HC Deb 21 June 1920 vol 130 cc1909-12

(1) A person shall not as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies require the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any consideration, in addition to the rent, and where any such payment or consideration has been made or given in respect of any such dwelling-house after the twenty-fifth day of March Nineteen hundred and twenty, the amount or value thereof shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was made or given.

(2) A person requiring any payment or the giving of any consideration in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the Court by which he is convicted may order the amount paid or the value of the consideration to be repaid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.

(3) This section shall not apply to the grant, renewal or continuance for a term of fourteen years or upwards of any tenancy.

Dr. ADDISON

I beg to move in Subsection (1) after the word "any"["any consideration"] to insert the word "pecuniary."

12 M.

Without this word there are all kinds of qualifications which must be brought into account. It would clearly 12M. mean the payment of some sum or other and that is why we propose it.

Major GRAY

Will this proposal deal with the case of proposing to grant a tenancy on consideration that the new tenant purchases the furniture at an unreasonable price. The newspapers at the present time are full of advertisements of that kind. I suggest that this is tantamount to asking for a premium. It is equivalent to paying key money and I want to know whether the pecuniary consideration would cover a case of that kind. I am informed that it has become a gross scandal and this demand for the purchase of inferior furniture at an extortionate price is preventing many people from obtaining possession and that it is increasing the housing difficulty in large urban centres to a very great extent. Will these words cover a case of that sort? If not does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps before this Bill passes to deal with an evil of that character?

Dr. ADDISON

These words would apply to such cases, and they would be covered by the words "pecuniary consideration."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1) after the word "dwelling-house" ["any such dwelling-house"] insert the words "under an agreement made."—[Dr. Addison.]

Dr. ADDISON

I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words Provided that, where any agreement has been made since the said date but before the passing of this Act for the tenancy of a house to which this Act applies, but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, and the agreement includes provision for the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration in addition to the rent, that agreement shall, without prejudice to the operation of this section, be voidable at the option of either party thereto. This provision is required where various agreements have been made without full knowledge of the provisions of this measure since the 25th of March, in respect of premises now drawn under the provisions of this Bill and where it is clear that they should be allowed to have those agreements varied or altered. Obviously it is only fair that such a provision should be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LORDEN

I beg to move, in Subsection (3) to leave out the word" fourteen" and to insert the word "seven."

Fourteen was in the Bill in Committee but it was altered to seven in a very halfhearted way. It seems a very unreasonable thing in a temporary measure to interfere with bona fide lettings for seven years. There are a great many leases which are renewable by fine only. I have myself a fine to pay in 1920, and under this Clause I shall have the privilege of not paying it, and I am objecting because I do not consider it is reasonable or just.

Sir W. DAVISON

I beg to second this Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON

The period under the previous Act was 21 years, and it was reduced to 14 years, and I think that period is perfectly fair. I think seven years is rather too short a period, and I think fourteen is a happy compromise between seven and 21 years.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel NEWMAN

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert a new Sub-section— (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to abona fide assignment of a lease whether granted for fourteen years or less. Take, for illustration, the case of a man who buys the end of a long lease for fifteen years and gives a premium to get it. At the end of five years, supposing he wants to sell it again and he is offered a premium, under the present Bill he would be precluded from doing that. In other words, he will have given a good sum of money two years ago, and this time some one else is willing to give him money for a further two years and he is unable to do it. Surely that is unfair. Where money has passed it ought to be allowed to pass again. If you put in these words, that hard case will be met.

Major NALL

I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON

I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not really ascertained what will be the effect of his own Amendment. We have now prohibited the owner, as a condition of granting a tenancy, from charging premiums and so on. The effect of the Amendment would be that, if a tenant is the holder of a lease he may assign the unexpired portion of it to anyone else for any sum he can exact. We should enable the tenant to profiteer in his tenancy, while we prevent the landlord from profiteering in his property. It would make things more unfair than they are at present. We are limiting what the owner of property can do. This would mean that the tenant who is the owner of a lease can profiteer at the expense of his neighbour or of his landlord.

Sir G.YOUNGER

Would it not also prevent him getting back a portion of the money which he has paid for the lease?

Dr. ADDISON

The point is that he will not get any premium on the assignment.

Sir G.YOUNGER

As a matter of fact if he paid £5,000 for a twenty-one years' lease and has only exhausted 7 years, he will be able to get back a portion of the £5,000.

Amendment negatived.