The Committee will remember that when the Debate was adjourned, we had just reached a stage when a Division would be taken on this Amendment. I do not know that there is anything to add to what has already been said.

Is this Amendment intended to apply to all houses or only to houses affected by the Bill? It is so drawn that no distinction is made.

The Amendment only applies to houses to which the Bill applies. That is the intention of the Amendment.

As drawn, the Amendment does apply to all houses.

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).

Before proposing to leave out this Sub-section, an Amendment with which my name is associated, may I inquire whether the Government can see their way to accept later some of the other Amendments on the Paper which would possibly achieve the object in view, so that we might have as clear a definition as we can possibly get? There have been very many cases in the Courts in connection with the corresponding Clause in the original Act, and it has been found over and over again to be that bogus employment has been put forward in connection with a desire to get, or give, possession of a house to someone other than the then occupying tenant. If the Government could give us some assurance that some modification of this will be adopted, I think it would obviate the leaving out of the Sub-section and meet the case.

I do not know a form of words which would meet the case put forward by my hon. Friend.

A very wide interpretation has been given by some of the County Court judges which have really told against the tenant, and which by many is considered an unwitting evasion of the original Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to qualify in any way the Sub-section in the way I have suggested I think it would do a great deal for the tenant. It would prevent occupation being taken, except were there is an absolutely reasonable case for the landlord to have possession of the property.

had given notice of the following Amendment: Leave out from the word "and" [nineteen hundred and seventeen"] to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof other words.

The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is not in correct form, and therefore is not permissible.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"or in the employ of some tenant from him."

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, because it is simply a repetition of a provision in the principal Act.

I am sorry the Attorney-General cannot meet us in this case. The landlord may have someone in his employ who desires to live in certain premises, and in that casethe occupying tenant is turned out. I am aware that we are asking for an Amendment of the original Act of 1915, but this is one of the cases where grievances have arisen very frequently in connection with a bogus claim to getsomeone into the premises as against the occupying tenant.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"all the circumstances of the case, including."

I do not quite follow the difficulty in the mind of my hon. Friend. As the Clause stands at present it would have a certain limiting effect. The Clause provides that the Court, in considering whether it is reasonable to make the order or not, shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and I submit that the words as they stand bring about the very result which my hon. Friend desires.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the dominant factor in the situation is in regard to alternative accommodation being available? That really is the thing in the minds of those who drew the Bill, and I am quite sure that what the Committee desires is that the really effective and dominant consideration in the mind of the Court when they exercised their discretion should be the question whether or not other accommodation is available.

I should have thought that the mode of expression which has been chosen is intended to convey that meaning. I do not know whether it would meet my hon. Friend's view if, instead of the word "including," we inserted the words "in particular."

I think the lay reader is entitled to have an Act so drawn that he can readily understand it. I think it would make the meaning clearer if some word like "especially" was inserted instead of the word "including."

I do not think it would be wise to strike out the whole of these words, because they give the Court a very strong power to see that before the occupation is taken away from the existing tenant that there must be available accommodation in the locality. I think what the right hon. Gentleman has said might be strengthened by putting another word in place of the word "including."

I gather that the original words of the Amendment, "all the circumstances of the case, including," are not now pressed, and the Government is invited to take out the word "including" and insert the word "especially." I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the word "especially" without a little more thought. There may be something in it, but I think it is important that we should not accept it without more consideration, and it might be left until the Report stage. I do not very much like directing by an Act of Parliament a judge to especially consider the alternative accommodation available. The present provision asks the judge to consider certain matters, including the available accommodation. The only fear I have is that by inserting the word "especially," it may be inferred from this word, if it is adopted, if there is alternative accommodation of almost any sort it would be taken as an instruction to the judge that he must take that alternative, and this might be very inconvenient. In the district where I live there was a case in which the tenant was told there there was alternative accommodation and it was most unsuitable. The alternative accommodation consisted of a house which was very inferior and a higher rent, and if you put in the word "especially"the judge might construe it as a direction that if there was any sort of accommoda- tion the tenant must be ejected. I want the judge to be able to consider all the facts, and not press the available alternative accommodation especially. I think it should be determined if there is suitable accommodation. If the rent is higher than the house is worth, then it is not suitable to the tenant, and in such a case I think the County Court judge would be more likely to say it is not suitable.

I hope my hon. Friend opposite will not press this Amendment.

I shall be very glad to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I understand that the Attorney-General places the consideration we have raised as the main factor. This Bill deals with accommodation and if you leave the measure as it stands now it does not make it perfectly clear that the question of available accommodation is largely the determining factor. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise to make that plain by inserting some such word as suggested by my right hon. Friend, I shall be quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.

In order that there may be no doubt as to the meaning of the particular specification of the alternative accommodation, I propose after the word "including" to add the words "in particular."

I do not think that will add anything to the strength of the words at all. Of course, if it includes it, it is bound to include it in particular. But if you say "especially"you do give a direction which, I am sure, the majority of the Committee desire. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Well, I am inclined to press it to a Division to see, for after all the object of the Bill is to see that a tenant is not turned out of a house either by purchase or otherwise unless there is alternative accommodation.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite argued that the word "especially" would add confidence to the lay mind, but if you add words which are of no legal value it may lead to an extra large number of lawsuits.

I really do not think that this is a matter on which we need occupy a great deal of time, and if my right hon. Friend presses it I shall be quite willing to accept the word "especially." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not think hon. Members altogether appreciate what is proposed. It was suggested that the words "in particular" should come after the word "including," and I am now suggesting that instead of the words "in particular" the word "especially" should be inserted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I just read the Clause as it will then stand—

"If, after considering all the circumstances of the case, including especially the alternative accommodation available."

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert

"(3) In any proceedings taken in any Court between a landlord and a tenantunder this Act or the principal Act, where judgment is given in favour of the tenant, the taxed coats of the proceedings shall be the tenant's."

This Amendment is really superfluous. The rule is that the costs follow the event, and the tenant is entitled to his costs unless there is some matter that enables the judge to deprive him of them. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the judge of his discretion in a very limited class of cases, which I can hardly imagine, where he would have the discretion to deprive the tenant of his costs.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert

"(3) Where under this Act or the principal Act it is lawful for a landlord to increase the rent by reason of any increase in rates, such power to increase the rent shall not extend toany case where the increase in the actual sum paid in rates is due to an increase in the assessment only and not to a change in the amount of the rate."

I should like to support this Amendment. Take the case of a small workman's flat rented at about 4s. 6d. The rent is raised because of an increase in the rates. I worked it out the other day, and the real increase which the tenant would be asked to pay would be about 16½ per cent.instead of 10 per cent. I am quite sure that is not the intention of the Committee, but unless some such Section as this is put in the persons whom we desire to protect most will have the least protection. These tenants, instead of haying their rants raised 10 per cent. will have them raised 16½per cent., and we think it is necessary to protect them against this.

I hope the Attorney-General will not accept this Amendment. First of all, the landlord has no power in regard to the question of rating. That rests entirely with the Assessment Committee. The arguments that have been put forward in support of this Amendment really do not touch the point. The increase of 10 per cent.here referred to is in regard to the cost of repair, and will not affect the rateable value at all. When the rateable value is fixed the cost of repairs is cut off, and if that cost of repairs has gone up by 10 per cent.the amount allowed by the Assessment Committee for repairs will have to be increased to the extent of 10 per cent., therefore the point does not arise. If I have property which has been underrated, and there is a general re-rating for the district, it surely would be unfair that the burden should be thrown on me.

But this is a temporary measure.

I repeat, it will not affect the question of an increase in rateable value. I have had some littleexperience in rating questions, and I would point out that when the conclusion is arrived at that properties are under-assessed the usual practice is not to reassess particular properties but to take whole streets, and in such cases the increase in the assessment falls on the tenant and not on the owner, who, in fact, has no control over the matter and is only liable to be put to expense by appealing.

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. After all said and done, apart from the question of the rating of houses by the local authority, who has in the past benefited by the under-assessment? It has invariably been the tenant. The rent has always been fixed in relation to the outgoings of the property, and therefore the tenant has all along been taking advantage of the fact that the assessment has been too low. It is preposterous to suggest that the person who has been receiving a limited interest on his money should be further mulct because the authority has come to the conclusion that the house, the enjoyment of which is the tenant's, has been too lowly rated. It would be most unjust to say that in consequence of the reassessment of the property as the result of some improvement in the neighbourhood—and in the London area we have a system which is known by the name of betterment, which enables the assessment on properties to be increased because of the benefits received through public works carried out in the neighbourhood—benefits which give tone to the neighbourhood—I say it would be unjust to claim that in such a case the landlord should suffer because of the fact that the local authority are going to put into their pockets an additional rate. We know perfectly well that local authorities have often said that they would rather purchase and dedicate land to open spaces and parks than develop it through a builder. If you have got a reasonable rent fixed and there is an increase of the assessment, it would be most unjust to say that the landlord should pay that increase and thereby have his limited income further limited. I have always been afraid of this Bill; I think it will be an act of injustice.

