INCREASE OF RENT (RESTRICTIONS). (Hansard, 12 April 1921)

§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON

I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920."

4.0 P.M.

I am convinced that this Bill is absolutely essential. There is a large volume of unemployment at present and wages are falling everywhere, and it is to me unthinkable that the Government should say that some relief is not to be given. In the Rent Restriction Act of 1920, provision was made to give certain increases of rent to landlords and to give some protection to tenants. Most of the provisions have been put into operation, but the 10 per cent, increase does not come into force until July of this year. In this Bill we are asking that the 10 per cent, increase shall be deferred for another 12 months so as to enable people to find out where they are, before any further increase in the cost of living is put upon them. People must have shelter and must have food, and provision must be made for children at least to exist until there is an improvement in the conditions we are now labouring under. I plead with hon. Members to think of these matters. How is it possible at all for men who have been unemployed for 939 months and have a meagre pittance on which to exist, men with large families, perhaps working two days a week, to give in any shape or form an increase to landlords in the shape of rent? It cannot be done. I want to urge that at least time ought to be given so that needy people may have some opportunity of finding out where they stand. Let us if we can in every way so arrange that the cost of living shall be commensurate with the earnings of the people. That, I believe, is an idea that is prevalent amongst my colleagues who occupy these Benches. I want briefly to call attention to another matter. I refer to Section 13, which deals with the increase of rent and the protection of people who occupy business premises. In this case a great hardship is going to be entailed upon well deserving people, men and women who have struggled hard for many years to build up a business, are hit, and the Prime Minister himself has said that there is no intention on the part of the Government to introduce legislation on this matter. I think it was on 20th February when the Prime Minister announced that the decision of the Government was not to introduce any fresh legislation and to allow the existing legislation to expire. If that takes place they will be-allowing honest men who have done their best to build up a business which gives them a competency and the right to live to be' ruined. I have here a letter from a gentleman in business in Manchester. He established a business in the premises which he now occupies 50 years ago. Because someone who says he owns the premises wants to extend his business, this man's business is to be exterminated altogether. It is not simply a case of telling a man to get out and go into other premises. The supply does not meet the demand. I therefore urge that some redress should be given to these people so that their life's work may be saved to them. I am confirmed in what I am saying by the findings of a Select Committee set up upon this very question. Paragraph 4 of that Report says: In a substantial number of cases tenants have been compelled to submit to what appears to be an unconscionable increase in rent in order to retain possession of their premises, and in a number of cases they have been dispossessed of business premises without being given any option to retain them. 940 If that be the finding of a Committee set up by this House, there is necessity for the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce.