I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House, I am sure, will agree that the subject which is to engage our attention to-day is one of singular difficulty and perplexity. There are scarcely any subjects which have been raised during the war, and which continue as a result of the war, which are more far-reaching in their effects, and more difficult to deal with, than the set of issues which are before us this afternoon. The House will be aware that during the war various Acts were passed dealing with the security of tenure of the tenants of dwelling houses, restrictions on the rents they might be called upon to pay, and so forth. I am sure the House will agree that it presented a difficulty, as to which whatever we may have to say about it to-day, there will be no difference of opinion as to the necessity of dealing with this subject. I thought it better that it should be comprehensively dealt with embodying in one Bill all the various Bills which went before it so far as it is necessary to re-enact them.

It will be seen that in the Bill before the House we have collected together portions of the former statutes, re-enacting what we believe to be necessary, and repealing the rest so that we shall have it all in one composite measure. It has been suggested in some quarters that it might be possible, and that it would be reasonable, to enact in this Bill all these provisions in such a way that anyone can readily read and understand all the enactments or provisions relating to this subject. Anybody who has not been versed in the law like myself would have welcomed such a provision had it been possible, but a very superficial acquaintance with the issues involved make it evident that the matter is so complex and difficult that unfortunately it would not admit of colloquial expression. Therefore that is a dream and must remain a dream. We have for all that endeavoured to make this measure as simple as we can, and with all our efforts and goodwill, I am afraid it still remains, and must remain a technical and difficult measure. I think there is a general agreement that a Bill of some kind is necessary because the existing Statutes expire, for the most part, at the end of the present month, and everyone agrees that we cannot leave the position simply to itself under existing circumstances, because the disturbance and distress which would have been caused demand action.

It was for the purpose of reviewing this matter that I asked the Noble Lord the Marquis of Salisbury and others to go into this subject, looking at the matter as a whole, and to submit proposals. I should like, on behalf of the Government, and I am sure the whole House will agree with me, to say that I think we owe a very great debt of gratitude to these gentlemen for their services. They sat for many days for very long hours, and they worked under great pressure because we knew that when we had received their recommendations there would be a difficult Bill to draft, which would need most careful scrutiny by those responsible for its introduction. This Committee did their work under pressure of time as well. We have examined most carefully the recommendations which they have made, and I think I can say that practically all of them are embodied in the Bill now before the House. I may say also that we have gone very little beyond those recommendations, and I think that in doing so we have done right, as I will endeavour to explain. Certain features of this Bill must be unpopular and we must keep that fact in mind, but we have to face such unpopularity as may attach to them, and it is absolutely essential to do so in the national interests.

The first main provision of the Bill is to extend for a period of three years, with the qualifications which the Bill provides, security of tenure to tenants of dwelling-houses which have more or less been obtained for them heretofore under existing Statutes. In this connection I see on the Order Paper this morning an Amendment put down by certain of my hon. Friends opposite which might be described as being of a hostile character, not too hostile perhaps, in which it is suggested that this Bill does not provide tenants with adequate security of tenure. I think that part of the resolution will be difficult to justify. This Bill provides security of tenure for years subject to the limitations of the Bill, and it is a more extensive and far-reaching provision in that respect than is made in preceding Statutes. Therefore, I fail to understand what is the basis of that objection.

Another important alteration in the law which we now propose, and which is in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Salisbury's Committee, is that we have raised the limit of the rent of dwelling houses to which the Act applies. Previously the limit was £70 rental in the Metropolitan area, £50 in Scotland, and £52 elsewhere. In accordance with the recommendations of Lord Salisbury's Committee, it is proposed to raise these limits to £105 for the Metropolitan area, £90 for Scotland and £78 elsewhere, and that course will, I think, increase the difficulty of my hon. Friends opposite in seeking to contend that we have not added to the security of tenure of the tenant. We have extended the scope of that security very considerably in accepting these recommendations.

The feature of the Bill, which will certainly be unpopular, is the one I will take first. It is the proposal which allows an increase of rent. I should like in this connection to ask the House to try to face the realities of the situation. I do not hesitate to say that those who morning, noon and night have been trying to cope with the housing problem have found that one of their greatest obstacles has arisen from the uncertainty which has existed, owing to the very necessary imposition of this type of legislation. It is quite correct to say, whether we like it or not, that private persons are not going to embark on building houses if they have to build them at a loss, and therefore the existing high cost of building, added to the uncertainty whether it will be possible to build at a profit in view of the rents to be allowed, has been responsible for preventing many people starting building operations. Although these Acts were necessary in time of War, and this proposal shows that they are still necessary, I am quite certain that they have had a most desolating effect on the provision of houses in this country. There is no doubt about that, and I get scores of instances brought to my notice every day. It became necessary for us to scrutinise very carefully proposals of this kind and their economic effect, because they have often a boomerang effect quite unexpected. I am sure that all of us who were concerned in the passing of these various laws during the War never quite anticipated what would be the effect of these provisions in preventing the building of new houses in the future.

There is no doubt that the various Acts have greatly limited operations which otherwise would have been undertaken by private persons. Whilst we are endeavouring to cope with that great difficulty—and there is a real shortage of houses as reports show in every part of the country—vast numbers of existing houses are falling into disrepair, and consequently there is an inroad being made on the quality of our existing accommodation. It is therefore absolutely essential that we should secure, as far as we can, that houses already in existence should be kept in repair and be maintained in a habitable condition. Whatever figure you may take there is no doubt that the cost of repairs has enormously increased. Lord Salisbury's Committee estimates that it has gone up two and a half times, and our own experience is that it certainly is not less than two and a half times what it was before the War. It is necessary, therefore, in any legislation we bring forward, that provision shall be made for seeing that repairs are undertaken. We cannot, however, do that with any expectation of success unless we secure that those whose duty it is to carry them out have the wherewithal with which to do it. It is absolutely essential, notwithstanding its unpopularity, that we should increase the rentals so as to secure that houses are kept in proper repair.

There is another aspect of this subject with which we are only too familiar in these days, and that is the difficulty of obtaining capital for the building of houses. I am glad to say that during the last three weeks there has been some improvement in the matter of obtaining funds for building houses, and the Housing Bonds campaign has seemed to grow increasingly successful in many districts. That is all to the good. But so far as persons who want to build houses for themselves are concerned they find it very difficult to induce people to lend them the necessary money, and that is only another expression of the uncertainty as to the soundness of this class of investment which has arisen from the circumstances to which I have already referred. People accustomed to build houses with borrowed money find it increasingly difficult to get a sufficient advance to enable them to carry on their operations. That is partly due, of course, to the fact that the rate of interest obtainable in other directions is materially higher than that which the limitations at present in force enables people to obtain for this class of investment. Therefore Lord Salisbury's Committee recommended, and we have adopted their recommendation, that an increase should be allowed to meet the additional expenses of borrowing. It is proposed to be done in two instalments up to a maximum of 1 per cent.—half per cent. now and half per cent. a year hence. I think I have stated the main causes which justify the increase of rents.

Perhaps I ought to say a word as to the form of the proposal in the Bill. It will be noticed that the expression "standard rent" is used, which is carried forward from the former Acts. That is the rent paid on the 3rd August, 1914, or, if the house was built since, the rent at which it was first let. In a large number of cases that standard rent includes a certain contribution to the rates, and it is provided that increases of rates beyond the amount payable in August, 1914, are allowed to be added. The increased rent allowed is not based on the standard rent, but on what we describe as the net rent, that is to say, the rent minus the rates; and therefore the figure on which the increase is based, where the standard rent includes a contribution to the rates, is less than that sum by the amount contributed to the rates. The increase, therefore, is part of what we describe as the net rent. In the case of houses up to the existing limit, the Bill provides, in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Salisbury's Committee, that we should allow altogether an increase of 30 per cent. That is made up of two parts —5 per cent. in respect of increased mortgage interest, and 25 per cent. in respect of increased cost of repairs. The House will remember that, with respect to houses coming under the existing law, a 10 per cent. increase was previously permitted. Where that 10 per cent. increase has been applied, it will be embodied in the 30 per cent. The 30 per cent. is not additional, but that 10 per cent. will become part of the 30 per cent. With respect to houses above the existing limit of £75 and up to £105, the amount is put at 40 per cent., in accordance with the Committee's recommendations, made up of 25 per cent. and 15 per cent. The provision which deals with this will be found in Clause 2, where paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) of Sub-section (1) make it quite clear that, with respect to houses coming under the existing Statute, the increase will be 5 per cent. in respect of mortgage interest and 25 per cent. in respect of repairs.

Attached to this there are certain conditions which I regard as of great importance. In the first place, where the tenant is responsible for the repairs, the 25 per cent does not apply. Where there are intermediate forms of responsibility, agreement may be arrived at between the landlord and the tenant. If the tenant is responsible for some of the repairs but not all, the County Court may assess what shall be a fair and reasonable allocation between the two parties. Then, as we frankly must have this additional increase of rent, clearly we ought not to allow it where the property is in an unsatisfactory condition and not fit for habitation. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, therefore, provides that a court may suspend the operation of the increase of rent, where it is shown that the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation or otherwise is not in a reasonable state of repair. Here, however, we have provided, as the Committee recommended, that three months may run with the increased rent before the Court can suspend the increase on the ground of repairs not having been executed. A large number of owners are quite impecunious, and not able to find the money until they have got the increase in rent. I am sure the House will recognise that we have to think of this question, not in terms of people who own scores or hundreds of houses, but in terms of the large number of cases up and down the country where a man has built one or two, or it may be two or three, houses, and they have formed his main provision for old age. He has not the money to do the repairs now, and he thinks himself very unfairly dealt with, and therefore it was necessary to give time for the increase of rent to run, in order to enable him to discharge his responsibilities, and, if the house is not in repair, to secure that it is put in repair.

Is that time allowance provided for in the Bill?

Yes. In connection with this, there are various conditions attached on both sides with regard to the security of the tenure which the tenant will enjoy, and the conditions upon which it may be interrupted, and I would ask the House to look at some of those. They are dealt with in Clause 5. We have had a good many cases where the necessity for repairs and dilapidations has been due to the action of the tenant, and clearly it would be inequitable that, where the landlord is under an obligation to carry out the repairs, he should in such cases be in the position of having no redress. It is provided that no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of the house shall be given unless the tenant has failed to pay the rent, or, again, unless the tenant or any person residing with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, and so forth. In connection with that, Lord Salisbury's Committee made an even stronger recommendation than is provided in the Bill, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to it. It is Recommendation 17 in the Committee's Report, and is that Section 1 (1), ( a ), of the Act of December, 1919, which deals with this matter, might be amended so as to run to the following effect: b ) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 5. Then there was another class of case in which the Committee found a real hardship where a person had given notice to quit and alternative arrangements had been made with another tenant and then he had reclaimed his security and the other arrangements have had to fall to the ground. That clearly is inequitable, and it is provided for in paragraph ( c ).

The next difficulty which we have experienced very widely is to find a definition of what is meant by alternative accommodation. Under the existing law, which is practically re-enacted in paragraph ( d ), "where a dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or some person in his employment or in the employment of a tenant and the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available," we found a great variety of interpretation of what was satisfactory alternative accommodation. Clearly the alternative accommodation meant by Parliament must have been equally good accommodation, and not something less satisfactory. Therefore we have made that read the alternative accommodation shall be "reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects,' and that should secure, I think, that where an order is given for possession the alternative accommodation which has to be provided in respect of this class of case should be just as good alternative accommodation.

These are the only conditions under which a person may be, shall I say evicted. In all other respects they have full security of tenure. They are not altered in any respect from the existing law, except that, in addition to the committing of a nuisance and the damaging of the property by the tenant or other people living in the house with him, the case is extended to where a tenant has given notice to quit and other arrangements have been made and thereafter the tenant changes his mind; and the conditions have been strengthened in the interests of the tenant to secure that where reasonable alternative accommodation is required it shall be equivalent reasonabe alternative accommodation. There were a number of cases in which it was felt that the requirement to provide alternative accommodation might inflict hardship, and in this respect Lord Salisbury's Committee made certain recommendations which are embodied in the provision that the existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order in certain cases specified in (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause 5 (1). I should like to say a word about the second of these cases. There has been a large number of cases in which men gave up their houses and went to the War and when they came back could not get their houses back again in consequence of the operation of these Acts. I think Parliament never intended that. At all events it is not fair to men who have served in the War. Therefore we have expressly provided that "where the landlord gave up the occupation of the dwelling house in consequence of his service in any of His Majesty's forces during the War," this provision as. to the necessity of alternative accommodation shall not apply. It is fair and right that a man should be able to get back to his own house, especially when he gave it up to go and fight for his country. There is another class of cases where houses are provided for people in the employment of a person and where a man may leave that employment and the person who has now to do the work cannot get the accommodation necessary. A shepherd on a farm and all sorts of cases of that kind have arisen, and the Committee recommended that where a tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord and the house was let to him in consequence of that employment and he has ceased to be in that employment, the alternative accommodation required should not apply. I think on the whole that is a fair provision. The other provision I think explains itself.

