HL Deb 02 July 1920 vol 40 cc1171-82

Message from the Commons, That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill without amendment, and disagree with certain other Amendments for which disagreement they assign reasons.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR}

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments to this Bill be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill be now considered.—{Viscount Astor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I think it will be convenient if, before going into details, I ask the Government what course they propose to puruse in regard to these Amendments.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

MY Lords, it would facilitate the course of business, I think, if I were to indicate the outstanding points between the two Houses. It must be a matter for congratulation that in another place practically all the Amendments which your Lordships made to the Bill were accepted. Your Lordships' Amendments were considered last night in another place at 11 o'clock. They were fully considered, as the members of the House of Commons sat until after three o'clock this morning in order to meet the convenience of your Lordships, who, they knew, were to meet to-day at 12 o'clock. There are only three points which your Lordships have to consider. The first is a purely drafting Amendment. I will read the statement which has come from another place—

The Commons disagree to one part of the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 22, for the following reason: Because it is desirable that the suspension of an increase in rent should take place in any case where the condition of the dwelling-house is due to the default of the landlord.

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 13, line 29, for the following reason: Because the Amendment would exclude from the operation of the Bill small houses in the country which ought to be protected.

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 16, line 12, for the following reason: Because business premises should be placed on the same footing as a dwelling-house in regard to the date from which increases of rent are restricted.

The first Amendment is mainly drafting. It leaves it to the discretion of the Court to say whether the condition of the house is due to the tenant or not. The second deals with an Amendment moved by Lord Selborne in Clause 12, proviso (iii), which, without your Lordships' Amendment, reads as follows— (iii) for the purposes of this Act, any land or premises let together with a house shall, if the rateable value of the land or premises let separately would be less than one quarter of the rateable value of the house, be treated as part of the house, but, subject to this provision, this Act shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of the house. Your Lordships will remember that Lord Selborne moved to leave out "one quarter" and insert "one eighth." In doing so the noble Earl said that he did not want to exclude a cottasge merely because it had a garden attached to it. The House of Commons considered, when the Amendment was before them, that the proviso, as drafted, would exclude a cottage and that the object which, Lord Selborne had in view would not be met. Perhaps I can illustrate how that would happen. Assume that you have a house with a rateable value of £40 a year, and there is land and some out-houses of a rateable value of one quarter of that—£10. One eighth of that would be £5. A house in the country with a paddock and small out-houses of a rateable value of £45 would be excluded, and it was felt by the House of Commons that the Amendment as it left your Lordships' House would, in fact, exclude a large number of cottages in the country which had a small amount of land attached to them. That is the reason they disagree with your Lordships' Amendment. I think there is complete agreement as to intention between Lord Selborne and the House of Commons. What we have to do is to see if we in fact carry out the intention. It was felt that a considerable amount of hardship would be caused it your Lordships' Amendment was agreed to.

The third point deals with an Amendment moved by Lord Dynevor. The Bill is to come into operation on March 25, and Lord Dynevor moved that as regards business premises it should come into operation on June 16, because it was on June 15 that they were brought within the scope of the measure. If was felt by the House of Commons that it was undesirable to have two dates, and although technically the public had had no warning that business premises would be included there was reasonable ground for anticipating that they would be. It was a matter which had been discussed publicly at considerable length.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

When did the Standing Committee put it, in?

VISCOUNT ASTOR

It was put into the Bill on June 15, and that was why the date of June 16 was inserted. Technically there was no warning to the public that public business premises would be covered until June 15, but it was a matter which had been discussed ever since the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess was published, and it was felt undesirable to have two dates, especially as June 16 does not coincide with the quarter day. If it had been the end of June there might have been some reason for it, but in fact it was undesirable to have two dates from which the Act should begin to operate.

Those are the three points which your Lordships have to consider. The first is a drafting point. On the second point, I think, on consideration, if your Lordships will agree with the Amendment made in another place, you will in fact be carrying out the object which the mover of the Amendment had. On the third point, the difference of date, I really do not think that there ought to be very much difference between us. In another place ample, full, and detailed consideration was given to your Lordships' Amendments. Practically the whole of your Lordships' Amendments were agreed to. The main point of difference between the noble Marquess opposite and the Government—namely, as to the value of business premises—was accepted and agreed to. I sincerely trust that your Lordships who have assisted the Government so much in the framing of this Bill will agree to the course suggested by another place.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I desire in the first place to recognise all that the noble Viscount has said as to the agreement between the House of Commons and your Lordships in respect of the main objects of the Amendments sent from here to another place. Undoubtedly the noble Viscount was justified in saying that in the large majority of cases the House of Commons has been good enough to accept the Amendments which your Lordships made, and of course personally I have no reason to complain. The Amendments. for which I was in any way responsible personally were accepted and I am very grateful to the House of Commons, and I am grateful to the Government for having done their best, as I have no doubt they did, to induce the House of Commons to accept those Amendments.

