HC Deb 11 April 1933 vol 276 cc2530-51

12.25 a.m.

Sir B. PETO

I beg to move, in page 12, line 9, to leave out the words "the court considers it reasonable so to do if."

If hon. Members will look at this Schedule they will see the words: the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom without proof of suitable alternative accommodation. The first argument I wish to put forward for leaving out these words and leaving the case to the discretion of the court in the specified instances set out, is that it is the subject of alternative accommodation that gives rise to questions of opinion which a court would have to deal with with discretion. No doubt it may be said by the Minister that there are other cases which are open to some doubt, and where the court ought to have jurisdiction to say whether they are to carry out the specific intention of Parliament to give the right of obtaining re-possession under certain conditions set out in the Schedule. The Government may say there are in some of these cases conditions where discretion ought to be left to the court. I want to call the attention of the Committee especially to paragraph (h), which deals with the case where possession is required by the owner for occupation as a residence for himself, or his son or daughter, or his father and mother. In many cases a landlord is the owner of only one house and wants possession of that house for his own occupation. Obviously, in all cases in which the owner wants actually to occupy a small house left in control when this Bill becomes an Act, he is not a great owner of land and house property. It is in that case particularly that I want these words omitted. I think owners of these small houses who have been waiting in some cases for 13 years or more to get posses- sion of their houses want to know definitely, whether they have the right to get possession of their own houses and occupy them, or not. As long as these words are left in, and it is a question the court may or may not decide as a reasonable ground for which to grant possession, there will be no certainty that they ever will get possession. It is on behalf of these small house-owners who have been waiting a very long time to get possession of their own houses, that I specially want to plead. Since I took up this question several years ago I have been inundated with correspondence from all parts of the country. I will give the Committee one instance, the case of a schoolmistress who saved from the small salary paid in pre-War days just enough to allow her to acquire the ownership of one little house to live in herself. She has been unable to get possession. Take the case of railway servants, arriving at the age of 65, in occupation of houses belonging to the railway companies. They have saved up, and provided themselves with houses, because they cannot occupy the railway companies' houses when they retire, but they cannot get possession of the houses which they have bought. Take the case of a widow who owns one of a row of little houses which was left to her. They are not particularly attractive, but she wishes possession of that one of them that she may live in it. She cannot get possession. In such cases it is not a matter of diminishing the supply of houses. It does not matter to the total supply of houses whether the owner or a tenant occupies a particular house. The owner ought to have the right to occupy his house without the jurisdiction of the court. He or she ought to have the certainty of being able to occupy his or her own house. What I have said covers the three Amendments which I have on the Paper, although, with regard to the proviso, I shall have just one word to say on the special matter dealt with in it. That is the general ground on which I ask the Minister to remove these words. They are totally unnecessary, and throw a doubt in every single case on the genuineness of the right of the owner to have possession of his property.

12.33 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG

I am sure the Committee will recognise the assistance which it has received from the hon. Baronet in dealing with his three Amendments together. It is not a case of not giving very mature consideration to the matter which he has now raised. The matter has already been decided by the Committee on Clause 3 of the Bill, in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, which he supported by a similar line of argument, and to which I replied. It is not a fact that we must distinguish on any reasoned grounds between the three classes of cases in which possession is sought—the lapse of the tenant, the need of the landlord, or the grounds of the alternative accommodation. They raise exactly the same kind of consideration of fact and law in all these three cases. If the equitable jurisdiction of the court is desirable in one case, it is impossible to deny its desirability in the other cases. The equitable jurisdiction of the court is a necessary part of the machinery of the Bill. When you have an intricate and rather arbitrary law relating to human circumstances and conditions, you must have an elastic joint, and it is the equitable jurisdiction of the court which adds that elastic joint. Under the provisions of the Bill the court may give possession in a case where it is reasonable, and we cannot refuse it the power to refuse when the case is unreasonable. Possession will be greatly facilitated by the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will come to the conclusion that the matter should stand as it is.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I beg to move, in page 12, line 16, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that where under the contract of tenancy the rent is payable in advance the tenant shall not be held to be in arrears until the period for which the rent is payable in advance has expired. I do not know what is the practice in England, but it operates very harshly in the West of Scotland. There they take people to the courts for arrears of rent, and they make it appear that they are two months in arrear when they have paid a month in advance. It is most unjust because the workers do not get paid a month in advance, not even when they go to the Employment Exchange. They do not get benefit at once. The workers have often to work for a week or a fort- night before they get paid. The landlord can, however, hold them for a month's forehand rent. For a month when they have not been in the house they are asked for forehand rent. The sheriffs say that this is harsh, and one of my colleagues, a councillor, has written to the Lord Advocate appealing to him because she has been up against it in the courts. The sheriffs tell her that they have no option in the matter but to administer the law. The law is very harsh and operates very harshly against the poorest of the poor. I hope I have said enough to show the Minister that we are asking a very reasonable thing here.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. D. GRAHAM

