HL Deb 12 May 1925 vol 61 cc176-86

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships very long over this Bill. It is a short Bill and conies to us from another place. Its only purpose is to prolong for a period the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts of 1920 and 1923. As your Lordships know those Acts, taken together, have two effects. In the first place, they restrict, in the case of controlled houses, an increase of rent or the recovery of possession, except under certain conditions, for a period which would expire in England on June 24 next and in Scotland on May 28 next. Secondly, they establish, over a period of five years after these dates, a modified form of control under which the Courts will be able to refuse an application for ejectment which they may consider to be harsh or oppressive, or to be liable to inflict upon the tenant a greater hardship than refusal of possession would inflict upon the owner. The question which the Government had to consider when they came into office, was whether they should allow these provisions to lapse in May and June of this year, or whether they should be continued over a further period, and the answer to that question depended on whether the conditions to which the Statutes were due still continued in operation.

The Rent Restrictions Acts were passed owing to the grave shortage of houses, which was due, of course, to the war and other causes to which I need not refer. Their object was to protect a tenant from being turned out of a house which he occupied when no other home was available, and to prevent him being charged an excessive or exorbitant rent if he remained. I firmly believe that the great majority of houseowners are prepared to be moderate in their demands, but no doubt there are exceptions, and it is to these exceptional cases that the provisions of these Acts are directed. If that shortage has disappeared there is, of course, no case for continuing rent control. His Majesty's Government hold the view that rent control in itself is an evil, a necessary evil perhaps, but still an evil. It inflicts hardship upon owners of property, it prevents free sale, it checks enterprise, and should be removed at the earliest opportunity if the conditions admit of its removal. But if the shortage is still serious, then I think your Lordships will agree that the provisions of these Statutes should be continued for a further period.

The shortage of houses has, I am informed, passed its worst phase. There was a time when the increase of population needing houses was greater than the increase of house accommodation available for them, but that I am told is no longer the case. The building of houses has commenced to exceed the rate of increase of population needing houses and to overtake the arrears. Since the war some 450,000 new houses have been built, and the rate of building to-day is now something over 100,000 in every year, a figure which exceeds that which obtained before the war. It is hoped, if the process continues, and especially if the new methods of construction which are now being so carefully considered are put into operation, that the rate of building will be still further accelerated and that we shall be able fully to overtake the arrears. That process is not yet complete. It is quite plain that the shortage must continue and that a reversion to normal conditions must be postponed for some time to come.

The Government hold the view that the Acts should be extended, not for a long time, such as ten or fifteen years as has been suggested, but for a short time, so that the matter may be reconsidered should conditions improve, when the special restrictions of these Acts need no longer be prolonged. They therefore determined to ask Parliament to extend the Rent Restrictions Acts for a further two and a half years; that is to say, until December, 1927, in the case of England and until May, 1928, in the case of Scotland. Time intention is that in the year 1927 the whole position shall be carefully reviewed, and if it is then deemed necessary to prolong the Acts further, it can be done by inserting these Statutes in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill for that year and so prolonging their operation for a further period. The effect of the Bill, therefore, is to prolong the first period for two and a half years and the period of modified control, beginning at the end of the first period, for five years. Those are, shortly, the provisions of the Bill. I do not propose to anticipate any objections that may be taken—I do not know if any objections will be taken—in this House, and I content myself with moving the Second Reading of the Bill.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, in the course of the last two years Bills of this description have come before your Lordships with great regularity, and I think that on each occasion I have pointed out both the enormous importance of some such measure and the desirability of taking steps to prevent the need of its recurrence. The importance of the measure is, of course, due to the one simple fact that, by the action of the Government, the supply of houses was deliberately restricted during the course of the war, with the result that there was created an artificial monopoly in houses at a time when the need for them was exceedingly great. Unless there were some interference in the result of these circumstances people would be pressed to pay rent for houses far in excess of the means that they enjoy, owing to the fact that there are so few houses to be obtained. In spite of the operation of these Bills, there is no doubt that this state of things will continue, and, if we desire ever to heal labour troubles in this country, two things, in my opinion, have to be done. You have to see that the people are decently and comfortably housed, and you have to provide that the necessities of life can be obtained at a reasonable cost.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the Government should interfere with prices by artificial means. I am only pointing out that, unless and until, by the operation of economic laws, the price of living can be reduced to something comparable to that which it was before the war began, you will never know industrial peace. You cannot know it now because at the present time, in spite of the increase of wages, there are many large industries in which the actual earnings of the men, measured in terms of that which they receive, is less than it was before the war. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, shakes his head; I do not know whether it is his intention to disagree with me—

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Oh, no!

