if so, what alterations in the law are required to remove obstacles to the development of their businesses arising out of conditions affecting tenure, undue restrictions on improvements, and unreasonable increases in rents.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Committee nominated of Major Barnes, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Mr. Burn, Major Vivian Henderson, Mr. Hinds, Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, Mr. G. W. H Jones, Mr. MacVeagh, Major Watts Morgan, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Allen Parkinson, Sir Philip Pilditch, Mr. Rodger, Colonel Stephenson, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the present charges made to the public for the use of the telephone service and to report in what respects these charges require revision in order to place the service on a remunerative basis.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
  Committee nominated of Mr. Archdale, Captain Sir Hamilton Benn, Mr. Briant, Sir Harry Brittain, Mr. Carr, Sir Edward Coates, Mr. Purchase, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. Tyson Wilson.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

  LEGITIMACY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half Past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Four o'clock a.m.