I want to say a few words to the Lord Advocate. This Amendment is important because there are tenants who occupy houses on monthly leases. The custom' in most parts of Scotland is for the tenants to pay weekly or monthly in advance. The object which we have in view, and which I hope will be favourably considered by the Government, is to provide that in the event of a tenant being summoned to the court for ejection, the ejection order will not be granted on the grounds that the tenant is in arrears when, as a matter of fact, he has paid a month's rent before going into the house. It is an anomaly which, if clearly understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will have their favourable consideration. I hope the Lord Advocate w ill be able to assure us that the Government are willing to accept the Amendment.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I should like to say that the position is even worse in Glasgow than the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has described in regard to the West of Scotland. In Glasgow they are actually demanding a quarter's rent in advance. This is a shocking practice which has only lately grown up in Glasgow. Tenants are being asked in some cases for a quarter's rent in advance. In some cases they have to pay five or six pounds in advance. I was at the sheriff's court the other day in connection with the case of a woman who had to pay six pounds rent in advance. Illness had overcome some of the family and she could pay only one month in advance, but the landlord insisted upon a full quarter's rent. The sheriff, in effect, said that he would only enforce a month, but the woman had to pay the legal expenses for having come to the court. This is a problem that is getting very acute. Poor people who pay their rent regularly feel it very much. It is said that the landlord is entitled to be treated as any other owner of goods, but I do not know of any other owner being paid in advance. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept this very modest Amendment.

12.43 a.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE

Hon. Members have raised in my view a point which merits very careful consideration. The rent payable by tenants of this kind of house was what was known as backhand rent which was payable by the tenant after he had enjoyed possession of the house of which he was tenant. Within recent years there has crept in a system which is known as forehand rent and whether the tenant takes the house for a month, a week or three months he pays rent in advance. Take the illustration of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) where before possession is enjoyed the tenant pays the rent. This, no doubt, is a matter of contract, and, as the Amendment stands on the Paper, there would be an obvious difficulty in accepting it because it lays down that, where under the contract of tenancy the rent is payable in advance, the tenant shall not be held to be in arrears until the period for which the rent is payable in advance has expired.

I do not think it is there that the grievance lies. The grievance is that where a tenant finds himself through misfortune or any other reason unable to pay he may be summoned forthwith in a civil action for the rent and for ejectment. It is perfectly true that in practice sheriffs do not grant a decree and, to that extent, no great harm is done, but the harm comes in this way that a bill of costs is brought against the tenant, and the costs are added to the rent for the purpose of computing arrears, and in many cases I fear that tenants get more deeply into difficulties as time goes on. I have officially seen a number of these cases within the last year, and I am in sympathy with the idea underlying the Amendment, which is purely a Scottish problem. If hon. Members will not press me to-day, I will endeavour between now and report to devise some means whereby these bills of costs cannot be taken into computation in reckoning arrears. I have received a great many representations on this subject, and I hope that with this assurance hon. Members will not press the matter further.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I accept that statement of most sympathetic consideration from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I beg to move in page 12, line 16, at the end, to insert the words: and the tenant refuses to pay on order of the court a reasonable proportion of the arrears of rent within a reasonable time and continues to break the obligations of the tenancy. I move this Amendment in order to make certain what the position is under the Bill. I hope that Members will not think we are constantly forcing our position on the House, but the position in regard to rents is very acute. Our Amendment is merely to safeguard the rights that exist. As I read the Schedule, it means that the court have no option the moment a person falls into arrears but to grant a decree. The present practice is that the court gives the person a number of chances of making up the arrears, and we want to see that the tenant is given a reasonable chance of meeting the arrears before any decree can operate.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, and I can tell him that the discretion of the court is left absolutely untouched by the present Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN

With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I beg to move, in page 12, line 29, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that the court before making such an order shall have allowed the tenant reasonable time and opportunity for removal or avoidance of what was the subject of complaint. This Amendment is intended to deal with the case where the tenant is unfortunate enough to lose possession, and we ask that the tenant should be allowed a reasonable time and opportunity for removal or avoidance of what was the subject of complaint. All we are asking is that where the court decides that there is a grievance, the persons should be given a reasonable time in which to rectify it. We are assuming that the court has come to the decision that the landlord is entitled to proceed against a tenant for a particular grievance, and we think a reasonable time should be allowed.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

