CLAUSE 5.—(Restriction on right to possession).

HC Deb 21 June 1920 vol 130 cc1850-907

(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—

1. (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
2. (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
3. (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
4. (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
5. (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—

1. (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
2. (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
3. (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 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 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".

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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- 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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.