LORD BUCKMASTER

If he did, I should at once overwhelm him with figures, which I will not for the moment use. It is not merely that houses have to be provided, but they must be provided at a rent which the people will be able to pay. It is no use whatever having a place filled with houses if the rent which is going to be exacted for them is beyond the means of the worker. This Bill deals temporarily with the position, and to some extent it does mitigate the difficulties to which I have referred, but I am satisfied that it is nothing but a mere palliation of the real difficulty, and, unless we see some means by which it can be faced and overcome, we shall never know anything like industrial peace and comfort in this country.

I have only to add, in conclusion, that when the noble and learned Viscount pointed out that houses are being increased by 450,000 a year and that the supply was now overtaking the demand—I was very glad indeed to hear this—he did not tell your Lordships another figure which, I think, we all have to keep in our minds. Notwithstanding all the disadvantages under which we are suffering, our population increases at the rate of 1,000 a day, or something like 350,000 a year. Since the war this gives a figure of something like 1,500,000 people. That is to say, there is a house only for every four people. I am glad to know that houses have overtaken population. But, unless the pace is kept up, you will find that population will very quickly overtake houses again.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that this Bill can be looked upon only as a temporary palliation of what are really very great social diffi- culties. I do not think that anybody on either side of the House would differ from his view that one of the great movements which we should desire to see carried out in the social welfare of this country is that all the wage earners should be decently housed. But there is a further matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred only quite shortly. It is necessary, not only that people should be decently housed, but that they should be housed on such terms as they can afford to pay, having regard to the average of their earnings. It is no good providing houses of such a character that the rent makes it entirely impossible that they should be occupied by the wage-earning class.

I am perfectly well aware, as I have no doubt your Lordships are also, that one of the great difficulties in providing a sufficient number of houses is the consideration of how much rent a man can afford to pay who is receiving something like two guineas a week. This, if you regard it all round, is in the aggregate more than the average wage that the working men and artisans—I am eliminating agricultural workers—are, as a matter of fact, receiving at the present time. How is the proportion to be estimated? Can a man, for instance, afford to pay more than one-sixth of his income in rent? I think that this is the proper way of arriving at a figure. Supposing, for instance, the average wage were to be taken as £2 2s., can the working class generally afford to pay more than 7s.a week in rent? That where the real difficulty arises, particularly in respect of those persons who desire to regard this matter entirely from the economic standpoint, as does, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam.

I want to make two statements. First of all, from my experience of country life, I deprecate in the strongest possible manner the building of houses not sufficiently large or sufficiently equipped to be comfortably lived in by a man and his wife and family. I think that this is a fundamental mistake. I know that some persons have advocated, on economic grounds, a cheap class of house with inferior accommodation. I hope that this will never be accepted. I think it is the most reactionary principle as regards social welfare that could be adopted. If you start from that factor, and if you find that economically the wage-earner cannot afford to pay a rent which would give him accommodation of that character, what are you to do? We know that, under the various Acts for providing houses, a portion of the expense has been thrown either upon the Exchequer or upon the local authorities, and in my opinion, it is impossible to avoid that under existing conditions.