Another important matter which has led to a good deal of grievance is the exaction of all kinds of tolls, premium, key money and all sorts of things, which are pure and simple extortions and in the main an evasion of the general intentions of the Act. We have limited the ability of the landlord to get any increase of rent, and there is no particular reason that I can see why we should not similarly limit the ability of the tenant or anyone in his behalf from extorting war profits himself, and therefore in Sub-section (2) of Clause 8 we have dealt with this practice substantially as recommended. We examined all kinds of suggestions as to how to deal with it, and finally we came -to the conclusion that the only way was to have power to impose a severe penalty where, this kind of thing is done. It is provided that a person requiring any payment or the giving of any consideration in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100. Then there is another class of case which we have dealt with of a somewhat similar order, where it was found that although we limit the power of the owner of the house to obtain an increase in rent it often happens that houses have been farmed out at very profitable prices in the way of furnished rooms at most extortionate figures, and it is right and proper for the protection of the community who want to get a couple of furnished rooms that the principle of these provisions should be extended to that class of case, and that also is in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Salisbury's Committee, and it will be found embodied in Clause 10. We found great difficulty in defining what was to be the limit. Various figures have been suggested. Finally we came to the conclusion that the matter should be decided on its merits as the case might be, and therefore provision is made in the section. I recognise that all kinds of objections may be taken to the terms and I shall welcome any suggestions for an amendment. The Clause provides that:

We have not put new houses and reversions under the protection of this Bill and do not intend to do so, because everybody wants to get houses on a self-supporting basis as soon as possible; but there is a provision which I regard as of great importance affecting new houses, and it is found in the very long Clause 12, Subsection (8) which refers to the rate of assessment of these houses. I notice that that provision is the subject of animadversion in the motion on the Paper to-day. There must be some misapprehension about it, because such a provision is an essential concomitant of this class of legislation. What would otherwise be the case? The new houses, costing a great deal more, have to be charged at a much higher rent than the existing older houses, and if the rates are assessed upon the rent it means that the new houses will have to pay on twice the amount of rates compared with exactly similar houses previously built, which is quite unfair. We have a large number of cases now where, in consequence of the high rent that has to be obtained for new houses, owing to the increased cost, you have houses in the same street practically giving identical accommodation, but one house, being a new one, is assessed at twice the amount of a house which happens to be older. That is quite unfair, and it is a serious handicap to the new houses which we want to provide. It is essential that we should protect the new houses in this way and the reason for it is this, that by these Rent Acts we are artificially restricting the rent of the older houses. Nobody would deny that if we remove the present Rent Acts there would be a most unjustifiable increase in the rents of the old houses. There certainly would, therefore we are quite rightly limiting by these Acts the rents of the old houses, and thereby we are limiting the extent to which they would be assessed for rates. The words of the Sub-section are difficult and involved, but perhaps we may improve them in Committee. There are Laughter. ] I can well understand that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) is inclined to be derisive of the phraseology. That Clause has been drafted and re-drafted I should think a dozen times.

It looks like it.

It is very easy to provoke a smile at these things, but it is much more difficult to find a better form of words. So long as we agree on what we want, well and good. We shall welcome my right hon. Friend's suggestions for improvement. The effect of that provision is that the new house will be assessed as though it were a similar house providing the same accommodation. It is absolutely essential that that provision should be made, otherwise the new houses are penalised, not only by their being much more costly and, therefore, more highly rated, but by being unfairly assessed to rates in comparison with corresponding houses in the same locality. That clearly is something we ought to prevent.

Now I come to a very controversial question, and one which I think is of enormous importance, namely the provision relating to shops and business premises. Lord Salisbury's Committee spent a long time on this point, and I should think that every hon. Member has had a very large number of communications on the subject for several months past. The recommendations of the Committee are on page 8 of the Report, paragraph 13. This Bill, so far as it relates to shops applies only where the shop is part of the dwelling-house. The provision on this point is set out in paragraph (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 12, namely:

I will put quite frankly before the House our reasons for having the Bill limited to dwelling houses with that exception. We have had all kinds of cases brought before us in which rents of offices and business premises have been increased, and persons have had to face a great increase of rent or lose perhaps the goodwill of the business, and it is a hard thing to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject and not to include that class of tenant. For instance, we had a case yesterday morning in which rent had been put up from £300 to £1,000, but if you were to extend this class of protection to offices and business houses you would have to extend to dwelling houses as well at the same rent, so that if you extend it beyond the rental limit for business premises you would have to extend it beyond the rental limit for dwelling houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Knowing as I do the way in which these Acts limit the new provision of additional housing accommodation, we should require to hesitate a great deal before we extend a similar limiting provision to all other classes of buildings. We have to consider the whole thing. It is quite evident that if you once begin extending to shops and business premises the present limit of rental would be altogether inadequate. You would have to extend it to all buildings of any sort, and there has got to be an overwhelming case made out before you can do anything like that, because there is no doubt that these Acts limit the provision of new accommodation so far as they apply. There is a very great difference between a shop and business premises of any kind and an ordinary dwelling house. In what I am going to say I do not want to offend shopkeepers, but let us face the facts. If a person rents a house at 10s. or £1 or £2 a week, that is his liability, and unless he lets his house in lodgings or furnished rooms, or in some such manner which we now propose to limit, it is impossible for him to profiteer. He cannot pass on his liabilities to anybody else. But if a man is running a business or keeps a shop he can pass on his liability to his customers.

Why?

1.0 P.M.

Because he sells them goods. This could only be dealt with by having a meticulous investigation of every retail transaction in the country, and I am not prepared to face that. It would be disastrous to the country to do it. But there is no doubt about it that a man who sells goods must inevitably try to pass on his standard overhead charges to his customers. I do not mind saying that I think that a great many shopkeepers have done very well and have often charged prices for their goods which I thought too high. They have succeeded for the most part in passing on the extra charges. All we have to do to see that is to walk along some of our streets and notice some of the extensions that are going on. Of course, that is essential as a factor of business; a business man must be prepared if his charges are put up to pass them on to his customers. He is in a position quite different from that of the tenant of an ordinary dwelling house. Therefore, there is not the same need to give him the same security as you give to the tenant of an ordinary dwelling, but there are real grievances, quite apart from the operations of the Rent Restrictions Act, which I think have been acknowledged by all for many years past, that do apply very often to tenants, leasehold or otherwise, of business premises. The Committee, referring to the evidence which they have had from the Town Tenants League, say: fraction of the issues that arise. Therefore, though we recognise that it is, perhaps, a decision which will give real disappointment, we have deliberately decided not to include these business premises in this Bill. The Government feel that to deal with it in any partial way could have nothing but an unfortunate result in the end. We propose to set up a Select Committee of this House at an early date, with terms of reference which will be brought forward in a few days' time, to examine the whole of this question with regard to business premises and so forth and to submit suggestions as to what should be done in the matter. There will be no dearth of suggestions for the Committee to discuss. In appointing the Committee we propose to act on their scheme as soon as we can. It would do only harm if we allowed hard cases, which undoubtedly exist, to precipitate us into the passing of what would certainly be an unfortunate law, and would damage business development in this country. These grievances can and ought to be dealt with, but not under these Acts.

I recognise that in two main respects this Bill will be unpopular. First, because it allows an increase in rent. That increase is essential in the interests of the maintenance and repair of existing houses. Secondly, it will be unpopular because many will be disappointed that we have not included in it shops and business premises. I would appeal to the House to keep before them, as far as possible, the ultimate effect of this class of legislation upon building generally. At the present time it is of overwhelming importance that we should do as little as may be to interfere either with new housing accommodation or with facilities for the development of our trade and industry. It is for these reasons that we have proposed the limitations that this Bill sets up.

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words In introduction I wish very plainly to recognise the very great difficulty and complexity of the subject we are discussing. I think I merely express the views of all hon. Members when I say that this Bill is frank interference with ordinary economic tendency, rendered necessary by circumstances arising from the War. I am equally candid in recognising that a very great deal of what I am going to propose is equally clear interference, but interference which I believe to be necessary if we are going to avoid a state of affairs which I believe this Bill will create. In presenting a case of this kind in opposition to the Bill I think it is not merely fair to the movement which I represent, but also fair to myself, to say that this is a subject upon which there is a widespread division of opinion in the Labour ranks. Even in this movement there are considerable numbers of small proprietors of house property who have been terribly penalised by war conditions and who recognise the necessity of increased rent or better treatment of some kind. They have made their views very plain and very emphatic indeed to the members of the movement to which they belong. There are some who take the frank view that no increase of any kind can be permitted There are others who would probably subscribe to many of the undoubted excellent provisions of this Bill. There is a third school which says that some repairs policy, if I may so describe it, is necessary at this hour, and it is probably along that middle course that we may find a solution of the problem. Perhaps, in the main, it is to the third school that I happen to belong. There are beyond all doubt three ingredients in this measure which have been very plainly indicated by my right hon. Friend. There is, first of all, the ingredient of increased mortgage interest. There is, secondly, the ingredient of repairs, and there is, thirdly, the ingredient of a better return on the capital or money invested in house property.

The ingredient of mortgage interest need not detain us at any great length. It is plain and it is recognised by all of us that money will not be provided for this purpose unless it is going to earn something which may be compared not unfavourably with the return on money invested in other directions. The choice which we have to face is really one of fundamental principles. Are we going to do anything in this country at this hour to restrict the amount paid in interest on money for any purpose, or are we going to allow the ordinary economic tendency in Great Britain to operate? I have not the least hesitation in saying that it will probably be to our advantage as a people to do everything that we can, without injustice, to limit such a return, and I take that view because I believe in the last resort that the effects of the opposite policy would be very much worse than the effect of the policy which I have just described. Nothing can distress hon. Members more than the fact that at this time, with £8,000,000,000 of debt and money urgently required for public and other purposes, a great deal of capital is being subscribed and provided for what are really luxury aims and ends in the State. I have tried, I fear very inadequately in the past, to show that we have not done our duty in that respect, and that it would have paid us as a people frankly and definitely to have said to such classes providing such money for luxury purposes that we intended to restrict them to a certain return, and that we did it because we believed that the crisis of war conditions economically had not passed and that the policy was in the interest of the State. Holding that faith, we are inclined to say, although this is undoubtedly a minor part of the Bill, that it weakens the case for this increase of mortgage interest, but I do not for the moment press it beyond that point.

By far the most important part of the Bill is that part which provides for repairs. My right hon. Friend will agree at once that there are two sides of the question of repairs, and that we shall not study this problem adequately if we have regard only to what repairs are going to cost in the future or what they are costing at the present time. We must also take into account what the position of proprietors of house property has been over at least a reasonable period of history through which this country has passed. What are one or two of the undoubted facts of the situation? First of all, it will not be seriously disputed that many proprietors of house property for five or seven, or perhaps more, years have done practically no repairs at all. That is not disputed by anyone who has had experience in a local authority or by anyone who has studied the housing problem of Great Britain at large. It is also true that in fixing the rentals of property in this country, at whatever time they were fixed by individual proprietors, provision was always made in their calculations for at least a certain amount of repairs. No individual would proceed to let a house to a tenant on any other footing. He always had regard to the probable cost of repairs and what would be demanded not merely by the tenant but by the ever-improving standard of the local authorities. Personally, I have known proprietors in the large urban centres in Scotland who have stated that they have kept two considerations clearly in mind in fixing the rentals of the property which they let, and one of them was the repairs that they might be called upon to undertake. Very largely because of war conditions, no repairs have been done on many classes of property. Workmen were not available and the materials were not forthcoming. The local authorities frankly recognised that they could not enforce either the local or the general standards of the land, and to that extent, and in my view it is a very substantial extent, house proprietors have gained an advantage which perhaps they did not foresee, but which is none the less real and which falls to be taken in account in dealing with the problem of repairs at the present time. I want to present the arguments against the proprietors without any personal hostility to them, but merely with a desire to bring out the facts.

In the second place, it is equally true, and especially during the five years of war—even before the War the shortage was acute—that house proprietors where they happened to own property on even a small scale, and certainly where they owned property on a large scale, have gained a return which has been substantially above that which they expected, keeping clearly in mind the possibility of unlet property. Where they owned property to any extent at all, they nearly always made provision either for the property being unlet for certain periods or for failure to recover rent which tenants should have paid. We are all familiar, not merely in practical experience but also in the pages of our current literature, with the tenants who disappear in the night, leaving their liabilities undischarged, but tenants who disappeared in the night in large urban or other centres generally took the precaution of having some other establishment to which to proceed. They could not live in the open air and they could not settle on any open space or common. The housing shortage became acute and the operations of that section of the community were necessarily restricted, and there was not the same opportunity for mobility. To that extent house proprietors have been protected in the recovery of their rents. On those two heads, namely, nothing like the same loss on unlet property and in many cases nothing like the same loss in unrecovered rents, proprietors have gained in many parts of the country in a manner in which they did not expect to gain at all. Many pro prietors have benefited by what we may call a windfall in the shape of a particular premium or other charge which has been given for entry to property in recent times. If we want to judge this question fairly, as I am sure hon. Members do, we must keep in mind the undoubted advantages which many sections of house proprietors have had in recent times as well as other considerations. This Bill seems to me to fail because it applies a general increase to circumstances which vary very widely in character. No hon. Member can pretend that all classes of house proprietors are of the same school or own their property on the same footing.

