HL Deb 19 July 1927 vol 68 cc652-60

LORD HARRIS rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the case that they have decided to include the Rent Restrictions Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and whether this procedure will not have the effect, of preventing any amendment of the Act. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before putting the Question which stands in my name on the Paper I think it only respectful to your Lordships that I should explain why I put it. I observed some few days ago in that column of The Times which generally gives us an intelligent anticipation of the intentions of the Government, that they propose to put the Rent Restrictions Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Therefore I ask whether if that is done it will not have the effect of preventing any amendment of the Act. Having for a long time felt that the Act was one which I might describe as having been passed in a panic and being now repented of at leisure, I have long felt that it was one's duty to try to get it amended if it cannot be repealed.

I am more concerned with its effect upon cottages used by agricultural labourers for farming purposes than vitro urban cottages. So far as the former are concerned, I conceive that the Act has done a maximum of injustice and the very minimum of benefit to the persons affected, and accordingly I address myself more particularly to the agricultural cottages. I have had some experience, as, no doubt, have most of your Lordships, in a magisterial capacity of cases concerning urban cottages, and I have never been able to see that the Act was a just Act. Of course there are very pitiful cases that one has had to consider, but almost invariably where one is affected by compassion for the occupant who may have to leave, one at the same time feels that one is very likely doing a great injustice to the owner of the tenement. My noble friend, the noble Marquess, last night, I think, said something to the effect that the Government would not do anything inimical to the agricultural industry. If they allow this Act to go forward for another twelve months, or help to ensure its going forward for another twelve months, without amending it in regard to agricultural cottages, I shall feel, and I rather fancy that a good many of those interested in agriculture, and more particularly the farming class, will feel, that something inimical has been done.

I dare say your Lordships have many cases in mind, but let me give one as an illustration. A tenant of mine engaged a cowman, as it subsequently proved on a false character. The cowman got into a cottage attached to the farm, without which it is very difficult to farm that particular holding. He then proved to be of no use at all in the capacity for which he was engaged, and he was discharged. It took the farmer six months to get that man out of that cottage. I dare say it will be said that there are processes by which you can get a man out of a cottage. I know there are. You have to get a certificate from the agricultural committee, and, further, you have to satisfy a tribunal, magisterial or judicial as the case may be—for these cases do not always go to the petty sessional bench—and I know of cases where there has always been an insistence that a cottage is to be found for the person who is to be removed. This is not always easy, and it frequently happens that men of this particular skill in industry will not take up an engagement unless they are assured of a cottage. The unfortunate farmer can give no pledge as to the date on which he will be able to get a man out. Accordingly he may lose one applicant after another before he can fill the place that is vacant upon his farm. That is merely one illustration of what has happened in my own experience, and I have heard of many similar cases from my friends.

I feel very strongly, and I know that it is felt by the farming class, that this Act is a preventive of their ensuring good agriculture, and it is on those grounds that I hope that the Government will be prepared to do something to amend the Act, even if they are not prepared to repeal it. I dare say that urban cases are different from rural cases—I have not had sufficient experience to be able to say—but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that there is ample justification for either amendment or repeal of the Act as regards agricultural cottages, and I do not see why it should be impossible to devise a definition of the kind of cottage that is referred to; some such words as "customarily occupied by and built for workmen on a farm." It seems to me that those words, or words to that effect, should cover the particular case. I am told that it is very difficult to find words, but I have suggested that definition to some of my friends and I hope that it may prove to be a useful groundwork for an amendment of the Act to that extent. It is very possible that there might be very strong feeling elsewhere, if not here, for the continuation of the Act as regards urban occupants, but I do not think that there can be any strong feeling in favour of its continuation as regards agricultural occupants. Accordingly I beg to ask this Question, and I hope that the answer will be that it is not the intention of the Government to include the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because that would prevent us amending it altogether, and I imagine that it would be necessary to take some drastic political action to assure the Government that there is really strong feeling on this matter.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I moved the rejection of the original Act when it was introduced into the House of Commons, I think some twelve years ago. It was introduced by Mr. Walter Long, as he then was, and I remember saying that I was astonished that a Conservative Minister should bring in such a radical and socialistic Bill. Here was a Bill that said that, when two men had entered into an agreement to do certain things, the Government was to interfere to the advantage of the one and to the detriment of the other. I was told: "These are exceptional times. This is to be done only during the War. Owing to the influx of working men to the various areas where munitions are being made, and especially into Glasgow and that neighbourhood, landlords are taking advantage of the situation in order to raise their rents to a ridiculous figure." I pointed out at that time that the men who went to these various places to work were taking advantage of the situation in which the country found itself to exact enormous wages, and when they had these wages they did not want to spend anything more, but expected to get exactly the same things at the same price as before. I was told that the Act was absolutely necessary because we were at war, but that as soon as the War was ended the Act would be repealed.

