HC Deb 19 April 1932 vol 264 cc1388-91
25. Mr. McGOVERN

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the case, which was heard at Glasgow Valuation Court on 11th April, where a house factor charged £12 10s. as a premium on a two room and kitchen house; and what action he proposes to take to protect tenants from such methods?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton)

I have seen a Press report of a case which I assume is that referred to by the hon. Member. From the terms of the report, it seems unlikely that the house was under the Rent Restrictions Acts, in which case the landlord and tenant were free to make any agreement they pleased as regards the payment to be made for the tenancy of the house.

Mr. McGOVERN

Do I take it that it is entirely legal now for house factors and landlords to claim premiums from working-class tenants who are looking for houses?

Mr. SKELTON

I have nothing to add on that point, but where the Rent Restrictions Act is not concerned it is open to the landlord and tenant to agree to an extra payment in return for a lease.

Mr. McGOVERN

Will the hon. Gentleman consider preventing such an extortion from poor tenants in a city like Glasgow?

Mr. SKELTON

That, of course, is a large question of policy about which I cannot reply.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE

Is there a chance of the Rent Restrictions Amending Bill, which is urgently required, being brought in?

Mr. SKELTON

That, again, is a question of policy about which I cannot reply.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Has not the tenant a right under the Rent Restrictions Act to withhold the payment of rent until what he has paid in key money has been consumed?

Mr. SKELTON

I have already explained that if it comes under the Rent Restrictions Act, a landlord who attempts to exact payment is liable to a heavy fine.

26. Mr. McGOVERN

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the decree granted, on Friday, 8th April, 1931, against tenants by a Glasgow sheriff in a property at 55 to 69, Dalness Street, Tollcross, which has a demolition order; and if he will set aside the decree?

Mr. SKELTON

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have, however, made inquiries and I understand that on Friday, 8th April, 1932, two tenants at Dalness Street, Toll- cross, Glasgow, were sued in the Ejection Court. One case was continued till 13th May; and in the other the sheriff, after hearing parties, granted an instalment of 6s. per week and continued the case sine die. My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Mr. McGOVERN

Is it not the case that under the Rent Restrictions Act a decree cannot be granted by a sheriff in regard to property for which a demolition or closing order has been made; that the courts have always held that, and that this case is a complete departure; and will the hon. Gentleman inquire into it?

Mr. SKELTON

That raises another question which cannot be answered now.

Mr. McGOVERN

May I press the hon. Gentleman for a reply. Has not a decision previously been given——

Mr. SPEAKER

That question does not arise out of the answer.

Mr. MAXTON

It has reference to the question on the Paper, and my hon. Friend is asking for a reply. He has repeated precisely the question on the Paper, and has asked whether as this decree of ejection has been made in regard to a, property which has been ordered for demolition, the hon. Gentleman will get the Secretary of State to set aside the decree, which has been made illegally?

Mr. SKELTON

I have already answered that. May I explain the law with regard to a civil decree. Whether correct or not, the Secretary of State has no power to have it set aside.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Is not the proper course to have it decided in the courts?

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Arising out of that reply—

Mr. SPEAKER

Mr. Leonard.

Mr. KIRKWOOD rose

—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member knows quite well that we cannot debate these questions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

On a point of Order. This is a serious case where people have been put out, and the law is emphatically that they must have alternative- accommodation. There is no alternative accommodation here; they have simply been thrown out, and their house demolished.

Mr. SPEAKER

Mr. Leonard.