I think this point is covered by the answer given to the previous Amendment. The present law is not affected by this Schedule. The court already has power to exercise its discretion in cases where the tenant proves amenable and offers to remove the particular grievances of which the landlord complains.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I know that is the procedure, but we are asking that before the court's decision can operate, the man should be given a reasonable time in which to rectify the matter. As it stands now, it is a question for the discretion of the court, and, if a man shows a desire to rectify it, the court should give him time. I do not see why the man should not be given say a week or a month. The court would still have the discretion as to the time to be given and we think it should be obliged to give some time.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

Then you would be laying down what the court should do, and it would destroy the equitable jurisdiction of the court if you put it into an Act of Parliament.

Mr. BUCHANAN

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, all we are saying is that the court should give the man time. The discretion would still remain with the court as to the amount of time to be given. All we are saying is that, if the man offers to put right that which is complained of, the court should give him reasonable time. If the court feels that the man is making a frivolous defence, it could give him only a day or two. It should at least give the man time, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider the point.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

This is a very serious matter. When the sheriff gives an order for ejection it operates at once. It does not matter whether the tenant is prepared to meet all the demands that the factor has formally made. The factor may refuse to take any money or anything else. He has the right to eject at once. That is too much like sudden death. Something may happen. Illness may arise. You are dealing with a class of society who are dependent on what the merest breath of adversity may in a moment dispel, and they have nothing to fall back upon. If anything happens to the breadwinner or somebody in the house is required to have something more than, the ordinary means of maintenance, or if there is sickness and they have to send for the doctor, all that has to be paid for, with the result that they fall behind with the rent, and they have no means of raising the wind. They are taken to court and the sheriff has to administer the law. No matter how sympathetic he may be, he is bound to give the factor what he wants, namely, the house and the power to eject.

The result is that the factor gets that power and can put it into operation at once, although in the interim some friend may have turned up and have given the man £1 or £2 to get him out of the difficulty. The factor has the power to say: "No, I do not want your £2. I would not give you the house for £20. It does not matter what you do; I have got an order and the house is required, and out you go." That is far too harsh, because you are dealing with something that is an extraordinary commodity, namely, the home. It is not like anything else. It is not as though the evicted person could simply walk into somewhere else. There is nowhere else that they can go. All we are asking is that the sheriff shall have power to give them, say, a week or so to find somewhere. As the law stands, it is sudden death. They have to be thrown out on to the street at once. I hope we have made the case clear enough. We have an opportunity here to make the law more humane. When we go to the sheriffs and speak to them, they say: "Well, that is your boys' job. You are the legislators." They have said to me time and time again: "We have got to administer the law and you are the legislators. The first time this comes up, try and get it altered." Here is the opportunity, and I hope the Minister will receive us in a sympathetic fashion and will give a sympathetic answer.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I have no wish to press this if the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he is prepared to consider the matter between now and the Report stage. If he will say that, the matter may be agreed upon. We are only asking that the person should get a chance, and we are not anxious to delay the Committee.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

I can give no pledge in the matter, but I will certainly consider the point.

Amendment negatived.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I beg to move, in page I2, line 40 at the end, to insert the words: at a rent exceeding that paid to the landlord. We desire that possession should not be granted where it is proved that the sub-renting was not done at a profit, even though it may have been done without the consent of the landlord. We think in many cases it may be shown that very poor people sublet part of the premises by taking in other unemployed people like themselves out of sheer decency and make no profit, and, where they do not charge a rent exceeding the rent which is ordinarily paid to the landlord, possession should not be granted. Everybody in this Committee has been down on sub-letting in cases where a profit has been made, but here we are saying that possession should not be granted, even though the sub-letting is done without the landlord's consent, provided no profit is made.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The words in this Sub-section have been the law for the past 10 years. They are simply repeated here, and there would be no advantage in accepting the Amendment. Sitting sub-tenants are still protected, and there is really no advantage in introducing the element of profiteering into the question of sub-letting. It is inherent in the principle of the Act that if the tenant gets rid of the whole of his tenancy he ceases to be protected against the landlord. The sub-tenant is protected until he in turn gives up possession. We are here simply re-declaring the existing law, and I must resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

1.2 a.m.