But there remain undoubtedly two Amendments of substance. The first Amendment is not wholly drafting, but I admit that the difference of opinion does not amount to very much. The two other Amendments are, of course, Amendments of substance. The noble Viscount has said that in respect of the change in the amount of land and premises which are to be counted as possible to be attached to a house in order that it should come within the operation of the Bill your Lordships were ill-advised in passing the Amendment, because you did that which you did not intend to do. I am sure the noble Viscount will forgive me if I say that in this matter I attribute more weight to the opinion of my noble friend Lord Selborne and of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who are both of them authorities on this particular subject, and who took a view directly contrary to that which the noble Viscount has put forward. Even on the figures submitted by the noble Viscount I think your Lordships will he clearly aware that land and premises which have a value of £10 a year mean a very considerable area of land, bringing it far outside the cottage garden, which was the point that all of you were prepared to concede. Therefore it is an Amendment of substance.

Then there remains the last Amendment, which you will remember had a rather stormy passage through this House, and it was upon that very Amendment that the difference of opinion took place between us as to whether it ought to be introduced on the Third Reading or not. The noble Viscount has said upon that Amendment that there really was no case for it, because everybody knew that business premises were very likely to be included in the Act before June 16. What was the case? The case was that the Departmental Committee had reported definitely that business premises ought not to be included; that the Government who introduced the Bill had excluded business premises. Why should the public think that the Government would be defeated in the Standing Committee? Because that is, in fact, what happened. They had every right to suppose that the Government would be successful in the Standing Committee in maintaining the decision at which they had arrived.

I have only said so much in order to answer the observations of the noble Viscount. But what I want to call your Lordships' attention to is the way in which Parliament is treated—or rather it is the public and not Parliament who are so abominably treated. It is an Amendment involving the livelihood of a great many of His Majesty's subjects. It is not a matter of playing a game between the two Houses, as to whether the House of Commons has treated the House of Lords properly, or whether the House of Lords presumes upon the House of Commons. All those things the public, I think, consider as rather insignificant. What is important is that legislation should be properly considered, and the method at which the experience of our people has arrived for considering questions is that legislation should be passed by the two Houses of Parliament, and that the two Houses of Parliament should have ample time to consider the particular provisions. The House of Commons had a very limited time to consider the Bill, and most of it was in the small hours of the morning. It is true the Committee had ample time.

Then the Bill came to your Lordships and your Lordships were not allowed to have a full opportunity of considering it. The whole thing was hustled through with the greatest difficulty, and it was only with the kindness of the noble and learned Lord, who always shows the greatest consideration for your Lordships' House, that we were allowed to get one day for its consideration, and then with great difficulty working at great pressure we managed to do it. There was no interval before the Third Reading. My impression is that none of the interests of His Majesty's subjects are considered for a moment. It does not matter whether any one loses money, or whether the landlords or the tenants are ill-treated. The great thing is to get the business through somehow, in order to save perhaps twenty-four hours of House of Commons' time. That is what is done.

Then at the last moment we are asked to consider the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments. How are we asked? We are asked to meet at twelve o'clock on Friday for that purpose. I want your Lordships to observe the way these things are done. The noble Earl the acting-Leader of the House gave no notice whatever that we were to meet at twelve o'clock on Friday. Personally, I received a very civil and courteous intimation in course of the proceedings yesterday afternoon, but that was the first I had heard of it. As to other noble Lords, except those I myself told, nobody knew at all. There was no public intimation. The noble Earl did not do what I respectfully say it was his duty to do, and that was to announce publicly at the meeting of this House yesterday that your Lordships would be asked to sit at twelve o'clock to-day. The whole thing was a hole-and-corner arrangement. Then, at the last moment last night, there was a Motion that we should sit at twelve o'clock to-day to consider the Amendments. I did my best to induce the Government not to persist in that Motion, but I was not permitted to succeed, and we meet at twelve o'clock.

What opportunity have your Lordships had of knowing what the House of Commons did? Were any Parliamentary Papers circulated this morning to tell you? Not a word. None of your Lordships living in the country have the least notion what the Commons did. Personally I was informed, on my own request, over the telephone at eleven o'clock to-day. It was only then that I knew what had been done. With a great deal of difficulty, without any Papers to help me except the Papers which I could pick up, I made out what the Commons have done. I do not suppose that any noble Lord in London, except those in the Government, knew what the Commons bad done. It is reduced to this. It was not until your Lordships met at twelve o'clock to-day and the noble Viscount spoke at the Table that we knew of the reason why the Commons were rejecting our Amendments. There is nothing printed. and they were read in manuscript. Is it possible to conceive of business being done on principles like that? It really is so scandalous an outrage that I doubt whether the noble Lord the deputy-Leader of the House, with all his skill and experience, will be able to defend it. The truth is that the way business is managed is absolutely indefensible, and it is right that we should make a protest. We are not here for our own pleasure or entertainment. We are here in order to see that the business of the country is properly considered, and by the action of the Government we are not allowed properly to consider that business.

The question is, What is to be done now? I believe it would be possible, if your Lordships thought fit to do so, to take steps to see that the consideration of the Commons Amendments was postponed. I do not think from the look of your Lordships' House that there is a quorumpresent. Speaking for myself, in a humble capacity,. I am not going to advise your Lordships to take such a course. I do not think that the difference of opinion between the two Houses is sufficiently important to warrant so drastic a step as that. But it is not quite true that the Amendments with which the Commons have disagreed axe insignificant. My noble friend, I admit, did not suggest that they were. Certainly, they are not anything like so important as the Amendments to which the House of Commons have assented. In these circumstances I do not think it would be an act of men of the world and commonsense to force a constitutional struggle upon the issue, but I hope the Government will take what has happened to heart and will not regard it as disrespectful or impertinent on my part to say so. I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who has always treated the House with the greatest courtesy, will himself regret very much what has happened, and I hope in future that we shall be allowed properly to do. our work for the country. When other Bills come, as they will come, and other pressure is put upon us, if the Government will not resist the ill-treatment of the House of Lords and stand up for our rights and duties, then your Lordships can take the matter into your own hands and see that justice is done.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, I do not wish to enter upon the main question, but I desire to refer, if I may, to a statement of Lord. Salisbury's about the attitude of the Government. On the broad question, your Lordships make fifty Amendments to this Bill. Of those fifty Amendments forty-seven have been accepted. Of the three which have been refused by the House of Commons the first one is in effect a drafting Amendment, the Commons, for our words "due in part or in whole," suggesting "wholly or partly," That is clearly in the nature of a drafting Amendment.

The second Amendment (Earl Selborne's) and the third Amendment (Lord Dynevor's) raised matters of interest, possibly of substance, and I am inclined to think that Lord Selborne's Amendment has been quite fairly met by the House of Commons, and that his intention has been fully met. Whereas that is the statistical record of what has happened, I must remind your Lordships of the very much greater importance of the Amendments which were made that have been accepted compared with those which have been rejected. The addition on the net rent has been accepted. The very important strike exemption Amendment has been accepted, although it was divided against last night in the House of Commons. The reasonable repair Amendment, the new houses Amendment, the tenants' liability for repairs Amendment, and the not unimportant Amendments inserted at the instance of Lord Balfour of Burleigh dealing with Scottish questions have been accepted. I submit that so far as the House of Commons is concerned they, at any rate, cannot be accused of treating the Lords Amendment in anything but friendliness.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree to that.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Not only is that so as regards the actual Amendments themselves, but they have shown a desire to get through this Bill promptly. One night they sat up till four o'clock in the morning, and last night's sitting did not end till half-past three this morning. The House of Commons last night between eleven and half-past three spent more time in considering the Lords Amendments than our House spent on the whole of the Report stage, so that it is no good saving the House of Commons is treating this House with contumely, because they are not.