I will try and indicate three classes to make as plain as I possibly can what I should describe as the justice of differential treatment. There is, first of all, the case of the individual, say a widow, familiar to all political and other controversialists, or the case where a person owns one or two houses and the property is mortgaged. Within recent times the position of proprietors of that class has been painful in the extreme. They have been very often incapacitated for the purpose of employment, and they have expended perhaps some slight money in repairs and they have had the ordinary liabilities upon their property to meet. I know quite a number of cases in which they have gained nothing or practically nothing from it for a considerable number of years. In circumstances of that kind the hardship is unmistakable; but, however strong numerically they may be in certain districts, they are a small class in a community of 44,000,000, and their position should not lead us to undue exaggeration, as I fear it does at present, of the proprietors' difficulties at this hour. There is a second class of house proprietor who has either succeeded to the property or has invested in house property outside the other spheres or interests in which he has a part. It cannot be pretended in that case that the proprietor depends entirely upon his house property, or that he will go either to the workhouse or to the bankruptcy court if he fails to obtain all the increase which probably he and other members of the community think he should obtain at present. Hardly anybody within the past ten or fifteen years in this country has been so incredibly foolish as to put all his savings into house, property alone. During that time there has been a keen desire for forms of' security more readily realisable. That, I think, is the typical position of the prudent man, who is not yet quite extinct; in our experience in Great Britain.

There is a third class, and this is where the fundamental weakness of the Bill enters. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the farming of house property, and I think he would agree that is a phrase capable of very different interpretation in different parts of the country. There are many classes of property controlled by syndicates or trusts, or, at any rate, a ring of people. There are other classes of property which are farmed out at a certain rental, particularly in the urban centres in Scotland, and which are then re-let as single houses or single rooms to a large number of tenants at quite extravagant rents from week to week. That class of property is almost the worst kind of property in Great Britain, and in many communities is derelict property which clearly would carry the biggest burden in repairs. In many cases the tenants abuse the property; they are birds of passage, remaining in it for a week or month, and the repairs bill is always a heavy one. The proprietors took that into account in fixing the rents imposed. Having done so, all students of the housing problem in Scotland—and I think this applies also to England—are convinced that the proprietors have reaped a really larger return in this instance than any other class of house proprietor in the country. That is, the worst provides the best by way of rent, and yet that class of house proprietor is apparently to be treated on substantially the same lines as all other classes.

Does the hon. Gentleman include artisans' dwellings and societies of that kind in the last class?

By no means. That is a very different class from what we may call model dwellings. Our suggestion this afternoon is this, that it would be idle on our part to fail to recognise that some repairs policy is necessary, but I do not believe that an adequate policy is represented in this Bill, and I should like to see a measure dealing with repairs which would provide, first of all, for different classes of proprietors, in so far as it is possible to do that; in the second place, to lay down something resembling varying percentages; and, in the third place, probably in conjunction with the Income Tax or other authorities, to give such further concessions as may be possible to the proprietors from the side of taxation rather than to embark on a general increase of rental. All these things are highly controversial, and they interfere with ordinary economic tendencies, but I think they are a less objectionable form of interference than will be represented if the measure of the Government is passed. In the last place, I desire to notice the question of return to capital. The report of the Salisbury Committee makes it plain beyond all manner of doubt that in recommending their increases they have been influenced by the consideration that unless increases are granted private builders in this country will not be encouraged to erect house property. In reply to that I would say that, whatever our views may be as between private and public enterprise in the State, it is very unlikely indeed that private enterprise would enter this sphere to any considerable extent. The reasons which affect private enterprise may have changed slightly in character since, say, 1900 or 1909–10, but new reasons have emerged, principal among which is this, that a quite large return on money could be more or less readily obtained because of the tremendous economic development of this country and other countries at the present time, that these dividends are being earned, and that as long as a condition of affairs of that kind obtains, people will not readily sink money in something which is fixed to the soil, which depreciates, and which may be exposed to legislation of a kind which it is thought will be introduced if other governments succeed this Government in the near future in Great Britain. That being so, why should we emphasise unduly the part that is likely to be played by private enterprise? Before leaving that point, surely no hon. Member can forget that we have already made within quite recent times a fair concession to private enterprise, if any concessions were to be made, in the subsidy, which I personally opposed, for new buildings which has been offered to house proprietors. Beyond that, although I admit it lies in a really different sphere, I do not think the State can go.

That being our attitude on the question of return to capital, the view we take is that, if anything resembling 40 per cent. is added to rentals in this country, we are going to do something which will be powerfully reflected in the general industrial situation. Some of the assessors in Scotland have pointed out that if the recommendations of this Bill are adopted, and if the increases in rates which are about to be levied are taken into account, the rents of many properties will be increased by anything up to 100 per cent. The increase of local rates and the increases permitted under this Bill, together with other things, will lead to a very considerable rise of house rents, and that in turn will lead inevitably to all round demands for increased wages, salaries, and remuneration at large. It is on that point particularly that I wish to make the position plain. It is commonly urged, very often by hon. Members opposite—and altogether I do not blame them for so urging—that the trade unions have only in mind increased wages, that substantially a considerable section of the professional classes are in the same position, and that the only course we are following is to try to chase rising prices by increased remuneration. In many of the wage agreements which have been entered into within recent times, in many of the arbitrations which have been conducted in the industrial sphere in this country, it has been laid down that they were not entitled to argue house rents as a basis for the claim which they would make. "House rent, they said, "is restricted; it is excluded for the purposes of our debate; argue the increased cost of living in other departments if you like, but do not found any part of your case at least on that head." If the 40 per cent. increase is imposed, if the local rating bounds up, as I am afraid it will do, then that part of industrial arbitration in this country is very largely modified and altered at a very early date indeed, and a new condition of affairs has emerged.

On that point is there any choice of policy? I think personally that a repairs policy is possible. I think rent tribunals are necessary. They are not provided for in this Bill, though they have been urged and pleaded for in the discussion of practically every housing Bill directly or indirectly within recent times. We have got to consider the position of the State property with this subsidy, and the rentals which are now being fixed for it, and the position of all the other classes of existing property in the country to which that principle does not apply. Some form of tribunal, some form of local and differential investigation is necessary in this country, but I am afraid that I fail to recognise any tendency in that direction in the measure which is now introduced. To my mind the choice runs on these lines. Is it possible to enforce any fair and just scheme of restrictions which will make provision for repairs on the one hand, or is it necessary simply to adopt this 40 per cent., with all it involves, and face the great industrial trouble which will follow on the other hand? It is a choice between restriction and possible disadvantage, and it may be in certain cases injustice to certain individuals, although I think that could be met, or a general rise, for that is what it will amount to, in the rate of industrial remuneration based on the plea that hitherto house rents have been excluded, but they must now fall to be taken into account. That, I think, represents in a sentence the weakness of this Bill. I have tried to indicate as far as possible a constructive policy, and it is because I believe that policy is not represented in this measure that I respectfully submit to the House the Amendment standing in my name.

I beg to second the Amendment. I do so upon broad general grounds, as it affects the vast mass of population in this country. To my mind it is the most iniquitous measure ever introduced by any political party, first of all because it attempts to absolve the Government of its obligations and responsibilities with regard to the housing problem; secondly, because it imposes an intolerable burden upon vast masses of the population least able to bear it. Following up the argument which has just been advanced, I desire first of all to refer to one particular section of the population living in tenements of from one to three rooms. There are 3,250,000 of those tenements in the United Kingdom sheltering a population of 12,250,000. They represent the poorest of the poor. A decent standard of life cannot be maintained on their present totally inadequate wages. It is proposed by this Bill, in granting a general increase in rent, further to depreciate the standard of existence for that section of the population. I know it will be argued that if these houses are not in a sanitary condition the Bill makes provision for it, but we must remember that you cannot offer to these people the alternative accommodation which you say shall be provided. Therefore, we shall find that this section of the population will be agitating for increased wages, and, I think, justifiably so. If you are going to talk about an economic rent for dwellings of this character, then you must be prepared to see the advocacy of economic wages to meet that economic rent, and most members on the other side of the House would doubtless oppose any such increase in wages to meet the increase in rent.

I myself, 20 years ago, made an inspection of an insanitary area comprising 1,600 houses. Those houses still stand as an insanitary area in one of the largest industrial centres of the United Kingdom. They have been repaired, and will continue to be repaired, until we get a Labour majority on that particular local authority. They will continue to be repaired because you have upon the local authority, as you have on many local authorities in the United Kingdom, a majority of people who are interested in that particular class of property, and who only secured election to those local authorities because they had that property to defend. This Bill, by giving a general increase in rent, proposes to maintain and perpetuate those conditions. The second section of the population to which I desire to refer comprises those people who live in four and five room tenements, and, I may say that, even in three-room tenements you will sometimes find that the occupant is a man getting enormous wages, although probably living in a back-to-back tenement, and I can quite conceive that the proposal which has just been made could be carried into effect, that you should ascertain the wages of the man living in that property, and an increase in rent should be accordingly. In the four and five room tenements we have something like 17,500,000 of the population. Those men and their families can give combined, and, I think, effective, dissent to the proposals now being made.

Am I to understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that we should have a court to decide that the higher a man's wages the more rent he should pay?

Certainly not; but I do say there should be a rent clause, and there is no proposal of that character in the Bill. Those people to whom I am referring are the very people to whom the Mover of this Amendment referred, when he said, time after time, these men, who represent probably the organisel labour forces of Great Britain, have appeared before Courts of Arbitration. I myself have represented them there, and the argument is perfectly true that, directly you have introduced the question of rent, they have told us very bluntly that it did not enter into the question when their decision was given. We shall have those men—and I want to say quite frankly that I shall be one of the men to go into the country and advocate it—immediately making demands for increased wages, and justifiably so. There is the third section of the population—the middle classes. We know perfectly well the condition of the middle classes. They have a case, equally as much as the people in the first section of the population to which I have referred, against any increase in rent, simply because their income, as we have heard time after time in the House, has not kept pace with the demands upon that income in household necessities. That, I think, we can all agree about. There is the fourth section, to whom very little reference or deference need be made because they can afford to pay almost any rent. The question of an economic rent does not enter into the case with them. Because of those reasons, believing as I do that consideration has not been given to the three sections of the population in reference to the increase of rent which it is proposed to impose upon them, I desire to second the Amendment.

I have listened with very great interest to the two speeches which have just been delivered from the Benches opposite. My hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill based a very considerable part of his speech on the suggestion that, recognising increases of rent were necessary within certain limits, those rents might be proportioned to the needs of the different classes of property-owners. He divided property-owners into three classes, and he suggested that there should be differentiation between them; that in order to get repairs done to meet the other cases which have been referred to, both by the Minister in charge of the Bill and in his own speech, he suggested that one class of owner was deserving of consideration, and he named that particular class as the small mortgagor—the small property-owner who had mortgaged his property—who should have different treatment, or rather better treatment, than what might be shortly described as the house-shark. That is the burden of his speech: that a court should be set up—I imagine that is what he intended by his later phrases—and that an increase of rent should be allowed, not according to the needs of the tenants, but according to the circumstances of the householder. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment takes an opposite view, and considers that the rent should be fixed, not according to the position of the house-owner, but according to the circumstances of the tenant—

And the accommodation !

Neither hon. Members mentioned accommodation so far as I heard. The hon. Gentleman mentions it now. But this really does show what a Serbonian bog you get into directly you attempt to play providence on a large scale. When, in the goodness of their hearts and their earnest desire to mete out to everybody his exact deserts in the matter of the income which he has to have, the interest which his capital has to earn, the rent he has to pay, and not only that, but as we now hear, the rent which he has to receive—well, where will hon. Members be when, according to the suggestion of the Mover of the Rejection of the Bill, the landlord is a very worthy person, but poor, and has mortgaged his property, and, therefore, the rent should be raised, and according to the suggestion of the Seconder of the Amendment the tenant is also a very poor person, so poor that his rent should be lowered?

Worse than the landlord!

And poorer than the landlord. Surely it shows the absurdities into which you are driven when you try to replace economic laws and providence by legislative enactments, and following out every detail of every transaction between landlords and tenants, between investor and borrower, in this or in any other sphere of business. It is really absurd to try to do it. What are we doing? The hon. Gentleman who moved the Rejection of the Bill began by admitting—he was perfectly right—we were going in the face of economic laws. Then he proposes to go much further. I admit, every body admits, that the circumstances in which we are placed are quite exceptional. Ordinarily it is folly to fly in the, face of economic laws. In exceptional circumstances you may have to do it. The present circumstances are exceptional. It has to be done in this Bill and other Bills which have been introduced in the war crisis, which is not yet over. Recognising that there is one thing we should clearly have in mind: that any departure from economic laws will bring its difficulties, punishments, and inequalities, and that you cannot avoid these difficulties, punishments and inequalities. Therefore, your departure from economic laws must be as limited as possible both in time and scope, and have regard only to the most absolute necessities of the situation.

2.0 P.M.

May I suggest this: We admit the legislation is exceptional for exceptional reasons, yet what are you doing? In the speeches of the two hon. Members opposite it would appear they are both trying to apply in their minds in this exceptional legislation the ordinary tests which they would apply to a Bill introduced under ordinary circumstances. You cannot apply those tests. You admit that this is exceptional legislation. You should limit it as much as possible to the particular areas in which you are working and where you are obliged to do something. You should do as little as you can. You must recognise in doing that that you are going to leave somebody outside that area, and remaining under economic laws, who suffer the ordinary changes and chances which are imposed by providence and economic laws. You cannot do the two things at once. You cannot take out a particular thing owing to necessity and take out a particular number of people who are to have exceptional treatment under exceptional circumstances and expect that you are going to assimilate the conditions inside and the conditions outside which you leave under economic laws. You cannot do it. It is idle to point out the difference in the conditions and wonder how it comes; it is due or will be due to the exceptional legislation which you are now imposing. If my hon. Friend will bear that in mind he will see that he cannot mix up the two things. It is quite legitimate to desire better conditions of housing in the country. It is perfectly legitimate to desire that houses should be let at the lowest possible rent, and the aspirations of both hon. Members are perfectly legitimate. I have the greatest sympathy- with them. But they have nothing to do with this legislation. This is exceptional legislation. It is limited legislation, both in time and scope, and the more it is limited the better. It is impossible to get away from that fact, and I suggest that the two speeches which have been made prove that more fully than anything we on this side of the House can say by way of proof. The remedies of the hon. Gentleman are contradictory. It is impossible that any court or any body of persons can at one and the same time adjudicate on the lines proposed by the mover and seconder, for the two things are absolutely contradictory. That is where we are bound to find ourselves when we start to carry this legislation beyond its proper limits, and we forget, in discussing this legislation, what are those limits. This must always be whenever legislation of this kind is attempted.