I desire to support the Amendment. I think hon. Members who have spoken against it do not recognise its real import. There are, in different parts of the country, blocks of cottage property which have not been subjected to reassessment for the past ten or fifteen years, but during that period rents have been considerably increased.

Of what part of the country is the hon. Member speaking?

I speak as a resident for thirty years in the East End of London and for ten years in the provinces. I can state with certainty that there are many properties where no revaluation or reassessment has taken place for the past ten or fifteen years, and notwithstanding that an increase in rents has taken place. What we ask is that since public attention has been called to the question of rent and the local authorities may have become rather more keen on the whole question of the reassessment of cottage property, with the result that they find that the assessments at the present moment are out of all keeping with the increase that has taken place in the rent, and they consequently order a revaluation, the landlord should bear the burden caused by any reassessment, because he has benefited in the years gone by by the increased rental he has been drawing. That is the purport of this Amendment and the set of conditions it is desired to protect. One would hardly like to have the position confronting them that during the course of twelve or fifteen years, while the tenants' rents have been increased by 4s. or 5s. a week, and there has been no corresponding increase in the landlords' assessments, that when the local authority reassesses the property to bring it up to date on the basis of the rental received, you should ask the tenant to make good all these arrears which the landlord has pocketed at the expense of the locality by not having had his rateable value increased.

I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) invited the Committee to look at the purpose of this legislation. Well, I do look at its purpose. If one turns to Section 1, Sub-section (1) (iv.) of the principal Act it is there provided, in the clearest terms, that

"Where the landlord pays the rates chargeable on, or which but for the enactment relating to compounding would be chargeable on, the occupier of any dwelling-house, an increaseof the rent of the dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be an increase for the purposes of this Act if the amount of the increase does not exceed any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of such rates."

Cannot my right hon. Friend meet this case? It is the one I have in mind. I agree with many of the observations he has made, and they dispose to some extent of some of the difficulties I had in mind. This is a case which I am quite certain mainly affects my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) and myself. It is the case of a tenant paying 4s. 6d. or 6s. rent in a workman's flat. The tenant knows nothing about the rates at all, because they are compounded and he only knows what he pays per week. That is all he bothers about. The landlord arranges with the assessment committee what sum he shall pay, and large deductions are allowed for the cost of collection and matters of that kind, varying according to the districts in which these matters are arranged. That is the case I would press my right hon. Friend to meet. That man or that woman belongs to a class which has not benefited by this War, nor is it benefiting now. They are rather outside the war profiteers in the working classes and they form a class for which everybody wishes todo the most they can. Here is my case with regard to that: An increase in rent is made. They say there has been an increase of rent so far as they are concerned since the War began. The landlord will say that is due to the rates. He has his method of arranging, quite properly, with the assessment committee what is to be allowed to him for collection. Sometimes it runs to 20 per cent. and sometimes higher than that, and for other reasons. He has already paid that increase. So also has this poor class of tenant. On the top of that the landlords are going to have another 10 per cent. That is not what we really want to do. We do not want to see that kind of person paying, as a result of the powers given under this Bill, any additional percentage above that they already pay owing to the increased amount the landlord has to pay in respect of rates. You do not want to have another 10 per cent. put on that class of tenant as distinguished from the pre-war position. He may have to pay 16 or 20 per cent., and not the 10 per cent. which a tenant in a much larger house and a much better position is only asked to pay. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can meet that case.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for making his point so clear. The clearer it becomes, does it not show still more clearly that his object is in these cases to prevent the increase which the Bill is intended to permit? He has said that it is not part of the intention of the Bill to bring about the result which he is seeking by this Amendment to avoid. But I must remind him that by Clause 2, Sub-Section (2), that

"the increase of rent permitted by this Section shall be in addition to any increase permitted by Section one of the principal Act."

I think it ought to be.

That may be, but it is quite a different question. With the best will in the world, I cannot accept the Amendment.

I agree with my hon. and learned Friends who have said that the rating authority ought not to raise the assessment on account of this increase of 10 per cent. because the 10 per cent. is for repairs. That is a perfectly sound proposition in law, but it is possible that the rating authority may find some means in consequence of that 10 per cent. of raising the assessment, and I have no doubt they will. Therefore the position would be met very simply by preventing the assessment authorities from putting up the rateable value on houses included in this Bill. Four hon. Members have put down a new Clause—

"The rateable value of houses falling within the Act shall not be increased during the continuance of the restrictions in consequence of addition to rent, but this shall not be held to prevent alteration in rateable values due to other causes."

