HC Deb 24 July 1924 vol 176 cc1566-89
Mr. A. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after the word "that," to insert the words: "subject to the following conditions."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out paragraph (b).

I merely move this for the purpose of elucidating the meaning of the paragraph In Committee the question was raised of the powers of the local authorities in regard to "special condition" houses, on the question of subletting and lodging. I raised questions about it myself, and the Minister, after considerable discussion, rose in his place and said that he would be prepared, on the Report stage, to bring in an Amendment which would deal with the question. I gather that he is advised legally that the Clause as it now stands would not prevent the letting of lodgings in the way in which lodgings are ordinarily let, that is to say, a furnished room, with assistance from the housewife to look after the lodger, but it would prevent the sub-letting of a part of the house, two or three rooms, at a considerable increase of rent. Nobody wants that, but I assume that the Minister will kindly state in the House here that the Clause will not prevent what is ordinarily known as taking in a single lodger. That, I think, would have the benefit of increasing housing accommodation in the country, and should he prepared to let the Clause go on those lines.

Mr. WHEATLEY

Clause 3, Sub-section (1, b), of the Bill provides, in effect, that a tenant is not to sub-let his house or any; part of it except with the consent, in writing, of the local authority, etc. This does not prevent the letting of lodgings in the way in which lodgings are usually let in a working-class dwelling. In point of law it is true there is rather a line distinction in what is merely a letting of lodgings, and what is a sub-letting, but it is safe to say, as a general rule, that if the letting of part of the house includes not merely a bare room, but also the use of furniture, or attendance, or one or more meals, as is usually the case where a single man is taken in as a lodger in a worker's house, this is not sub-letting and no consent would be, necessary. On the other hand, if part of the house was let to one or more persons who did for themselves and had an exclusive right to that part., and a key of the front door, this would be a sub-letting and the consent would be necessary. The Bill as it stands, I am advised, preserves this distinction—such as it is—and it is sub- mitted that it is better to leave it at that. It would be exceedingly difficult to insert any Amendment which would not have the effect of enabling a tenant to farm out the greater part of his house to sub-tenants. The position is that the Bill as it stands does not prevent the letting of lodgings in the ordinary sense, but that any local authority can, if it thinks lit, impose further conditions prohibiting lodgers absolutely. I hope this statement of the position will be accepted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am quite willing to accept the statement made by the Minister, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel GRETTON

I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert the words which consent shall not be given where the tenant in consideration of assigning, subletting, or otherwise parting with the possession of the house or any part thereof receives any premium, rent, or other benefit (other than rent for a part of the house proportionate to the rent paid by the tenant). This, it seems to me, is one of the conditions which ought to be observed when o consent is given by the local authority to sublet. The matter threatens to be a very great scandal. Everyone here realises that houses which are really subsidised by the State, and the local authority, ought not to be sublet at such rents as are made possible by the subsidy ask the House to agree that the consent of the local authority shall not be given where the tenant, in consideration of the assigning, sub-letting, otherwise parting with the possession of the house or any part of it, receives any premium, rent or other benefit which he should not receive. I am quite sure no one desires that these houses, subject to special conditions, as they are, or will be, should be made a medium for profiteering. Put briefly, that is the object of the Amendment which I put for the approval of the House.

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL

I beg to second the Amendment. A sub-tenant ought to have a similar benefit to the first, whatever that may be.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I feel sure that the House will give a general approval to the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Amend- ment, but I think his words are hardly in a form which would enable his intention to be carried into effect. The suggestion we have to snake is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, and we would propose, in its place, the words That in giving or withholding such consent regard shall be had to any payment or other consideration received, or to be received, by the tenant. That would meet the consideration of the local authority that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind without tying them down to the rooms to be sublet, or which portion of the house, or the rent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I quite realise that what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in regard to increased rent, that it would be a difficult matter; but what my hon. and gallant Friend desires now, and I am quite sure the whole House desires, is to prevent anything in the nature of the payment of a premium or key money to be charged in connection with a subsidised house. That ought to be made quite clear. Every tenant who gets one of these houses is a privileged person. He receives an allowance from the State, and the house at a rent that is not the normal and economic value of the house. To allow such a privileged person, receiving such an allowance, to go and let a portion of the house. One or two rooms, say, when he might very well demand a rent disproportionate; because he is getting his house at a lower rate to be allowed to receive a premium of £5 or £10 for subletting would be completely wrong. I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary wants to help my hon. and gallant Friend but I do not think this new Clause goes far enough, and I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider the matter with a view to making it quite clear that the acceptance of any premium and the question of the rent should be left to the local authority to take into consideration. The four words, I think, could easily be, worked out between the two Amendments.

Mr. G. SPENCER

As read out the words do not seem to me to be sufficiently clear. I am quite certain of this that whilst the House wants, so far as possible, to get the house for one tenant only, we want, if there is to be sub-letting, to have it under such conditions as will be fair to the parties, and not to allow those who have the house to impose conditions where the sub-tenant will have three quarters of the rent to pay and receive in return a quarter of the convenience. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraws his Amendment he ought to have some definite assurance that words shall be inserted in the Bill which will make it impossible to profiteer in the way suggested.

Mr. MASTERMAN

For once in a while I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton)—that is, with the spirit, though not the words, of the Amendment. It is quite obvious you cannot put in, in regard to a portion of the house let, the proportion of the rent to be paid in respect to the room or rooms, because some rooms are of more value than others. I think the whole House will agree that the tenants who receive these subsidised houses ought not to make a profit out of letting a part of them which might cover a good deal of the rent. There should be nothing in the nature of key-money or a premium, which I myself, in times gone by, have had to pay in order to get into a miserable block. We do not ask for a form of words. If the hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit of the Debate, so far as it has been a Debate, and will insert some words in another place which will meet the case, we shall be entirely content.

Mr. BLACK

Might I call attention to a point which seems to have been overlooked, and that is the rates. The tenant who receives the house has to pay rates to the local authority in addition to the rent, and those who by sub-letting get possession of the rooms ought to pay a proportion of the rates.

Mr. GREENWOOD

If the consent of the local authority is to be obtained before there is sub-letting on the part of the tenant, clearly it would be within the power of that authority to insist upon the terms of the sub-letting. I can assure the House that the question of the drafting of alternative words has occupied quite a long time—words that will carry out the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and what everybody desires; words, I think, that should make it an obligation on the part of the local authority to take into account possible profiteering on behalf of the tenant. I hope the House will give it is these words that I suggest, and if it is found they are not sufficient, an alteration could be made in another place.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The words of the Minister, which are intended to carry out the intention, are That in giving or withholding such consent regard shall be had to any payment or other consideration received or to be received by the tenant. 5.0 P.M.

What the House wants to arrive at is to see that no payment in any form of a premium shall be received at all in regard to these subsidised houses. The words in the proposed Amendment presuppose the possibility of a premium or key money. They say that the local authority, while there is to be sub-letting, shall have regard to the rent to be received, and also to any payment which is made by the sub-tenant—which is exactly what we do not want! We want it to be clear in the Act—this question of key money and premiums has been debated many a time before—now that we have the opportunity in the case of 2,500,000 houses, that it shall be laid down definitely in regard to these houses subsidised by the State, that there shall not be this iniquity that has gone on in times past. The proportion of rent and rates, and so forth, is a matter for the local authority to consider. They might quite well consider whether the rate paid for one or two rooms is fair or not, but I want it to be laid down that there shall be no premium paid at all with regard to these sub-lettings. Therefore, I thick it very much better, especially as the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) entirely agrees with me in this matter, that the Minister should consent to reconsider this matter when it goes before another place, and then the Amendment can come down here for consideration. I hope, therefore, the Minister will say that he is prepared to insert an Amendment giving power to the local authority to consider a proper rate, but that there should be no premium whatever.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I would like to reiterate the desire that another form of words may be considered in another place. These words really do not meet the essen- tial point as to key money and premium, and they do not afford protection against local authorities who may make illicit arrangements with tenants—it is not unknown in some of the smaller local authorities—by which the public interest might be injured. I do not think my right hon. Friend considers it would be difficult to find a form of words which represents the desire of the whole House.

Sir K. WOOD

I should like to support the appeal, and I do so with some confidence, because I know, when my two right hon. Friends generally agree on a matter, the Minister of Health shows considerable accession to reasonability, and I think there is now some prospect that he will tell us he will reconsider this matter, and put it right in another place.

Colonel GRETTON

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the form of words proposed by the Minister is quite unacceptable, and does not deal with the case. The words are vague, and give no definite direction as to what is to be done. I am not greatly in love with the particular form of words standing on the Paper, but it is a little unfortunate that the Government should not have had some consultation at an earlier stage with regard to another form of words that would be acceptable to them. The House is now in a dilemma in this respect. Clearly we cannot draft an Amendment of this kind on the Floor of the House, and, as the general sense of the House is strongly in favour of an Amendment, if the Minister will deal with it in another place, it entirely meets my ease, as I have a great respect for the other place. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert the words that in giving or withholding such consent regard shall he had to any payment or other consideration received or to be received by the tenant. I am in the hands of the House in this matter, but I might suggest it would be wise to put in something now even if it did not go quite so far as the House intended. In that case, I move this on the understanding that in another place it is suitably amended in the sense desired by the House.

Mr. FALCONER

I would very much prefer not to have these words in, because I think, for the purpose expressed in ail quarters of the House, it is better to have a Bill without these words, and leave entirely to the local authorities the power to say whether or not there shall be any consideration of that kind, and if so how much. If the words proposed by the Minister go into the Bill, it conveys to my mind a recognition of the payment of key money, and that it was a proper thing for the local authorities to consider. I suggest, with all respect, that the Bill should be left without the words suggested, so that if, unfortunately, suitable words are not found, at any rate we shall leave the discretion of local authorities unfettered.

Mr. GREENWOOD

In view of the opinion of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I do want it made perfectly clear that the Government will make an effort to find suitable words to carry out the wish of the House.

Mr. WHEATLEY

indicated assent.

Sir R. KAY

Many of these arrangements, we know, are made in secret, and what has occurred to me is this: What will happen if the local authority, having given their consent, discover at a later date that key money or premium money has been paid? Could the Minister see that provision is made whereby the local authority may have some power to re-establish their authority, and get back possession of the house?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, after the word "authority," to insert the words "desire to."

This is an Amendment to make the Clause read. There are conditions later on in the paragraph which make it necessary to pat in these words, in order that the latter part of the paragraph shall read with the early part.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, lines 23 and 24, leave out the word "completed," and insert instead thereof the word "effected."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out from the word "the" to end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words equivalent of the contribution already paid in respect of any house sold before the expiration of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable, together with the contribution for the term stipulated, shall be as nearly as possible the equivalent of the contribution which would have been payable for twenty years if the house had not been subject to special conditions. This Amendment is really an alternative to the following one, which is to be proposed by the Minister. I have put down my Amendment, because it does not seem to me that the words suggested by the Minister meet the particular point that I raised in Committee on the Bill when we were dealing with this Clause. The object of the particular paragraph in this Clause is to permit of the sale of houses, subject to special conditions, to the occupiers of the houses for their own occupation. That is, of course, a very laudable object, but it is only likely to be carried out if we take care that you shall not provide circumstances in which the owner of the house will be tempted to sell the house to somebody else, and thereby make a profit. While the Minister's words are calculated to provide that the local authority, or the purchaser of the house, should be no worse off than if he purchased the house under the conditions proposed by the Act of last year, it did not seem to me it met the point I wanted to make, namely, that they should be no better off, because if the local authority is going to get some advantage in the sale of a house which it can pass on to the purchaser, that purchaser would be buying this house at a lower price than he could buy a house built under the Act of last year. The result would be that he could sell the house again, and put the difference in his own pocket. I desire that that should not be permissible or possible under this Bill, because if it were, you would have a traffic in these houses which would quite contravene the purpose of the Minister's Amendment, and I do not think would be at all a desirable thing.

All that the Minister's Amendment, provides is that the contribution is not in any case to be reduced below £6 for 20 years, but I have in mind the case where the house had already been the subject of the contribution at the higher rate, for several years—it might be three or four—and then was sold. In that case, the local authority would, of course, have received, not £6, but £9 in respect of the house, and I desire that that should he taken into account in reducing the contribution for the remainder of the 20 years, and that the contribution, therefore, should not be reduced merely to £6, but to something less than £6, in order to take away the advantage the authority had got, by reason of having received the larger subsidy during the period it let the house. I daresay the Minister will say that the local authority had been letting the house subject to the special conditions, but I want to be quite certain that the conditions under which the house has been let are sufficiently onerous to have counterbalanced the extra subsidy received from the Exchequer. There will be a considerable temptation to the local authority to sell these houses. If they can sell one of these houses, they are going to relieve themselves of the liability to find £4 10s. per year for the remainder of the 40 years, and also relieve themselves from any further liability which might fall upon them in respect of the house because if the costs of management or of maintenance of the house go up, it is true the Minister provides that the rent is to go up proportionately. But, I think he must himself be aware, there will be very small chance for the local authority to get an increased rent, and therefore, if there were a loss, it would probably fall upon the rates, and the local authority, in fact, would get rid of all the trouble and difficulty, which local authorities do continually experience in managing houses, the occupants of which are local electors, who can, and do, put pressure upon their local representatives upon the council.

So I say they have a very great temptation to get rid of these houses, and it is conceivable, even supposing my Amendment were carried, even supposing the contribution were so reduced as to put the local authority in just the same position as regards these houses as it would be under the Act of last year, it might pay them actually to take a lower price for these houses, in order to get rid of the liability which otherwise would fall upon them. I want to encourage owner-occupiership all I can, but I do not want to encourage a continual transference of these houses from one private owner to another, each one making a profit, and that profit being a profit which has been earned at the expense of the general taxpayer. I think it is very necessary to protect his interests, and, for that reason, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. WHEATLEY

I have considered this Amendment very carefully this forenoon, and I do not think there is much in substance between the object which my right hon. Friend has in view and my own. I am advised that, if I accept this Amendment, the local authority might he able to show that it was worse treated than if the houses were houses that were not subject to special conditions. It is rather difficult to explain how that possibility comes about, but on calculation it is found that it might very well be discovered that the amount they had in hand out of the £9 they had been receiving in subsidy would not meet the difference between that and the sum of £6 a year for the unexpired period from the date of the sale, and therefore some small sum is necessary to represent that difference. Therefore, in the interest of the locality, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I am afraid the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has just given is not very clear.

Mr. VIVIAN

Your Amendment is not very clear.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give me this assurance. Seeing that his proposal does not impose any duty to reduce the contribution, will he exercise his powers so as to make the reduction until he is satisfied that the local authority is no better off by selling the house than it would be if the house was sold under the Act of last year.

Mr. WHEATLEY

I have no difficulty at all in giving that assurance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

With that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 35, leave out from the word "reduced" to the end of line 37, and insert instead thereof the words by more than three pounds or, in the case of a house in an agricultural parish, by more than six pounds ten shillings, and the duration thereof shall not be curtailed by more than twenty years.

In page 5, line 29, after the word "that," insert the words "subject to the following conditions."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 5, lines 29 and 30, leave out the words "either be occupied by the owners or," and insert instead thereof the word "be."

The series of Amendments on the Paper standing in the name of the Minister of Health are all Amendments to the special conditions applicable to houses provided by public utility societies and private enterprise. In Committee we accepted an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Dr. Somerville Hastings) and it has been found necessary, in order to carry out the spirit of that Amendment, to make the alterations suggested by this series of Amendments. It will be found when they have been put into the Bill that the provisions of the paragraph inserted in the second part of Clause 1 will be in harmony with the paragraph in the first part of Clause 3

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 30, leave out the words "by the owners," and insert instead thereof the words "for occupation."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Amendment proposed: in page 5, line 40, after the word "houses," to insert the words and that in giving or withholding such consent regard shall be had to any payment or other consideration received or to be received by the tenant."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

We seem now to be getting back to the same point. This Amendment pre-supposes that some payment may be received by the tenant. I suggest that the Government should not press this Amendment, and if any words are necessary on this point, the matter should be dealt with in another place.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 40, leave out from the word "houses" to the end of line 41.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. GREENWOOD

I bog to move, in page 5, line 41, at the end, to insert the words (c) that no premium, fine, or other payment of any kind whatsoever, direct or indirect, other than rent, shall be taken in respect of the letting of any house. The purpose is to add another condition with regard to houses provided by public utility companies, and it is a condition which does not apply to houses provided by the local authority. The primary purpose of this Amendment is to prevent owners of houses complying with the regulations with regard to the lower rent, but obtaining the equivalent of higher rents by some form of premium or fine.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN

I see that some words have been added which are not on the Amendment Paper. It is a good thing the Government thought of adding those words "other than rent," otherwise the Amendment would have precluded any payment.

Mr. VIVIAN

This is an Amendment dealing with the taking of a premium, fine or payment of any kind whatsoever, and that applies to public utility societies. Those societies are based on the principles that practically every tenant shall make some other payment besides rent, and consequently they are continually making other payments besides the rent.

Colonel GRETTON

This is a good illustration of the difficulty we get into when Amendments are proposed without consultation with those hon. Members who are conversant with the particular branch of the subject with which the Amendment is intended to deal. The case before the House is one dealing with sub-letting. I do not think that that object will be carried out by this Amendment unless some words are included to cover contribution to sinking fund, which would obviously be a proper contribution, whether it be actually in the form of rent or in the form of a charge made by the society to the original tenant. We are certainly in some doubt on the matter, and I do not think we are quite justified in entrusting this case without a moment's notice to the Law Officers of the Crown. A great many people will be affected, and no one wants to come to a rapid and hasty decision without due consideration of the consequences of these words if they are inserted. I shall not, however, oppose the insertion of these words if the Government will, as in the case of a previous Amendment, undertake to consider the whole matter very carefully and, if necessary, insert Amendments in another place. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us such an undertaking.

Mr. G. SPENCER

The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) himself moved an Amendment very closely resembling the present one, and had the Government accepted the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment I feel certain that it would have gone a long way to meet the desire of the House. I am rather surprised at what has been said by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian), because this Clause has to do with the letting of the house. It has nothing to do with the purchase of the house, either by instalments or in any other way.

Mr. VIVIAN

Many public utility societies are not based on the selling of houses at all. It is a joint ownership by the whole of the tenants, or it may be by a guild, and the occupiers have no intention of purchasing the houses at all. They say, "These houses are ours," but no one will ever be able to say, "This house is mine." It is a condition of the tenancy that there should be some payment, weekly, monthly or yearly, towards the capital or for other purposes, but under this provision they would not be allowed to take payments of any kind whatsoever.

Mr. SPENCER

It does not say so. It is only in respect of letting. The extra payment that is made is not in respect of letting, but in respect of some other conditions of the company or guild.

Mr. VIVIAN

In a number of these cases the payments towards capital form part of the tenancy agreement. That may be desirable or undesirable, but they form part of the tenancy agreement, and they go side by side with the payments for rent.

Mr. SPENCER

What we are dealing with is purely a question of letting, and, although I am not a lawyer, I am certain that, taken in conjunction with the other Amendments with which we dealt a short time ago, this is a desirable Amendment to protect both the local authority and the sub-tenant against extra payments to a tenant who wants to sublet the house and get the full rent for it.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP

I feel the greatest doubt as to what we are really doing if these words are inserted, and I hope the Minister and the Attorney-General will consider this matter, because it is most undesirable I hat the Bill when it leaves Parliament should be in such a form that there is any doubt as to the intention of Parliament. The object of the words which it is proposed to insert is, I understand, to prevent anything in the nature of profiteering, but the condition which these words lay down is one of the conditions which are part of the undertaking as between the public utility society and the Minister. It is a condition of the contribution which the Minister is to make to the public utility society. As soon as the public utility society has complied with its conditions, the Minister has to make his contribution. Supposing that them is a subletting, which can only be with the consent of the Minister, the question of the rent which is to be charged will have passed out of the power of the public utility society, and will then be in the hands of a person who is not bound by this particular condition which is being inserted, because, to use a legal phrase, there is no privity of contract except between the public utility society and the Minister. Therefore, these words, which it is proposed to acid, with the intention, as I understand, of meeting the desire of the House to prevent profiteering by the tenant subletting, will be—I speak subject to correction—entirely useless for the purpose as soon as the Louse has passed out of the control of the public utility society by permission being given to sublet, and you will have the same round of profiteering, because these new words, if inserted, will not bind the sub-tenant.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