There are one or two points I wish to mention in connection with the Bill which are matters, I think, of principle. There was a very important point mentioned by my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) in his speech introducing the Bill. It is one of its main features. One of the main objects to which he referred, and which was also dealt with at some length by the Mover of the Amendment, was the question of repairs. This is really vital. One of the principal objects of this Bill is to get those repairs done. A large proportion of the increased rent is for the purpose of getting repairs done. But there is this Clause which says that when the repairs are not done—we are all agreed about repairs and one of the main objects in allowing these increases is to get the repairs done—the court may suspend the increase of rent. I understand my right hon. Friend to say three months would be allowed, but I do not see that in the Bill.

Perhaps I was incorrect there. It was a recommendation of the Committee, but I am quite prepared later to accept words to make the position quite clear.

My right hon. Friend evidently had this thing in his mind when he spoke and possibly imagined it was in the Bill. That admits the principle that the owner of the house, the property owner, should get something to pay for the repairs. But three months is quite an inadequate period, in my opinion. I go further. I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friends opposite that they should give this their consideration. I suggest, after looking into this matter very closely, and consulting others who know much more about it than I do, and after having the opinion of those qualified to consider this matter, that the remedy proposed is wrong. It is wrong to say that the man's rent is not to be paid because he has not done the repairs. You are depriving him of something with which he ought to do the repairs. The proper remedy, it seems to me, is to apply to the local authority to utilise its powers to do the repairs and make the man pay for it. It is difficult to get repairs done in three months now, but the local authorities might be able to get them done while the property owner cannot, and I really think the suggested remedy is mixing up the two things. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it really would be more business-like if he struck out his clause altogether—I refer to the first para- graph of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2. Local authorities have the power, but this is to suspend the increase of rent. I think it would be a very much better remedy to take that Clause out, and make this a matter of rent, giving the property owner the right to the increased rent, which is clearly given mainly to enable him to do the repairs. Do not say, "If you do not do the repairs you will not have the rent, or the court will suspend the rent," because all kinds of complications come in. You ought to say to the property owner, "We have given you this increased rent to do the repairs." The Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919, Section 26, Sub-section (4) gives the fullest power to insist upon the repairs being carried out, and if they are not carried out they have power of entering and doing the repairs and charging them to the property owner. That is better than withholding the rent, which may defeat its own object and prevent the finance being available which ought to be applied by the property owner to the repairs.

There is another matter, that is service tenancies and alternative accommodation. Everybody will agree that it is absolutely necessary that where you have a service tenancy, and a man holds a particular dwelling in connection with an employment, and that the carrying on of the business depends upon having somebody in that particular dwelling, in such a case it is necessary that the owner should get possession of the house. There is another point I wish to raise in connection with the words in the Clause 5, Sub-section (1), paragraph (i), which read, he cannot do it. I have had myself, both in town and country, applications from people asking me to allow them to temporarily go into certain premises which were temporarily vacant, but which I was bound to keep them for somebody else later on. I could not allow them to occupy those premises. The rent did not matter, and that does not come into the question at all. If you once let people occupy your premises temporarily from kindness of heart a difficulty arises. An hon. Member of this House told me himself that he had a house on his own premises for his own butler, and out of kindness of heart his wife allowed somebody to occupy that house temporarily until they were again wanted for his own servant, and when he wanted the premises they defied him under this Act, and he cannot get possession of his own house for his own butler. That kind of thing is keeping a lot of premises empty.

I suggest that where premises have really been constructed as an essential part of the carrying on of a certain business in which employment is required, that there should not be that limitation. It is perfectly and obviously right that possession should not be obtainable unless the incoming tenant is one who is bonâ fide, and really required to take up the employment to which the premises are attached, but I cannot see why the outgoing tenant should be subject to this limitation. Whoever is in the premises when they are really wanted for such employment should be obliged to give them up, and I do not think the limitation of alternative accommodation ought to be required.

There is another reason. This is not only a question of hardship, but of carrying on the business of the country, and farming cannot be carried on properly. You have a yard full of stock, and there is a cottage where the man must live who has to look after and tend the stock. The stock is only there during the winter, and in the summer time accommodation might be given, but in the winter the stock could not be put into the yard unless you have somebody in the yard to look after it. With regard to a further provision in Clause 8, I assume that it is so drawn as not to include an assignment of a lease. Under a lease a tenant may be occupying premises and paying a ground rent which he assigns to a successor, and often the successor pays a premium, and I hope that point will be looked into. The question of rating assessments which has been referred to again really shows what an extraordinary position we come into when we are trying to upset Providence and make an economic law of our own. The only way Parliament can do that is by always treating a thing as something quite different. We shall presently hear them saying that black is to be deemed white. They tell us in effect that a new house is to be deemed an old one. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might have adopted a far simpler phraseology. It would be more easily understood if he had laid it down that for the purposes of this Bill a new house shall be deemed to be an old one. Everyone then would understand exactly what is aimed at.

It very often happens, and I have heard of a good many such cases, particularly among service men, that a man desires to buy a house which might become vacant at any time. Of course, the tenant actually in possession is secured by the Act, but by the effluxion of time tenancies often come to an end, and the landlord is then free to deal with the property. Under this Bill he can only re-let it to a new tenant under the same limitations as are imposed upon him in the case of the old tenant. That does not apply where a man is able to buy a house for himself, because he then can occupy it as owner, and no one would desire to prevent him doing that. But there is a class of case which is not provided for. It frequently happens, particularly in the case of service men, that, although they desire to buy a house, they have not the capital, but they have friends, relations or admirers who are willing to buy the house, and they themselves are willing to occupy and to pay a fair interest on the purchase money. The suggestion I make is that, where a man bonâ fide is prepared to buy a house and let it for a fair interest on the purchase money to somebody else, that interest should be substituted for rent under the Bill. I will hand to the right hon. Gentleman a form of words which I think will cover this point, and it will save me explaining it in greater detail to the House. I want to make it clear that where a house which has had protection under the Act becomes vacant, it may be bought by a man not only for himself, but for somebody else, and in that case he shall be allowed to charge not the particular rent to which he is limited under the Bill, but a rent which will represent the interest on the money he has paid. I think that would be a reasonable clause to put into the Bill.

Broadly speaking, the real point is how far can we carry these necessary but temporary and limited restrictions without permanently destroying the industry of private house building. That is the root of the whole matter. It has been so recognised by everybody who has spoken, and it enforces the argument with which I ventured to start, that it is absolutely necessary this legislation should be as limited as possible, both in time and in scope, as it is quite obvious it must make it more difficult to build houses. I know my hon. Friend opposite, who is responsible for the Amendment, tries to look at this matter from a purely national point of view, and not at all from a sectional point of view. But can he really contemplate that the State should take upon itself the whole burden of housing the people of this country? If the State is to take up that burden does it mean that it takes it upon itself and deals with it from some resources of its own? Not at all. The State will have to find the capital and where is that capital to come from? It will have to come from the same class of people as provide it for purposes of private enterprise. It is the substitution of a totally different system without a totally different source of supply. You are going to use the same material and the same money, and I believe that, after the experience of the War, the country will think that it is a more wasteful and more extravagant and less effective method of proceeding. You have no different source to draw upon for your national housing than you have for private housing. More than that, you have no elasticity. Look at the rents, what are they going to be. Here you have sitting on the front bench the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. What is he doing now? He is occupying all his energies in regard to private house building in screwing up the rents to the highest possible figure, because a man must have the highest possible rent he can get for economic reasons. But here he is in charge of a Bill screwing down rent as much as he can for houses provided by the State. The whole object of the Bill is to prevent the private owner getting the advantage of the economic rise.

Within certain limitations.

Within certain limitations it may be. But which will you have—King Log or King Stork? I think my hon. Friend will find he is merely going from King Log to King Stork, and that as a result the condition of tenants in this country will be very much worse. It will be much more difficult for them to get their wages raised if this principle is to be followed. How can you have any sources of supply except those derived from private industry in one form or another? These considerations should be enough to show all of us that, while we must support this Bill as a temporary measure, and we regret that it should be necessary at all, we must limit it to the utmost possible degree, because of the mischief which this principle, if carried, must do. We must not attempt to deal with this question by ordinary legislation. We must not base our arguments in respect of it on the same thesis as if we were discussing ordinary permanent legislation introduced into this House.

I rise mainly to mention the hard case of the tenants of business premises and shops. Their grievances are at least as poignant, and quite as common, as the grievances of the tenants of private dwellings. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill yet realises how poignant and how universal those grievances are. In my own city of Manchester, at the present time, there are great blocks of warehouses and offices the tenants of which have received notice to quit, without being given any option either to purchase or to pay increased rent. The argument which the Minister put forward, that tenants of business premises or shops are always able to pass on increases in rent to the consumer, does not apply to cases of this sort. There are many cases in Manchester where the tenants of shops, who have been there many years, have, to their great hardship, had to clear out, because they are not protected by the existing Rent Restrictions Act, in order to make way for places of amusement, which employ no labour. In one case, that of a bakery which had been in existence for many years, and for which alternative accommodation was absolutely unobtainable in any other analogous district in Manchester, the tenant had to quit because she paid a rent of £70 instead of £60, and therefore had no statutory protection. I have passed on to the Minister of Health an enormous number of memorials within the last few weeks from tenants of business premises in Manchester, all complaining of the same hardship. There was one this morning from tenants in Rook Street, which is occupied by well-established business houses, and where no less than 17 firms have received notice to quit, without any option of paying higher rentals or buying their premises. Of these, 9 have occupied their present premises for 20 years, 5 for 40 years, and one for no less than 51 years, and it is impossible for them, in the present scarcity of business premises in Manchester, to obtain any alternative accommodation whatsoever.

It is easy to slide over cases of that sort by quoting the old adage that hard cases make bad law. That is quite true, but it is equally true that bad law makes hard cases, and the law is bad which enables any class of landlord to exploit the present national difficulties to the hardship, distress and detriment of a large class of industrious and hard-working people. It is not only a disadvantage to the individuals, but to the whole community. There is no difference in principle between the premises to which the Rent Restrictions Act applies and the premises for which I am pleading now. In the decision give last year in the case of the Epsom Grand Stand Association, Limited v. Clarke, which was reported in "Weekly Notes" for 1919, page 170, it was held by the Court of Appeal that it is only necessary to have a bed in any portion of one's business premises to gain protection if they come within the limits as to rent; that is to say, business premises are dwelling houses within the meaning of the Act if any portion, however small, of the premises is used as a dwelling house. There is no real difference between a shop in which a caretaker occupies a bed, and a lock-up shop, and the same argument applies to business premises. There is no reason why the protection given by the law to the one type of house should not be ex- tended to the other. It is true that the Minister has promised that this large question shall be dealt with by a Select Committee, but we know that it will be a long time before we get any Report from such a Committee, and still longer before we get any legislation based on the Report. Meanwhile this mischief is going on, and I submit that it is just as urgent to get immediate redress before next quarter-day in the case of business premises and shops in England, as it is to get a prolongation of the protection given to dwelling houses.

With regard to the question of the limitation of statutory protection to houses of rents up to £105 in London and £78 outside London, that represents class legislation at its worst. It sets up one law for the poor and another for those who are moderately well off. Obviously there is no distinction in principle between a house rented at £80 and one at £78. The family occupying the £80 house may be a great deal worse off than that in the house rented at £78. The line drawn is purely arbitrary, and in these days it really means penalising families in which there are a good many children, and which therefore require more accommodation, for the benefit of smaller families which require less accommodation. There is no reason for drawing this hard and fast line, and penalising middle-class people who require houses of somewhat higher rentals than £105 or £78. Again, there is a real need for a clear definition of alternative accommodation. We all know the old saying that equity is the measure of the Chancellor's foot. At the present time, alternative accommodation is the measure of the foot of the County Court Judge. The view of one County Court Judge may be absolutely different from that of another as to what is to be regarded as alternative accommodation. In the interests of the public, the clearest and most definite precision should be observed in the description of alternative accommodation. The description of the locality, the number of rooms, and the distance from the man's place of business, are all elements which require to be considered. Moreover, it is not really adequate merely to specify as necessities even the same number of rooms, and the same distance from the place of business, because there are enormous differences between the amenities of social life in one suburb and in another. In many cases to my knowledge tenants have had to defend actions for ejectment where alternative accommodation has been offered in houses which were equally large and equally near the tenant's place of business, but which were not really alternative accommodation according to the spirit of the Act. Having regard to the passion for a man's own suburb, which in some cases is as great as love of country, you cannot say that to transfer a family compulsorily from an ordinary middle-class suburban district into an absolutely industrial area, where all the houses are occupied, say, by colliers, or into an Irish quarter, or into a Jewish quarter, is really alternative accommodation to that which is at the present time enjoyed by the tenant. I do not say that the neighbours in these other places are not equally respectable and companionable people, but they are not of the same type. In deciding alternative accommodation the Judges should be furnished with the greatest possible precision of definition, and the question should be considered in the most liberal and generous manner towards the tenant.