The next Amendment on the Paper deals with the question of restricting the right of local authorities to revise assessments. That and the new Clause just referred are quite outside the Bill.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "Neither" ["Neither the principal Act"].

I wish the Clause to read—

"The principal Act and this Act shall apply to houses erected after or in course of erection at the passing of this Act."

I doubt very much whether the hon. Member has considered the effect the Amendment would have if it were adopted. As the Bill stands we propose to except new houses from the operation of the principal Act and of this Act. The effect of this and the consequential Amendment would be that, in terms at any rate, the principal Act and the new Act will apply to houses erected after the passing ofthe Act or in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act. One of the unfortunate effects of this legislation, as has already been seen, is greatly to discourage building. If this proposal were to be accepted that discouragement would be at least greatly increased. But does not the hon. Member see this? The basis of this legislation is a comparison between what I may call the pre-war standard and some other standard. Where is that pre-war standard to come from in the case of the house which is erected after the passing of the Act or is in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act? The basis for comparison does not exist. I do not see how one could make this legislation apply to such houses. It would be making a comparison with something which did not exist.

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point I wish to make. I do not wish houses of a similar accommodation to be fixed at the same rate. I do not wish houses which are built or in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act to have the rents fixed in the same ratio as other houses. Let those who build them put on a rent which will meet the exceedingly high building costs. The point I am making is this. A house which may be completed and ready for occupancy at the May term of this year in Scotland will have hundreds of applicants for it. It may be let at a rent which the proprietor of the house considers will cover the cost of erection. In the following May term there will again be such a rush of applicants that the proprietor will be able to raise rents upon the tenants who are sitting, and if they fail or refuse to pay the increase he puts on they can be warned out. They are not covered by the Bill, and the effect of the Amendment will be to protect them and at the same time not give preferential treatment to those proprietors who are building houses at present over the older proprietors by enabling the new proprietors to increase their rent.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Clause is unnecessary.

I beg to withdraw.

Before it is withdrawn may I ask the Attorney-General whether the tenant is not protected by the Clause of the existing Act? I take it that he would be, as I read the Section of the original Act, which is Section 3 of Clause 1, so long as an order of ejectment has not actually been carried out. I take it that although the notice may have been given before 24th December, the tenant will be protected under the Act.

Yes; I think that will be so.

When the Committee stage is over, we come to the Report stage. Can you tell us whether the Government Amendments are obtainable at the Vote Office?

Yes, they are.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

"For securing to lessors and landowners their just rights find to prevent frauds frequently committed by tenants in case anytenant or tenants for any term of life, lives, or years, or other person or persons, who areor shall come into possession or any lands, tenements, or hereditaments by, from or under, or by collusion with such tenant or tenants, shall wilfully hold over any lands, tenements, or hereditaments after the determination of such term or terms, and after demand made and notice in writing given for delivering the possession thereof by his or their landlords or lessors, or the person or persons to whom the remainder or reversion of such lands, tenements, or hereditaments shall belong, his or their agent or agents thereunto lawfully authorised, then and in such case such person or persons so holding over shall, for and during the time he, she, and they shall so hold over or keep the person or persons in title out of possession of the said lands, tenements, and hereditaments as aforesaid, pay to theperson or persons so kept out of possession, their executors, administrators, or assigns, at the rate of double the yearly value of the land, tenements, and hereditaments so detained, for so long time as the same are detained, to be recovered in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record by action of debt (whereunto the defendant or defendants shall be obliged to give special bail (t)) against the recovering of which said penalty there shall be no relief in equity."

We have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend, but I hope he will not think it necessary to press this Clause, not that it does not make for good sense and good law, but that it is entirely superfluous. In the case of a tenant covered by this Act the landlord could not successfully say that he was holding over, after the determination of his term. He is ex hypothesi a tenant of a dwelling house to which the Act refers, and, that being so, the tenant can say, "I am not holding over after the determination of my term: I am holding under the provision of this Act, and the claim of the landlord in such circumstances to recover twice the rent could not have expected to succeed. I gather that some such case has already arisen in one ofthe County Courts, and if I follow the observations of my hon. Friend, the County Court judge made very short work of it. He gave judgment for the defendant and allowed the plaintiff to appeal. That, I imagine, would happen again in similar circumstances.