Sir B. PETO

I beg to move, in page 12, line 40, at the end, to insert the words: (e) Possession of the dwelling-house is required by the owner for the purpose of rebuilding the property in accordance with a scheme for the rehousing of the working classes approved by the Minister of Health. I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who cannot be here to-night. It is an Amendment to enable a greater and more rapid advance to be made in providing the class of house with which this amending Bill deals. The object is to enable a landlord to obtain possession without providing alternative accommodation, in order to rebuild on the site and provide premises to re-house working-class people in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister of Health. Such a power is urgently required as regards the large amount of urban land which is ripe for re-development but cannot be made available because there may be one or two sitting tenants of old cottage property who cannot be got rid of. There are valuable building sites now occupied by small worn-out houses. In Millbank there is a very large scheme now being carried out for which a private Act of Parliament had to be obtained. It is a scheme by which a large number of the working class can be re-housed. All this Amendment does is to put other places in a position to carry out similar schemes without going to the expense of a private Act, and where perhaps the area of land to be dealt with is smaller and would not justify that expense, so that building development cannot be held up on account of one or two small tenants. On the Portman Estate there is a scheme which is being held up exactly in this manner, and which would be able to be proceeded with at once if this new paragraph were inserted in the Bill. Generally speaking, in present conditions urban building is at a standstill owing to the difficulty of the landlords in getting possession of one or two small houses.

1.5 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG

I am sure the Committee would agree with the hon. Baronet as regards his object, but the Amendment is unnecessary for this reason. I think it has perhaps escaped his attention that the new conditions in the Bill will provide a means of meeting all the difficult cases to which he has referred. Formerly, it was quite possible that a plan might be held up by the necessity for obtaining possession of one or two houses. Now, with the new provision that possession can always be obtained if there is alternative accommodation provided, cases of that sort cannot recur. All that is necessary in the re-development of an estate is that some part of the estate should be devoted in advance to the construction of some houses, either council houses or houses of an equivalent type, which correspond to the definition in the Bill of alternative accommodation. They then become available for tenants of that sort to whom the hon. Member has referred, and since that accommodation is available a recalcitrant tenant will not be able to hold up a scheme. For these reasons, I believe the Bill provides a practical means of getting round all the difficulties to which he has referred, and the Amendment is not necessary.

1.7 a.m.

Sir B. PETO

In these circumstances I -beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I would like to point out to the Minister that in the case he has referred to it is rather like the old game of the fox and the goose. It is difficult to know which is going to move first.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.8 a.m.

Sir R. ASKE

I beg to move, in page 13, line 11, to leave out from the word "the," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words: overcrowding is due to any lodger or subtenant that the tenant has not taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for the removal of such lodger or subtenant, and that suitable alternative accommodation is available for such lodger or subtenant. This Amendment relates to paragraph (f), by virtue of which the court has power to order the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of overcrowding. This is a new provision, and is one of considerable importance in overcrowded areas where there is no possibility of tenants getting any alternative accommodation if they are ejected from their present houses. It is of particular importance to areas such as the Tyne, where at least one-tenth of the families live in homes consisting of a single room. The Minister has justified the course he has taken in resisting many of the Amendments which have been discussed in this Bill on the ground that the matters were dealt with by the Report of the Departmental Committee. This is a matter which is not justified by that report. As I understand the report, the Departmental Committee definitely turned down the provision which now appears in this Bill, specifically reporting against any extension of the cases such as the rest of those which are included in the First Schedule. I therefore make that as my first ground of approach in asking the Minister to deal with it on that footing. I do not know whether the Minister is expressing his sympathy towards this Amendment. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee if the Minister is favourably disposed towards it.

1.10 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG

I think that the hon. Member's Amendment does tend to bring out in clearer distinction the underlying intention of this Clause. I would propose to express agreement with the principle of the Amendment now brought forward and undertake to consider the actual wording before the Report stage, if that will content him at this stage. It was never contemplated that possession should be claimed where it was not reasonably possible for the tenant, or even for the landlord if he obtained possession, to do so without hardship to the sub-tenant or lodger.

1.11 a.m.

Sir R. ASKE

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a substantial matter and, unless safeguarding words are inserted, it will continue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. D. GRAHAM rose—

The CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member that if he insists on speaking the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 13, line 15, to leave out paragraph (g).