I hope that the language of this Bill will be left in the clearest possible form. No doubt a great deal of trouble has arisen from the ignorance of the public as to the true operation of the Rent Restrictions Act. A great deal of bluff has been going on the part of unscrupulous purchasers of houses, as against the tenants of those houses. For some extraordinary reason many tenants have an aversion to consulting their lawyers, and the result is that the mere appearance of a blue paper containing a notice to quit has gravely disturbed their nerves, although it has not affected their legal position at all. This ignorance has proved of great benefit to various agitators, who utterly misrepresent the existing law as being one made in the interest of the landlord, and not, as it really has been, in the interest of the tenant. I do not wish to associate myself with this Amendment because I think it is based upon the fallacy that you cannot be just to the tenant without being vindictive to the landlord. That is absolute nonsense. There is a good deal to be said against the Bill, but, subject to Amendments of the nature which I have indicated, I hope it will have a safe and speedy passage into law.

I can adopt very largely the observations which have been made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst). This legislation is introduced on account of the conditions which have prevailed, and is a different kind of legislation from that to which we have been accustomed. We have had to submit to it with the best grace we can. I think the original Act was amply justified by the attitude which was assumed by landlords all over the country, especially in relation to the necessities of munition workers in areas to which they were transferred compulsorily under the Munitions Act, but as time has gone on the tenants have been rather the over-reaching section, and again and again one has found cases of the greatest hardship where tenants have never scrupled to take advantage of the Act and to defy their landlords and to keep them out of possession. I know of an extreme case where the servant of a public authority, having the charge of waterworks in this country, was in their employment as a lock keeper, resident by the side of the lock, to lock vessels through at all hours of the day or night. That man found he could get a higher wage in the Metropolitan Police, and he promptly transferred his services there, but he peremptorily refused to surrender the possession of his lock cottage to the man whom it was necessary to appoint immediately to take his place, and the public authority had to pursue that man into the courts, and not only after very great delay got an order for possession but had to submit to an application to arrest the order to give him further time before he had to go out. That is one of several cases of a like nature. I see it is provided for to some extent, but I think when we get into Committee it will be necessary to try to tighten that up so that the public service may not be interfered with by cases of that sort. There is another case of which I have information. A tenant died. His tenancy was merely a verbal one. If it had been written it would have extended to his executors, administrators and assigns. His widow asked ad misericordiam that she might be allowed to remain for a few weeks until she was able to get other accommodation. Three weeks have ex- pired and the lady claims to remain there permanently by virtue of the Act. She was never the tenant, it was never contemplated that she should be the tenant, and the permission given to her was simply due to sympathy because of her bereavement until she could get an opportunity to turn round. That is a case which has not been provided for even by this Act and which I think ought to have some regard paid to it. It seems to me these cases may be multiplied indefinitely where the tenant is the over-reaching party and has abused the Act.

One word about alternative accommodation. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the hardship of being obliged to remove from one suburb to another. I have here a case where a man who has worked very hard for many years was able to purchase a house, with the aid of his savings and those of his wife, four years ago. At the time of the purchase he went to the tenant, whom he knew very well, and it was arranged that the tenant should remain on a weekly tenancy on the distinct understanding that on being requested he would go at the end of four weeks. The time came when the man completed his purchase, and after letting the tenant remain on a very considerable time he gave notice that he wanted to go into possession. The purchaser was living in a slightly smaller house with, I think, five rooms. The house that he purchased had seven. The tenant of the seven-roomed house let off two to lodgers, so that the requirements of his own family were limited to five. Therefore, in the same district the landlord of the house in which the purchaser lived was willing to accept the tenant of the premises which had been purchased. The case came before a county court judge, who refused an order, although it was pointed out that the cottage accommodation occupied by the then tenant was limited to five rooms and the other house which he had from the landlord of the man who wanted to get possession of his purchase was equal in accommodation. He offered also to continue the accommodation to the lodgers of the man in the house when he went in, but that was not accepted. He offered to allow the man to leave his tools—he was a gardener—in a shed on the premises. All that being offered, the County Court judge refused an order, and the man is likely to remain out of possession in- definitely. I hesitate to say what more precise alternative accommodation could be found than was found. So that there are cases where the construction of the words "alternative accommodation" is in the hands of the County Court judge, and the view he takes may be totally different from that which is taken elsewhere. I hope there may be some rules laid down, either in the statute or by regulation, which will lead along the lines of definition of what should be regarded as satisfactory alternative accommodation.

In regard to shops, I have had cases of so cruel a nature brought to my notice in regard to shops that I am quite sure the Minister of Health will do well to reconsider, and I hope he will expedite the conclusion of the investigation by the Select Committee that he has set up in order that as speedily as possible some relief may be given against the unconscionable attempts to bleed to death men who have to accommodate themselves in a situation favourable to the trade they are carrying on by a voracious landlord who desires to make the most out of every possible circumstance he can. One word more with regard to Sub-section 5 of Clause 5: bonâ fide rights of the landlord as against the tenant. I hope this Bill will be dealt with speedily in Committee and passed into law. I doubt whether it is wise to enact so long a period as three years, having regard to all the circumstances. I should have thought that the shorter period might have answered. This is legislation which we all dislike very much, but which is forced upon us by circumstances which Parliament has not been able to control. I hope that as soon as possible it may be the law of the land and that it will be explained— because there is a good deal of apprehension in the country—as far as possible by such measures as the Government may have at their disposal.

This Bill is one of the most important measures that Parliament has to deal with, because it affects practically all classes of the community. I regret very much that the Minister in charge has said that no protection is to be afforded to tenants of business premises all over the country who are being exploited at a tremendous rate. The tenants of ordinary dwelling houses are being considered, but, unfortunately for the business tenants, it is the case in many instances of a writ of ejectment or an increased rent, which they are unable to pay, or the alternative of purchasing their premises at most extortionate terms. In Belfast there is a building where fourteen tenants are under notice to quit, and there is no alternative places for them to go to. Amongst them these tenants employ about a hundred people, and the result will be that these businesses must close down. Unfortunately in this particular instance the Government quite recently became the owner of the property. Therefore the Government must set a good example and provide some other place for these people. There is another case which I consider is very serious. It is the case of a man who started business a few years ago. His premises were rented at £50 a year. To-day that man has the alternative of purchasing his premises at £5,000 or on failing to do that he must clear out by the 1st July next, under a forfeiture of £1,000.

With regard to the Select Committee which has been promised, I should like to know what will be the position of some of these tenants on whom a writ of ejection has already been served. Something should be done to stay the execution of these writs until we have had an opportunity of considering the Select Committee's Report. We are told that if business premises are interfered with it will stop building. In the cases I have mentioned from Belfast, and I suppose they are typical of other cases throughout the kingdom, there is no other place where the people can go. Most of these premises are in the centre of the city or quite convenient to the centre. There are some buildings on a very convenient site in Belfast, and somehow or other people are under the impression that that is the site for the new Northern Parliament House for Ireland, and the rents of those buildings have gone up at an alarming rate since that fact has become known. I have had many letters in the last few days on this subject and I have had a deputation from Belfast. If the Solicitor-General desires I can give him a list of what are called increases of rent, but to me they savour very much of robbery with violence.

The Minister in charge of the Bill made an appeal for what I assume to be friendly criticism. The general tenor of his speech met with almost universal approval and it is agreed that there is something to be done speedily in connection with this very vexed question. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) made a very clever and very academic speech. To the general tenor of his remarks very little exception could be taken, until you come to apply them to the practical needs of the moment, and there the whole of his remarks were exceedingly faulty, although very clever. He seemed to assume that there were three classes in the ownership of houses and he seemed to belittle the fact that there are a number—he said taking the general average there was not a very great number—of people who owned one house or might own two. I do not know so much about Scotland, but in Lancashire especially, and I think it applies to Yorkshire, there are a large number of working-class people, that prudent thrifty class which he commended, who have bought their houses in the hope that in their old age they will be able to live in comparative comfort out of the rent which they hope the property will bring in. He seemed to argue that because there have been no improvements or repairs during the last five years this class of person would have a reservoir of accumulated funds whereby they would be able to carry out improvements, and that they suffer no injustice by the rents remaining as they are because they have this reservoir to draw upon. The increased cost of living to many of these people has entirely eaten up what might have been a reserve. Along with other workers in the country these people have been the victims of very large increases in the cost of living, and they are suffer- ing a grievous wrong in not having some opportunity of putting their property in proper repair unless this Bill or some similar measure is brought into operation. These poor people have a right to be protected. The hon. Member's argument seems to be that if you are numerically few you must suffer, but if you are strong numerically you may have succour and relief. That is not my attitude. These people who in the years of their strength try to make provision for themselves deserve consideration, and I welcome a Bill which is going to bring some relief to that great class of people, especially in the two counties to which I have referred.

I want to call attention to what, in my opinion, are the serious omissions in this Bill. I refer first to the business premises and offices. One or two speakers have already referred to what I regard as a serious omission in these proposals, but I wish to emphasise it. It is in reference to business premises and offices. A few days ago there was brought to my notice a case in Victoria Street in which some far-seeing and highly speculative gentleman bought a block of buildings which were let to yearly tenants. Immediately the tenancies expired the rents were increased by almost 400 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman, in resisting the suggestion that offices and business premises should be included, rather stressor what I considered to be an imaginary danger which seemed to lurk in his mind. He said that if you deal with offices and business premises apart from dwelling houses you will have to take into review the whole relationship towards property in this country. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility by amendment of this Bill in Committee to prevent the enormous extortion which is taking place at the present time. Where it can be proved that a landlord, from mere speculation, from greed or avarice, has bought blocks of premises and inflated the rent by hundreds per cent., we should be able to frame an amendment whereby such acts shall be made impossible in the immediate present.

3.0 P.M.

In the suburbs of London we see not only the same greedy individuals to whom I have referred, but others who have been buying up old houses that were substantial dwelling houses in days gone by and converting them into flats, and who are charging enormous profits for them. Will the operation of the Bill be made retrospective so that such people who are penalising those who are helpless will be compelled to disgorge? In reference to the question of the 40 per cent., we have to recognise that there must be some provision made for increased interest upon mortgages. I share to a very large extent the opinions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) that when the returns on capital becomes a menace to the community there should be some power to restrict that power to take advantage of the community. Of the 40 per cent., 25 per cent. has to go for repairs that have been neglected during the War. Suppose that the 25 per cent. is not spent, will the unspent amount go on to the rents as well as the 5 per cent. to meet the increased cost on the mortgage? So far as I have been able to understand the Bill, it is an attempt to do justice to this great section of the community, but I hope that these other people who are exploiting the business community with regard to business premises and offices will also be brought within the scope of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an indication that permission will be given in Committee to adopt this course I will see what I can do in Committee to respond to his invitation.

I congratulate the Minister upon introducing a Bill which does not legislate by reference. We have had a great deal of that in the past, and it has been very difficult to understand. At the moment we have four temporary Acts with regard to this very vexed question. Those are going by the board, and we are going to have one Act with which we can deal. I believe that those four Acts have caused more friction between landlord and tenant than anything else which has happened during the last 25 years. Nobody knows where he has been. We have had to refer first to one and then to the other. Now we are getting something which is concrete and is going to help us materially. The Minister spoke of dealing with this question in simple language. We do not need to go further than Clause (2), Sub-section (1), paragraph ( c ) to see that it wants simplification. I have spoken to several Members and to people outside and nearly all of them have some different interpretation as to what it means. No doubt it can be simplified in Committee, but I hope sincerely that it will be made perfectly clear that we shall not have these misunderstandings as to what the Act means and what it does not mean. Probably many of these items can be dealt with in Committee, but I think the Bill will have to be amended very seriously in Committee in some of its minor provisions. For instance, there is the question of when the increase in rent shall take place. Probably that is not such an important matter to those who own a very large quantity of property, but it matters very much indeed to many of those who since the War have owned two or three or probably four of these small houses. There has not been sufficient money to pay outgoings, let alone to leave anything for repairs as they exist to-day. There will have to be something put in with regard to a date. The Minister alluded to a provision in the Bill permitting an increase of rent three months before the legal business could be brought forward to abrogate the amount of the increase. I do not know where that is in the Bill.

The Minister stated that it was not in the Bill, but he undertook to put it in.