The Lord Chancellor referred another point. He said—and I think quite rightly—that the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Acts must be continued and that it would he quite impossible to allow them to lapse suddenly at the present time. My complaint would be of their not being continued for a sufficient length of time. In other words, an extension of two and a half years, followed by five years of diminished control, is not at all likely adequately to deal with what will be required before we get rid of legislative restrictions, if we ever get rid of them at all, but the noble Viscount has pointed out that in his view the building of houses is overtaking the demand for them. He says there are 450,000 built, and that 100,000 are being built annually, and he assures your Lordships—I have no doubt he is able to obtain adequate statistics—that at the present time building is at such a rate that they are diminishing the surplus demand, which, as the noble and learned Lord Pointed out, certainly exceeded the supply after the war, when for a period no houses of this class were built at all. Then the noble Viscount says this—and I take cognizance of it, because it may perhaps be referred to on a future occasion—that, although tile Bill is at the present time only an extension for two and a-half years, there is no intention, as I understand, that that should be the ultimate limit; but the ultimate limit must depend upon the time when what he will. I think, describe as the normal conditions have returned, so that there are sufficient houses for working class requirements. Everyone must hope that that will happen in two and a-half years time, but I think it is an optimistic form of prophecy to suggest that that result will be obtained in so short a time. If it is not obtained, then I think a further extension of time will be absolutely necessary.

The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out that, on a future occasion, this extension of time could be obtained under what is known as the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, which we pass from year to year. I see that there is some objection taken to the idea that it should be so extended because, in substance, you would not then have opportunity of discussion. I do not want to dwell upon that point myself, because my desire is from the other standpoint. I want to be assured, so far as we can be, that, if necessity arises, the same attitude will be taken in the future as is taken by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack at, the present time. I have no criticism to pass upon this Bill, and so far as we on this side are concerned we shall give it every assistance in its passage into law.

LORD LAMINGTON

My Lords, no one will dispute what was said by Lord Buckmaster as to the necessity of people having proper housing accommodation at a reasonable rent, but I only question whether legislation of this character does tend is that direction. My view is that all these artificial laws, all these restrictions on the natural working of economic conditions, tend to retard, and not to promote, the supply of working-class houses. It is only incidentally I think that, as the noble and learned Lord stated, the present shortness is due to the action of the Government during the war in restricting the building of houses. That is not entirely the whole cause, because, after all, the shortness began after 1090, when the then Government, by its land legislation, caused a shortness of houses. However, that does not affect my argument, that the present measures for providing houses will not tend in the desired direction. When people have had the expense of building houses—and building houses is not at any time very prosperous undertaking—you discourage private enterprise if those who build are liable to get an inadequate return on the capital invested.

Secondly, it many cases you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, because there are plenty of small householders who bought houses before the war and are unable to get a proper return for them. That is grossly unfair, and if the Government want to do the just thing it seems to me that when, under the different Housing Acts, persons living in a house pay a third of the real rental value, and other people are unable to pay the rent which is demanded, then the local authority should make good the difference. But I am certain that the whole of this legislation does not promote, but actually retards, the supply of proper accommodation. I know I have been guilty of great audacity in venturing to speak after the three noble and learned Lords who have spoken, but I am confident that in voicing the opinion I have I have expressed the opinion of many other people.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I should like to refer to the common sense view expressed by the noble Lord behind me. I remember perfectly well, when the first Rent Restrictions Bill was introduced, that I had the honour of opposing it, as being a Conservative, and as not having altered my view concerning the law of supply and demand. It was introduced in another place by the late Lord Long, and his argument in favour of it was not that the Government was stopping the building of houses, but that in Glasgow certain owners of houses, seeing the enormous increases in wages which occurred at the commencement of the war, had actually ventured to ask rather higher rents. The increase in wages was defended on the ground that expenses of living and the price of food had risen. Therefore, it was right that the labourer should have a rather larger income with which to buy these things; but it was quite wrong for the owner of a house to put himself in the same position and to say that because the cost of living had risen he must have a little more for his house.

We were told that it was only a Bill which would last through the war. As in the case of all those things, as soon as you commence in the wrong path you go on. The war ended a long time ago, but still we go on. Two years ago, I think, it was intended to abolish these Acts but then it was thought it would have rather a bad effect on a certain by-election which was taking place at that date, and the Acts were continued. Now we have Lord Parmoor actually saying that a man is to pay the rent which he can afford. Who is to judge whether he can afford a certain rent or not? I believe the noble Lord can afford a very much higher rent for his house in Wilton Crescent than he is paying now, and I should think that the Duke of Westminster is of that opinion; but I do not know who is to judge between Lord Parmoor and the noble Duke. The same would apply in every walk of life. I do not pretend to be better than anybody else, and I am sure that my idea of what I could afford would differ very materially from the idea of any one who had a house to let. But who is to make up the difference? The working man can only pay, say, 5s, a week, and the economic rent is 7s.; who is going to pay the difference?