I quite appreciate the point raised so cogently by my right hon. Friend, but I would like to point out one important point, and that is that throughout the whole of this Bill what is referred to is the standard rent, whereas the Act under which the landlords are striving to enforce their remedy by a roundabout way is the yearly value. It has already been argued in more than one Court that there is a difference between the rent and the yearly value. From a report which I have received of a judgment by one of the learned County Court judges given at Croydon last Wednesday I find that he said, "I hold that the old Act, assuming it has not been repealed by implication, does not apply."Notice of appeal is understood to have been given. Having regard to the statement made by the Attorney-General, if the circumstances were such as to protect the tenant, surely there could be no harm in inserting this Clause in order to save him the possibility of being harassed. These small tenants do not want to bedragged to Court. The case I am dealing with is annual value, and my Clause would protect the good landlord as well as the good tenant. If my Clause were inserted I suggest that whatever may happen, even out of the tenant's action, the tenant is secure under the Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the case is arguable as appears from several decisions which have been given by learned judges in the County Courts and elsewhere.

May I make a short appeal to the Attorney-General to consider this point. We know that several actions have already been brought under this old Act.

Have they succeeded?

I believe not. There is no doubt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that though these cases may be brought, that in all probability the County Court judges will decide the case on the lines he suggested. That may be so or may be not; but it does not prevent an action being brought and the tenants being put to the expense of defending them. I therefore hope that he will consider this matter from the point of view of the tenant.

Ihope it will not be necessary to prolong this discussion. What my hon. Friend is inviting me to do now is to insert in this Bill a Clause which I regard as superfluous in order to prevent people from bringing actions in which they cannot succeed. I cannot do that.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall be due"], to insert the words "commence to."

I have not had the advantage of seeing this Amendment. As I understand it, my answer is that the words in the Bill already expressed, without ambiguity or tautology, if I may say so with respect, exactly the same idea as that of the hon. Member.

Are those same words not in the original Act, and, if so, how was it that a learned judge since then has taken the contrary view?

The words in the principal Act are undoubtedly very much the same. I cannot explain why a particular judge has had any difficulty about the correct meaning of those words. These difficulties are constantly arising in Courts; but what I do say is that the words "commence to be due and recoverable" do not express what is meant. What is "commence to be due"? What is "commence to be recoverable"? It is either due or it is not. It is recoverable or it is not. The process of being due is not a gradual one. The words suggested to my mind give rise to a great deal of doubt, and are, on the wording of the Clause, unnecessary.

The hon. Member has already addressed the House

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words

"On any such application to a sanitary authority a fee of a shilling shall be paid, but if the authority as a result of the application shall issue a certificate as aforesaid the tenant will be entitled to deduct the amount of the fee from any subsequent payment of rent."

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the word "net" ["net rateable value"].

I beg to move, in paragraph (i), after the word "excess," to insert the words

"above ten per cent. or one-half per cent. as the case may be."

I beg to move, after Sub-section (l), to insert as a new Sub-section,

"(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the principal Act no order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate, as modified by the principal Act or by this Act, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, and where such order has been made but not executed before the passing of this Act the Court by which the order was made may, if it is of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had been in operation at the date of the making of the order, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act."

Do they pay rent?

Yes; they are paying rent. Their fellow workers have had to take industrial action in order to prevent their ejectment for the simple reason that there was not a single house to be got for the workmen in case the men were ejected from the houses they then occupied. The House can very well understand that in circumstances such ns those you are bound to have dissatisfaction. There are also a considerable number of widows and dependants of our men who have fallen in the War who are still tenants of the class of house with which my Amendment seeks to deal. When the War took place all sections of our people appealed to the workmen of this country to take their share in the defence of the country, and, as hon. Members know, a very large number of our men went, and considerable numbers of them have fallen. My Amendment deals with those cases, and those widows and dependants would find the same difficulty in obtaining suitable places as there is such a scarcity of houses in many of the industrial areas. The working classes of the country think that this is giving to employer owners of house property an unfair advantage, and consequently we have been asked to move this Amendment, and I hope that the Attorney-General may be able to give effect to the particular ideas contained in it.