I had to leave before the Minister finished, and did not hear that statement. I had been looking for that provision ever since, and could not find it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put in a definite date. There is no use raising the rent for three months. What is the extra rent for three months on a house let at £30 a year? It would not enable these owners to do anything in the way of repairs. I am not going to refer to them as landlords because there has come up during the last few years a species of landlord, whom we never knew before, who raises the rents unduly and profiteers to the most undue extent. We find that in these new so-called landlords—not property owners but those who have taken over property for a period and have farmed it out. The Bill deals with that class. The man we have to fight against is the speculator who comes along, knows nothing of property, takes no interest in it, and is concerned only with getting an unfair amount? out of it. The Bill deals with that man. There are in the Bill one or two proposals which will require amendment in Committee. Everything is thrown upon the County Court. In some places a County Court meets only once a month, or once in six weeks. There should be some means of getting to another court, to a court of summary jurisdiction. Clause 5, after setting out certain exceptions, goes on to say

I am one of those who felt all through that we do want houses. Cost is a secondary consideration. There comes to one's mind sometimes the thought that those people who want the houses and are suffering more than others should help to produce them. What is the use of disguising the facts? If you double or treble rents it would not do what the Minister of Health desires to do—bring rents up to an economic basis. No doubt the Minister of Health has a very unpopular thing to do in raising rents 40 per cent. Only yesterday one of my constituents informed me that, although his rent has not gone up, his rates have increased to the extent of 40 per cent. If the rates are going up to that figure, what is a reasonable figure for the rent? One of the provisions in the Bill to be commended is that relating to premiums and key money. The obtaining of these premiums has been one of the wickedest things that has happened. It is not the landlords who have had the money in the majority of cases; the trouble has been caused by tenants profiteering amongst themselves. How are you to get over that? The Bill makes provision that a sub-tenant may have practically three years tenancy, although it is possible to turn out the principal tenant. Has it not often been found that a principal tenant has left because he had a lodger with whom he could not deal. The landlord is then left to deal with the lodger. The Minister of Health is anxious to cope with the difficulty with regard to charges for furnished rooms. He is up against a problem there. I do not think the proposals of the Bill will have any effect, and I am afraid I cannot offer any suggestions for improvement. If you take the pre-war profit and say they must not get an undue profit now, how are you going to arrive at the figure? It must be a definite figure upon the value of the furniture or something in that way. There must be some different method from that in the Bill. Doubtless, some suggestions can be made in Committee, and I am sure that the Minister will be quite reasonable in dealing with the question then. You are allowing the mortgagee to increase his interest immediately, and you will have to give more than 5 per cent. on the amount of the rental, because it does not meet the half per cent. Why should the mortgagee have an advantage and the unfortunate owner not be able to raise his rent? That is another point which I want the Minister to consider, and some remedy will have to be found. If he will work it out, he will find that the mortgage interest of half per cent. will more than swallow up the 5 per cent. that he has allowed, and, if that be the case, another injustice will be done to the so-called landlord or property owner.

There is also the point which has been raised with regard to business premises. If the Minister takes that matter in hand he has a very thorny problem with which to deal. I cannot see how you can possibly deal with it in a Bill of this temporary nature. I will give an instance which has occurred with the last few months. When the lease expired the rental was £60 per annum. The lease had been in existence for 42 years. The landlord put the rent up to £3,200 per year. It was a reasonable rent. It had to do with a Government Department, and we know that everything that the Government does is considered to be reasonable. That is one of the flagrant cases with which you cannot deal. The Salisbury Commission found that they were up against a proposition for which you want different legislation, and legis- lation not of an emergency character. There is great hardship on many people who have formed businesses in certain premises and then at the end of their lease have not the opportunity of going on even at an increased rent. There is no doubt a great deal to be said for them, but you cannot deal with the problem in a Bill such as this. You must have a special Bill, and you must deal with the whole question of property together and not deal with it in penny numbers. I hope that we shall make this a workable Bill, and that it will allay the unfortunate feeling that has cropped up during the last two or three years between landlord and tenant that they are the enemies of one another. My experience up till quite recently, when I had one or two rather nasty incidents, has been that the relationship between landlord and tenant has been of the most amicable and best possible character. I am both a tenant and a landlord, and I like to feel that I can meet both my landlord and my tenants and have a square business deal with them without any friction or feeling that we are trying to take advantage of one another.

I am sure that the House has listened with a great deal of interest and advantage to the hon. Member who has an unrivalled intimate knowledge of the subject before us. His speech, and the speeches of other hon. Members who preceded him show what a very difficult subject this is to which we are addressing ourselves. It is a matter that goes as deeply to the roots and foundations of our social system at the present time as anything. Perhaps I may be pardoned for regretting that we are not being assisted in our deliberations by a larger number of my hon. Friends who represent the Labour party, who no doubt are exhausted by their labours on the Home Rule Bill. I wish to associate myself with the general welcome that has been given to the Bill and to make one or two observations steering clear as far as possible of what may be Committee points. I have no hesitation whatever in joining in that welcome. There is hardly any one of us who has not had plenty of evidence in the last few months that without some such Bill as this there are too many people in the world who would be only too ready to take advantage of abnormal conditions and to act in a matter that would be unsocial and undesirable. I believe it is as necessary to take powers of control in this matter as if it concerned any of our vital supplies, such as meat, or anything else. I have had from the town that I have the honour to represent in the course of the last two or three months evidence that has amazed me of the kind of thing that is going on, or that would be going on if there were a free market and if all protection were withdrawn in this matter of house profiteering. I will only trouble the House with two cases to show the sort of thing that justifies us in proceeding with this Bill. I have had details submitted to me of a particular property that was offered to the tenant in December, 1919, at a certain figure. Two months ago it was offered at a figure representing an increase of no less than 75 per cent. There is another case of a man who received an offer from the owner one day to buy his house for £650. I have myself seen this man. He received this letter, say, on the Monday morning. He answered it and asked whether that was the lowest figure that would be accepted, and the only answer that he got was that the offer had been revised and that the price was now £700.

I have no wish to pre-judge cases of that sort, without hearing all that is to be said on both sides, but I do say, without hesitation, that that sort of treatment produces the worst possible impression in the minds of the people who are subjected to it, and that it appears to any fair-minded person to be an example of the exercise of power without any sense of responsibility, which every power ought to give, and without which power becomes a danger to the State rather than a service. That is, I think, sufficient justification to us, but I would beg my hon. Friends opposite not to forget that there is a very strong other side to this picture which my hon. Friend who spoke last put very well before the Committee. At the moment I think it is not less important, but I venture to say more important, to get houses repaired than to get houses built, because you will get your results more quickly. I do not attempt to put this matter on the case of the widow who has invested her savings, although there are plenty of them, but I put it on the ground of the vicious circle, out of which we want to get. In 1917 there were, I understand, no less than 3¼ million houses under £10 annual value, with a rental value, I suppose, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £12. Within that category are included the cottages in agricultural districts, but the rent permitted to be charged there under the Wages Board is not £12, but £8. One does not need to be a mathematician to see what the actual financial result will be if you raise a rent of that kind by 30 or 40 per cent., and from the point of view of inducement to repair, it is really negligible. An increase of 30 per cent. on a rental of £8 is £2 12s. I happened last week to be asked to put a new grate and chimney into a cottage rented at £7 or £8 a year. The cost of that was to be £8, or exactly a year's rent, and I do not think it is enough to induce people to do that, to allow them to raise the rent a couple of pounds. On the low-rented cottage the percentage increase in this respect is negligible.

A percentage rise on paper looks a very fair thing in the case of a high-rented house, but it does not so work out in the case of the low-rented cottage. Therefore, the conclusion I would like to draw is this. I should like to think that the Government would be sympathetic to an Amendment in Committee which would have the effect of saying that no rise of rent that brought the rent of a cottage up to, say, 6s. or 6s. 6d. per week, would be considered more than a 40 per cent. rise, because nothing less than that would have any effect. That is a point we shall be able to develop in Committee. I am not very clear or very happy, as far as I understand it, about the provision of the Bill which excludes from its operation houses converted into flats since April 7th, 1919. I know something of the arguments which have led to that conclusion, but I should like to read a portion of a letter which I received yesterday, and which puts the matter from another point of view. The letter comes from Leeds, from a responsible person—

I, like other hon. Members, welcomed the statement that there is going to be a Select Committee appointed to consider, the question of business premises. I think probably the majority of the House were disappointed that nothing is being done in the present Bill. A great number of cases of very considerable hardship exist and have been brought to the notice of hon. Members. With regard to the Select Committee, I hope that when it is appointed it will not be treated in the same way as was the Select Committee on High Prices and that we shall not have the Minister of Health appearing at the first meeting of the Committee and telling it that it need not pursue its labours any further because the Government are deciding on their policy. I would like to suggest as to whether it is not still possible to do something in this Bill that would to some extent relieve the hardships that are being felt. I think the real hardship in the case of business premises is not the increase of rent. If the rent is justified and one that can be really earned there, I do not think the occupier has any more right to it than the owner, and I do not think the real grievance is so much the increase of rent as the being dispossessed and turned out when you have no possibility of getting alternative premises. One or two very difficult cases have been brought to my notice in my own constituency, where people are going to be reduced practically to a state of destitution. They have been carrying on small businesses, their shops have been sold over their heads, and they are left really destitute.

This is clearly an emergency problem. Whether we are going to get houses or not in the future is perhaps questionable, but where money is being spent on building it will be spent on building business premises, so that one might hope that in a comparatively short period of time alternative accommodation will be possible, and I suggest that it might be possible in this Bill to provide fixity of tenure, say, for a year or two years at the outside in these cases, but to permit in that time such increase of rent as is fair—that can be subject to arbitration—so that while the owners of these properties should not be deprived of their economic opportunity of getting increased rents, yet at the same time the tenants of these properties should not be dispossessed at a time when they cannot possibly go anywhere else. I think something along those lines of purely emergency legislation might still be adopted. It is clear that on the general question of the Bill there is a fairly broad division of opinion in the House, and it is perhaps not unnatural that it should be so. On these Benches one view is taken of the Bill, and in a very much larger part of the House another view is taken. That is not so unnatural when you think what the situation is Outside this House many leaders of labour organisations and some leaders inside the House have been successful in obtaining very considerable advances in wages for the workers of this country, but the effect of this Bill is to withdraw a sum which I calculate at something like £40,000,000 from the sum which has been received in wages, and, therefore, I do not think it is unnatural that you should find members on this side of the House raising objections to a measure which is going to take away a considerable part of the advantage that has been obtained.

There can be no doubt, whatever view one may take about that, that in considering the main increases that have been made in wages no account has been taken of increases in rent. That, I think, must be admitted. In fact, I have had some opportunity of inquiring of those responsible for fixing the index number at the Board of Trade upon which these wages advances have been made, and I have been told that in fixing that number they could only take account of the rents that existed, and could not make any allowance for any rise in rents, so that it is going to be very difficult indeed to resist the claims that would undoubtedly be put forward, that as we have admitted the principle that wages are to be based upon a standard of life and an increase in cost, the wage-earners must receive an amount which will correspond with and compensate for the reduction which this Bill will make from their earnings. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) pointed out the difficulties that must arise when we attempt to play Providence upon a large scale. I think that will be admitted. There are two philosophies of politics: one is that you should attempt to play Providence, and the other is that you should let the Devil take the hindmost, and we are accustomed to associate the latter policy with the natural play of economic laws. As far as any economic laws have their natural play, this is a situation in which, whatever our views may be, we all must compromise. I think even the right hon. Member for Chelmsford on Monday, when the Agriculture Bill is before the House, will admit—as he did admit to-day—that the general principle of allowing economic laws to have free play must be qualified by circumstances.

The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), in moving the rejection of the Bill, put forward a very careful analysis of the costs and the position of the owner of the class of property which is affected by the Bill. I have not heard any real answer given to the point which he made that, taking into account the fact that property owners had not during the last four or five years done a great deal in the way of repairs, the fact that there had been very few empties, and the fact that the losses from bad tenants must have been very much reduced, on the whole the position of property owners was, in spite of the great increase in the cost of repairs, not seriously affected by the rise in prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There may be an answer to that. I only say that I have not heard it up to the present, and there is real substances in those three points. It is admitted that repairs have not been done, it is admitted that there have not been the number of empties, and it is admitted that there have not been the losses from bad tenants, and in all these directions there have been compensations for the increase in costs.

I want to make the further point that, whatever may be the position of the owner of this class of property at the present time, he has got a golden harvest in front of him. What is the position? We have been told in this House of cases in which a house, which stood at £400 before the War, has been sold for £1,600. I think one of the Members of this House has been asked such a figure. Wherever you can get vacant possession of a house you can get two or three times as much as you got before the War. I think everybody is looking forward to a time when these restrictions will go. These restrictions are only intended to operate, I think, at the outside, for three years. The Ministry of Health anticipate that their housing programme will be completed in some such period. I see the hon. Member opposite dissent from that; he is in a very good position to know. But even taking the period of seven years, which is the period calculated in all the correspondence and negotiations' with municipalities, at the end of seven years it is expected that things will get back to their normal. Nobody imagines for a moment that it means getting back to anything less than twice the price of things before the War, or that a house which cost £400 before the War is going to cost less than £800 then, which means that as soon as you get rid of the rent restrictions, and owners are able to realise their property, and take advantage of the ordinary economic laws, they are going to be, as far as face value is concerned, at all events, twice as well off as they were before the War. I want to base this argument on these two things: first of all, on the fact that there has been very considerable alleviation in the extra cost of repairs and maintenance; secondly, that there is a very good prospect in front of owners of this particular class of property, and whatever we are doing at the present time ought to be carefully calculated from the point of view of those who are going to bear the burden of the relief we are giving here to property owners. This is an emergency measure. I do not really think that anybody in this House would disagree with the view that some relief has got to be given to those who own this class of property, but, in giving that relief, I think we have got to be careful not to take it any further than it is absolutely necessary that it should go, so that I do not know whether the Government are standing hard and fast by forty per cent., or whether that is a matter which they are willing to leave to the Committee to settle. So far as I am concerned, their answer on that point will decide my attitude towards the Bill. Nothing I have heard so far in the Debate or read in the Salisbury Report leads me to think that is a fair figure. I think it is too high a figure altogether, but I quite agree that some figure must be given, and if the Government can give us an assurance that they have an open mind on the matter, and are prepared to leave it to the Committee—and I am prepared to take my chance with the Committee—then, so far as I am individually concerned, I shall support the Second Heading of the Bill; but if I am told that is a hard and fast rule, and that we are not going to be allowed to consider it and amend it, then I shall not be able to support the Second Reading.