The War has been over nearly nine years and—I was going to say that nothing whatever has been done, but th[...] is not quite true, because some amendments have been made and new houses are excluded; but the fact still remains that a man who may have let his house eight or nine years ago at a certain price and finds that property in the neighbourhood has gone up is precluded from getting that advantage which is his right; whereas, if property in the neighbourhood has gone down, the tenant says: "I do not want this house any longer," and goes out. That cannot be fair, and I am very sorry that the Government do not take the bull by the horns and repeal the measure. It was going to be repealed four or five years ago. I remember that, when the Coalition Government was defeated and the Conservative Government came in, it was supposed that the Act was going to be abolished then, but for one or two reasons—I think perhaps because a member of the Conservative Government was not re-elected—it was put off for another year; and now I want to know how much longer it is going to be put off.

My experience of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act is that once a measure gets put into that Act it is never repealed, but goes on for ever. I should like to know whether or not it is the intention of the Government to repeal this Act next year, or whether they intend next year to put it again into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken about agriculture, because if the cottage was in the possession of the landlord or farmer before, I think it is 1923, and was let as a condition of employment, the farmer then, if he goes to the justices or county court, can get an order for eviction without the certificate of the agricultural committee. My experience is that the magistrates are the best tribunal to go to in those circumstances. I agree that there seems to be no reason why the farmer should be put to all that trouble, because, after all, it is his cottage and was built by him, or the landlord, for the purpose of the farm and not for any other purpose. I do not know whether we can get any reassurance from the Government. I do not know who is going to reply, but I trust that if in this House we assent to its going into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill this year, it will be on the distinct understanding that the measure will be repealed next year.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I do not go quite so far as to think that this Act ought never to have been passed, because I believe there is no doubt that at that time, and for some time afterwards, it did serve a useful purpose, and there were reasons why it should have been continued for a time. I agree, however, with my noble friend that it requires very strong reasons now for continuing it any longer. My noble friend Lord Harris gave some instances of agricultural tenancies in which the Act works very badly. I have had brought to my notice, and I am sure your Lordships have had the same experience, many cases where in urban tenancies it worked what appeared on the face of it to be really grave injustice. For instance, a man wants possession of his house, and he finds that the tenant has let the house on sub-letting to a number of lodgers or sub-tenants for three or four or five times the rent which he is paying to the landlord. So far as I know there is no remedy for that state of things. The noble Lord who answers will tell us whether in that respect the original Act has been amended. I do not think it has.

It does seem, on the face of it, extraordinarily unjust that the landlord should let the cottage for, say, £20 a year and that the tenant should be able to make £100 a year out of it. There are a great number of similar abuses and anomalies which have arisen under this Act. I have spoken to County Court Judges about them, and they are very dissatisfied in many cases with the Act which they have to administer. Therefore, if it be the intention of the Government to renew the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, I hope that they will be able to give your Lordships some very strong reasons why that course is necessary. If it is necessary to continue any part of it I should have thought that it was very much better to continue that portion and amend the Act in other respects, but perhaps the Government will consider matters very carefully between now and the time when the Expiring Laws Bill is brought in.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, the noble Lord has put down on the Paper a very simple and direct Question, which admits of an equally simple answer, but I am afraid that that is not equally true of some of the other points raised by him and other noble Lords during the course of the debate. I feel I am entitled to claim from your Lordships some indulgence if my information does not cover all the possible criticism that can be directed against this very complicated measure under the rules of this House regarding Questions. The answer to the Question on the Paper is that the Government have decided to include the Rent Restrictions Acts in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and therefore no amendment is contemplated at present. I think I can put before your Lordships, fairly shortly, the reasons which have prompted the Government to come to this decision. There were four possible courses before the Minister: (1) To repeal the Acts altogether; (2) to take no action but allow the Acts in their present form to lapse, in which case Part II of the Act of 1923 would automatically come into operation; (3) to introduce an amending Act, which would prolong the existing law, subject to amendment in certain respects; and (4) to continue the Acts in their present form by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of this Session.

These is certainly a body of opinion which holds that all forms of restriction should now be done away with, and representations in this sense have been received from important individuals and bodies, such as the Property Owners' Association, the Surveyors' Institution and the Law Society. The facts of the situation are, however, that although nearly 900,000 houses have been built since the War, and the rate of production of new houses is greatly in excess of any figure previously known, it cannot be said that the shortage has yet been overcome, and local authorities still report that they have long lists of unsatisfied applicants for houses. A recent report to the London County Council, which possibly puts the case somewhat high, indicates that in Greater London the shortage stands approximately where it did in 1919, notwithstanding the great building activity of the last two or three years. A summary of reports received by the Estates Gazette at the end of last year indicates a general opinion that rent restriction cannot yet be safely given up. Such would be the opinion of the most important local authorities, and it is the conclusion arrived at by the London County Council after very full consideration of the question. There can be no doubt that to repeal the Acts, or even to allow the general restrictions to elapse and Part II of the Act of 1923 to come into force, would give rise to great agitation and much discontent among the working classes. On a general review it is clear that the time has not yet arrived when the Acts can be got rid of, and the general body of opinion is undoubtedly in favour of and expects a further extension.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has raised the question of an amendment in regard to agricultural cottages. I am not presuming to offer any comments on his observations or suggestions, to which I am sure my right hon. friend will pay every possible attention, but all I am concerned with is to point out that once you open the gates to amendments it is very difficult to confine them to a particular class of industry such as agriculture. Suggestions have been made, and have been pressed for by important bodies, that, for instance, amendments should be introduced to make it easier for landlords to evict undesirable tenants and to tighten up provisions as to profiteering, but although the noble Lord urges that agriculture should be treated as a special case, it should be pointed out that agricultural landlords already have special privileges which are denied to the owners of other property, insomuch as they can, as the noble Lord himself said, obtain certificates from the county agricultural committees which, in the large majority of cases, are followed by possession orders from the county courts. I understand that at least a thousand certificates of this nature have been issued every year since the Act came into force.

But in reviewing the whole circumstances—and the Government are of opinion that the Act must be viewed as a whole—they have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to confine amendment to one class of case, and, further, that the opening of such a large subject as the whole of the Rent Restriction Acts, would be highly contentious, and would lead in the present congested state of business to a complete hold-up of all legislation. In the circumtances they have come to the conclusion that the best course is to continue the operation of the Acts in their present form by including them in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. A further period will thus be allowed for the situation to be investigated. It will be continually improving by reason of the continuation of a high rate of house production and by the gradual extension of automatic control, and next year the situation can be again reviewed.

In arriving at this conclusion the Government is not unsupported by local authorities, and perhaps I might conclude by reading a paragraph from the Report of the General Purposes and Housing Committee of the London County Council. It says:— It is recognised also that under the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts profiteering, sub-letting and over-crowding have assumed proportions that were never contemplated when the Acts were passed, and that the sufferers are, in the main, those of the poorest classes, but similar evils would result from general decontrol at the present time. Again, by reason of the Acts, property management has been hampered in such a manner that a good landlord is prevented from exercising the influence which can be of benefit to the tenant, and from making that selection of tenants which he should be assisted to make. Nevertheless, the fact that the housing shortage has not yet been overcome must still tip the balance in favour of continuing the Acts. It is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. In the Council's own experience, as elsewhere, a number of points have arisen in the administration of the Rent Restriction Acts on which it would be desirable, if possible, to amend the Acts. It is doubtful, however, whether there would be sufficient time before the end of the present year in which to frame and pass a comprehensive amending Act, and we therefore suggest that the most desirable course in the circumstances is for those provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts which are due to expire on 25th December, 1927, to be continued in their present form for one year by being included in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act of the present Session of Parliament. They further say: Thus the final extinction of emergency housing measures"— and no one denies that the Rent Restriction Act is an emergency measure in its present form— might be secured with a minimum of disturbance to the community. That is the desire of His Majesty's Government.

House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.