I hope the Attorney-General will not accept this Amendment. I have no doubt there are hardships without it, but with it the hardships would be still greater and the hindrance to taking back men out of the Army would be almost insuperable. When men joined the Army in the early days of the War in a large number of cases the wives were left in the cottages, but there are many cases in which the wives would not stay at home. They went out to occupations and left for various reasons, with the result that many of these cottages were empty, and were kept empty for some considerable time in the hope that the men would come back at an early date from the Army and resume their occupations on farms, estates, and so forth in these cottages. But everyone knows, too, that the War lasted much longer than was expected, with the result that the owners of these cottages were hardly pressed, and particularly in populous districts, to let these houses to outsiders. After a time they were so let, and on the condition that they should be surrendered when the previous occupants came back or when tenants who took up similar work applied for the cottages for the purpose of enabling the estates or farms to be carried on. Those cottages were occupied in that wayby various kinds of persons, and I am not sure that a good many week-enders from town did not go into them. If this Amendment is passed it will be absolutely impossible for the owners of those cottages to regain possession of them for the purpose of again employing the men who left them to go into the Army, and I am sure that that is a condition of affairs that the Attorney-General will not allow.

This proposal was moved in Committee in the very same words as those which are now employed, and it was dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education. It is quite true that he said he would consider the matter further before Report, but upon that further consideration I am bound to say that the objections to this proposal appeared even stronger than they did in Committee. May I call attention to what it is that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do? The principal Act was passed so long ago as December, 1915. It was further considered with reference to an amendingAct which was passed in May, 1918, but the particular proposals which are now being attacked were con- tained in the original Act and were not affected by the amending Act of 1918. What are they? It is provided by the principal Act that there shall be certain exceptions to the rule that an order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which the Act applies or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall not be made, and the exceptions are, first, upon the ground that the tenant has committed waste; secondly, upon the ground that the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers; thirdly, upon the ground that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ or in the employ of some tenant from him; and, fourthly, on some other ground which maybe deemed satisfactory by the Court making such order. What is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? Of these four exceptions he desires at a stroke to take away three. That is to say, if this proposal were to be accepted it would be impossible to obtain an order for the recovery of possession or for the ejectment of the tenant, although the tenant had committed and was committing waste. Is that seriously suggested? Then it would be impossible to obtain such an order because the premises were reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ or in the employ of some tenant from him; and, finally, it would be impossible to obtain an order for possession or ejectment on any other ground, although that ground did appear to be satisfactory to the Court. I can only say, as was said the other night, that this proposal, whatever may be the individual hard cases that may arise—and I do not want to belittle them—would take away a large part of the protection that was given by Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 in the principal Act of 1915, and was deliberately allowed to remain when the amending Act of 1918 was discussed in Parliament.

I am very sorry that the Attorney-General cannot see his way to give effect to the proposal which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. He laid stress upon the fact that we propose to do two or three things, but as a matter of fact we have no intention of removing numbers 1 and 2 of those exceptions which he quoted under the principal Act. The Amendment is directed, undoubtedly, against No. 3. We have cases of men who have actually gone out as soldiers and who have returned to collieries but who now cannot find them employment. Furthermore, the wife and children must give up the house because the house is required for some other work. I put it to hon. Members, is that a fair method of dealing with men who have been out to fight? That has actually taken place, and it is because we are desirous of protecting the position of men of this character that this Amendment is being moved to-day. The second ground is this. It may be very desirable, indeed, for a workman to remove from one house to another, when he can get it, when circumstances are such that he must leave his work at one colliery and go to another, but because he goes to another colliery in the neighbourhood hegets a notice to quit the house as soon as he has left his employment. Under such circumstances, I think hon. Members will admit that this is a very real grievance, and one which deserves the attention of the learned Attorney-General.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "the" ["including the alternative accommodation"], and to insert instead thereof the words "any suitable."

At a somewhat earlier stage in the afternoon we had a discussion on the difference between "in particular" on the one hand and "especially"on the other. I hope we are not going to have a discussion now on the difference between "suitable accommodation" and "alternative accommodation."Does not my hon. Friend perceive that the Clause already contains what he is seeking to put in? How can that be said to be accommodation which is not suitable? It is not accommodation. How can it be said to be alternative accommodation if it is notsuitable? And how can it be said to be alternative accommodation available for the tenant if it is not suitable accommodation? I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.