This Amendment does not really deal with the question of sub-tenants. It deals with the case of a public utility society or company that gets public assistance and lets its houses at a certain rent, but takes from the tenants some extra payment by way of premium in some form or other. It is not intended really to deal with the question of subletting, which, it is suggested, should be dealt with separately. We have given au undertaking that, if the question of subletting is not effectively dealt with, we will do our best to put it right in another place. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian) is right in his contention. These words were very carefully considered, but, if we find, now that the point has been raised in this specific way, that these words do not carry out what is actually the intention of this House, we will take steps to have the necessary Amendments made during the passage of the Bill through another place.

Mr. CLARRY

I should like to call the attention of the House to paragraph (e) of Sub-section (2), because it seems to me that it would be better to insert this reservation there. It is there provided that the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not exceed the rents which could be charged by the local authority had the houses been provided by the local authority themselves. It would appear to me that these words might be more conveniently inserted there for the purpose of preventing profiteering, and also to provide for any charges that may be made by the building society itself for repayment of capital or interest cm the sum advanced for building the house. These two points could, apparently, be quite conveniently provided for at that point without the insertion of this present Amendment, which is almost a repetition of the existing words of the Clause.

Lord E. PERCY

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I am not at all sure that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian), the Government, and we on this side of the House, are not entirely at cross purposes in relation to this matter of public utility societies. The Parliamentary Secretary has just said that it is the intention of the Government to allow public utility societies to charge an additional sum in respect of sinking fund, which will eventually make the occupant of the house the owner. That, says the Parliamentary Secretary, is the intention of the Government. They have carefully provided—and he says that the words have been carefully considered—by this new Amendment, that nothing except rent may pass in respect of the letting of a house, and they have carefully provided, by another Amendment which they are about to move in paragraph (e), that no rent shall be charged except it be the appropriate normal rent. Therefore, the sinking fund clearly cannot pass either way, either as rent or as anything else but rent. What, makes me afraid that our whole effort to obtain from the Government recognition of the public utility societies is going to be in vain is this: The hon. Member for Totnes knows more about this than I do, but the object of having a sinking fund payment by the occupant of a house rented from a public utility society is that the title of the house shall pass, and, generally speaking, the title of the house, in the ease of most public utility societies, does pass before the expiration of 40 years.

Mr. VIVIAN

They work on various systems. Some societies have no intention whatever of parting with any of their property, and all that the investor does is to acquire the capital value. In some cases he never acquires the ownership of the house, but, supposing the house to be worth £500, he acquires £500 of 5 per cent. stock, or shares, or whatever it may be. Other societies proceed, as has been indicated, by way of sale by various methods.

Lord E. PERCY

The wording of paragraph (b) is so wide that I am not sure that, at the end of the term of sinking fund payments, whatever the arrangement may be—whether it be a passing of the title or merely the wiping out of the capital charge—I am not at all sure that the occupier of the house can acquire any right without the consent of the Minister, and I am not at all sure that the whole of these provisions as to public utility societies are not going to become nugatory, because I do not think that this series of conditions will really carry out what it is necessary to carry out. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that they will very carefully consider the matter from that point of view, for the purpose of amendment in another place.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings)

I think there is considerable substance in the points which have been raised, and they deserve very careful attention. I can assure the House that they will receive careful consideration in order that the matter may be made quite plain.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out the words "the owner," and insert instead thereof the words "no house."

This and three other Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister are little more than drafting Amendments, designed to avoid the use of the word "owner," for the reasons which I have already indicated on another Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lord E. PERCY

I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out the words "shall not," and to insert instead thereof the words "desires to."