Hon. Members will observe that the effect of this Amendment is to concede to the agricultural labourer, and perhaps to the miner for that matter, but particularly the agricultural labourer, the same protection as has been given since 1920 to other tenants. As soon as an agricultural labourer is dismissed from employment he is a trespasser and can be evicted from his house, in the case where a man employed by a farmer is living in a house really necessary for his employment. The farmer in that case has a special privilege to turn him out without providing alternative accommodation. Another case is where a farmer wants to get rid of an agricultural labourer. He has merely to apply to the county agricultural committee, obtain a certificate, go to the county court and get rid of the man almost immediately. We think that this lack of protection for agricultural labourers has left them in all parts of the country with a grievance. The Departmental Committee made recommendations that the same protection should be given to the agricultural labourer as was given to other tenants in the country. Paragraph (g) of Schedule 1 preserves the law as it is, leaving the agricultural labourer without any sort of protection, if he lives on the premises, say, as a horseman, and pays no rent. Such a man the moment he is dismissed, whether justifiably or otherwise, can be regarded as a trespasser and put on the road.

In the case of a man who lives in a house which is owned by a farmer, or the owner of an estate, the farmer need only, if he wishes to get rid of him without the provision of alternative accommodation, to inform the county court judge that some other person has been engaged on full-time employment with the provision that housing accommodation should be provided for him. The man can then be turned out without alternative accommodation. Where a man lives a mile or two away from the farm, the farmer, if he wishes to get possession of the house has to go to the county agricultural committee, satisfy them that some other man has been engaged, and by taking that certificate to the court it is almost a gilt-edged security that possession will be obtained in the shortest possible space of time. The agricultural committees are largely composed of farmers, and the obtaining of a certificate for the eviction of any tenant is a very simple process.

We do not think that is fair, and neither did the Departmental Committee which sat quite recently. This practice has, in fact, been in operation and has acted very harshly to the agricultural labourer particularly at a time when the number of employés on farms is being reduced. We think it is an injustice to the labourer on a farm who ought to have the same protection as the average tenant. I shall not expand the argument to deal with miners, of whom tens of thousands are living in tied houses. I shall confine my argument to the agricultural workers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they not less than other persons are entitled to the protection of the rent restriction law. I hope the time has arrived when the agricultural labourer may enjoy that protection. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that nothing short of a housing policy is necessary to carry it out, and that a large number of new houses must be erected in rural areas, then it is the duty of the Government to see that these houses are built and that agricultural labourers are not turned out on to the street. I know the case of a man who was born in a house, and lived in it for 49 or 50 years, and was then turned out into the street. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that such workers should enjoy the privilege others have enjoyed for so long.

1.19 a.m.

Mr. TINKER

I want to support this Amendment and to ask the Minister to give consideration to it. Earlier in the night the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) put down an Amendment which was resisted by the Minister as impracticable. I am surprised to find in the Schedule power to the same effect without alternative accommodation. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has dealt with the agricultural labourer, and I should like to mention the miner who also is affected. I hope the Minister will consider this matter from the point of view that we put to him that, if the Act is to be amended, the Schedule should be amended as we desire.

1.21 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment spoke as if the only people affected were the agricultural labourers, but it applies to all tied tenants. We have already refused an Amendment designed to enable a landlord to get possession of a tied cottage merely because he wanted it for another employé. This paragraph in the Schedule is simply a re-statement of the law that has been in force for the last 13 years, and we are not prepared to accept the Amendment.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

May I ask the hon. and learned Member whether because it has existed for 13 years the law is unchangeable. While I commend him for not having accepted the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) which simply placed the landlord and farmer in the position of turning out people for no reason whatever, does he not see that there is still a great deal of justice in the case which we have put forward. All we ask is that the same law that applies to other tenants should apply to the agricultural labourer and the miner when he is no longer in the employ of the landlord, and that if the landlord requires possession of the house he should provide alternative accommodation for the labourer or the miner. May I appeal to the Solicitor-General between now and the Report stage to consider the matter. After all what has been in existence for 13 years is not necessarily right. I hope he will see the point in the Amendment that we have put forward.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in line 21, stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 27.