I hear it said that sitting up into the small hours of the morning is in itself a symbol that the work is improperly done. Nobody disliked late sittings in the House of Commons more than I did, but at any rate we must acknowledge what the Commons have done to be evidence of goodwill. I am bound to say that the House of Commons has acceded to the request of the Government to sit at most inconvenient hours and for protracted periods in order that this Bill might get through in the requisite time. I think on that side of the case my statement is quite unanswerable. On the question of the treatment of your Lordships by the Government, or by those responsible for business, perhaps Lord Salisbury may be able to make a strong case, but I must be allowed to repudiate in emphatic terms the idea that there has been any hole-and-corner management of this affair or some policy of concealment on my part.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not say that the noble Earl had concealed anything. What I said was that it was a hole-and-corner affair that your Lordships should be asked to meet at twelve o'clock to-day without any public notice.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not know what "hole and corner" means. I understand the phrase to mean something that is not really quite above board. There was no desire whatever on my part to conceal or obscure the fact that the House of Lords would have to meet. To tell the truth, I thought everybody knew. It has been repeatedly stated—I mean as long as a fortnight ago—that the Govern- merit was most anxious to get this Bill passed by the end of this week, and at one time, as your Lordships know, the House was informed that we should probably have to take both stages on the same day. I very much regret it; I think it is very unfortunate.

I have often said in the past, and I am not afraid to repeat it now, that the considering of complicated Bills involving every kind of technical question like this one at the last moment, without opportunities of considering the exact purport and nature of very highly involved and technical Amendments, does lead to the danger which Lord Salisbury has indicated. That is agreed. I think every Government, in turn, does agree to that view. But Government after Government finds itself unable to secure that Bills of this character from the House of Commons shall reach the House of Lords in ample time for some terminal date, as happened in this case, and, as I think, has happened on two particular occasions in relation to the Profiteering Bill. If I did not give sufficient notice to the House that a sitting was inevitable to-day I quite frankly apologise for that oversight, though I confess I thought it was well known that the Government was most anxious to get the Bill passed, as we are actually passing it now, and, if the original intention of the Government to take two stages on one day had been successful, I should have hoped that this inconvenient sitting to-day would not have been necessary.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I want to say a word or two on the two points which have been the subject of speeches by the noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench and the noble Earl opposite. So far as Amendments are concerned and the merits of the Amendments, I am in agreement with the noble Marquess and with the noble Earl that, having regard to the way in which this House has sometimes been treated in the past, the other House has given very fair treatment to the Amendments which we made. On those grounds I do not think we have any reason to complain, though we have not had all our own way. That we could not expect. I am afraid I cannot agree as to the reasonableness of the procedure. It is said by the noble Earl that the House of Commons sat up very late on several occasions. If they so regulate their business that they have to sit, up till four o'clock in the morning, that is their affair, not ours.

But with regard to the meeting to-day I must say I think we ought to have had longer notice. I was obliged to go away before the end of the proceedings last night, and I was wholly unaware, until I saw the. newspapers this morning, and had notice, that we were to meet at twelve o'clock to-day. It is a very inconvenient thing, and I could not find out what the House of Commons had done with regard to the Amendments. There was nothing in the public prints. I saw three Members of the House of Commons at a meeting, and none of them knew what had been done; and when I came down to the House. here I had to get the Commons' Minutes, and, after a somewhat laborious search, I was able to find out what Amendments had been accepted and what had been rejected. I do not think it is reasonable that we should be put to this sort of inconvenience.

I am not going to take any action which would add to the difficulties of the Government, but I want to point out that, supposing any of us were so minded, we have nothing to do but to take a Division, and automatically under the Standing Order, unless there are large numbers of Government supporters in reserve in other parts of the House, the procedure would be automatically adjourned until next week. I hope, therefore, that, the Government will take warning, and, if they are going to do this sort of thing again, that they will bring down a larger number of their supporters, so as to make a quorum.

On Question, Motion—That the Commons Reasons be now considered—agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I beg to move that the Lords do not insist on the Amendment made by them in page 3, line 22.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I beg to move that the Lords do not insist on the, Amendment made by them on page 13, line 29.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I beg to move that the Lords do not insist on the Amendment made by them on page 16, line 12. I should like again, on behalf of the Government and on behalf of myself, to thank the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) for the enormous assistance he has been to the Government in framing the proposals on which this Bill was drafted, and in assisting me personally in its passage through your Lordships' House. I can assure him that there has been no intention of discourtesy in asking your Lordships to pass this Bill to-day.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Astor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

should like to thank the noble Viscount for his very civil words. I entirely acquit him—indeed, I entirely acquit the Government—of any intentional discourtesy.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.