I regret having to differ from my right hon. and learned Friend. I do, with all respect, think there is a great difference between "any suitable accommodation" and the words "alternative accommodation."I have seen a striking case in the village in which I live. Had these words "suitable accommodation" been in the Act, what took place in this particular instance could not have taken place. An application came before the magistrate for an ejectment order, and in this particular case there was alternative accommodation in the village. It was most unsuitable. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it is not accommodation, but he has to remember that, in the case of houses rated under a certain amount, an ejectment order must be applied for before a lay bench, and in the case I have in my mind the wording of the amending Act was so construed by a lay bench that an order was made to turn out the tenant merely on the ground that there was in the village some sort of accommodation, which, I should maintain, knowing the village, was not suitable accommodation. That mistake would nothave been possible had these words been in. Nor could benches in future make such a mistake if their minds were directed to the fact that they must not make such an order unless the alternative accommodation is at the same time suitable accommodation. Take the case of a tenant, his wife, and three children, living in a house, say, of 3s. or 4s. a week in that village. There is a house available, perhaps, in a very inferior part, the accommodation is less, and the rent 6d. a week more. That obviously is notsuitable, but surely a lay bench of magistrates might easily, as they have done to my knowledge, regard that under the circumstances as alternative accommodation. It is not suitable accommodation, and I do ask my right hon. and learned Friend to accept this point of view, that the insertion of these words can do no possible harm to the Clause, and might be of assistance even to a County Court judge. My right hon. and learned Friend knows well that a clear indication of this sort would be of great assistance to a lay bench. It cannot injure the Bill, and it makes the wishes of the House perfectly clear beyond any question. Under these circumstances, I do hope he will reconsider his decision, which, I think—if I may say so—was taken—I will not say rashly—but without that thought he might have given to it, and without appreciating the fact that the words cannot possibly do any harm to the Clause.

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).

I am sorry that the Secretary for Scotland is not present at the moment. I want to join my hon. Friend who has just sat down in expressing regret that the Secretary for Scotland has seen fit, on such short notice, to introduce an Amendment that means the upsetting of the basis of assessment in Scotland. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, we have had a different method of charging assessment in Scotland to England. In connection with this Amendment I am certain that many Scottish Members will not like the idea of such a drastic change being proposed at such short notice. I was hopeful that if the right hon.and learned Gentleman had been present he might have been prevailed upon to agree to the deletion of this paragraph (b) of the Clause which he moved in the Committee stage. If it is allowed to stand part of the Bill it will lead to dissatisfaction and trouble. As hon. Members are perhaps aware, in the first instance the necessity for the Rent Restrictions Act had its origin in certain industrial parts of Scotland. This present Amendment will, I fear, intensify the dissatisfaction that exists in connection with housing conditions. The Amendment raises an issue which I do not think ought to have been raised. It is very unfortunate. If we cannot get some modification we shall have to divide the House in order to express our dissatisfaction with what has been done by the Secretary for Scotland in the Committee stage.

I regret that for the moment my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary for Scotland is not in the House. The principal Act provides that in certain cases an increase of rates is not to be deemed an increase of rent for the purposes of the Act, and, as that Act stands, those cases are cases where the landlord pays the rates chargeable on, or which by some other Act relating to compounding would be chargeableupon, the occupier of any dwelling. In other words, to put it shortly, the Act is dealing with what we call the case of the compounding householders. My right hon. and learned Friend in making the amending Bill fit with the case of Scotland proposed to add after the words "dwelling-house" the words "or where by the law of Scotland owner's rates are chargeable on the landlord of any dwelling-house." The effect, therefore, would be this: that where under the Scottish law owners' rates are chargeable on the landlord of any dwelling-house—which, I take it, is analogous to the position of the compounding householder in England—the increase in the rent is not deemed to be an increase for the purpose of the Act if the amount does not exceed any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of these rates. The intention I should have thought was in this respect to bring the law relating to this class of property in Scotland on to the same plane as that relating to the compounding householder in England. However, I am glad to see that the Secretary for Scotland is now here, and I have no doubt he will deal with the matter, and, if need be correct what I have said.

Hon. Members who have preceded me have protested against the idea that we were to be caught napping on this particular point. The Secretary for Scotland put forward a statement which seemed to us to be clear. As he also explained, the law of rating in Scotland is different, in some respects, from that in England. Under the paragraph which the hon. Gentleman has moved (paragraph (b)) we have now given the landlord power to recover not only that portion which the tenant pays directly himself, but the other portion which in Scotland always has been paid by the property owner, and that is also to be put upon the tenant. That is the position, and we think it is unfair because it alters the method that has been pursued for a considerable number of years if not in the whole of Scotland at least in the major part of that country. I would point out that this provision which is now being enacted will add considerably to the difficulties in Glasgow, where the problem is now acute, and the rents are very high, and by adding this small portion to the already high rents to the class of houses there, industrial discontent is going to be greatly intensified. Our objection is that the method has been altered and at short notice in such a way that the equal proportion hitherto paid between the tenant and the property owners is now set aside. There are also great difficulties in front of some of us because we foresee even in this temporary measure the beginning of trouble in the days to come. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will explain why this provision has been thrust upon us, and I hope he will agree to its deletion.