Division No. 145.] AYES. [11.0 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Groves, Thomas E. Mainwaring, William Henry
Attlee, Clement Richard Grundy, Thomas W. Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Banfield, John William Halt, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James
Bernays, Robert Harris, Sir Percy Milner, Major James
Briant, Frank Hirst, George Henry Owen, Major Goronwy
Buchanan, George Holdsworth, Herbert Parkinson, John Allen
Cape, Thomas Jenkins, Sir William Pickering, Ernest H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Price, Gabriel
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Rathbone, Eleanor
Daggar, George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rea, Walter Russell
Davies, David L, (Pontypridd) Kirkwood, David Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Thorne, William James
Dobbie, William Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Edwards, Charles Leonard, William White, Henry Graham
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lunn, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur McEntee, Valentine L.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) McGovern, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Mr. John and Mi. D. Graham.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cranborne, Viscount Gritten, W. G. Howard
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Crooke, J. Sinedley Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Guy, J. C. Morrison
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Culverwell, Cyril Tom Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Apsley, Lord Dalkeith, Earl of Hales, Harold K.
Atholl, Duchess of Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Atkinson, Cyril Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Hanbury, Cecil
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hanley, Dennis A.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Donner, P. W. Harbord, Arthur
Balniel, Lord Drewe, Cedric Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Duckworth, George A. V. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Duggan, Hubert John Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Dunglass, Lord Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Eastwood, John Francis Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Edge, Sir William Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Blindell, James Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Horobin, Ian M.
Borodale, Viscount Elliston, Captain George Sampson Horsbrugh, Florence
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Brass, Captain Sir William Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Broadbent, Colonel John Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Browne, Captain A. C. Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Fox, Sir Gifford Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Burnett, John George Fremantle, Sir Francis Jennings, Roland
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Ganzoni, Sir John Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Gillett, Sir George Masterman Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Carver, Major William H. Gledhill, Gilbert Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Castlereagh, Viscount Glossop, C. W. H. Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Gluckstein, Louis Halle Kerr, Hamilton W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Goff, Sir Park Knebworth, Viscount
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Goldie, Noel B. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Clarke, Frank Gower, Sir Robert Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Graham, sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Leckie, J. A.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Graves, Marjorie Leech, Dr. J. W.
Conant, R. J. E. Greene, William P. C. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Copeland, Ida Grimston, R. V. Liddall, Walter S.
Lindsay, Noel Ker Patrick, Colin M. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Llewellin, Major John J. Peat, Charles U. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Lloyd, Geoffrey Penny, Sir George Soper, Richard
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n) Percy, Lord Eustace Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere Perkins, Walter R. D. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
McCorquodale, M. S. Petherick, M. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Stevenson, James
McKie, John Hamilton Pike, Cecil F. Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan Potter, John Storey, Samuel
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Magnay, Thomas Procter, Major Henry Adam Strauss, Edward A.
Maitland, Adam Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Ramsden, Sir Eugene Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Marsden, Commander Arthur Reid, David D. (County Down) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Martin, Thomas B. Reid, William Allan (Derby) Summersby, Charles H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Remer, John R. Sutcliffe, Harold
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Tate, Mavis Constance
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Milne, Charles Robinson, John Roland Thompson, Luke
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Rosbotham, Sir Samuel Thorp, Linton Theodore
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Runge, Norah Cecil Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Morgan, Robert H. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wells, Sydney Richard
Morrison, William Shepherd Rutherford, John (Edmonton) Weymouth, Viscount
Moss, Captain H. J. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Muirhead, Major A. J. Salmon, Sir Isidore Whyte, Jardine Bell
Munro, Patrick Salt, Edward W. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Nail, Sir Joseph Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Wills, Wilfrid D.
Newton sir Douglas George C. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Savery, Samuel Servington Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Normand, Wilfrid Guild Scone, Lord Womersley, Walter James
North, Captain Edward T. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Nunn, William Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
O'Connor, Terence James Shute, Colonel J. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
O'Donovan, Dr. William James Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.
Palmer, Francis Noel Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 146.] AYES. [1.24 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gunston, Captain D. W. Petherick, M.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Guy, J. C. Morrison Peto, Sir Bash E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Pickering, Ernest H.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hanley, Dennis A. Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Pike, Cecil F.
Apsley, Lord Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Aske, Sir Robert William Holdsworth, Herbert Procter, Major Henry Adam
Atholl, Duchess of Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Atkinson, Cyril Horsbrugh, Florence Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Balniel, Lord Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Rea, Walter Russell
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Jesson, Major Thomas E. Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Bernays, Robert Joel, Dudley J, Barnato Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Bracken, Brendan Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Brass, Captain Sir William Leech, Dr. J. W. Runge, Norah Cecil
Broadbent, Colonel John Liddall, Walter S. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lindsay, Noel Ker Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Browne, Captain A. C. Llowellin, Major John J. Ruthertord, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lloyd, Geoffrey Savery, Samuel Servington
Burghley, Lord Loder, Captain J. de Vere Scone, Lord
Burnett, John George Mabane, William Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) McCorquodale, M. S. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Shute, Colonel J. J.
Carver, Major William H. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Castlereagh, Viscount McKeag, William Soper, Richard
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) McKie, John Hamilton Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer McLean, Major Sir Alan Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Maitland, Adam Stevenson, James
Conant, R. J. E. Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Stourton, Hon. John J.
Cooper, A. Duff Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Strauss, Edward A.
Copeland, Ida Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cranborne, Viscount Marsden, Commander Arthur Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Martin, Thomas B. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Tate, Mavis Constance
Dalkeith, Earl of Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Davies, Maj. G. O. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thompson, Luke
Duckworth, George A. V. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Thorp, Linton Theodore
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Moreing, Adrian C. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Morgan, Robert H. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Morrison, William Shephard Warrender, Sir Victor A, G.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Muirhead, Major A. J. Wells, Sydney Richard
Fox, Sir Gilford Munro, Patrick Weymouth, Viscount
Fremantle, Sir Francis Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Gledhill, Gilbert Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Glossop, C. W. H. North, Captain Edward T. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Glucketein, Louis Halle Nunn, William Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Goff, Sir Park O'Connor, Terence James Wills, Wilfrid D.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. O'Donovan, Dr. William James Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Gower, Sir Robert Palmer, Francis Noel Womersley, Walter James
Graves, Marjorie Pearson, William G. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Greene, William P. C. Peat, Charles U.
Grimston, R. V. Penny, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Percy, Lord Eustace Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward
and Dr. Morris-Jones.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mainwaring, William Henry
Banfield, John William Grundy, Thomas W. Maxton, James
Buchanan, George Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Milner, Major James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hirst, George Henry Price, Gabriel
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Leonard, William
Dobbie, William Logan, David Gilbert TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Edwards, Charles McEntee, Valentine L. Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, to leave out from the word "and," to the end of line 25.