Apparently noble Lords opposite and hon. Members in another place who hold the views of the noble Lord opposite, and to a certain extent the views of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Par-moor), think that there is some inexhaustible fund into which you can put your hand to remedy all the evils which exist in this world. There always will be evils in the world, and the more we endeavour to interfere with the law of supply and demand, the more we allow people to think that all they have got to do is to complain and then some good fairy will come forward and make their lives pleasant and agreeable, the more the prosperity of this country is likely to decline. I only hope that at the end of two and a-half years there will be no question about abolishing the Act, but that it will be abolished at once. I had a case only yesterday of some people who choose to remain in a house, not because they cannot afford to pay, but because they like to pay their old rent of 3s. or 4s. a week, instead of going to get a new house at 5s. or 6s., and great hardship ensued. This is a matter on which I feel very strongly, and it is a. matter on which I am quite certain that, if we attempt to fly in the face of political economy, we shall rue it.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER

My Lords, I should be very sorry if your Lordships were to think that I rise in order to support the common-sense view, as it was called, which has just been put before you by the noble Lord. I can only say for myself that if the basis from which he regards these matters is the common- sense basis, I must appear to your Lordships to be the veriest lunatic. This discussion has ranged over a rather wide area, and there are one or two simple matters connected with it, perhaps not more remote from it than some which have been already mentioned, which I desire to bring to your Lordships' notice. First of all, nothing has been said as to the large contribution towards the solution of this problem which has been made by some of the great employers of labour in this country. I was in a country parish in my diocese only yesterday afternoon, when one of my clergy consulted me as to the problems that are raised for him, and indirectly for me, by the erection by a great engineering firm in our countryside some two hundred houses. All that has to be taken into account.

Again, a great deal can be done, I am quite certain, by a wise insistence on the part of the local authorities erecting these houses, that they really shall be effectively occupied. Anybody who lives, as I do, within twenty miles of a great city must be conscious that too many of these newly-erected houses somehow get into the occupation of persons of whom I desire to speak with the utmost respect and with some envy—the week-enders. I never have week-ends myself, and am therefore not likely to join this company. But the week-ender has no right at this moment to be occupying in the County of Worcester, from Saturday mid-day to Monday morning if he has a motor-car—and he probably has—a house which is really erected (because in Worcestershire there is a shortage of houses) for the genuine Worcestershire people.

May I add that I do feel that there is a certain danger in the way in which these houses are apportioned between one set of applicants and another. I find, as I go about, rather too great a tendency to favour the young married couple, or perhaps some young man of influence who comes to the allotting authority and asks for a house because he wants to be married. What happens in the. mean time is that the married man of some years standing, with a family to his credit, and living in the most terribly overcrowded conditions—there was one who wrote to me not long ago from a mere railway hutment—is entirely set aside in favour of the young couple, or the young man who wants to get married, and whose housing problem is not at the moment really serious, although it may become so in due course. I am very much obliged to your Lordships for allowing me to make these remarks, which, I am well aware, are not strictly germane to the Bill, but everything that has to to do with the social welfare of the workers in this country is of concern to every one of your Lordships, and therefore I do not apologise for mentioning those points.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, some very wide questions have been raised, and I will content myself in replying on the debate to dealing with two questions only. First, in answer to my noble friends Lord Lamington and Lord Banbury, I would only say that, like them I do not regard rent restriction as a good thing in itself, but I am confident that if they had the responsibility which His Majesty's Government have to day neither of them would be willing to allow the Acts to lapse at once. I am certain they would be compelled by the logic of events to continue them, at all events for a time. The second question I want to answer is that of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, who wanted to know what we were going to do two years hence. With all respect to him, I do not think I ought to be asked to answer that question. As has been said, we think it right to proceed by short steps, to renew the Acts for a limited time only. As to what may happen in 1927, I can give no promise, except tint we shall then, of course, carefully examine the whole question and come to Parliament—we or some other Government—with such proposals as may then appear to be proper. In the meantime, we keep a free hand.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.