I am very sorry that I did not hear the speeches on this subject. I thought I had made the point fairly clear when I moved the Amendment in Committee. The reason of the Amendment is that there is a difference between the rating system in Scotland and in England. In England, at the present time, all the rates are paid by the occupier with very few exceptions. The net result is that the English landlord can, by virtue of the existing law and under the Act now being amended, add to his rent every penny which is added to the rates, and can secure his net rental just as it existed before the War. That was the intention of the Act of 1915, namely, that the English house proprietor should continue to draw his pre-war standard rent, and that if his rates were raised he might add to the rent every penny by which the rates were raised.

You provided the same percentage for the Scottish landlord.

That is exactly my point, and I think I can show the right hon. Gentleman that he is under a misapprehension in what he has said. But I am now dealing with England, where the landlord can raise his rent by every penny which is added to the rates, and so secure his pre-war net rental. In Scotland the position is entirely different for this reason, that the rates in Scotland are leviable partly upon the owner and partly upon the tenant. Now if my hon. Friends will look at the Clause of the Act of 1915, they will find that the Scottish house proprietor is only entitled to increase his rent by the amount by which the occupier's rates have been increased. In that particular the Scottish landlord is in a disadvantageous position as compared with the English owner. The purpose of this Clause is to put the Scottish house owner in the same position as the English house owner. The Scottish landlord to-day can only recover and increase his rent by the amount whereby the occupier's rates have increased. But he cannot increase his rent by the amount whereby the rates payable by the owner have increased, and to that extent he is in a different position to the house owner on this side of the Border.

I understand that I shall now be in order in making a protest against an omission from this measure. My protest is that it does not deal with the question of rating, and this is a very serious defect, because wherever the compound limit is exceeded it will add to the rates because it will do away with the compounding, and the tenant will be liable for paying the addition. In the end I am afraid it will result in extra assessment, and this will mean an extra increase of rent, and you will keep on in a vicious circle. Consequently the Act will practically have no effect at all, and it will only create a great amount of unrest, particularly between landlord and tenant, which does not exist to-day. I think that is a grave defect in the Bill. The Hunter Committee recommended in Clause 46 of their Report as follows:—

"The result of making an increase in rent which we recommend will be that the rateable value of houses will be increased, and this in its turn will be likely to cause increases in rates, and consequently further additions to rents to cover the increased rates. This will cause a great deal of extra friction which we think might well be avoided during this exceptional period. We therefore recommend that the rateable value of houses should not be increased during the continuance of these restrictions in consequence of the additions to rents which we recommend should be permitted. This recommendation will not, of course, include alterations of rateable value due to other causes."

I desire to thank the Government for having listened to the great demand of the public throughout the country to deal with the grievances which have arisen, especially among those outside the scope of the Act of 1915. Taking all things into consideration, the Government have responded very well indeed, and in a broad spirit have done what is required to meet the emergency. We are all aware that this is emergency legislation, but it is only one of a series of emergency Acts that have been passed from time to time to meet an abnormalstate of things which the War has brought about. I thank the Government sincerely, and I am sure that their action will be appreciated in the country and that they will earn the gratitude of a large section of the community. I thank them for some of the concessions that they have made, but there is always something of Oliver Twist about us, and we should have liked a little more than we have got. I desire to thank the two right hon. Gentlemen who have had charge of the Bill. We are used to the urbanity and kindness of the Minister for Education in connection with any measure of which he has charge. They have listened with due consideration to the cases which have been put from various quarters of the House, and on the whole the concessions that have been made are of a generous character. The Attorney-General has shown that clearness and capacity that healways shows. His enunciation of the position taken up by the Government, and of the reasons why he could not accept that which we desired him to accept, was as clear on this occasion as it has always been, and we appreciate the way in which hehas conducted this measure through the House. I do not expect that the Government will make any further alteration in the measure, but I sincerely hope that it will come back to us from another place in the form in which it is at the present time, so that it may speedily be placed on the Statute Book, and that those who are in a state of anxiety owing to the notices that they have received and the position in whichthey have been placed will feel themselves relieved of their worry, and know that they now have the protection of this Bill.