§ Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and to Commons Consequential Amendments to the Bill, and Lords Consequential Amendment to the Bill, and Lords Amendments in lieu of Amendments disagreed to by Commons.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Amendments be now considered."
§ The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns)Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, before agreeing to these Amendments from another place, a brief statement were made as to the reasons for that course, and as to what agreement with the Amendments means. After this Bill was returned to the Lords, communications took place between the Government and the Opposition. The other place wished for alterations on the following points: They thought that an appeal to the county court or to some other judicial body was essential with regard to closing orders, demolition orders, the question of repairs and maintenance, instead of to the Local Government Board, as the Bill originally suggested and to which the Commons adhered. The Government declined the County Court as an alternative to the Local Government Board, but gave an appeal on points of law to the High Court, and now provide for a public local inquiry by the Local Government Board before an appeal on a closing order, demolition order, or repairs can be dismissed. To that position we ask the House of Commons to adhere. 446 The second point to which importance was attached was the exclusion of the county council and the county boroughs. For reasons given on another occasion we were compelled to decline that exemption and to that position we must adhere. The third point the Lords wanted was that an order declaring the London County Council or any county borough in default as regards Part in. should be laid upon the Table for 30 days. The Government refused this, but agreed that the order when made in these cases should be laid upon the Table for information only. Fourthly, the Lords wished the confirmation of town planning schemes to be made by Provisional Order whenever objected to. The Government declined the method of Provisional Order as expressed by what is known as the "Cawdor" Clause, but agreed to lay the draft order upon the Table for 30 days.
Then the Lords wished that the betterment accruing from a town planning scheme should be confined exclusively to the expenditure incurred by the local authority. The Government declined this suggestion, and adhered to the offer originally made and put forward in this House—namely, that 50 per cent. of the betterment accruing to a district from a town planning scheme should go to the local authority and 50 per cent. to the owner. To this position by the acceptance of Amendments the Government now adhere. The next was what some considered to be an important point—namely, the medical officer of health. The Lords Amendment objected to the duties of the medical officer of health being prescribed by the Local Government Board. On that the Government adhered to the position which they took up in the Bill—namely, the irremovability of the medical officer of health except with the consent of the Local Government Board. That position we maintained, but we agreed that the Order prescribing the general duties for the county medical officer of health should be laid on the Table for 21 days.
In all other respects the Bill remains as returned to the Lords from the Commons, except with regard to the seventh point. The Lords wanted what are known as "Port of London terms" for the compulsory acquisition of land. For reasons which I advanced on a previous occasion the Government declined to accept Port of London terms, but agreed that small holdings terms should be retained as in the Bill originally introduced for rural districts, and that was varied by the 447 Government consenting to a modification of the form of Port of London terms for urban districts. The modification briefly is that in urban areas, if an order is objected to, what is known as "an independent person" appointed by the Local Government Board shall hold a local inquiry. The inquiry is not on the necessity for acquiring the land, but is limited to the question whether the particular land is suitable, and whether its compulsory acquisitions will involve undue detriment to the persons interested.
Having made that statement, and having told the House that the Amendments on the Blue Paper, to all of which the Government agree, embody a compromise agreed to between the Government and another place on this important and useful Bill, I appeal to the House to accept these Amendments and thus terminate a controversy in reference to a measure which has been a long time before Parliament, in which Members in all parts of the House have shown a keen and sympathetic interest, a Bill which is now on the eve of becoming law, and which when it is law I sincerely trust will do for the housing of the people all that we wish and all that some of us believe it will do.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIt will probably save time if I say what I have to say on the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman rather than on specific Amendments. The part of the statement which I heard with the least acceptance was that in which the right hon. Gentleman said he was unable to concede an inquiry before a judicial tribunal instead of the appeal to the Local Government Board in certain cases. On the ground of expense and good administration, and still more on the ground that certain of the smaller local authorities are very much in need of control by a legal authority in reference to these matters, I think it is a pity that the Government have not agreed to an appeal to the county court rather than to the Local Government Board. I desire to place on record my strong belief that the machinery provided by the Govenment is expensive and inefficient, and that the appeal to the Local Government Board, followed by a local inquiry by an inspector sent down, is a far more cumbrous, expensive, and unwieldly procedure than an appeal to a county court judge sitting in the neighbourhood, always available, and accustomed to deal with similar matters in dis- 448 pute between landlord and tenant. I am, personally, confident that that part of the Government scheme is thoroughly bad and unsatisfactory.
I am very glad the Government have adhered to their proposal that the medical officer of health should be irremovable, and I think, also, it is right that he should take his orders from the local authority and not from the Local Government Board. The only other point I desired to mention was the question of the taking of land in an urban area. On the whole, the compromise does not seem to me to be an unfair one on the matter in dispute. It is quite true that in the taking of rural land involving a comparative small amount of money one does not want to make inquiry into that so expensive as to put an end to improvements which we all desire. As for the actual variation from the Port of London terms, my impression is that it is more apparent than real. I do not withdraw from anything I have said as to the very unsuitable character of the original Small Holdings Schedule. I believe that to be in many respects defective, and, sooner or later, it will have to be altered. But I recognise that the fact that it has been accepted in the small holdings case makes it very difficult for the Government to depart from it at this time in subsequent legislation. The only other thing I desire to say is that personally I am extremely glad that there is no chance of this Bill perishing. It might have been very much better. In many respects it is defective. But I believe it is a Bill which moves in the right direction, and some of its provisions are certainly very valuable. I should have deeply regretted any action on the part of the Government that would have made it impossible for their Bill to become law. I am extremely glad that wiser counsels prevailed on each side, and that we have arrived at a compromise which, though it is not in all respects satisfactory, at any rate has the supreme merit of having prevented the loss of this Bill.
Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and to Commons Consequential Amendments to the Bill, and Lords Consequential Amendment to the Bill, and Lords Amendments in lieu of Amendments disagreed to by Commons agreed to.
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendent disagreed to by the Lords not insisted upon and Lords Amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.