HL Deb 28 June 1920 vol 40 cc904-70

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Permitted increases in rent.

2.—(1) The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:—

  1. (a) Where the landlord has since the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen incurred, or hereafter incurs, expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of the dwelling-house (not including expenditure on decoration or repairs), an amount calculated at a rate per annum not exceeding six, or in the case of such expenditure incurred after the passing of this Act, eight per cent. of the amount so expended:
  2. (b) An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly or other period which included the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or in the case of a dwelling-house for which no rates were payable in respect of any period which included the said date, the period which included the date on which the rates first became payable;
  3. (c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding fifteen per centum of the net rent:
  4. (d) In further addition to any such amounts as aforesaid—
    1. (i) where the landlord is responsible for the whole of repairs, an amount not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net rent; or
      2. 905
    2. (ii) where the landlord is responsible for part and not the whole of the repairs, such lesser amount as may be agreed, or as may, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, be determined by the county court to be fair ant reasonable having regard to such liability.

(2) At any time or times not being less than three months after the date of any increase permitted by paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection the tenant or the sanitary authority may apply to the county court for an order suspending such increase, and also any increase under paragraph (c) of that subsection, on the ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, or is otherwise not in a reasonable state of repair.

The court on being satisfied by the production of a certificate of the sanitary authority or otherwise that any such ground as aforesaid is established, and on being further satisfied that the condition of the house is not due or not wholly due to the tenant's neglect or default or breach of exfores agreement, shall order that, the increase suspended until the court is satisfied, on the report of the sanitary authority or otherwise, that the necessary repairs (other than the repairs, if any, far which the tenant is liable) have been executed, and on the making of such order the increase shall cease to have effect, until the court, is so satisfied.

(3) Any transfer to a. tenant of any burden or liability previously borne by the landlord shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as an alteration of rent, and where, as the result of such a transfer, the terms on which a dwelling-house is held are on the whole less favourable to the tenant than the previous terms, the rent shall be deemed to be increased, whether or not the sum periodically payable by way of rent is increased, and any increase of rent in respect of any transfer to a landlord of any burden or liability previously borne by the tenant where, as the result, of such transfer, the terms on which any dwelling-house is held are on the whole more favourable to the tenant Clan the previous terms, shall be deemed not to be an increase of rent for the purposes of this Act: Provided that for the purposes of this section the rent shall not be deemed to be increased where the liability for rates is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, if it corresponding reduction is made in the rent.

(4) On any application to a sanitary authority for a certificate or report under this section a fee of one shilling shall be payable, but if the authority as the result of such application issues such a certificate as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the fee from any subsequent payment of rent.

(5) For the purposes of this section the expression "rates" includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by the landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded.

(6) Any question arising as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible under this section shall be determined on the application either of the landlord or the tenant by the county court, and the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "expenditure On the," to insert "necessary reconstruction, partial replacement." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper to the effect that there should be added to the words "improvement or structural alteration" the words "necessary reconstruction, partial replacement." This is to meet the cases of which, I am afraid, there are a good many now in our country districts, where it has become necessary, owing to the dilapidated state of cottages which it has been impossible to repair during the war, to reconstruct or partially reconstruct such cottages for the increased comfort of the tenants. I suggest that in those cases it ought to be possible to make all reasonable expenditure upon them and to obtain from the tenants some interest upon the expenditure by way of addition to the rent.

I may point out that there is a proviso to this subsection which makes it quite impossible in any case for the landlord to undertake expenditure which is not really necessary and to claim front the tenant the interest upon such capital expenditure, Consequently there is a safegaurd against unreasonable expenditure; and as it is in the best interests of the tenants that the cottages should be made habitable, especially in districts where there have been large subsidences owing to mining operations beneath the surface, I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 13, after ("the") insert ("necessary reconstruction, partial replacement").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR)

We are in entire sympathy with the object of the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, but I understand that the words on the Paper are unnecessary, and that "necessary reconstruction" or "partial replacement" would, in fact, be covered by the words now in the Bill—"structural alteration." Either the alteration of the house would be covered or else the house would be a new one and so not included in the Bill. I understand that the words are not necessary to meet the noble Lord's object.

LORD BLEDISLOE

If that is the legal advice given to the noble Viscount, I do not see how I can press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

It is very important. Is my noble friend quite sure about it?

VISCOUNT ASTOR

So I am advised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The first three Amendments standing in my name are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 33, at end insert ("thereafter").

Page 3, line 22, leave out ("due or not wholly ") and insert ("wholly or partly").

Page 3, line 40, leave out ("more") and insert ("not less").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert: "For the purposes of this section the expression 'repairs' means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, both structural and decorative, and any premises, in such a state shall be deemed to be in a reasonable state of repair, and the landlord shall be deemed to be responsible for any repairs for which the tenant is under no express liability."

The noble and learned Lord said: The noble Viscount has asked me to move this Amendment because the matter dealt with is somewhat technical in character. Reading through this clause one must, I think, be conscious that it would be desirable that the term "repairs," which is a very important one in the clause, should be defined. There is no such definition at present, and although the broad conception is familiar enough to those who are likely to have to administer this law, it would be a convenience, and it would be no inconvenience, that there should be a definition.

It is proposed, therefore, here to adopt a definition, as this Amendment in effect does, which takes advantage of the familiar legal construction of the term "good and tenantable repair." To lawyers these words are very familiar. They have frequently been interpreted in this House. The words of paragraph (d) would almost certainly be held, as they stand, to refer to cases where the landlord is responsible to the tenant for repairs. At least I so construe them. But the landlord ought certainly to be entitled to an increase of rent in respect of repairs for which he has no legal responsibility but which he has to carry out, and does carry out, to preserve the property. As your Lordships know, at common law the landlord is not liable to the tenant, but the tenant is liable to the landlord. I have carefully examined these words, and have no hesitation in recommending the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have no criticism to make upon what the noble and learned Lord has said. So far as I am capable of judging, which is very little, everything is quite correct, but he did not make reference to one phrase in the Amendment "both structural and decorative." I am a little doubtful as to the word "decorative." Your Lordships will recollect that under the Bill a landlord is not entitled to raise the rent even within the limits that are provided by the Bill, unless, in popular language, the cottage or the house is put into good repair. That is perfectly fair and proper. But when you come to consider what good repair is, it is rather important that we should distinguish between "structural" and "decorative," because it might easily be that a house was fit for human habitation in every respect but it might require a little paint or a little paper, and I doubt whether it is wise to forbid the landlord to raise the rent at all, according to the policy of the Bill, until all the decoration is absolutely put into apple pie order. If the noble and learned Lord could give your Lordships some assurance that the word "decorative" did not imply what we have suggested, I should have nothing to say; but, as they stand, the words sound to me rather wide.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As the noble Marquess understands, "repair" has always been held to relate not only to structural alterations but to putting those parts of the premises which are more properly described as decorative, in proper order on the conclusion of a tenancy. If one limited it here simply to the case of structural repairs I am not sure that one would not find oneself involved in some very considerable inconvenience.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My suggestion, so far as it was a suggestion, was simply to leave out those words so that it would read "good and tenantable repair."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My own view, given on the spur of the moment, is that it means exactly the same. But I should like to consider that more carefully, and I will do so between now and the Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Viscount said: We propose to transfer this subsection to Clause 12, on page 12 of the Bill, after line 22—that is to say, the definition of "rates" will apply not only to Clause 2, but will be applicable to the whole Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 12 to 15, leave out subsection (5).—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "as to the amount of any increase of rent permis sible." The noble and learned Lord said: This again is a technical Amendment and must be read together with the second Amendment on page 4, line 17. The first Amendment is to leave out from "arising" in line 16 to "under" in line 17; and the second is in line 17, after "under" to insert "subsection (1), (2) or (3) of." The effect of this will be to leave it to the County Court to determine any question arising under the whole of the section instead of under subsection (4), which is not included, and not merely any question as to the amount of any increase of rent permissible. I have no hesitation in recommending this proposal to your Lordships. The County Court is the best court to determine the questions of fact that alone arise under the section, and it is not, in my experience, desirable to submit appeals upon matters of fact to the High Court. Your Lordships have the assurance of knowing that there never has been a time in which the ability of our County Court Judges was so generally recognised.

Amendments moved— Page 4, line 16, leave out from ("arising") to ("under") in line 17. Page 4, line 17, after ("under") insert ("subsection (1), (2), or (3) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved, after subsection (6), to insert the following new subsection— (7) Any order as to the proportion of wages payable as rent made by the Agricultural Wages Board under the Corn Production Act, 1917, and any Act amending the same, shall be snbject to the provisions of this section.

The noble Earl said: I ventured to say a word on this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I was obliged to leave the House to fulfil a public engagement, and I do not believe that anything was said by the noble Viscount in regard to it. I do not think you could have in this Bill a greater hiatus than that the whole question of agricultural labourers' cottages should be left practically outside the scope of the Bill. When Your Lordships consented to the measure which dealt with corn production I do not think it was ever supposed that those who had to fix the wages would undertake, as they did, to lay down a standard rent for the whole of the cottages with which they were dealing—a standard rent which had nothing. whatever to do with the class of cottage, or the state of the cottage, or the size of the garden attached to it, or with any of the matters which come into holding or taking a house. They laid down what in some parts of the country is regarded as a fairly high standard of wages, and said that for all eases the same should apply—that there should be a reduction not exceeding 3s. a week for the cottage which went as part of the wages. That has been the cause of very great injustice and of a great want of proportion and it has, I submit, been entirely against public policy.

It has been against public policy for this reason. If you say to the ordinary owner, especially to the tenant farmer, "It is quite immaterial what kind of house you give your labourer, he will pay you the same whatever it is; the sum which is allowed you is one which will not enable you to keep any cottage in repair, therefore you had better not attempt it." The whole object of this Bill is that we should endeavour to get owners not merely to work up to a fair standard, but even to do progressive work in the matter of housing; and that is absolutely defeated by the Coin Production Act. As I understand it, reading the two Acts together, the effect will be this. On one side of the road you will have a comparatively small cottage which is not let to an agricultural labourer. The owner of that cottage, who has had perhaps 4s. a week for it, may add on to it 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. On the other side of the real you have a roomy cottage with a large garden, for which the owner gets 3s. a week, but he can make no addition to the rent under this Bill. This interference with contract is in itself a thing to be avoided. I believe it is one of the most fatal barriers to reconstruction and good feeling, and if it is necessary let us at all events endeavour to make it fair as between the different classes of these cottages.

Your Lordships will see that in the clause with which we are dealing there are a number of points besides that of rent which file not dealt with at all under the Corn Production Act. Take paragraph (a), which is specially calculated with a view to inducing the landlord to make the proper additions to these houses and to spend capital. Under the Corn Production Act capital so expended makes no return whatever. I ventured on the Second Reading to give an experience which I think is common to a good many of your Lordships in this matter. One of my tenants came to me and said that the Government required him to plough up a good deal of pasture, and that it was absolutely impossible for him to house the necessary labour unless I would make additions to his cottages. I did maize additions to two cottages—two rooms to each—and they cost me £150 apiece, although the work was done with great economy. Naturally I did net expect any return on that capital, nor did my tenant get any return. He was allowed to charge 3s. as before; the only person who got any, advantage was the man to whose house the addition was made, who promptly let the rooms for 10s. apiece, and proceeded to get a considerable addition to his wages at the expense of the landlord. That is exactly what must occur in every case in which capital expenditure is made, unless we are allowed, as I propose, to bring all rents fixed by the Corn Production Act under this section. I think it is quite evident that if these measures are to he passed which interfere with contracts, you must try and interfere with such equality as you can, and not by one Act destroy the objects which you have done your very best to achieve by another Act. For this reason I commend the Amendment to the Government.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 21, after subsection (6) insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Midleton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me at all. These matters are technical and difficult, and I have been reading a later Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl—namely, Clause 12, page 15, line 7—and it appeared to me that the later Amendment was put down really in connection with and almost as pat of the Amendment which he has just moved. I do not know whether he can tell me whether I am right.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

They are to an extent to be read together, but on this particular Amendment I wanted to raise the whole question.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know whether the noble Earl would think it convenient at this stage to say anything about the second Amendment.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

Perhaps I might explain to the noble and learned Lord. This Amendment has the object of bringing all rents under the Bill. The other Amendment has the object of providing for the extremely difficult cases in which no rent has ever been paid for the cottage. If no rent has ever been paid for the cottage, then certainly I think it must be reckoned as having been paid on some system; and in the second Amendment I suggest a system, which perhaps some of your Lordships may improve upon—namely, that it should be taken at the very moderate figure of one-eighth of the wages. If it were one-eighth of £1 in old days it would be 2s. 6d., and if one-eighth of £2 at the present day, 5s., and so forth.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I was, I think, right in saying that the two Amendments are closely connected in their object. The first Amendment, as the noble Earl has told us, attempts to provide than an order of the Wages Board, authorising a reduction of 3s. on account of the cottage, should be subject to the increase permitted under Section 2; and as I understand the second Amendment, its object would be to exclude the operation of subsection (7) of Clause 12 from cottages occupied by agricultural labourers, and bring such cottages under the general terms of the Bill, with a standard rent equal to one-eighth of the wages.

Dealing with the second Amendment, apparently it amounts to fixing the permissible reduction at one-eighth notwithstanding any order to the contrary by the Agricultural Wages Board. The first observation I would venture to make about these Amendments is that I have a very clear view that they would not and could not come within the scope and title of this Bill. The effect of the proposal really is—and especially is this true of the latter part of the second Amendment—to introduce very grave modifications in an earlier Act of Parliament by means of a Bill which purports to be a measure dealing with restrictions upon increases of rent and mortgage interest, and I should certainly gravely doubt whether Mr. Speaker would rule these Amendments to be within the scope of the measure. Of course, your Lordships' practise in such matters does not depend on the ruling of an individual, but upon the decision which will be taken by your Lordships as a whole.

Apart from the technical point of view, I am not sure that the Amendments are not really misconceived. If these Amendments were adopted, and supposing that everything he asks for in the Amendment were adopted, would the noble Earl's position really be bettered? I greatly doubt it, for this reason, that if the Agricultural Wages Board wished to defeat the whole purpose of the noble Earl they could easily do it. If they reduce the permissible reduction they can very largely defeat the proposal of the noble Earl, and in the second place they could increase the wages. If they reduced either the permissible reduction or increased the wages—it is in their power entirely to do so—they would defeat the noble Earl's purpose. Another consequence which I cannot believe is in his mind would, I think, also clearly follow, and it would be this, that agricultural cottages occupied under the conditions in question would come within the general terms of the Bill, including, of course, the provisions giving security of tenure. I do not think that that is the object of the noble Earl, and it is doubtful whether to bring these cottages within tile scope of the measure would have a result which any section of opinion would desire.

I quite see what the noble Earl wants, though it is extremely difficult by Amendment of the Bill to give it him effectively. The matter is extremely technical, and I cannot profess to be expert upon this subject. The suggestion I would make to him is this, and I hope that he will not take it as a suggestion which is intended to give him encouragement, but I myself would be very glad if he would discuss this matter with the very capable and experienced draftsman who is responsible for these matters, and if the discussion proved fruitful it might be possible for the noble Earl to carry the matter further.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not know whether I rightly understood my noble and learned friend in the very important observation that he made when he said that cottages for which no rent is charged, and that are let as part of the bargain under which employment is arranged, are outside this Act altogether. Did the noble and learned Lord say that?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

In that case, I do not know that my noble friend need press the matter any more, because none of these cottages come within the Act at all. If it had been otherwise I should have liked to point out to the noble and learned Lord that there is no reason to suppose that the Wages Board would set themselves to oppose the wishes of Parliament or to circumvent them. They would no doubt accept whatever direction were given to them. But as these cottages are outside the Act it does not seem worth while to press the matter further.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I hope, all the same, that my noble friend will accept the offer of the noble and learned Lord to discuss the matter with him. I agree that it would not be in accordance with public interest that these particular cottages, which are as much tied to a particular occupation as Downing-street is to the occupation of the Prime Minister, should be brought within the scope of this Bill. Nevertheless the other point which my noble friend raised is a very real one. The extraordinary position taken up by the Central Wages Board that a cottage of this kind, however good, is worth only 3s. a week. is a matter that requires to be gone into, because it may be let to a cowman or carter or shepherd whose wages have been raised to 60s. a week. To fix the rent as low as 3s. a week discourages land owners from improving these cottages. Therefore I hope my noble friend will accept the offer to discuss the matter without prejudice.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I quite realise the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord has met me, but I most earnestly hope that these cottages will either be taken outside both Bills or will be dealt with under this Bill. So long as they are dealt with under the Corn Production Act this mischief and injustice will continue, as also will what I regard as an extraordinarily retrograde action. I should like the noble and learned Lord to discuss the matter to see if we cannot arrive at a conclusion before the Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Should I be right in taking it that this would apply to the connected Amendment—the second Amendment of the noble Earl?

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Permitted increase in rate of mortgage interest.

4. The amount by which the increased rate of interest payable in respect of a mortgage to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rate, shall be an amount not exceeding one per cent. per annum: provided that—

  1. (a) the rate shall not be increased so as to exceed six and a-half per cent. per annum; and
  2. (b) except in the case of a dwelling house to which this Act applies but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, the increase during a period of one year after the passing of this Act shall not exceed one-half per cent. per annum.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "annum" and immediately before the proviso, to insert "or where the standard rate is 4 per cent. or less, an amount not exceeding 2 per cent. per annum." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will notice that this clause permits an increase in the rate of mortgage interest not exceeding 1 per cent. as compared to the rate which was payable at the date of the outbreak of war. My object in this Amendment is to meet the ease of that very large number of persons whose whole income depends upon interest payable on the mortgage of real property, and to enable such persons, where the rate of interest has been 4 per cent. or less before the war, to obtain now an increase of 2 per cent. instead of the 1 per cent. contemplated by this clause as drawn.

The clause does not seem in any way to take into account the present value of money or the present rate of interest payable on and obtainable from gilt-edged Government securities. The clause as drawn is very hard, bearing in mind the provisions of Clause 7, which prevent any mortgagee calling in a mortgage under any circumstances and consequently of reinvesting, as other citizens have the opportunity of doing, their money at a high rate of interest in gilt-edged securities. It certainly seems very hard on this large class of persons if they are not going to be allowed either to realise on their mortgages or to gain an increase in the rate of interest beyond the paltry rate of 4 per cent. or less. It is not exaggerating to say that there are a certain number of persons in this country to-day who are receiving 4 per cent., or even in some cases only 3½ per cent., on capital which they have lent to the owners of property, while they themselves are borrowing for their own and their families' requirements at no less than 7½ per cent., or one ½ per cent. above the current bank rate. I hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to make this concession, especially in view of the fact that there is a proviso which prevents in any case the interest obtainable in such cases exceeding 6½ per cent., and by no possibility can the acceptance of my Amendment enable any interest to be received in excess of 6 per cent.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 12, after ("annum") insert ("or where the standard rate is four per cent. or less, an amount not exceeding, two per cent. per annum").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The question as to what should be done in regard to the rate of interest on mortgages was gone into very fully by the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess opposite. As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will have noticed, the reasons which caused them to make the recommendation which we have adopted and incorporated in the Bill are very fully set out on page five of the White Paper. If by any chance the Government were to accept the proposal contained in this Amendment it would upset the basis and the balance of the Bill as now drafted. There is a very close and intimate relation between the rate of interest on mortgage and the rent that the landlord is entitled to as owner of the house. I need not go into this in any detail. My noble friend will realise that in many eases the landlord has a mortgage on his house, and if my noble friend's Amendment wore accepted and the rate of interest over and above that permitted in the Bill were authorised, there would have to be allowed an equivalent increase in the rent. In the White Paper half per cent. interest was taken as representing 5 per cent. of rent. That is to say, if we were to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, the figure of 15 per cent., which is in paragraph (c) of Clause 2, would have to be altered probably to 25 per cent., and the total addition of the permitted increase in rent, instead of being 40 per cent., would be 50 per cent. That would upset the balance of the Bill, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment of my noble friend.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Although I am not convinced, I do not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Restriction on right to possession,

5.—(1) No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Aet applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—

  1. (a) any rent, lawfully due from the tenant has not, been paid, or any other obligation of the tenancy (whether under the contract of tenancy or under this Act) so far as the same is consistent with the provisions of this Act has been broken or not performed; or
  2. (b) the tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises for an immoral or illegal purpose, or the condition of the dwelling-house has in the opinion of the court deteriorated owing to acts of waste by or the neglect or default of the tenant or any such person, or
    3. 918
  3. (c) the tenant has given notice to quit, and in consequence of that notice the landlord has contracted to sell or let the dwelling-house or has taken any other steps as a result of which he would in the opinion of the court be seriously prejudiced if he could not obtain possession; or
  4. (d) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for any person bonâ fide residing or to reside with him, or for seine person in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant from him, and (except as otherwise provided by this subsection) the court is satisfied that alternative accommodation reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available; or
  5. (e)the landlord is a local authority or a statutory undertaking and the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purpose of the execution of the statutory ditties or powers of the authority or undertaking, and the court is satisfied as aforesaid as respects alternative accommodation; or
  6. (f)the landlord became the landlord after service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war and requires the house for his personal occupation and offers the tenant accommodation on reasonable terms in the same dwelling-house, such accommodation being considered by the court as reasonably sufficient in the circumstances; or
  7. (g) the dwelling-house is required for occupation as a residence by a former tenant thereof who gave up occupation in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war;
and, in any such ease as aforesaid, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.

The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this subsection—

  1. (i) where the tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord and the dwelling-house was let to him in consequence of that employment, and he has ceased to be in that employment; or
  2. (ii) where the court is satisfied by a certificate of the county agricultural committee, or by the Ministry of Agriculture, that the dwelling-house is required by the landlord for the occupation of a person engaged on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding; or
  3. (iii) where the landlord gave up the occupation of the dwelling-house in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the war; or
    4. 919
  4. (iv) where the landlord became the landlord before the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and seventeen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house to which section four of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919, applied, became the landlord before the fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or in the ease of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies but the enactments repealed by this Act. did not apply, became the landlord before the twentieth day of May nineteen hundred and twenty, and in the opinion Of the court greater hardship would be caused by refusing an order for possession than by granting it.

(2) At the time of the application for or the making or giving of any order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any such dwelling-house, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, or in the ease of any such order or judgment which has been made or given, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and not executed, at any subsequent time, the court may adjourn the application, or stay or suspend execution on any such order or judgment, or postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as it thinks fit, and subject to such conditions (if any) in regard to payment by the tenant of arrears of rent, rent, or mesne profits and otherwise as the court thinks fit, and, if such conditions are complied with, the court may, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind any such order or judgment.

(3) Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passing of this Act, but not executed, and, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and forty-three of the County Courts Act, 1888, or in section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, every warrant for delivery of possession of, or to enter and give possession of, any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, shall remain in force for three months from the day next after the last clay named in the judgment or order for delivery of possession or ejectment, or, in the case of a warrant under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, from the date of the issue of the warrant, and in either ease for such further period or periods, if any, as the court shall from time to time, whether before or after the expiration of such three months, direct.

(5) An order or judgment against a tenant for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house or ejectment therefrom under this section shall not affect the right of any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sublet, before proceedings for recovery of possession were commenced, to retain possession under this section or be in any way operative against any such sub-tenant:

Provided that any sub-tenant so retaining possession shall upon the making of such order, or the giving of such judgment against the tenant, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (I) (b), after "premises," to insert "or allowing the premises to be used." The noble Viscount said: I understand that convictions usually are granted where the premises have been allowed to he used for these purposes.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 34, after ("premises") insert ("or allowing the premises to be used").—(Viscout Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHANDON moved, at the end of subsection (I) (d), to insert "If the landlord shall be a public or charitable institution or the trustees thereof, the court shall also be satisfied that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the carrying on of such public or charitable purposes."

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment has been put down to carry out a suggestion I made during the Second Reading debate. Accepting the views of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that the last provision in Clause 5 would only apply to trifling matters, the construction of the section remains this. In the case of an ordinary landlord the only thing that has to be dealt with is that the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself, or for a person bona fide residing or to reside there, or a person in his whole time employment or in the whole time employment of some tenant of his, and the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available. That completes the requirements with regard to an ordinary landlord. Then the next subsection deals with a special class of landlord, the local authority or a statutory undertaking, and in that case, in addition, the Court must be satisfied that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the purposes of the execution of the statutory duties on the part of the authority.

Now there are a vast number of associations. Some of them are under Statute, but they could not be called in any sense statutory undertakings. There are also private associations, some bound by a special statutory provision, limited companies and others, and these would in- clude, not merely companies for profit, but companies who have acted under a special licence of the Board of Trade, and who might be charitable or otherwise so long as they did not make profit. These are left in the sante position as ordinary landlords. From actual knowledge I made the suggestion that these are exactly the class of institutions and people that ought to have a similar restriction with regard to the taking up of dwelling-houses as other statutory undertakings, and that it is not unreasonable to provide that the Court should be satisfied, in the case of a public or charitable institution or the trustees thereof, "that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the carrying on of such public or charitable purposes." It is astonishing, when you are dealing with trustees, how very little mercy or compassion they have, owing to their corporate position, with regard to tenants, and how well they like to have a symmetrical disposition of the buildings under their control, with offices that can be communicated with by telephone, and the rest of it, I suggest that they ought to be placed in exactly the same position, in common fairness, as a statutory undertaking. That is the object of the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page line 15, after ("available") insert ("if the landlord shall be a public or charitable institution or the trustees thereof, the court shall also be satisfiet that the dwelling-house is reasonably required for the carrying on of such public or charitable purposes").—(Lord Shandon.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I hesitate, in view of the noble and learned Lord's legal knowledge, to suggest that the words which he is recommending are not necessary. Subsection (d) deals with a case where a dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation, or for any person bona file residing with him. It is the next subsection which deals with local authorities or statutory undertakings.

LORD SHANDON

It is not with regard to occupation at all. It is the provision with regard to "a person in his whole tinge employment." In that case it is not necessary that he should want to live there himself or that any person residing with hint would require the house, but any person who is in his whole time service. He might be a doctor, he might be art engineer, he might be anything. It is to that that I direct attention.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

But I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that a charitable trust would be in the same position as a statutory, undertaking or the local authority in the next subsection.

LORD SHANDON

I never like to state things very positively, but I do not think so, and I would ask the noble Viscount, if that is the only basis of his objection, to make inquiries pending the Report stage, because my Amendment is not put down in any hostile spirit.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I certainly will look into it. Perhaps I might also, in addition, explain that the statutory undertaking or the local authority contemplated and covered by the next subsection is very frequently obliged to carry out certain undertakings authorised by Parliament—shall we say, the making of a road; and it was in order to enable them to carry out that particular object, sanction for which Parliament had given specifically, that they were authorised to get possession of houses, as covered in this subsection, in order that they might be able to pull them down and carry out their undertakings. But that is quite a different position from a charitable trust, which is a body of public interest, but is not at all in the same position as a local authority would be that had to make a road. However, as I promised the noble and learned Lord, I will see whether the point which he has in wind should be further considered on Report.

LORD SHANDON

Having regard to what the noble Viscount says, I do not press the Amendment, but I am distinctly of opinion, though I may be wrong, that it is necessary to insert the words, and I shall bring it up again on Report, if necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the end of sub-section (1) (i), after "employment" to insert "otherwise than in consequence of a strike or lock-out." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is put down to carry out an undertaking given by my right hon. friend the Minister of Health that, in case of a man losing employment owing to a strike, he should be protected from victimisation.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 41, after ("employment") insert ("otherwise than in consequence of a strike or lock-out").—(Viscount Astor.)

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I am surprised that the noble Viscount, in such a matter-of-course tone, urged an Amendment which, I think, is contrary to our whole tradition and to the public advantage. Conceive what is really intended. Strikes, as we deeply regret, are not now by any means confined to cases in which great principles are at stake, and in which, if there was an attempt at a general eviction by the owner, there would probably be a great deal of public feeling which, in itself, would, as in the past, render it almost impossible for such eviction to be carried out. But we hear every day of much smaller strikes, of strikes affecting a small business or a single body. In those strikes not merely are the men who feel themselves aggrieved forced to come out, but a number of other men who are often not in sympathy but belong to the same union are forced to suspend their employment. Then the noble Viscount, or rather the right hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill, proposes that, no matter how impossible the position may be in which the employer is left, those men are to be allowed to keep their houses until it pleases them to come to a fresh arrangement, or even while they arE carrying on another business in another employment.

Take any obvious case. I noticed the other day a strike in which a large number of horses had to be tended, and the horse-tenders were resident in the place. Does the noble Viscount really propose that the unfortunate owner, who has simply said he is unable to pay more and who call find other men to take the employment, should be unable to house those other men to enable them to perform their duties? Or take what is going on now in Ireland. Take the case of the refusal to move troops, which is an attempt to paralyse the whole action of law and order in Ireland. Does the noble Viscount propose that a stationmaster should be allowed free residence at his station as long as he chooses while the men who have actually to be there to perform the work must either camp out or come from afar in order to do it?

I might multiply instances to show that this proposal is really far too drastic, and a highly undesirable one to put into the Bill. It is the assertion of a principle against which I for one will contend—namely, that in these questions of disputes any injustice may be done to the employer rather than that any weapon in the hands of the employed should be in any way diminished in value. That is not a fair principle to lay down. Is it the fact that if men are provided with houses with a view to their carrying out certain employment, and if for private reasons they think it necessary to go on strike, therefore the whole of the work of the owner or employer should be paralysed? It is well known that during the railway strike last October large numbers of horses were neglected, and their sufferings were obviated only by a number of people coming in voluntarily and doing work which they had never done before. Knowing the great power in the hands of those who think it necessary to order a strike I think we ought to leave this question—which has hitherto, as far as I know, not been one in which the employers have pressed their rights too far—to the operation of natural laws and conditions. I warn the Government that they are overweighting this Bill. We have been hoping, at this period so long after the cessation of hostilities, to get back to normal conditions; but if the Government are going to introduce words into this measure which will cause a tremendous revolution in the relations between employers and employed they will do serious damage. I therefore move to leave out the words "strike or" from the Amendment.

Amendment moved to the Amendment— Leave out the words ("strike or") from the Amendment.—(The Earl of Midleton.)

LORD JOLCEY

I am not quite prepared to deal only with the question of strikes. I think that the power given here to enable a man to retain possession of a house after he has changed his employment will cause serious difficulty in the North of England. As your Lordships know, it is the custom there to give free houses as part of their wages to the miners; thus no question creates more difficulty and unpleasantness if these houses are not available for the use of the men working at the particular mines for which the houses were built. It is possible under the Amendment for a man to retain possession of a house after he has given up his employment at the particular pit for which the house was built and either work at some other pit or work as an industrial insurance agent, and he can simply snap his fingers at the employer. It is a most unfortunate thing this His Majesty's Government do not see the injustice of this matter, and I feel sure that it will create considerable difficulty in the counties of Durham and Northumberland unless some provision is made whereby the employer can get the house which belongs to him and which was built for the purposes and for the use of his own workmen. How many men are working at the pits to-day under great difficulties because there are not sufficient houses for them, and they have sometimes to travel considerable distances to their work? The Government is always talking about increasing the production of coal. Surely it will help to increase the production of coal if you give a man a house close to his work. I feel sure that unless some provision is made to give the employer possession of the house for his own special workmen it will lead to considerable difficulty and have an effect very different from that which His Majesty's Government think.

LORD STRACHIE

I think it would be of interest to the House if the noble Viscount informed us of the exact reason for this suggested introduction. He has said that an undertaking was given by the Minister of Health to introduce this Amendment here. He did not say whether it was an undertaking given in the other House. As a matter of fact, the House of Commons was apparently satisfied with the Bill as it now stands otherwise some Amendments would have been moved. It would be interesting to know the genesis of this Amendment. Was it a deputation to the Minister of Health?

THE EARL OF DESART

I desire to support my noble friend Lord Midleton. It seems to me that the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount is an endeavour to create the most extraordinary vested interest I ever came across. It is not only a vested interest in the house but in the man's employment. Supposing there is a strike. A man alleges by this that he is not satisfied with his wages and, therefore, not satisfied with his position. The landlord may say, "I cannot afford to increase your wages or to improve your position." The result is that the man ceases to be willing to undertake the employment on the terms on which it is available, but this Amendment suggests that, although this condition of things has arisen, the man is still entitled to live in the house, which he occupies only in consequence of his employment, although he has ceased to be in that employment. I cannot follow it. Unquestionably it will create an extraordinarily complicated situation. As the Bill at present stands, it is. simply that the man occupies the house as long as he is in the employment, and leaves it when he ceases to be in the employment. When you get to strikes and lock-outs you have questions of merits, and so on, to deal with. I am certain that not only is the proposal inherently unjust and inconsistent with the purpose of this clause, but it will tend to create a great deal of unnecessary feeling.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The noble Lords have asked when the undertaking was given. In another place, both on Committee stage and on Report, the question was raised of the position of tenants in cases of strikes, and various proposals were put forward by the Labour Party. It was in order to meet the point so far as my right hon. friend felt he could do so, that these words were proposed. They did not entirely meet the request as submitted by the Labour Party, but they were suggested with the object of clearing up the position so far as my right hon. friend felt he could do so. I am sure we should all agree that the greatest care has to be exercised in eases of strikes where public feeling may run high on both sides; that the Government ought to do nothing in any way to increase the bitterness, or what may be the bitterness, of feeling at that moment, and that it should be the aim of the Government, while being fair and just to all parties, so far as they are able not to allow anything to be done which would increase the bad feeling, because if that takes place when there is electricity in the air what may be a small strike is apt to spread and become very serious. Because of that my right hon. friend gave the undertaking that he would, so far as he could though not entirely, meet the points put forward. That is why the Amendment is put down.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I confess I am exceedingly sorry that the Government have made this suggestion. It is entirely outside the scope of the proposals of their Bill, and it is a course which was not in any way contemplated by the Committee. Your Lordships will realise that the Bill, if I may use a colloquial phrase, screws up to a high point the necessity of finding alternative accommodation in the general case. Alternative accommodation is not to be accepted which is not thoroughly suitable. Undoubtedly it will be a very difficult thing in many cases to find alternative accommodation which will come within the conditions insisted on in the Bill. I do not complain of that. I recommended it in the general case, because I think, if you are to give security of tenure, it is right, if you allow people to be turned out at all, that they should have equivalent accommodation.

It was suggested to us, What are you to do in the case of houses which are held by employees for the specific object of their employment? In that case the employer is certainly entitled to recover the use of his houses and so we recommended an exception which the Government have adopted. Where the employee holds a cottage absolutely because of his employment, then, if he ceases to be in that employment, he must make room for his successor. That is common sense and common equity. It has nothing to do with the reason for which he is turned out. The fact is that he has gone. My noble friend has made suggestions. What is an employer in the shape of a railway company to do if the railway servant, who is living in a house belonging to the company because of his work on the railway, ceases to be in the employment of the company? Are they not to have the right to recover the house? Of course they are, and it is obviously

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

equitable. They must do so, even if they cannot provide the alternative accommodation of the high standard which the Bill proposes, or at all. So far as the employer is concerned he must work the railway, and whether a man leaves his employment because of a strike or a lock-out or any other reason makes no difference; the railway has to be worked and the employer must have the cottage. I do not agree with my noble friend behind me in his Amendment to the Amendment. My opposition would be to the Government Amendment altogether. I would not make the distinction. It seems to me to be a clear, lucid principle that where an employee ceases to be in the employment for which he holds the cottage he should make way for his successor. Although I am a great supporter of the Bill, I cannot support the Government in this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

After what has passed I think it would be more advisable if, instead of moving out the two words which I ventured to propose should be omitted, we voted against the whole Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.) Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) Dewar, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Hylton, L.
Astor, V. Ranksborough, L.
Bradford, E. Finlay, V. Sinha, L.
Chesterfield, E. Peel, V. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Lytton, E. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Onslow, E. Annesley, L. ( V. Valentia.) Teynham, L.
Reading, E. Colebrooke, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
NON CONTENTS.
Argyll, D. Waldegrave, E. Elphinstone, L.
Somerset, D. Yarborough, E. Faringdon, L.
Sutherland, D. Glenarthur, L.
Chilston, V. Greville, L.
Salisbury, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Hastings, L.
Killanin, L.
Knollys, V. Lawrence, L.
Grey, E. [Teller.] Methuen, L.
Lindsay, E. Aberdare, L. Monteagle, L. (M. Stigo.)
Lindsey, E. Armaglidale, L. Mowbray, L.
Lovelace, E. Balfour, L. Rotherham, L.
Lucan, E. Bledisloe, Roundway, L.
Midleton, E. [Teller.] Cheylesmore, L. Saltoun, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Sandys, L.
Selborne, E. de Manley, L. Savile, L.
Stanhope, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Strachine, L.
VISCOUNT ASTOR

The next Amendment which stands on the paper in my name is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 2, leave out from ("or") to ("that") in line 3, and insert ("of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) (ii), after "or," to insert "pending the formation of such Committee." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the House realises that in this case the authority of the Minister of Agriculture will not be exercised at all after the formation of these committees.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 2, after ("or") insert ("pending the formation of such Committee").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The Amendment which I desire to move next is to leave out lines 21 to 26—the proviso at the end of subsection (5)—on page 8 of the in order to transfer them to Clause 15.

Amendment moved— Page 8, leave out lines 21 to 26.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have not put down the Amendment which I hope I may be able to move on Report, but in order to prevent the Government and your Lordships thinking that the matter Ras omitted or that I was not playing quite fair with the House in reserving for Report, I will mention it in one sentence. It has reference to subsection (2) of Clause 5. That is the subsection which gives an elastic power to the County Court Judge to refrain from using his authority in granting an ejectment order or recovery of possession in a variety of ways. He is entitled to delay matters, but there is no direction given to him as to what sort of subject he is to consider when he uses such power. I am very much afraid that the mere poverty of the tenant will hardly be one of those questions which. he may think it right to take into consideration.

The Committee on this Bill, the Report of which is in your Lordships' hands, recommended that in the special case where the income of the tenant had not increased or had barely increased since 1914, the County Court Judge should have power to refuse recovery of possession even if the increased rents were not paid. The Committee were aware that it was a strong proposal, but I think I ought. to tell your Lordships that the letters which reached us from very poor tenants were of the most pitiful kind. A very large number came from old people who have lived in the same house for years, whose income has not increased nominally since before the war, and, therefore, has been greatly reduced owing to the fall in the value of money and the increase in taxation. These people will be quite unable in many eases to bear the burden of the new increases which are permitted by the Bill, as well as the increased rates, which are rising every day.

We thought that in tins special circumstance relief ought to be given. I shall try to ask your Lordships to consider actual words when the Bill is dealt with upon Report, and I hope the Government will receive them favourably. I am quite sure I should be asking your Lordships nothing more than any good landlord would do in the management of his own property when he had to deal with cases of this kind.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, towards the end of proviso (ii), to leave out "sum" and insert "portion of the principal sum secured." The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 39, leave out ("sum") and insert ("portion of the principal sum secured").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Restriction on premiums.

8.—(1) A person shall not as a condition of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies require the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration, in addition to the rent, and where any such payment Or consideration has been made or given in respect of any such dwelling-house under an agreement made after the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and twenty, the amount or value thereof shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was made or given:

Provided that, where any agreement has been made since the said date but before the passing of this Act for the tenancy of a house to which this Act applies, but the enactments repealed by this Act did not apply, and the agreement includes provision for the payment of any fine, premium, or other like sum, or the giving of any pecuniary consideration in addition to the rent, that agreement shall, without prejudice to the operation of this section, be voidable at the option of either party thereto.

(2) A person requiring any payment or the giving of any consideration in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order the amount paid or the value of the consideration to be repaid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.

(3) This section shall not apply to the grant, renewal or continuance for a term of fourteen years or upwards of any tenancy.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out "to which this Act applies" and insert "where either the annual amount of the rent or the rateable value does not exceed three hundred pounds." The noble Lord said: Clause 8 refers to the restriction on the payment of premiums on the letting of houses. I may say, in passing, that the limit of rent in London is £105. I want to tell the House quite frankly that several of my own very poor relations have found themselves necessarily working in London during the last few months with no possibility of getting suitable houses or accommodation without paying, if I may say so, some iniquitous premium demanded by those with houses or flats to let. If £105 is the limit for this purpose, I venture to say it is wholly inadequate to cover the cases of injustice which are prevalent in London and some provincial towns to-day, in the case of persons of moderate means, who necessarily must work in that area, and who are unable to obtain suitable accommodation without paying a very large sum by way of premium before entering into occupation. For that reason I desire to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 3, leave out ("to which this Act applies") and insert ("where either the annual amount of the rent or the rateable value does not exceed three hundred pounds").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I quite realise that many people are placed in a very difficult position because of the premiums which are exacted from them, but I am afraid that the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord would alter the whole basis of the Bill. We have tried to go as far as we can to deal with hard cases. The Bill deals with smaller premises, and I am afraid it would be quite impossible to take premiums as separate from rent. I do not know whether he wishes me to argue it in detail, but his Amendment would alter the whole basis of the Bill, and at this stage the Government could not possibly consider doing that. I must therefore resist the Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

In the circumstances I cannot press the Amendment, but by leave of the House I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the head of his Department will consider introducing separate legislation.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I will see that the matter is considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clauses 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Application and interpretation.

12.—(l) For the purposes of this Act, except where the context otherwise requires:—

  1. (a) The expression "standard rent" means the rent at which the dwelling-house was let on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, where the dwelling-house was not let on that date, the rent at which it was last let before that date, or, in the case of a dwelling-house which was first let after the said third day of August, the rent at which it was first let:
  2. (b) The expression "standard rate of interest" means in the case of a mortgage in force on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the rate of interest payable at that date, or, in the ease of a mortgage created since that date, the original rate of interest;
    3. 933
  3. (c) The expression "net rent" means, where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated paid the rates chargeable on, or which but for the provisions of any Act would be chargeable on the occupier, the standard rent less the amount of such rates, and in any other case the standard rent;
  4. (d) The expression "rateable value" means the rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, or, in the case of a dwelling-house or a part of dwelling-house first assessed after that date, the rateable value at which it was first assessed;
  5. (e) The expressions "landlord," "tenant," "mortgagor," and "mortgagor" in-chide any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord, tenant, mortgagor, or mortgagor;
  6. (f) The expression "landlord" also includes in relation to any dwelling-house any person, other than the tenant, who is or would but for the Act be entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, and the expressions "tenant and tenancy" include sub-tenant and sub-tenancy, and the expression "let" includes sub-let; and the expression "tenant" includes the widow of a tenant dying intestate who was living with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant intestate dies leaving no widow any member of his family so residing with him, any question as to which member of his family, in the case of more than one so residing, is to be the tenant to be decided in default of agreement by the county court;
  7. (g) The expression "mortgage" includes a land charge under the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897.

(2) This Act shall apply to a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling, where either the annual amount of the standard rent or the rateable value does not exceed—

  1. (a) in the metropolitan police district, including therein the City of London, one hundred and five pounds;
  2. (b) in Scotland, ninety pounds; and
  3. (c) elsewhere, seventy-eight pounds;
and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies:

Provided that—

  1. (i) this Act shall not, save as otherwise expressly provided, apply to a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board, attendance, or use of furniture; and
  2. (ii) the application of this Act to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office or for business, trade, or professional purposes; and
  3. (iii) for the purposes of this Act any land or premises let together with a house shall, if the rateable value of the land 934 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.

(3) Where, for the purpose of determining the standard rent or rateable value of any dwelling-house to winch this Act applies, it is necessary to apportion the rent at the date in relation to which the standard rent is to be fixed, or the rateable value of the property in which that dwelling-house is comprised, the county court may, on application by either party, make such apportionment as seems just, and the decision of the court as to the amount to be apportioned to the dwelling-house shall be final and conclusive.

(4) Subject to the provision of this Act, this Act shall apply to every mortgage where the mortgage property consists of or comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies, or any interest therein, except that it shall not apply—

  1. (a) to any mortgage comprising one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land if the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is less than one-tenth of the rateable value of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage; or
  2. (b) to an equitable charge by deposit of title deeds or otherwise.

(5) When a mortgage comprises one or more dwelling-houses to which this Act applies and other land, and the rateable value of such dwelling-houses is more than one-tenth of the whole of the land comprised in the mortgage, the mortgage may apportion the principal money secured by the mortgage between such dwelling-houses and such other land by giving one calendar month's notice in writing to the mortgagor, such notice to state the particulars of such apportionment, and at the expiration of the said calendar month's notice this Act shall not apply to such part of the said principal money as is apportioned to such other land, and for all purposes, including the mortgagor's right of redemption, the said mortgage shall operate as if it were a separate mortgage for the respective portions of the said principal money secured by the said dwelling-houses and such other land, respectively, to which such portions were apportioned:

Provided that the mortgagor shall before the expiration of the said calendar month's notice be entitled to dispute the amounts so apportioned as aforesaid, and in default of agreement the matter shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute.

(6) Where this Act has become applicable to any dwelling-house or any mortgage thereon it shall continue to apply thereto whether or not the dwelling-house continues to be one to which this Act applies.

(7) Where the rent payable in respect of any tenancy of any dwelling-house is less than two-thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply to that rent or tenancy nor to any mortgage by the landlord from whom the tenancy is held of his interest in the dwelling-house, and this Act shall apply in respect of such dwelling-house as if no such tenancy existed or ever had existed.

(8) Any rooms in a dwelling-house subject to a separate letting wholly or partly as a dwelling shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a part of a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling.

(9) This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after or in course of erection on the second day of April nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bona fide reconstructed by way of conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but for the purpose of any enactment relating to rating, the gross estimated recital or gross value of any such house to which this Act would have applied if it had been erected before the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, and let at that date, shall not exceed—

  1. (a) if the house forms part of a housing scheme to which section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, applies, the rent (exclusive of rates) charged by the local authority in respect of that house; and
  2. (b) in any other case the rent (exclusive of rates) which would have been charged by the local authority in respect of a similar house forming part of such a scheme as aforesaid.

(10) Where possession has been taken of any dwelling-houses by a Government department during the war, under the Defence of the Realm regulations, for the purpose of housing workmen, this Act shall apply to such houses as if the workmen in cocupation thereof at the passing of the Act were in occupation as tenants of the landlords of such houses.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "calculated," to insert "no rent was payable or where". The noble Lord said: This particular clause includes a definition of standard rent, and it goes on in the proviso to the first subsection to say that "where at the date by reference to which the standard rent is calculated the rent was less than the rateable value the rateable value at that date shall be the standard rent." I desire to move this Amendment to provide for the cases where no rent at all is payable; that is, in the case which is so common in our country districts, where a cottage is let to a farm servant or estate employee as part of his remuneration. In such cases, of course, it is quite clear that there are current expenses to be met by the landlord in respect of these premises, and it is not unfair to ask that in such cases, and indeed all cases covered by the latter part of this proviso, the annual value shall be taken as the basis and not the rent which in the cases I have mentioned is probably non-existent, or, if existent, is far below the economic value of the premises. The Amendment is really two-fold, First of all it is intended to cover cases where no rent at all is being paid, and secondly, to make the basis for the purposes of this Bill, in the case of such premises, the annual value and not the rateable value as contemplated in this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 9, after ("calculated") insert ("no rent was payable or where").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think my noble friend must have been out of the House when the Lord Chancellor told us that no house on which no rent was payable is within the scope of the Bill.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

That is so.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Then I do not desire to persist in my first Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.>

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection (1) (a), to leave out the first "rateable" and insert "ascertained annual" and to leave out the second "rateable" and insert "annual." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is peculiarly applicable to country districts. Rateable value is based upon rent, and where the rent is below the economic value the rateable value is far less than what would represent the annual value to the occupant.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 10, leave out the first ("rateable") and insert ("ascertained annual") and leave out the second ("rateable") and insert ("annual").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would make the subsection read as follows: "Provided that … where … the rent was less than the ascertained annual value the annual value at that date shall be the standard rent." We have a definition of "rateable value," but there is nowhere that I know of any definition of "ascertained annual value." I am not quite sure what he has in mind by those words. That is the first difficulty. I do not know whether my noble friend contemplates giving us subsequently a definition of what is meant by those words.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My answer is, Id certum est quod Certum reddi potest. if the annual value is not yet ascertained, I suggest that it is only, equitable in such cases that it should be ascertained.

VISCONT ASTOR

It is rather difficult to discuss the inclusion of words the meaning of which we do not know. I am not aware on what basis he contemplates defining "ascertained annual value." Rateable value is to be arrived at in a defined way. If the noble Lord has any definition which he would like to submit to the House on Report stage we might consider it, but otherwise it is very difficult to accept a basis which we do not understand.

TEE EARL OF MIDLETON

There is a little difficulty about using the words "rateable value," because it cannot be fair where the landlord does the whole of the repairs. The rateable value is below the annual value, or the real value, on the assumption that a certain number of repairs. have to be executed by the tenants, and therefore it would not be fair, say, in London for a house to be valued up to the full, because, the tenant would be paying on the repairs which he himself was making; but where you have the landlord making the whole of the repairs it is not fair to take the rateable value as the measure of the rent. Supposing the rateable value is £10 and the annual rent £15, the difference is supposed to go in such repairs as the landlord is making from year to year; and then the noble Viscount conies down, and, especially in the case of Ireland in a subsequent clause, treats the rateable value as being the rental value, from which any increase of rent is to start. I am not sure that the words "rental value" are the best ones to use, but I hope before the Report stage that the noble Viscount will re-consider the question, because as it stands it means, especialy in the case of Ireland, that a very low rental value will be established—one far below what is the current rental value.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

If the noble Earl can think of words or of a definition we will consider it on the Report stage.

LORD BLEDISLOE

As the noble Viscount is obviously sympathetic, perhaps the matter will be considered before the Report stage.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If there is to be an alteration in the expression "rateable value," may I ask the noble Viscount to take care that a corresponding definition is put into the Scottish clauses, because in them there is a definition of rateable value but not of any other kind of value.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I hope the noble Lord will not take it that I have committed the Government to alter the subclause. I have only suggested that if the noble Lord could put forward a definition it would be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, after line 22, insert: ("(d) The expression 'rates' includes water rents and charges, and any increase in rates payable by a landlord shall be deemed to be payable by him until the rate is next demanded;").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My next Amendment is mainly drafting. It makes it clear that where the tenant dying intestate is a widow the case shall be provided for. We here make it clear that we want to deal not only with a man dying but with a woman dying intestate, so that the house should go to such member of the tenant's family as would naturally acquire the premises.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 39, leave out from ("was" ) to ("be") in line 4, of page 13, and insert (" residing with him at the time of his death, or where a tenant dying intestate leaves no widow or is a woman, such member of the tenant's family so residing as aforesaid as may").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the end of subsection (1) to insert— (h) The expressions 'statutory undertaking' and 'statutory duties or powers' include any undertaking, duties or powers, established, imposed or exercised under any order having the force of an Act of Parliament. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to make it clear that Clause 5, subsection (1), paragraph (e), applies to Provisional Orders. This, I think, makes the intention of that clause quite clear.

Amendment moved— Page 13, after line 7, insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2) (iii), after "for the purposes of this Act any land," to insert "stables, pig-sties, farm buildings or other". The noble Lord said: My object is to make it perfectly clear that cottage-holdings shall not come within the restrictive provisions of this Bill; that where there is a small holding consisting mainly of buildings, as these cottage-holdings do, being run on an economic basis, and out of which the tenant is earning a livelihood, the rent should not be restricted to the detriment of the landlord who has provided the proper equipment. The word "premises" is, of course, a very vague expression, and it seems to me that it would be advisable to insert the words "stables, pig-sties, farm-building or other like erections which are adjacent to the holding and form part of the dwelling-house". I want to make it clear for this purpose that even though they are under the same roof these erections shall be regarded as part of the industrial section of the occupation and not as part of the domestic side of the premises. It is for that purpose I move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 26, after ("land") insert ("stables, pig-sties, farm-buildings or other").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I am advised that it would be unwise to insert these words, and that the word "premises" includes stables, pig-sties and farm-buildings. I might point out that chicken-houses have been omitted from the Amendment. It is better to have the one word "premises" and to take it as including all these other buildings, than to have the words of the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in proviso (iii) to leave out "one quarter" and insert "one eighth "The noble Earl said: This Amendment is not on the Paper, and the reason I move it is this. This clause is a very difficult one to grasp. We must have in the last words of this sub-clause "shall not apply to a house let together with land other than the site of the house." if we did not have that in it would apply to farm-houses with five hundred acres. On the other hand, we do not want to exclude a cottage merely because it has a garden attached to it. Therefore, it is very difficult to know where to draw the line. I am advised that as this is drafted it includes a small holding as defined in the Small Holdings Act, and therefore it might occur that a county council would have every conceivable reason from the point of view of cultivation and food production to wish to get rid of one of its tenants, and not be able to do so because the definition of small holding was included within this Rent Restriction Bill. If "one eighth" was inserted for one quarter" it would not come under the Small Holdings Act.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 29, leave out ("one quarter") and insert ("one eighth").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved— Page 14, line 19, at beginning insert ("rateable value of the"). Page 14, line 25, leave out from ("to") to ("such") in line 26, and insert ("the mortgage so far as it relates"). Page 14, line 36, leave out ("Institute") and insert ("Institution").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 20, after ("erected") insert ("or so reconstructed").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before this clause becomes part of the Bill, I should like to ask a question upon a matter which has only been brought to my notice this afternoon. It concerns the Ministry of Transport as well as the Ministry of Health, under whose auspices this Bill has been promoted. It has been represented to me that the effect of this clause particularly, and the Bill as a whole, will be to destroy an agreement made by the Ministry of Transport with the Railway Companies on March 20 this year. I do not know whether I ought to move this now without notice, but I will read my proposed clause, and if it is not possible to accept it now I shall move it on the Report stage. I propose to move, at the end of Clause 12, the insertion of the following: "This Act shall not apply to any house or station apartments provided by any railway company in England, Scotland, or Wales whilst occupied by men of the grades mentioned in a Memorandum of Agreement dated the 1st March, 1920, relating to rates of pay and conditions of service of station masters, goods agents, yard masters, assistant station masters, assistant goods agents, assistant yard masters and passenger and parcels agents who are required to live therein, and which Agreement is the subject of a direction from the Minister of Transport under the provisions of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919."

The point of the matter is that before this Agreement was made, the Agreement of March last, the employees of the grades to which it refers in many cases were housed in houses or station apartments provided by the companies at a nominal rent. The Agreement provides that these men shall in future pay rent according to the local value of the house or apartment, because otherwise inequalities would result from the fact that some servants of the company, while receiving the scale rates of pay, will also get the additional advantage of lower rented houses. The Bill, unless suitable provision be made, will prevent this agreement from being carried out, because, of course, the railway companies under this Bill cannot alter the terms of a tenancy, and we have no doubt whatever that it will result in fresh complications for the revision of the scales of pay which have been settled.

I am not anxious to raise trouble, I am only anxious to point out that in the opinion of the railway company this Bill, unless care is taken on this point, will raise trouble between the different grades of employees concerned, some of whom have the advantage of these free houses, and some of whom have not, and who, under the Agreement, are to equalised. I am entirely in the hands of the noble Viscount whether I shall move the clause now, or simply give notice, and move it when the Report stage is taken.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I think it will be for the general convenience, both of the House and of the Government, if the noble Lord would move this on the Report stage.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Application to business premises.

13. This Act shall apply to any premises used for business, trade or professional purposes as it applies to a dwelling-house, and as though references to "dwelling-house" and "dwelling" included references to any such premises, but this Act in its application to such premises shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section five:
  2. (b) Paragraph (i) of the same subsection shall not apply;
  3. (c) Sections nine and ten shall not apply.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The next Amendment is really drafting to bring Clause 13 in line with Clause 12 (2) where the word "house" is included with "dwelling-house."

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 39, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("house").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert the following new paragraph— (a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section (2):— (c) In addition to any such amounts as aforesaid, an amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the net rent. The noble Marquess said: We now come to a very important clause in the Bill. As introduced in another place, the Bill had no reference to business premises, but upon the Committee stage the Government were defeated in the Standing Committee, and the decision of the Standing Committee was retained in the Report stage. I very much regret that the House of Commons took that view, and I feel a very strong conviction that, if the matter had come before the House itself at a reasonable hour and not very late at night, and if the whole case could have been stated, they would have come to a different conclusion. The difficulties in the way of including these premises business increase the more one considers them.

I have put down the Amendment, not because I think that the Clause ought to be passed with that Amendment, but as indicating to the Government the only d rection in which I think a compromise of any sort could be arrived at, but really my invitation to His Majesty's Government is to allow us to drop the clause altogether. May I indicate one of the immense difficulties in the way of Clause 13 even if my Amendment were accepted? Under the policy of the Bill the landlord has the right of throwing the burden of any increased rates upon the tenant. The Government have not put in the necessary consequential Amendments—we could, of course, do that on Report—under which, in the case of business premises comprised in one building, the rateable value could be apportioned as between different business premises.

Conceive how unwieldly that would be. Every one of these composite buildings in the City of London would require to go to the County Court Judge in order to have the rateable value apportioned as between the various business premises, with scores of tenants, because otherwise it would be impossible to carry out the policy of the Bill. The landlord could not throw the cost of the increased rates upon the business tenants unless the rateable value was apportioned, and therefore in every single case, not only in the City of London but throughout the country, the County Courts will be overwhelmed with applications to apportion the rateable value—a very difficult process, requiring a great deal of care as between the various business premises. I say that because I am still hopeful that the Government will agree to drop the Clause altogether.

Now I come to the Amendment itself, an Amendment which I offer as, to me, the only possible direction in which a compromise could be achieved. I would direct your Lordships' attention to the evidence which was given before the Committee of which I was a member. It is quite clear in regard to those who came to speak for the business premises—the Town Tenants' League, for example—that what they cared for was security. They did not come to ask for low rent. They were quite in a different position from the ordinary occupier of a dwelling-house. What they wanted was to prevent their being turned out. And if your Lordships look at the evidence of the witness of the Town Tenants' League on page 116 and page 118 you will find what I say is accurate.

That is not the only consideration. There is also the consideration that the occupier of the business premises has the power of passing on the increased rent to the public, and he will do so in any case. Therefore, he will be paid twice over if the Clause goes through as it stands; he will be paid in respect of the limitation of rent which the Bill imposes, and also the higher prices which he charges to the public. Let me just show your Lordships how this arises. Here was a witness, a Mr. Briscoe, who spoke for the All-Ireland Town Tenants' League, and in Question 2,693 he was asked with reference to this raising of the rent, "You do not suggest that the shopkeeper will suffer?" and he replied— The shopkeeper will suffer, of course, if he continues to sell at the same price, but he will not. Let me give you an instance. There is a shop in X—.street, Dublin I know all about the place because the offices of our organisation, the Town Tenants' League, was there before the place was destroyed during the Easter Week Rebellion. I was in this shop the other evening, buying a pair of gloves, and I was talking about the price of gloves to the proprietor. 'Well,' he said, 'Mr. Briscoe, considering the rent I have to pay I cannot sell you them cheaper.' So you will see that the amount of the rent reacts immediately upon the price. That is the evidence as regards shopkeepers. Here is the evidence as to business premises. This was the anonymous witness I mentioned the other day. He was anonymous because he was afraid of being victimised. We knew his name but agreed not to publish it. He was asked— And I suppose to some extent as rent rises that would increase prices, would it not? (A) Undoubtedly. (Q) So that a part of this, I do not say all of it, would he transferred to the public? (A) Yes, transferred to the public undoubtedly. So you see that the occupiers of business premises have the power, by their own witnesses, of passing it on to the public. Your Lordships will observe that in the quotations I have made I have not quoted the landlord witnesses but the tenant witnesses—the people who came for relief—and they said they could pass it on to the public; and, what is more, they will pass it on to the public whatever you enact in the Bill. Even if you restrict the rent, they will continue to pass on to the public something which they themselves do not have to pay; it will be pure gain to them. They will pass it on in the from of increased prices and fees. I do not blame them. It is fair and right. But I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that this is a very strong reason why we should not treat the occupiers of business premises upon the same footing as the occupiers of dwellings.

I come now to the actual form of the Amendment. What I suggest there is that, instead of the 15 per cent. increase which is chargeable in the case of the tenant of a dwelling, it should be 50 per cent. That is to say, 50 per cent., which, added to the increased charge for repairs, would be 75 per cent. 25 per cent. is charged for repairs in any case, and to that would be added 50 per cent. What defence have I for that figure? If your Lordships will look at the evidence again you will see this anonymous gentleman, who came forward to ask us to relieve him, was asked— (Q) I suppose you admit that some inorease of rent would be natural?—(A) Quite. (Q) How much ought it to be?—(A) I think a reasonable increase is 50 per pent. That is, 50 per cent., as I take it, upon the standard rent. 50 per cent. on the standard rent was found to be, roughly speaking, 75 per cent. of the net rent. That is to say, an increase on the standard rent of 50 per cent. would be equivalent to an increase on the net rent of 75 per cent. In all the calculations we worked upon that footing. Therefore, if I am correct. in my interpretation of the evidence, the 75 per cent. I offer is what this gentleman himself suggested. One member of our Committee was rather astonished that the witness should go so far as to say a reasonable increase was 50 per cent., so a little later he asked the witness— Do you not think that an increase of office rents of 50 per cent. would be very unreasonable or objectionable?—(A) I do not. Is not that the case complete? Here is a man who comes forward and asks for relief. We asked him how much relief he wanted and he said, "I want 50 per cent, upon the standard rent," which is 75 per cent. upon the net rent; and 75 per cent. is the figure I have put in my Amendment. I suggest that, if this figure were inserted, at any rate no grievance as to increase of rent could arise during the very short period winch, as I believe, ought to be allowed before this question is dealt with fully. He would, of course, have complete security of tenure during the period, and pay only as much rent as he himself said he ought to pay. As I have said, this will be sufficient during the very short period which ought to elapse before the matter is dealt with on a big scale. I have dealt with that in the next Amendment on the Paper, and I suppose I must not anticipate it. But your Lordships will understand, in a word, that the only period which ought to be dealt with is that which must elapse before the Select Committee, appointed to deal with the whole matter, report. As soon as they report the question ought to be looked at in the light of their report, and, therefore, we ought not to deal with that period at all but only with the period until then. I submit that the only proper line which a compromise could take is that I have suggested; but for my part, and for the reasons I have stated, I should far prefer to see Clause 13 disappear from the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 2, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The noble Marquess has only briefly outlined the history which has led up to the inclusion of Clause 13 in the Bill. He has reminded your Lordships that the inclusion of business premises was not part of the recommendations of his Committee; that the inclusion of business premises was not part. of the Government's Bill as originally drafted, but that Clause 13 was put in as the result. of the very strongly expressed desire of the House of Commons. The feeling in the House of Commons for the inclusion, in some way or other, of business premises was so strong that the issue was not raised again by the Government on Report stage. Therefore, whatever the Government may feel about the general merits of exclusion, and I do not think there is substantially a great difference between the noble Marquess and ourselves, we think that in view of the expressed feeling of the other House it would be out of the question to attempt to drop Clause 13.

We have then to consider what Amendment, if any, should be made to Clause 13. The noble Marquess, as he has done right through in the preparation of this Bill, has materially assisted the Government by proposing Amendments. That has facilitated our task considerably. I confess that when I looked at the noble Marquess's Amendment this morning I thought he had intended to word it, "that the following paragraphs should be substituted for paragraphs (c) and (d)." In other words, I thought. he meant the increase to be from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., and not from 40 per cent. to 75 per cent. I was wondering when I saw it whether, owing to some error, paragraph (d) had been omitted; because your Lordships will readily understand that there is a great difference between an increase from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and an increase from 40 per cent. to 75 per cent. Had the noble Marquess so drafted his Amendment I should have been prepared to accept it, because I think that it would then have been in a shape acceptable to another place.

There was another suggestion that I was going to make on a subsequent Amendment, but perhaps I had better deal with one Amendment at a time. We have to be very careful not to legislate for special or exceptional cases, but to try to deal with general cases. I have not had the advantage of being on the Committee which took evidence, but I have received at least one deputation on this point, and. I feel that if the figure 40 per cent. were altered to 50 per cent. instead of 75 per cent. we should, in fact, be meeting a very real and general grievance. I do not say that in that way we should meet special cases, such as the one quoted by the noble Lord to-day and on the occasion of the Second Reading. I think also that we should then send the Amendment to another place in a form which would he more readily accepted there. I am afraid that the Government could not accept the increase to 75 per cent., but if, by any chance, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment could see his way to make the alteration I have suggested, then we should be able to accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am afraid I cannot be responsible for recommending your Lordships to accept a figure of that kind. I think it would be absurd to do so in the face of the evidence we have received. I have quoted one witness only, but I could have quoted another on the same point, who said that an increase of 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. would do a great deal of good. They want security; they do not care about rent; they pass that on to the public. if the Government do not accept the Amendment it is no use pressing it. I shall simply vote against the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where the landlord bona fide requires possession of the premises for the purposes of a rebuilding scheme." The noble Lord said: I think this proviso speaks for itself. I suggest that it is very undesirable to hold up building schemes as the result of the inclusion in this Bill of business premises. My proviso, of course, does not refer to dwelling-houses, but to business premises only. It is confined to the one clause—Clause 13. Your Lordships are probably aware of the very great shortage of business premises especially in the City of London. The only way to increase the business premises is to pull down the existing premises and to rebuild them on a larger scale, much higher and in big blocks. I hope that any tenants who had been dispossessed because of a building scheme will obtain accommodation later on in the new block. One can easily conceive the case of a long row of business premises, the bulk of which would be outside the scope of the Bill, but in the middle of which there is one which comes under this Bill. Unless that one could be got hold of the whole of the building scheme would be held up for three years. I have heard of instances in the City of London where already big firms are prepared to find very large sums of money to re-build considerable areas of business premises. I cannot for a moment think that His Majesty's Government or any one else would wish to hold up the re-building of these premises. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept my proviso.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Dynevor.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Before my noble friend replies, I desire to move an Amendment to the Amendment. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this proposal. I see a great authority like Lord Faringdon in the House and I hope we may hear something from him. I am not exaggerating when I say that there is no possible means of expansion of premises in the City of London except by re-building or re-modelling existing premises. You cannot spread out the City further for the purposes of the business for which the City exists, and the extraordinary difficulty of finding accommodation is every day hindering business, and, consequently, hindering the expansion of trade and diminishing the revenue. If this Bill passes in its present form, it will almost entirely stop the possibility of increasing accommodation in the City of London. I do not think that is an over-statement, because, as my noble friend has said, almost the only way of increasing that accommodation is by pulling down the older buildings and erecting larger and better-arranged premises in their place.

But, in my opinion, his Amendment does not go far enough, because there is another method by which this expansion of premises is achieved, and that is by the remodelling and re-construction of existing buildings. Therefore, I propose after the word "purposes" to insert the words "of substantial alteration or" so that if my Amendment be accepted, the Amendment would read— Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where the landlord bona fide requires possession of the premises for the purposes of substantial alteration or of a re-building scheme. If this Amendment, or some such Amendment, is not accepted, two things will happen. All possibility of the extension of accommodation in the City of London will be stopped and there will be a great increase of unemployment, because nobody can go about the City of London to-day without seeing a lot of these schemes in operation and a great many men employed on them. If the Amendment is not passed, all similar schemes, of which there are many, will be made impossible, and these two very unfortunate results, which must be for the public evil, will follow.

Amendment moved to the Amendment— After the word ("purposes") insert the words ("of substantial alteration or").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I am prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to put it on the Paper on Report stage, probably in another part of the Bill. I will consider the point which the noble Earl has just made as an Amendment to the Amendment to see if that can be included too.

LORD DYNEVOR

If my noble friend Lord Selborne is satisfied, so far as I am concerned I accept the suggestion.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think it is quite a reasonable proposal. I hope my noble friend understands my point. There are two ways of increasing accommodation. One is to pull down every part of the existing structures and to re-build, and another is to re-model the existing structures.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert— ("(2) The application of this Act to such premisesas aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or the conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any statute or oharter. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is suggested at the instance of the City Remembrancer. It has been pointed out that the application of the Act to business premises is not suitable for markets; that the rent of markets in London and also elsewhere is fixed by statute; and that in order to meet the City of London and other places where markets are in existence this Amendment is necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 16, after line 12, insert the said new subsection.—( Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, That Clause 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not desire to make another speech, but I will state in a moment or two why I venture to think that it would be better to strike this clause out. There is, first of all, the fact that the Government have proposed and appointed a Select Committee, which is actually engaged in dealing with the whole subject and will report within a very short time. In the second place, the remedy which the House of Commons has put in is not the remedy, or anything like the full remedy, for which the applicants have asked. In the third place, the Government do not see their way to accept even the conclusions of the evidence which was submitted on behalf of the applicants and to insert them in the Bill. And, lastly, they have not been able to produce—no doubt they may be able but they have not yet done so—any answer to the arguments which I advanced, a little out of order I admit, as to the immense difficulty of dealing with rating in the case of business premises; because the fact of the insertion of this clause without sufficient thought, and very late, or against the views of the Government, has made the House of Commons ignore the difficulty of having to apportion the rateable value over all these premises which are involved. For all these reasons I think the best course your Lordships can pursue is to strike out this clause. If, before the next stage of the Bill is reached, the Government can produce a concession of sufficient importance on the points I have mentioned to make it worth the whole of your Lordships to deal with it again, it will be possible to deal with it then. As it stands, I am satisfied the clause ought to be struck out of the Bill.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I can only repeat what I said just now, that I very much regret that the noble Marquess was not able to accept the Amendment I suggested to his Amendment because I believe, had that been possible, there would have been agreement between the two Houses. I sincerely trust that your Lordships will not strike this clause out of the Bill, because, undoubtedly, there is a very strong feeling in another place that it should be included. It was inserted in order to meet the very real hardship which was put before the

Government, before the noble Lotd's Committee, and before Members of Parliament as a whole. I think the noble Marquess is a little optimistic in hoping that the Select Committee will have reported with such rapidity that the Amendment can be included in the shape in which it was on the Paper. Even if it could have been included in the shape in which it was on the Paper—namely, ending "lapsing in January, 1921"—I would have suggested to the noble Marquess that the period should have been extended to June, 1921. I think it would be very inadvisable that this House should strike out this clause.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment. I can assure him that he would not have found me difficult as to a month or two or, indeed, as to a pound or two in the other Amendment. But it was clear that the Government were not prepared to meet me in anything like the spirit necessary.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I am sorry the noble Marquess does not think he was met in the necessary spirit. We thought an increase of 40 to 50 per cent. was reasonable. We felt that we could not accept 40 to 75 per cent, and I should very much regret this question being pressed to a Division, because, if by any chance the clause was struck out of the Bill, it would only delay the proceeding of the Bill as a whole.

On Question, whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhad, L. (L. Chancellor.) Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Dewar, L.
Bradford, E. Astor, V. Hylton, L.
Chesterfield, E. Knollys, V. Meston, L.
Lucan, E. Peel, V. Ranksborough, L.
Lytton, E. Shandon, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Annesley, L. (V. Vatentia.) Sinha, L.
Strafford, E. Bledisloe, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Clwyd, L. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Fartquhar, V. (L. Steward.) Colebrooke, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
NON-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D. Midleton, E. Balfour, L.
Morton, E. Charnwood, L.
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Selborne, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.)
Northampton, M. Stanhope, E. Faringdon, L.
Salisbury, M. [Teller.] Lawrence, L.
Chilston, V. Mowbray, L.
Grey. E. [Teller.] Muir Mackenzie, L.
Lovelace, E. Armaghdale, L. Rotherham, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Askwith, L. Saltoun, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 13, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Conditions of statutory tenancy.