The principle of this Amendment will probably be answered in much the same terms as the last Amendment. We are asking that the tenant mentioned in the Schedule should be allowed to remain in his house until alternative accommodation is provided. We think that is essentially a humane demand. Surely the man has suffered enough when he has lost his job without having added to it the loss of his house as well. We therefore think that the Government should accept this very fair and reasonable Amendment, for otherwise we intend to divide against them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

This Amendment is covered by my hon. Friend's remarks. As the hon. Gentleman has said he intends to divide on it, I will say no more.

Mr. MAXTON

Does that mean that because we have intimated our position,

the reply is the same as it was on the bigger demand?

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I have handed in an Amendment to the Amendment. Is it not going to be called?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment bas not been selected.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 27.

Division No. 147.] AYES. [1.35 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gunston, Captain D. W. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Guy, J. C. Morrison Pickering, Ernest H.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hanley, Dennis A. Pike, Cecil F.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Apsley, Lord Heilgers, Captain F. F, A. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Aske, Sir Robert William Holdsworth, Herbert Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Atholl, Duchess of Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Atkinson, Cyril Horsbrugh, Florence Rea, Walter Russell
Balniel, Lord Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Jesson, Major Thomas E, Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Bernays, Robert Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Bracken, Brendan Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Runge, Norah Cecil
Brass, Captain Sir William Leech, Dr. J. W. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Broadbent, Colonel John Liddall, Walter S. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lindsay, Noel Ker Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Browne, Captain A. C. Llewellin, Major John J. Savery, Samuel Servington
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lloyd, Geoffrey Scone, Lord
Burghley, Lord Loder, Captain J. de Vere Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Burnett, John George Mabane, William Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) McCorquodale, M. S. Shute, Colonel J. J.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D,
Castlereagh, Viscount Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Soper, Richard
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) McKeag, William Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer McKie, John Hamilton Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. McLean, Major Sir Alan Stevenson, James
Conant, R. J. E. Maitland, Adam Stourton, Hon. John J.
Cooper, A. Duff Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Strauss, Edward A.
Copeland, Ida Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cranborne, Viscount Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Marsden, Commander Arthur Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Martin, Thomas B. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Dalkeith, Earl of Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Thompson, Luke
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Duckworth, George A. V. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale. Wallace. Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Moreing, Adrian C. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Morgan, Robert H. Wells, Sydney Richard
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Weymouth, Viscount
Fox, Sir Gifford Morrison, William Shepherd Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Fremantle, Sir Francis Munro, Patrick Whyte, Jardine Bell
Gledhill, Gilbert Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Glossop, C. W. H. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle North, Captain Edward T. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Goff, Sir Park Nunn, William Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. O'Connor, Terence James Womersley, Walter James
Gower, Sir Robert O'Donovan, Dr. William James Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Graves, Marjorie Palmer, Francis Noel
Greene, William P. C. Pearson, William G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grimston, R. V. Peat, Charles U. Sir George Penny and Sir V. Warrender.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Petherick, M.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grundy, Thomas W. Mainwaring, William Henry
Banfield, John William Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Maxton, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hirst, George Henry Milner, Major James
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jenkins, Sir William Price, Gabriel
Daggar, George John, William Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Kirkwood, David Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Dubbie, William Leonard, William
Edwards, Charles Logan, David Gilbert TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur McEntee, Valentine L. Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Duncan
Graham.