The object of this Amendment and of two further Amendments which stand in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), and myself, is to assimilate paragraph (c) of Sub-section (2) exactly to paragraph (c) of Subsection (1). I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that it was the Government's intention to make the two sets of conditions almost exactly alike.

Mr. MASTERMAN

On a point of Order. I do not see how the Noble Lord can achieve his object with the words we have passed. A house cannot desire to do anything at all. It will be necessary to alter the Amendment slightly.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

We are getting into a terrible tangle. The word "owner" is left out, and it does not read.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WHEATLEY

I beg to move, in page. 5, line 42, to leave out the words "not sell," and to insert instead thereof the words "be sold."

Lord E. PERCY

The Government, having said they wanted these two sets of conditions to be analogous, are now amending paragraph (c) to make it read entirely different from paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1). We carefully provided in Committee that the power of the Minister to refuse leave to sell or dispose of a house should be limited and that the local authority should have the power to sell subject to any conditions the Minister might think proper. Why are the Government not adopting the same phraseology in this paragraph? Why are we making a difference? We ought to try to make the two paragraphs read exactly the same.

Mr. MASTERMAN

Have we not to get in the three Amendments proposed by the Government before we come to the Noble Lord's Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord was right in raising his point here. I rather think he would be cut out by the three Government Amendments, the first of which is now under consideration.

Mr. MASTERMAN

If we accept the Noble Lord's Amendment, the second Government Amendment will not read.

Lord E. PERCY

I am merely discussing the Minister's Amendment was asking the Government for an explanation.

Mr. GREENWOOD

We have in this paragraph (c) really carried nut our intention to put public utility societies and other companies on the same footing as local authorities. With the subsequent Amendments it will read: No house shall be sold or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise disposed of except with the consent of the Minister. It is necessary here to put in those words "except with the consent of the Minister," because under the Act of 1919 local authorities, to sell their houses, must get the consent of the Minister, and without these words we should be putting private enterprise in a more advantageous position than the local authority. The way we have drafted the Clause is to avoid the use of the term "owner," to which legal objection is taken, and to bring in the consent of the Minister as regards public utility societies, which was not necessary in the first part because, under the existing law as regards local authorities, they must ask the consent of the Minister before they dispose of houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 43, leave out the word "dispose," and insert instead thereof the word "disposed."

In page 5, lines 43 and 44, leave out the words "the houses."—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Lord E. PERCY

I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words but so nevertheless that the equivalent of the contribution already paid in respect of any house sold before the expiration of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable, together with the contribution for the term stipulated, shall be as nearly as possible the equivalent of the contribution which would have been payable for twenty years if the house had not been subject to special conditions. This is an insertion which gives to the public utility societies the same assurance as to the reduction in contribution as has been given to the local authority. I have drafted this on the assumption that my right hon. Friend's, the Member for Ladywood, Amendment, to leave out paragraph (c), would be adopted. I move it formally in order to get an assurance from the Government that they will put in at the end of paragraph (c) the wards that the Minister has now put in at the end of paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1).

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

The Noble Lord is right. We have inserted words in Sub-section (1), and, clearly, words of similar effect should be inserted in Subsection (2). I will move words to put the public utility societies' house in the same position as the local authority's house.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 7, at, the end, insert the words but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of the period of 20 years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced by more than £3, or in the, case of a house in an agricultural parish by more than £6 10s., and the duration thereof shall not he curtailed by more than 20 years."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out from the word "Clause" to the word "resolution" in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words which complies with the requirements of any. This and the immediately following Amendments are moved in order to bring the second part of Clause 3 into conformity with Clause 1. It does net in any way alter the meaning of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 11, after the word "Commons," insert the words applicable to contracts of Government Departments and for the time being in force."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, to leave out paragraph (e), and to insert instead thereof the words (e) that the rent charged in respect of any house shall not exceed the appropriate normal rent together with a sum equivalent to the average excess, if any, above the appropriate normal rent which may be charged by the local authority in accordance with this Section in the case of houses provided by the local authorities themselves. The words as they originally appeared did not seem to carry out our meaning, and the purpose of the Amendment is to lay down the rent which may be charged by public utility societies, companies and other bodies, as the appropriate normal rent, plus such average excess as there might be to bring the rents into line with the rents that would have been charged had they been local authority houses.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN

It is certainly rather difficult for the House to follow the constant changes in the wording of the Clauses, and I am not quite sure that I have appreciated the exact effect of the words the hon. Gentleman now desires to insert. We have one form of words as printed in the Bill as it came from the Committee. It is proposed to alter that, and I fully appreciate that the words he proposed to put in would not really meet the case, because any increase of cost, for instance, could not be reflected in the case of the public Utility societies in increased rent, as it would be in the case of the local authorities, if these words had been inserted. Is there any difference between the words he now suggests and the words in the Bill, and, if so, what is it?

Mr. WHEATLEY

I think the difference is this, that the local authority would be dealing with the whole area, and taking the rents in the aggregate. We are contemplating here a case of a company putting up a few houses in an area. As the words stood in the Bill, the rents which were charged by the local authority might be difficult to ascertain and define, because a local authority is entitled to charge different rents in different areas of its district, and it is to get over that difficulty, and to make it more concise, and to enable us to deal with a few houses in the locality that we propose to insert these new words. They do not alter at all what is the intention of the paragraph, but they make it easier of administration.

6.0 P.M.

Sir T. INSKIP

I must express misgiving about the way in which we are gradually building up this Bill. We cannot do anything, but I am not content to be a silent spectator of the production of legislation in this way. The paragraph, with this Amendment, says the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not exceed the appropriate normal rent. That is simply gibberish. "Appropriate normal rent" means absolutely nothing unless some words are put in the Bill by which to judge the standard of "appropriate normal rent." Where the expression "appropriate normal rent" is used on page 5, it is qualified by the words charged in respect of working-class houses. In this paragraph (e) the words, "appropriate normal rent " are inserted without any words of qualification which suggest what "appropriate normal rent" means, as if "appropriate normal rent " were words of art or words which bear some technical meaning which everybody who will have to construe the Statute will understand. What on earth it means without reference to any standard by which you can judge what appropriateness means, I am at a loss to understand We are putting in words by this Amendment which convey some idea, which is no doubt an excellent idea, in the mind of the Minister, but it is not the proper way to produce legislation, and I regret that we are driven to building up legislation in this haphazard way.

Mr. MASTERMAN

The hon. and learned Member's remarks are not a criticism of this Clause but of the Bill.

Sir T. INSKIP

They are a criticism of this Amendment.

Mr. MASTERMAN

"Appropriate normal rent" are words which occur at intervals throughout the whole Bill. All that this Amendment is doing is putting the Clause into conformity with the rest of the Bill. If the rest of the Bill can be described as lunacy, then this Clause is lunacy. There is no reason why it should not be brought into conformity with the remainder of the Bill.

Lord E. PERCY

The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated my hon. and learned Friend's objection. The objection is that "appropriate normal rent," as defined in Sub-section (3), as the rent that is normally charged in the area of the local authority in the case of working-class houses. How does that apply to public utility societies? Is the "appropriate normal rent" to be determined by the area of the local authority in which the particular house is situated? It does not say so. Perhaps the Attorney-General will admit that the way in which Sub-section (3) is worded was appropriate only so long as you had one set of conditions, and it was the local authority in every case which was going to fix the "appropriate normal rent." It does not read properly in relation to the "appropriate normal rent" charged by a public utility society. How in the name of justice and reason are you to allow local authorities to average an "appropriate normal rent" over all the houses and not allow a public utility society, such as the Tudor Walters scheme in the Doncaster area, to do the same? Why should one be allowed to average and not the other? It is not as if the public utility societies owned a few houses in every case and the local authority owned the most houses in every case. There are public utility societies which have very much bigger schemes than the majority of local authorities. Surely, it is not necessary to make this very unfair discrimination.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL

Hon. Members may remember that a question was put to the Minister on the previous Clause as to points which might arise in the case of public utility societies, and that is to be considered. It is conceivable that questions may arise as to the meaning of "appropriate normal rent" in connection with these societies. If so, that may well be considered at the same time.

Amendment agreed to.