I want to make this point on what is really a much larger aspect of this question. We are dealing here with one class of property—a very considerable section of the whole property in this country. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday what was the gross annual value under Schedule A of house property in this country, and he told me that in 1913–14 it was something like £160,000,000 a year. I do not think it would be unreasonable to estimate the property which is dealt with by this Bill as accountable, perhaps, for £100,000,000 per year, so that 40 per cent. increase on that figure means we are increasing that amount by £40,000,000. We are giving to the owners of that class of property in this connection a relief amounting to £40,000,000 a year.

May I ask whether that £160,000,000 includes all business premises as well as dwelling-houses, or only dwelling-houses?

I asked the question in respect of dwelling-houses only, and I do not think the figure I am taking, namely, £100,000,000, as the proportion concerned here, is an unreasonable figure; in fact, I think I am probably allowing a very generous margin when I take only £100,000,000. It is really taking £40,000,000 out of the pockets of the occupiers in this country, and putting it in the pockets of owners of property. If you capitalise that £40,000,000, the relief given by this Bill amounts to something like. £500,000,000. In other words, this is a tax upon tenants. To the occupier it is the same thing whether he pays it in rent or in taxes, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been taking this amount for the purpose of providing new dwellings, it would have been a very substantial contribution towards the cost. The Ministry of Health has a programme of something like 500,000 houses. Taking them at £1,000 a piece, you have £500,000,000, the capital sum of the amount of relief, which would have built these 500,000 houses, which might then have put an end to the scarcity, have enabled us to take the restrictions off rent, and allowed it to find its natural economic level. That capital sum has really been transferred by this Bill from one section of the community to another. Bear in mind the fact that, as soon as the housing programme is carried out, and as soon as the Rent Restriction Acts are entirely repealed, you are going to have the capital value of property in this country moving up far beyond even the dimensions I have mentioned. Taking the total value of £100,000,000, and applying 12 years' purchase, you have £1,200,000,000 pre-War value, and taking it as doubling in 7 years, you are going to have that property valued at £2,400,000,000. That being so, it does not seem to me it would have been such an outrageous proposal if, instead of taking this £40,000,000 a year, and applying it simply and solely to the relief of the position of the property owners, something had been done to relieve the housing situation with it.

Take the question of rates. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a very serious step is being taken by the Government in the suggested modification of the rating system of this country in this Bill, and that they would be better advised to leave that Clause out altogether. When we deal with the rating system of this country it is a matter that wants to be dealt with as a whole. We had before us in the House a Bill on tithe, and there the question of rating came up. The Minister in charge opposed an Amendment which would have the effect of dealing with rating on the ground that that was a subject which should be dealt with entire. One other matter I think might be dealt with by the Bill, that is the question of houses which are held vacant for the purpose of sale. Various of us get complaints that there are houses which might be occupied or let which are being kept vacant in order to secure a larger price for them. That is a subject which has not been dealt with in this Bill. It might have been touched. There is a very useful parallel to be found in the proposal which is to come before us on Monday in the Agriculture Bill. There is a Clause that gives to the County Committees power to deal with land which, in their opinion, is not being fully cultivated. Similar powers might have been given in this Bill in respect to the housing situation, and in respect to houses not fully occupied, and this would probably have gone a very long way indeed to meet the present housing difficulty. I am not arguing in favour of billeting or the rationing of houses, but I think some power would be gratefully received by local authorities to make representations in respect of houses in their area which they think are not being put to their full use. I hope in Committee the Government will be prepared to accept an Amendment which will confer upon the housing committees of the boroughs and districts similar powers to those proposed to be given to the county committees in relation to agricultural land.

4.0 P.M.

I join with most of those who have taken part in this Debate in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman who stands sponsor for this Bill on the courage with which he has tackled this problem. He told us—and, of course, the House realises it—that in putting forward a measure of this kind, the Government runs risks. The first risk is that of being misunderstood; and, second, the greater risk of being grossly misrepresented. But they have put the Bill forward under a sense of duty, believing it was the duty of the Government to face the realities of the position. What is the position? There is an acute house shortage, which profoundly affects the conditions of life of every human being in this country. The Government, whatever the difficulties, could not ignore that situation. They were bound to address themselves to the task of alleviating it, with whatever good sense, experience, and goodwill they could command. The shortage of houses has arisen, as I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, from two causes. First, that building, as a private speculation, no longer attracts the speculator, who can get an infinitely better yield for his money in nearly every other form of investment; and, secondly, the War having produced a complete arrestment of house building, has added to the initial difficulties of the position. How is the position to be met? The Government take the view, which, I think, is also the considered opinion of this House, that it is desirable to get back again to normal conditions, and to leave it to private enterprise to meet the necessities of the case, as it did before, feeling also that otherwise there is no alternative except for the State to undertake the task. But if the State undertakes the task, what happens?

We have had so many unhappy examples of State intervention, that it has now become axiomatic that everything to which the State puts its hand in this way costs infinitely more. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shells!"] Yes, one might digress on that, which is a very striking example, but I proceed. State action involves this, that what the State spends in excess in the way suggested, must come from the pockets of the taxpayers, who have to foot the Bill; so that it really comes back to this in the long run, that all these charges which the taxpayer ultimately has to pay are heaped upon the cost of living of the working classes, and the working man has to pay his share of that expenditure. That is why I concur in the view that it is not a business for the State, if it can be done otherwise. I think it can be done otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us also that, bad as the housing position is at the present time, it is in imminent danger of becoming much worse. No one who owns property to-day will dream, unless under coercion, of spending a shilling on house improvement, and there is consequently a deterioration and a disintegration, which does not help the matter at all, nor aid in solving the problem. What are advantages of the Bill? I suggest, with very great respect, that my hon. Friends opposite who support the rejection of this Bill, should consider what are those advantages. There is, first, that the tenant has an extension of security against ejection, which until prior Bills was a constant nightmare. Secondly, the Bill secures that where the landlord is responsible for the repairs, they must be carried out to the satisfaction of the local authority as a condition of the increased rent. Thirdly, the tenant is secured against any attempt, at least for a period of three years, to get an extortionate rent. Again, it protects the sub-tenant of furnished rooms being plundered by the tenant. Finally, it proposes to deal with the question of key-money. I suggest that these are advantages of such profound importance to the tenant, that no section of this House, and least of all the Labour party, should take the risk of keeping these advantages from the class which they profess to represent.

I cannot join in the slogan raised by my hon. Friend opposite, "blame the lodger." I am not here to suggest at all that the lodger is a paragon of virtue. But no more am I here to suggest that he is a striking example of inherent and ineradicable vice. I think there are good lodgers just as I think there are good tenants. [HON. MEMBERS: "And good landlords."] Yes, I will stretch my conscience sufficiently to say that I think there are some good landlords, and I hope the number will go on increasing. I want to touch upon a class which has not been sufficiently dealt with in some instances and not at all in others. As far as shops are concerned, the Bill does not propose to go further than where it is part of a dwelling-house, and I think that is a cardinal defect in the Bill. This measure ignores entirely the small shopkeeper class who serve a great public need, and on that account are entitled to protection. I do not suggest that in every case they are treated harshly, but upon a very large scale they have been treated in a way that is perfectly scandalous. My right hon. Friend mentioned in terms quivering with indignation that he was nearly tempted to deal with this class on account of the example of a tenant whose rent had been raised from £300 a year to £1,000. Let me quote one or two cases which I have investigated personally, and which I am prepared to hand over to the right hon. Gentleman for verification, and then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, or any hon. Member, to put his hand on his heart and defend one of them.

Here is one case. Twelve months ago the rent was £70 and taxes, and to-day it is £400 and taxes, or an increase of 540 per cent. In the next case the rent was £80 free, and to-day it is £400 and taxes, or an increase of 600 per cent. In another case it was £81 free, and to-day it is £450 and taxes. Lastly, there is the crowning example of the case in which the rent was £45 free, and to-day it is £315 and taxes, or an increase of 750 per cent. I submit with great respect that a position like that, which is widespread, the Government cannot afford to ignore, and if they leave that sort of thing without check, other owners, seeing this kind of thing happening, however much they may desire to be decent and just towards their tenants, will be tempted to a point at which they cannot resist doing the same. There really ought to be some protection, and if landlords will not impose some decent restraint upon themselves, it is the duty of the Government to impose it, just as they are doing in the case of other landlords and in respect of other tenants.

Are these Irish cases?

Yes, they are, and two of them are English landlords. To say that in this Bill you must not touch the case of the small shopkeeper is really a counsel of despair, and it is not reasonable to take up that attitude in reference to this problem. Why cannot some limit be fixed here in respect of rent upon a pre-war basis? The necessity is as great in one case as it is in the other, and it is just as practicable. I admit the force of the argument, that always, when you are dealing with questions of this kind, you take a certain measure of risk, and possibly a large measure, in this way, that you may put hindrances and obstacles in the path of those who desire to put up houses. It is fair that that should be faced, and I desire to face it. I do not think the general body of hon. Members would seek to make a case that there ought not to be some increase of rent. There may be a difference of opinion as to what would be a reasonable increase, but that is another matter to be argued later on. I would not desire to follow a course of conduct that would have the effect of preventing men embarking upon the duty of alleviating the house shortage who would otherwise undertake it, but as an hon. Member said just now, a house at any price is better than no house at all. I cannot subscribe to the view ' that the question of rent is a negligible question. It is not. I suggest that on the actual capital outlay in respect of construction there ought to be a margin laid down which would afford a fair and reasonable basis of profit. That was precisely the principle adopted in the first Bill, and it is the principle which you are embodying in this Bill in respect of dwelling houses. Surely it does not pass the wit of human ingenuity to suggest some formula which will make it applicable to shops. It would then give the shopkeepers some reason-able measure of protection which they ought to enjoy.

I desire to touch now on what is almost exclusively an Irish point, although incidentally it may affect both England and Scotland. When the Irish Bill was before the House I raised, by a specific amendment, a point of great importance. Those in charge of the Irish Bill refused to see how important it was, and we are now paying the penalty of that refusal. I then called attention to the fact that it would be monstrously unfair to have two houses affording precisely the same accommodation in the same street, and probably side by side, one having a rateable valuation fixed on pre-War cost of construction and the other a valuation based on post-War cost of construction. I said at the time that it was extremely important that point should be dealt with, because the whole scheme of finance of the Irish Bill was different from that of the English Bill, and was based on the assumption that the valuation in each case would be identical. The Government, however, then failed to meet the point. I am glad to see they now recognise the force of it, as I gather from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that they propose to treat the question of rateable valuation on identical lines notwithstanding any difference in the cost of construction. After all, all questions of local taxation, income tax and other matters are fixed on the basis of rateable valuation. There are a variety of other suggestions to which I propose to invite the attention of the House in Committee, and I hope they will receive sympathetic consideration. I shall support this Bill because it gives a reasonable amount of protection; it is a safeguard for the tenant against ejection and prevents him being plundered by his landlord. I would rather have these things secured to the tenant for a further period of three years than have them withdrawn entirely through this Bill going to pieces.

I wish to call the attention of Members of this House to the conditions under which they entered Parliament. During the General Election of 1913, a certain newspaper in Glasgow published a leading article containing the rather significant statement that, now that the War had finished, the rent war would start, and indicating that, in order to compensate them for what they lost during the War, property owners would require to increase their rents 100 per cent. There was considerable unrest in Glasgow because of that statement. Meetings were held, and, occurring, as it did, just immediately prior to the Election, candidates took advantage of that statement to point out what the intentions of the landlords of Glasgow and the West of Scotland were. During the Election the feeling was intense in the Division, and the questions put to the candidates-were of so direct a character, that letters were written by the agents to the Prime Minister, asking him for a refutation of any such intention on the part either of property owners or of the Government of this country. The publication of the Prime Minister's reply was prefaced by the following comment:

they are held at a figure that covers repairs.

It does not cover them now.

For five years they have not done any repairs because you passed the Rent Restriction Act in 1915. When the rent collector comes round if you ask for anything to be done he tells you immediately why he cannot do it, not because he cannot afford it, but because of the Rent Restriction Act. In Glasgow there were thousands of unoccupied houses before the War bringing in no rents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose loss?"] The rents of the occupied houses were put at a figure that covered any loss on the thousands that were unoccupied. [HON. MEMBERS: "At £10 a year?"] All the houses in Glasgow are not £10 a year. Those people actually drew the rents for the houses in the first year of the War when the price of articles, the wages of artisans and the cost of materials had not risen to the point that now gives them an excuse for not repairing the houses. In Glasgow within the past few weeks several houses have fallen in because of repairs not being done to them. Those who occupied them are now living in what was formerly a shelter for the houseless and for tramps coming into the City. The City authorities have had reported to them the fact that there are in other parts of the City various properties from which the tenants must be warned out because of the danger to health from the condition of these buildings, and proposes to put them in camps because there is no habitation in the city in which to place them. Another house fell in another district and buried the occupants. Fortunately they were extricated without any casualty. These are the conditions in that city, and, in addition, 11,000 houses occupied by 47,000 persons in the City of Glasgow are certified as unfit for human habitation by the Medical Officer of Health. You want to include them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

The hon. Member will see in the Bill that it is not applicable to a house which is certified as unfit for habitation. By his own statement these houses are unfit for habitation.