Question put, and agreed to.

1.44 a.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT

I beg to move in. page 13, line 26, after the word "satisfied," to insert the words: by a statutory declaration of the landlord, or his duly authorised agent or. This and the following Amendment are 'alternative procedures to the rather cumbrous method of obtaining a certificate from the agricultural committee or the Minister of Agriculture which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). It is rightly laid down that in a case where an owner wishes to get possession of his house for an employé it should be made perfectly clear that it is for a genuine employé and that there is no desire to cheat the law. I have never understood why it was suggested that the agricultural committee was the appropriae authority to grant a certificate, because it certainly now does not come within their scope. It is a cumbrous and tiresome procedure, and it is suggested in these Amendments that either a statutory declaration should be made by the owner, or that the court should satisfy itself what form of evidence it wants. I suggest that it would save a great deal of trouble to everybody concerned. The temptation to evade the law now much less than it was, owing to the fact that when this Bill passes into law houses so obtained will not be decontrolled, and suitable penalties for making a false statutory declaration are already provided in other Acts. I suggest that the rights of the tenant will be safeguarded under either of these Amendments, and a good deal of expense saved. I am quite indifferent which of the Amendments the right hon. Gentleman prefers, but I would like some simplification of the procedure.

1.46 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG

I do not propose to accept either of the Amendments. The hon. Member is opening his mouth too wide, which is perhaps not unnatural at this time of night. The Amendment I have already accepted goes as far as I think is reasonable in the direction the hon. Member desires. Where an estate owner or landlord has a cottage which is already in the occupation of an agricultural employé, the procedure recommended in the previous Amendment is reasonable. The effect of what the hon. Member now proposes would be to extend the facilitation for decontrol of houses already in the occupation of an employé of the owner, to all cottages in the occupation of a controlled tenant which he has acquired. Where the landlord has acquired possession of a controlled cottage in possession of a controlled tenant, I do not think it would be reasonable or desirable that we should still further facilitate the means of obtaining possession by the purchaser of the cottage. In particular, I do not think it would be right that we should do away with the necessity of obtaining a certificate of requirement for agricultural occupation from some outside authority who could put some sort of check on the actual requirements. The hon. Member says: "What an inconvenient authority," but there is no other which is more convenient. Under these conditions, I think we have gone far enough in facilitating re-occupation of agricultural cottages by the owners, and we ought not to give further extension which he now proposes.

1.49 a.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT

I am sorry the Minister thinks that I am opening my mouth too wide, and I do not want on this occasion to open it too often. This Amendment does not further facilitate obtaining possession by owners. It merely makes the necessary certificate less awkward to obtain. I do not think the matter is of sufficient importance to carry to a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

1.50 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE

I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to the first word "for" in line 37.

This is a matter which does not affect the owner of a large number of houses. It affects only the owner who needs a house for his own family. It is hard lines on the man owning a house, and needing it for his own occupation, if he is not able to get possession. I do not see any reason why a man should not buy a house at any time in the future, as in the past, and obtain possession.

1.51 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The advancing of the date to 1931 is in favour of the person owning a house. At present any landlord who bought after 1924 would be unable to obtain possession. We have put in extra relatives, and we have accepted the recommendation of the Committee that the date should be advanced. It would not be right to go further, because a landlord might deliberately buy after the recommendation was made for the purpose of getting possession for his mother or father. He would be enabled to take an unfair advantage of the recommendation.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND TROYTE

This is only in the report of a Committee, and there is no reason why we should not alter the date in an Act of Parliament.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

Captain Cunningham Reid—

Sir B. PETO

I have an Amendment—in page 14, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule. I gave notice that I wished to raise a particular point, although I did not wish to make a speed"

The CHAIRMAN

That Amendment has not been selected because the point has been covered by previous discussions.

Second Schedule (Consequential and minor amendments) and Third Schedule (Enactments repealed) agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed.