LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 6 August 1924)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR:
My Lords, then comes the next Amendment to which the Commons disagree, and that is the insertion after " houses," in line 43, of the words " of similar size, type and amenity." The object is to let at the rents now being paid in the area for prewar houses. Where the pre-war houses are in a large majority of cases of similar type, size and amenity to the new houses, the rents will be as the Lords Amendment desires—in other words, the people now well housed will get least assistance—but where the working classes occupy houses of an inferior type, in the majority of cases, our object is to give them better houses at present rents; in other words, to give the greatest help to those who need it most. This Amendment, as I have stated, was rejected in the House of Commons, and I propose to ask your Lordships not to insist upon it.

§ LORD STRACHIE:
My Lords, I am responsible for this Amendment, and my attitude has been entirely misrepresented upon it. I should like to say that 480 the reason I moved it was that I adopted an Amendment moved by a very distinguished member on the Liberal side, when this Bill was in another place. The object of that Amendment was that when rents were fixed for houses under the Bill they were to be the same as houses erected prior to August, 1914, and it was desirable that the comparison should be with houses of the same kind, and not dissimilar ones. Otherwise, what is the object of this particular clause? Now I understand from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that my Amendment will have the effect of preventing very much better houses being let at lower rents than the inferior houses of 1914 could command.
The noble and learned Viscount has referred to this matter as being one on which the other House was in entire agreement. Nothing of the kind. Originally, this Amendment was moved by a Liberal Member, Mr. Simon, and your Lordships will be surprised to hear that he was backed up by Mr. Master-man. This is what the Manchester Guardian said:
"The Amendment standing in the name of Mr. E. D. Simon and Mr. Masterman would release the State from all obligation to enforce this principle of the subsidised rent, the application of which would be left to the discretion, and the pocket, of the local authorities. The Bill would then contain nothing definitely offensive. It might be faulty, clumsy, or ineffective. Its practical short-comings could be remedied, now or later. But unless this fundamentally corrupt vote-catching, demoralising subsidy to lucky tenants, this publicly financed lottery, is withdrawn as a statutory obligation upon the State and the already overburdened taxpayer, we do not see how Liberals or Conservatives can accept even part responsibility for a, Bill which they may be called upon to operate."
It may be true that Mr. Masterman changed his mind. I am not surprised at that
Mr. Chamberlain changed his mind, too. He was at one time entirely against this Bill; then he said he would not kill it by a side wind. But he afterwards tried to kill it on the Third Reading. We have had Mr. Chamberlain quoted to us, but he did not lead the Conservative Party in this matter. One hundred members—practically the whole of the Conservative Party present—went into the Lobby against Mr. Chamberlain, showing that the Conservative Party had the same views as were enunciated by the 481 Manchester Guardian. Therefore I cannot see what possible objection there can be to this Amendment, at least on the grounds given by the Lord Chancellor. As the Manchester Guardian said, it is merely a vote-catching clause, which I have tried to amend on the lines indicated by Mr. Simon.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR:
The attitude taken by the Government was endorsed by a majority of one hundred in the House of Commons. As to the merits of the dispute between Mr. Masterman and the Manchester Guardian I am not in a position to speak.