15.—(1) A tenant who by virtue of the provisions of this Act retains possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall, so long as he retains possession, observe and be entitled to the benefit of all the terms and conditions of the original contract of tenancy, so far as the Caine are consistent with the provisions of this Act, and shall be entitled to give up possession of the dwelling-house only on giving such notice as would have been required under the original contract of tenancy:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in the contract of tenancy, a landlord who obtains an order or judgment for the recovery of possession of the dwelling-house or for the ejectment of a tenant retaining possession as aforesaid shall not be required to give any notice to quit to the tenant.

(2) Any tenant retaining possession as aforesaid shall not as a condition of giving up possession ask or receive the payment of any sum, or the giving of any other consideration, by any person other than the landlord, and any person acting in contravention of this provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he was convicted may order any such payment or the value of any such consideration to be paid to the person by whom the same was made or given, but any such order shall be in lieu of any other method of recovery prescribed by this Act.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), after "tenancy" and immediately before the proviso, to insert "or, if no notice would have been so required on giving not less than three months notice." The noble Viscount said: As the clause stands a statutory tenant can only give such notice as would have been required under the original contract of tenancy. He is restricted by the word "only." The words I suggest make it possible where there is no provision in the original tenancy, to give a three months notice. That is the object of the Amendment.

Amendment noved— Page 17, line 8, at end insert ("or, if no notice would have been so required on giving not less than three months notice").—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to add the following new subsection— (3) Where the interest of a tenant retaining possession as aforesaid is determined, either as the result of an order or judgment for possession or ejectment or for any other reason, any subtenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sublet shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued.

The noble Viscount said: These are certain words omitted from Clause 5, and we are inserting them here.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 24, insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Minor amendments of law.

16.—(1) Section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, shall, except so far as it relates to the metropolis, have effect as though for the limits of value specified in that section there were substituted limits twenty-five per cent. in excess of the limits so specified, and that section and section four of the same Act shall have effect accordingly.

(2) It shall be deemed to be a condition of the tenancy of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies that the tenant shall afford to the landlord access thereto and all reasonable facilities for executing therein any repairs which the landlord is entitled to execute.

(3) Where the landlord of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies has served a notice to quit on a tenant, the acceptance of rent by the landlord for a period not exceeding three months from the expiration of the notice to quit shall not be deemed to prejudice any right to possession of such premises.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The section of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, to which reference is made created a compound householder, who pays no rent and is quite unsconscious of the increase of rents when it takes place—an institution which has been responsible snore than anything else for making irresponsible citizens, especially in rural districts, and destroying all interest on the part of such persons in local government. Such persons have no interest whatever to check extravagance on the part of local authorities, or indeed, when elections take place, to vote for those who favour reasonable economy of rate expenditure. I may say in passing that, so far as I am aware, this system is condemned by every political party and has no merits in the eyes of any one except, possibly, the rate collector of the local authority. I think I am right in saying that the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act was largely passed to save trouble to the local authorities in the case of what are commonly called "void" houses on large estates, which at certain times are unoccupied. "Voids" are practically non-existent at the present time, and that particular reason for perpetuating this system does not exist.

Under the Act of 1869 an assessable value of £8 was the limit in rural districts within which the compound system could be agreed upon and subsequently enforced. If the present system is left alone the compounding system seems likely to disappear altogether, as such low assessable values, even if they now exist, will gradually cease to exist in view of the much higher annual value which will come to represent the value of the cottage to the cottage tenant. Now this sub-section (1), which provides for an increase in the assessable limit in the case of such tenancies, will have the effect of perpetuating the compounding system. In view of the, so far as I know, unanimous opinion that the compound householder is an anachronism, and that the system does not tend to produce responsible and self-respecting citizens and ought to be abolished, I hope your Lordships will not approve of the insertion of this sub-section, which, by enlarging the limit, will perpetuate this vicious system.

Amendment moved— Page 17, lines 25 to 30, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I suggest that on this Bill we ought not to go into the question whether the system of compounding is an anachronism, as the noble Lord has just said, or an anomaly, as he said on the Second Reading. We are trying to protect the occupiers of certain small houses. If by any chance the noble Lord succeeded in carrying his Amendment he would not abolish the compounding system. It would still exist, and the only result would be that a certain amount of hardship would be created. I do not say I differ from him on his general views, but I do say that this is not the time or place to remedy that. The clause in the Bill follows the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess opposite. That Committee went into the matter very fully and they thought it necessary that this increase should be made to prevent hard- ship, and therefore I suggest that the Amendment should not be accepted.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not think that that is a fair way of putting it. I would say that this Bill quite unnecessarily, and outside its purpose, drags in this question of compounding, and just as it is about to die a natural death, to the political advantage of the country, gives it a new and artificial lease of life. This clause is specially designed to continue a system which is dying in the natural course of events, and with great deference to the Committee over which my noble friend presided I think it is very unfortunate that the Government should have dragged this matter into the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am afraid I am in the position of agreeing with the Government and not with my noble friend, and perhaps I should state why I am in that very singular position. The effect of this Bill is to raise the rent to the extent of 30 per cent. immediately, and 40 per cent. next year. There are a great number of rents which are just below the compounding limit. When this Bill is passed and the 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. is imposed they will be brought above the compounding limit. What will be the effect of that? The effect will be that the burden of rates upon the particular piece of property will go up, because under the compounding system there is a reduction in the burden which rests upon particular premises or land. By means of the compounding system an allowance is made which is for the financial benefit of all parties. I know the argument of my noble friend, and I will deal with it in a moment. Relief is given to the rating authority by the compounding system, because they do not have to collect the rates themselves, and therefore they get rid of that expenditure. It is good also for the landlord and tenant, because they get a reduction in rates. Therefore, financially, it is good for all parties. What is the objection on the other side? It is that the compounding system is a bad system. I agree that it is a bad system, but if my noble friend had tried, as I have, he could have got rid of the difficulties of compounding without a change in the law. It is an arrangement the landlord can make if he pleases.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Not if the tenant refuses to agree.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have gone into it in my private capacity, and I know it can he clone though I admit there are great difficulties. The point is that Parliament is to be allowed to impose upon the tenant a large increase of rent by this Bill, and that will involve bringing these particular occupations above the compounding limit, because of another clause in the Bill. The whole increase of rates is, therefore, thrown upon the tenant, and that will still further increase his liability. When we came to consider this in the Committee we were compelled by the justice of the case and by the necessities of the public interest to permit these large increases of rent in the cases of dwellinghouses and we felt the difficulty that the burden of the increased rent added to that of the increased rates would be a very heavy one to throw upon these tenants. The rates are going up every day all over the country, and the joint burden of increase of rent and increase of rate would be very heavy indeed on this particular class of tenant.

We were faced with this difficulty, that if we allowed the rent to go up so as to bring the houses outside the compounding limit, we would really be imposing a still further burden upon the tenants, and we felt that was more than we ought to ask Parliament to do. In this emergency—not as a principle of general legislation—we wished to avoid piling Pelion on Ossa—piling rates on rent. We thought that would be too much, and that if we could make an economy which financially would hurt nobody—neither the landlord, nor the

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

rating authority, nor the tenant—we ought to do so, and that if we did so it would be a mitigation which Parliament would probably be willing to accept.

THE EARL of MIDLETON

We all quite understand Inv noble friend's desire with regard to the sitting tenant, but I think it is an extraordinary thing that the landlord should be bound for all time to a system from which be desires to free himself. The fact that at some time or another an agreement was made with the local authority should not result in the landlord being absolutely tied to that agreement for all time unless the local authority chooses to release him. I quite understand why the Committee has allowed the increase of rates to be put on the tenant, and I see that it means a number of quite nice calculations to be made every year in the case of those who own a large number of cottages. What I object to is the perpetuation of this system. As Lord Selborne said, there is nothing in the Bill which necessitates your perpetuating it. I believe there is nothing which has done more to divert the minds of the ordinary labourers from local government, and from subjects of first importance to them, than the fact that hitherto they have not felt in the slightest degree the effect of any changes made in the rates. I hope that my noble friend will go to a Division.

On Question, whether subsection (1) shall stand part of the clause—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhad, L. (L. Chancellor.) Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Dewar, L.
Stanhope, E. Faringdon, L.
Hylton, L.
Northampton, M. Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) Meston, L.
Salisbury, M. Astor, V. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Knollys, V. Ranksborough, L.
Bradford, E. Peel, V. Rotherham, L.
Chesterfield, E. Shandon, L.
Grey, E. Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.) Sinha, L.
Lovelace, E. Armaghdale, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Lytton, E. Clwyd, L. Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Mar and Kellie, E. Colebrooke, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
NOT-CONTENTS
Argyll, D. Chilston, V. Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]
Midleton, E. [Teller.] Charnwood, L.
Morton, E. Askwith, L. Lawrence, L.
Selborne, E. Balfour, L. Queenborough, L.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is formal.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 40, at end insert ("and if any order for possession is made any payment of rent so accepted shall be treated as mesne profit").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to omit "only recover the same costs as he would have recovered in the county court," and to insert "not be entitled to recover any costs." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. Instead of providing that persons who improperly bring proceedings in the High Court shall merely be able to recover County Court costs, the Amendment proposes that they shall not be entitled to recover any costs. The original penalty does not appear a sufficient one for a course which could so easily be avoided, and which is so obviously undesirable.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 12, leave out from ("shall") to the end of subsection (2), and insert ("not be entitled to recover any costs").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Rules as to procedure.

17.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make suoh rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act, and may by those rules or directions provide for any proceedings for the purposes of thsi Act being con-ducted so far as desirable in private and for the remission of any fees.

(2) A county court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any claim or other proceedings arising out of this Act or any of the provisions thereof, notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of claim or otherwise the case would not but for this provision be within the jurisdiction of a county court, and if a person takes proceedings under this Act in the High Court which he could have taken in the county court he shall only recover the same costs as he would have recovered in the county court.

(3) Rules made under this section may provide for enabling a court to revoke or vary any former decision of the court if if appears just to do so in view of subsequent circumstances or of material facts having been concealed from or misrepresented to the court, notwithstanding anything in this Act providing that the decision of a court is to be final and conclusive.

LORD SHANDON moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "Provided always that, except in the case of concealment or misrepresentation of material facts, no former decision of the court under section five of this Act shall be altered or rescinded after the execution of an order or judgment for recovery of possession of any dwellinghouse or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom."

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to raise a question which technically, I think, has to be provided for. Clause 5 deals with the case of judgments on ejectment, obtained either before or after the passing of the Act, and there is power given to the County Court Judge, provided execution has not taken place, to discharge or rescind. Clause 17 (3) seems to be not easy to reconcile with that provision, because it provides that rules may be made providing for enabling a Court to revoke or vary any former decision of the Court. That would extend to any case. Possibly it was not intended that the power of the County Court Judge in the case of concealment or misrepresentation should be limited to the mere case of judgment, and that it should extend to the case where there was an execution, and that it was certainly not proper or desirable that it should extend to any other case. In order to get rid of that anomaly I have put down this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 20, after ("conclusive") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shandon.)

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

An objection, I think, was taken, or a criticism made, by the noble Earl, the Lord Chief Justice, on the last occasion, but he is not here. I do not think that the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Shandon, quite gets over the difficulty which he had pointed out. On that occasion I think he appealed to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and asked him whether he would consider before this stage as to what amendment should be made in the clause, and I thought of asking the noble and learned Lord whether he had had an opportunity of considering, and intended to move any Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Some discussion did take place on the Second Reading, and I have since carefully considered the present proposals of the Bill, and I agree with the Lord Chief Justice that the proposal contained in Clause 17 (3) is not a satisfactory one. If I may, in a sentence, inform the House of the circumstances under which this proposal was made in the House of Commons it will be found relevant to the observations I have to make.

Cases were quoted in the course of the debate, in which a landlord went before the court and obtained an ejectment order against his tenant on the ground that he required the house for his own personal occupation or the occupation of his family, the tenant having disappeared in obedience to the ejectment order, and the landlord thereupon, under the pretext that his circumstances had changed, went and let the house at an enormously increased rent; and cases were vouched for by County Court Judges in which, in their opinion at least, they had been grossly imposed upon by the landlord in order to obtain an ejectment which had been subsequently abused by him. The House of Commons inserted this provision in the hope that it might be possible to deal with that case by this machinery.

It was a very unsatisfactory method, for two reasons, as we found on analysis, in the first place, because the tenant had disappeared, and there was nobody to bring into operation the legal machinery, loose as it is, provided in the subsection; and, in the second place, it would be futile in its results because the new tenant to whom the premises were let under the circumstances indicated, would, in nineteen cases out of twenty, be a tenant who had taken the premises in perfect good faith, and it would be quite impossible to eject such a tenant, however badly his predecessor bad been treated by the landlord.

And yet it is a case which, somehow or other. required treatment. It has occurred to me since the last discussion that the true method, and the only method, of dealing with this matter would be to give to the tenant who had lost his holding, by reason of the bad faith of the landlord before the Court a substantive cause of action against that landlord to recover such damages as he had sustained in consequence of an order, ex hypothesi improperly obtained. I should propose, therefore, that subsection (3) be left out, and that at the end of Clause 5, page 8, line 26, a new subsection (6) should be inserted. It carries its meaning very plainly in its language, unlike some of these clauses, so I shall be bold enough to ask your Lordships to follow me as I read it, and if it is approved of to agree to it, with- out inserting the Amendment on the Paper— Whore a landlord has obtained an order of judgment for possession or ejectment under this section, on the ground that he requires a dwelling house for his own occupation, and it is subse quently made to appear to the Court that the order was obtained by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the Court may order the. landlord to pay to the former tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for any damage or loss sustained by that tenant as the result of the order or judgment. The result will be that subsection (3) will disappear from Clause 17, and that this provision will do what the County Court Judges think it is necessary should be done, and will do it, I think, in a form which will probably not be objectionable to any member of the House. Therefore in order that the matter may be discussed further, if necessary, I move the omission of subsection (3).

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Will Lord Shandon withdraw his words?

LORD SHANDON

Yes, I am satisfied that will meet them in substance,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Omit subsection (3).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Application to Scotland and Ireland.

18.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (a) "Mortgage" and "ineumbranee" mean a heritable security including a security constituted by absolute disposition qualified by back bond or letter; "mortgagor" and "mortgagee" mean respectively the debtor and the creditor in a heritable security; "covenant" means obligation; "mortgaged property" means the heritable subject or subjects included in a heritable security; "rateable value" means yearly value according to the valuation roll; "rateable value on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen" means yearly value according to the valuation roll for tip year ending fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and fifteen; "assessed" means entered in the valuation roll; "land" means land and heritages; "rates" means assessments as defined in the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911; "Lord Chancellor" and "High Court" 963 mean the Court of Session; "rules" means act of sederunt; "county court" means the sheriff court; "sanitary authority" means the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; "mesne profits" means profits; the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Ministry of Agriculture; the twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of June; the reference to the county agricultural committee shall be construed as a reference to the body of persons constituted with respect to any area by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917; references to levying distress shall be construed as references to doing diligence; a reference to section five of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, shall be substituted for a reference to section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919; and a reference to section one of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be substituted for a reference to section three of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869:
  2. (b) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall permit any increase in rent in respect of any increase after the year ending Whitsunday nineteen hundred and twenty in the amount of the rates payable by the landlord other than rates for which he is responsible under the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911:
  3. (c) Subsection (5) of the section of this Act relating to permitted increases in rent shall not apply:
  4. (d)Nothing in the law relating to tacit relocation shall prevent the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied from obtaining any increase of rent to which he would otherwise be entitled under the provisions of this Act.

(2) This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (a) A reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Lord Chancellor:
  2. (b) A reference to section fifteen of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to section one of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838; and a reference to the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the county agricultural committee:
  3. (c) The expression "mortgage" includes a charge by registered disposition under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891:
    4. 964
  4. (d)The expression "rateable value" means the annual rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts: Provided that where part of a house let as a separate dwelling is not separately valued under those Acts, the Commissioner of Valuation and Boundary Surveyor may on the application of the landlord or tenant make such apportionment of the rateable value of the whole house as seems just, and his decision as to the amount to be apportioned to the part of the house shall be final and conclusive, and that amount shall he taken to be the rateable value of the part of the house for the purposes of this Act but not further or otherwise:
  5. (e) The medical officer of health of a dispensary district shall be substituted for the sanitary authority under section two of this Act and the issue of certificates and the payment of fees in connection with applications by tenants under the said section shall be subject to regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for Ireland:
  6. (f) This Act shall not apply to any dwellinghouse provided by a local authority under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, or under any of those Acts.

LORD STANMORE

My first Amendment on this clause is consequential.

Amendment moved— Clause 18, page 19, line 5, leave out ("Minister of Agriculture") and insert ("Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STANMORE

My next Amendment is to substitute June 24 for June 25

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 7, leave out ("twenty-fifth") and insert ("twenty-fourth").—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STANMORE

This is another drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 13, at end insert ("the reference to the President of the Surveyors' Institution shall be construed as a reference to the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution").—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Amendments upon the Paper— Page 19, line 26, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("twenty-one"). Page 19, lines 32 to 30, leave out subsection (d) and insert: ("Where any dwelling-house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whit Sunday, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the year ending at the said term of Whit Sunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house.")

The noble Lord said: I am in some difficulty to know what course to take, because I am strongly convinced that if these Amendments are not accepted very grave Injustice will be done. I shall not argue the first Amendment in detail. It was in the Act of last year, it was in the first draft of the Act this year, it was ably defended by the Secretary for Scotland up to the end of the Committee stage in the other House, but at the last moment a change was made without notice and the Amendment was rejected. With regard to the other Amendment, it was promised by the Secretary for Scotland but by some accident was omitted at the Report stage in the House of Commons. I speak with all respect, but I believe the Speaker did not know its importance and, by the "kangaroo" arrangement, it was not even argued. Perhaps I should save the time of the House if I asked the representative of the Scottish Office to say what is the position of the Government with regard to these two Amendments.

LORD STANMORE

The Government will be glad to accept the second Amendment, but not the first one.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

these circumstances I think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I do not occupy time in discussing now the first Amendment. I propose to put it off until the Report stage instead of taking it in the House as it is now. Consequently I do not move that Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Stanmore has an Amendment on page 19 which will come before the second Amendment of Lord Balfour.

LORD STANMORE

My Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Clause 18, page 19, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert ("paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to application and interpretation shall not apply").—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, moved to omit subsection (d) and to insert "Where any dwelling-house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right, of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whit Sunday, nineteen hundred and twenty one, the year ending at the said term of Whit Sunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house."

The noble Lord said: I have been asked to explain what is the meaning of "tacit relocation," though I do not know whether it is of general interest to the House. It is a purely Scottish matter. If you have a lease for five years in England, I understand that it terminates at the end of the five years, but in Scotland it does not terminate unless notice is given. If notice is not given either by the owner or by the occupier it goes un by what is called in Scotland "tacit relocation."

Amendment moved— Page 19, lines 32 to 36, leave out subsection (d) and insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Barleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in subsection (2) (b) to omit "Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the county agricultural committee," and insert "Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and references to the county agricultural committee shall not apply."

The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment relating to the application of the Bill to Ireland, and is practically of a drafting character. In effect it really limits the giving of certificates to the Department which in Ireland corresponds to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 4, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 6 and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Crawford.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

Has the noble Earl considered the effect of my Amendment to the previous clause in the Amendment he now proposes? In fact it leaves it, so far as England is concerned, entirely in the hands of the county agricultural committees when appointed.

THE EARL of CRAWFORD

Yes; and in Ireland it leaves it in the bands of the Minister.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Amendment at the end of subsection (2) (d) looks rather formidable, but in point of fact it is really quite simple. The provision does not apply correctly to Ireland, and the Amendment is proposed in order to assimilate the standardisation which exists between the two countries. Here these housing schemes are standardised through the agency of the Ministry of Health. In Ireland that would be impracticable, partly because the rents charged by local authorities in themselves under similar schemes are not standardised, partly because in Ireland these schemes are almost if not entirely exclusively in urban areas, and, finally, owing to the phrase "gross estimated rental" or "gross value" which in Irish law is meaningless.

This provision, therefore, restricts the valuation for rating purposes of the class of house dealt with in subsection (9), but it adopts a rather different standard—namely, that of the estimated pre-war rent. I should add that in Ireland for rating purposes local assessments arc not carried out by local authorities, but are in the hands of a Government Department in Dublin, that of the Commissioner of Valuation. The duty of estimating the rent in these cases will accordingly fall on that Department. I beg to move, and I would point out that owing to an Amendment previously made in the Bill it is necessary, after the word "erected" ["erected before the said date"] in the middle of the new subsection to insert the words "or so reconstructed" in order to bring the phraseology into consonance with what has gone before.

Amendment moved—

Page 20, line 21, at end insert: ("(e) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (9) of section twelve of this Act: ( ) This Act shall not apply to a dwelling-house erected after, or in cou se of erection on, the second day of April nineteen hundred and nineteen, or to any dwelling-house which has been since that date or was at that date being bona fide reconstructed by way or conversion into two or more separate and self-contained flats or tenements; but the rateable value of any such dwelling-house to which this Act would have applied if it had been erected or so reconstructed before the said date shall be ascertained as though the rent for the purposes of section eleven of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, were the rent for which a similar dwelling-house might have been reasonably expected to let on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the probable average annual cost of repairs, insurance, and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the dwelling-house in its actual state and all rates, taxes, and public charges, if any (except tithe rentcharge) being paid by the tenant").—(The Earl of Crawford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "under section two of this Act and insert "in section two of this Act and in the First Schedule thereto." The noble Earl said: This is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 20, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("under section two of this Act") and insert ("in section two of this Act and in the First Schedule thereto").—(The Earl of Crawford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule:

VISCOUNT ASTOR

In regard to the three Amendments standing in my name on the First Schedule, your Lordships will remember that an Amendment was moved to Clause 2 defining "repairs." It is because of that, and in order to make the position clear, that we propose this alteration in the Schedule. We do so also to make it plain that unless a tenant is under an express liability for repairs the landlord is entitled to the increase under Clause 2 subsection (1) paragraph (d), notwithstanding that no expenditure on repairs has been incurred during the period to which the increase of rent relates, if the house is in a reasonable state of repair. That is to say, the landlord can claim the 25 per cent. if the house is in a satisfactory condition, even though the repairs might have been executed at an earlier date.

Amendments moved

Page 22, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to ("being") in line 28.

Page 22, line 34, at beginning insert ("The increase under head (d) is on account of my responsibility for repairs, for no part. (part only) of which are you under an express liability").

Page 22, line 38, at end insert as a footnote: ("Where the tenant is under an express liability for part of the repairs, the increase under head (d) is to be settled in default of agreement by the county court").—( Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Question is that I report this Bill with Amendments to the House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Upon that Motion it would be suitable, perhaps, to ask the Government not to press on the Bill with any undue despatch, because it really is impossible to legislate at this break-neck speed. It is not as though we had dealt with all the Amendments in the first instance on the Committee stage of the Bill. There are several which have not yet been touched at all, and they will be seen for the first time on Report. No one knows better than your Lordships, with your experience, that when Amendments are made in a Bill there are all sorts of consequential things which have to be considered, without which a hotch-potch piece of work will go out to the country. Besides that, there are certain points which the Government have been so kind as to say they will consider on Report. They cannot consider them between now and to-morrow at four o'clock. I venture, therefore, to press them not to take the Report stage to-morrow.

Nor do I think it would be possible to take the remaining stages together afterwards, because the Third Reading is a very important stage at which all the last difficulties are arranged. May I add, that the idea that something very formidable is going to happen because there is a short interval between the expiry of one of these Rent Restriction Acts and the coming into force of this Bill is entirely illusory. No great difficulties will occur. It is one of the smaller Acts that expires. Moreover, there is no time, within the few days of interval that there may be, in which any mischief can really occur. I hope the Government will see that there is no undue precipitancy in taking the remaining stages.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I hope that your Lordships will not consider it precipitate to try to get the Third Reading with the Report stage on Wednesday. I think it is reasonable of the noble Marquess to ask us not to take the Report stage to-morrow. We have made considerable progress to-day.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

We should wish to meet the Government in any way we can, and, if the outstanding points are settled, I have no doubt it will be possible to go ahead. But my noble friends would not like to give an undertaking that they would take the Third Reading and the Report stage on the same day.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past. seven o' clock.