If the owner reconstructs them, if he makes them what the Health Authority calls fit for human habitation, he is entitled to the increase.

indicated assent.

What the sanitary authority bears in mind when it is certifying a house as fit for habitation is not the aesthetic or the moral or ethical position but the purely physical or animal condition as to whether it is fit for an individual to live in. That is simply lime-washing, cleaning and making it free from disease. Many of these houses would in the opinion of the certifying sanitary officer not be in a fit condition for an individual to live in them by the mere application of lime-wash, painting, or a certain amount of restoration. We know these houses.

We have lived in them.

We are against this Bill, not because we desire to inflict injustice upon any section of the community, but because we have a situation arising out of the War, a situation that places you still under war conditions and which directly affects that pledge of the Prime Minister which I have quoted, upon which many of you received your seats in this House. Had the population and electorate believed for a moment that 18 months or less after the election you would pass an Act of Parliament that would give the property owners of this country 40 per cent. increase, in addition to six or eight per cent. for repairs, they would not have allowed a single Coalition Member to enter this Chamber. Is this increase just?

What about the increased wages?

The hon. Member has either missed the statement, or he was not present when it was made, that in the increased wages that have been given in this country to tradesmen and others, the rents of houses were excluded, because they had not been increased. Therefore, no allowance was made on that account in any increased wages. The whole thing comes round to this, that if you give this 40 per cent. increase you will return not to the vicious circle but to the vicious spiral of prices and wages chasing each other up all the way. Are you prepared to face that in the country? In this Bill there is no fixity of tenure for the miners who live in the cottages erected by the mining companies, and there is no fixity of tenure for the men employed in the steel and blast furnaces and who live in cottages owned by the steel and blast furnace companies. This Bill does not give that fixity of tenure. On all these grounds we as a Labour party cannot see our way to assist in the passing of a Measure which will cause dissatisfaction in the country, and which so far as Scotland is concerned if it is passed tomorrow will be inoperative. We are therefore prepared to carry this to a Division to endeavour to defeat the Second Reading of this Bill.

I will not follow the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maclean) further than his concluding remark, that, because the Bill did not give fixity of tenure to a certain class, they were going to vote against it. I hope that the House will note these words, because unless we are very careful we shall find that this legislation—whether it was necessary at the time—will tend in the direction of fixity of tenure, fair rents and dual ownership, with the effect of stopping all private enterprise, and all investment of private money in property of that description. The only people who will be left to build houses will be the Government, and as an hon. Member, who, I think, is not now in the House, said the effect of the Government taking up matters of that description was that the cost was largely increased. Some hon. Members have been very eloquent about the hardships on occupiers of shops and business premises through not being included in this Bill, and certain instances were given of very large increases in rents. Everyone knows that there is a great demand for business premises at the moment, and there has been, not all over the country but in certain districts, a large increase of rents. The City of London is one of these places. But there is nothing new in that. There are exceptional periods when there are increases in the value of property, and it is argued that the tenant is to receive the value of that increase and the landlord is not to receive it, because that is what it comes to, but when there is a decrease in the value of property the loss is to fall on the landlord.

I have not heard anybody advocate that if a tenant is in occupation of a place at £300 a year, and he can get another place for £200 a year, and the landlord cannot re-let the place at £300 a year, the tenant should be compelled to remain at £300 a year in order that the landlord may not be put to any loss. But if you do not advocate that you cannot advocate, if a tenant has taken an office for 14 or 21 years, on the understanding that he enjoys all the advantages during that period but that at the end of that period the property with its advantages or disadvantages, as the case may be, is to revert to the landlord, that if there is any advantage the tenant may break that contract in order to secure that advantage for himself. I may give an instance of what happened to myself. I was engaged in business after the French war. My firm had a first floor office in Throg-morton Street, for which we paid £200 a year. The whole of the house was let on a long lease to the firm that occupied the ground floor. That firm paid £200 a year. We paid £200 a year for the first floor, and the third floor was let at about £130. The lease came to an end. The landlord offered the house for £25,000 to the tenants on the ground floor, and they refused. It was then offered to my firm, and we foolishly offered £23,000. The landlord did not accept the offer. Within a week he had sold at £30,000. That house was pulled down, rebuilt for £10,000, and the ground floor was let at £3,000 a year. How are you going to legislate in cases of that sort? We had to leave, and take a second floor at £600 a year and a twenty-one years' lease, with power to break reserved to us alone at six months' notice. We had not been in that new office for more than two or three years when we were offered £5,000 to go out, but we were asked to go out within a week. We did not accept the offer. Within eight years—I was then senior partner in the firm—I exercised my option to leave the offices for nothing, because I found I could get better offices more cheaply. The offices I left were let with difficulty, without a premium, for £500. These things are always occurring. Unless you say that property is to be taken away from the owner and that you are going to have fair rent courts and fixity of tenure, which is being tried in Ireland, I believe, without much success, what are you going to do? You cannot have rent courts or fixity of tenure or settlements of that sort in business premises. Many hard cases probably there are. There are hard cases all through this world, unfortunately. It will be far and away harder if you break all the laws of political economy and of supply and demand, because just at one particular moment the tendency happens to be in favour of the landlord and against the tenant.

With regard to this kind of Bill, I was very doubtful at the time this sort of legislation was introduced whether it was wise. It was introduced primarily because it was said that munition workers could not get houses or were being charged high rentals for those they could get. It may have been necessary during the War, but it has resulted in hardship, not only for tenants but for landlords. I have had a letter from a lady who says that she is the owner of two houses. In 1914 the tenants asked for a reduction of the rent, the houses then being let at £20 a year each. The rents were reduced to £15. That owner, who is 60 to 65 years of age, has not been able to raise the rent again, and she says that she is far and away poorer than the tenants. She has no means of repairing the property. That is a very hard case. I saw only a few days ago that in a London Police Court it was stated that the tenant of a house, for which she paid £40 a year, had sub-let rooms which rought in £200 a year. That sort of thing is going on all over the country. You must not jump to the conclusion that because there are one or two hard cases of people who cannot get houses, there is not another side to the case. As to the question of alternative accommodation, it has been pointed out that there is a discretion left to the magistrates or to the County Court judge. That places the magistrate in a very difficult position. I had a case only last Monday before the Bench on which I have the honour to sit, and we gave a certain decision. It is quite possible that in the neighbouring county another decision would have been given, because there is a proviso that the magistrates shall exercise their discretion according to their view of the case. We all have different views on these matters, and different Benches and different County Court Judges give different decisions. It would be far better to say that such and such things are to be considered and that when these things have been taken into consideration then eviction shall or shall not be granted. I hope that in the Committee stage my right hon. Friend will consider the question. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden) said that bricklayers were now charging £26 a rod whereas before the War they charged £3.

It is in a technical paper to-day.

Does that include more than the bricklayer's wages?

No.

I should like the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), who made a fiery speech just now and who talked about profiteering, to tell me whether he considers that is profiteering or not, because, as far as I can make out, that is a far greater increase than anything that has been mentioned and laid at the door of the landlord. There can be no doubt that is one of the difficulties. It is a very wrong thing for the bricklayers to demand such prices, but I should not be in favour of a Bill compelling them to work at a fixed price. I should be the last person to suggest legislation to limit their profits. If their view, however, is that they are entitled to squeeze the last farthing out of somebody who wants their services, they must not be surprised if there be retaliation on the other side. I have never taken up the idea that you must do a certain thing because poor people do it, you must do a thing because it is right. There is a large class of people, mostly in the poorer conditions of life, who have worked all their lives and have invested their savings in houses. Therefore, when the hon. Member opposite says that the bricklayer works and the landlord does not, he must not forget that in many cases a man owns the house as the result of hard work and of denial during hard work. The money has not been spent upon drink or amusement, but has been saved. I maintain that that sort of thing ought to be encouraged and not discouraged. I take probably an unpopular line, but I feel most strongly that unless we are very careful we shall enter upon a path which will lead us into very serious difficulties. We begin by saying that it is necessary to do so and so because hard cases arise. We go on and we find fixity of tenure is demanded and the Amendment demands it. I would ask those hon. Members who have had some experience of business principles to pause before they advocate a further extension of this Bill. Possibly we are in such a difficult position that we cannot avoid extending this for a short time, but the time should be very short. No other property should be included and at the end of the period the country should revert to the usual economic conditions.

The House will, I hope, forgive me if I do not deal with all the circumstances which have been raised in the Debate, or the various propositions which have been put to me. I think the Debate has been very useful, and I am sure my right hon. Friend is very grateful for a number of suggestions which have been made and which will be carefully considered. I consider it my duty to consider hereafter various propositions which have been put largely on details of the Bill. Having regard to the favourable reception of the Bill I would not have desired to make any observations except for two reasons. The first is that I think it is desirable to reinforce what my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) has said as to the reason why business premises should not be included in the Bill. It is not because we are not appreciative of the fact that urgent questions have arisen about business premises. I have had a number of cases brought to my attention which call for relief if it is possible to give relief, but that is the question, is it possible? It must not be taken by the House at large that the fact that business premises are not included in this Bill is at all indicative of the fact that the Government do not realise that there have been a number of cases which would lead to the necessity for some remedial steps being taken, if it be possible, but this Bill is one which to a large extent co-ordinates the previous legislation, and does not, except in some particulars, alter the law as it stands at present. It is desirable to remind the House that this legislation originated with the Act of 1915, which was conceived to deal with dwelling houses, and dwelling houses alone. In the course of the War it was found necessary, for various purposes, to give the opportunity of dwelling houses being found, and to maintain the right of the persons who were then enjoying them to continue to enjoy them; but the legislation as a whole was conceived and talked about in relation to dwelling houses.

All speakers are agreed that there is a distinct complexity in dealing with the question of dwelling-houses, and I think the majority of the House will appreciate the fact that if the question of dealing with dwelling-houses has been complex and difficult, the House would be well advised to go slowly, before they dip further into this class of legislation, and deal with problems which were not in the original contemplation of the House. With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst)—which, if he will allow me to say, I found a very useful speech—he asked that all limits as to the class of houses should be struck out of the Bill. Those limits are put in as being the approximate limits which would bring the terms of the Bill into line in London and elsewhere. When we come to the question of business premises, he was in favour, I gathered, of imposing limits, and his own speech answered the suggestion he made that there should be an introduction of business premises into this Bill, which is conceived entirely for another purpose. If it be that the question of dealing with business premises can be easily handled, if they really fall into line with existing legislation, and if the Select Committee find that to be so, then I may remind the House that the Select Committee would have no difficulty in making a speedy Report to the House, which would then be placed in the position of holding information which must remove misgivings. If, on looking into the question, they find it complex and difficult, and one in which it is by no means easy to apply a remedy, then no one would say the House has not been well advised to ask for further information before it takes a further step forward.

I should perhaps have said no more on the general question had it not been for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes), and he will forgive me if I say to him— it is entirely a complimentary statement—that I found his speech a very disappointing one. I have on other Bills on several occasions found some criticisms of his both useful and helpful, and I have endeavoured to make use of them for the purpose of amending a Bill, but when he gives us some figures this afternoon which looked to me as possible of misinterpretation, I think it wise to say a word in answer. He suggested that the purpose of this Bill is to add another sum of £40,000,000 in the way of rent, and he anticipates, I am sure with misgivings and many fears, that there might be a further demand for an increase of wages because of this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member does himself little justice. A further scrutiny of the Bill—he cannot have had an opportunity of spending much time on it—would have reassured him that the purpose of it is to do no more than to maintain in times of difficulty the limitations and restrictions which have been found necessary in the past, and at the same time to try and prevent there being any restriction placed upon the building of houses for the people at large.

The House knows perfectly well that one of the great difficulties of making any inroad into the free-play of the right's of persons on this question of housing, is that the very fact that you pass legislative enactments interfering with liberty may paralyse the building of houses. A great effort has been made in this Bill by my right hon. Friend to secure that an incentive shall still remain with those who are owners of houses to repair them and make them habitable, and to advance the possibility of obtaining habitations for all classes, particularly the working-classes of this country. Is it fair—I will not say "fair," but is it quite correct to say that the Bill is a Bill to add £40,000,000 to what may be the wages bill of this country? May I also say that when we are dealing with a question of millions, one must keep one's sense of perspective, and it may be that that sum of £40,000,000, compared with the large total sum of wages paid in the country, is a comparatively small sum. I do not know. I was not able to follow the hon. Member's figures; indeed, they were less easy to me than the figures of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood). He gave us one or two problems to deal with, and I think, on the whole, he did satisfy me that 40 per cent. was greater than 30 per cent. But where the hon. Member for Newcastle got his figures I do not know. I would only say to him, I hope on another occasion he will revert to the practice he has hitherto adopted in the House of trying to give the Minister in charge of the Bill some helpful criticism.

I will carefully consider the observations made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) and others who referred to this question of alternative accommodation. It has been said by some Members that the right course is to write down in the Bill in strict terms what is alternative accommodation, and those persons belong to one school of thought. I belong to rather a different one. I believe in the discretion of a judge, and I believe you cannot lay down circumstances which would be useful in all the varying circumstances and varying districts of the country. I would far prefer to leave a case in which I was interested personally as to the question of alternative accommodation to the discretion of the hon. and learned Member for Ealing, who constantly sits as a justice of the peace, and still more my right hon. Friend, whose discretion, I am sure, would always be exercised with justice and also moderation.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 30.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 19

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[ Mr. Neil Maclean. ]

The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 122.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders. ]

Adjourned at Twenty-three minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next, 7th June.