§ As amended in Committee, Considered.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESSmoved the following Clause:—
§ (Dispensing with statutory obligations in connection with works under Part III. of the principal Act.)
§ "Any local authority in connection with the exercise by them of their powers under Part III. of the principal Act may, with the consent of the Local Government Board and subject to such conditions (if any) as the Board may impose on giving their consent, dispense with any obligation of the local authority or any other person to comply with any local Act, Provisional Order, or Order having the effect of an Act, or any bye-law, regulation, or other provision, under whatever authority made, which is in operation in the area in which the local authority are exercising any of their powers under Part III. of the principal Act, but nothing in this Section shall confer upon any local authority power to dispense with the provisions of the London Building Acts, 1894 to 1905, or any Act amending the same, or any bye-laws or regulations in force there-under without the consent of the London County Council."
§ The new Clause which I propose respecting the statutory obligation in connection with the work under Part III. of the principal Act is put forward at the instance of 1636 the London County Council. Clause 23 of this Bill allows the Local Government Board, in an improvement scheme under Part I. of the Act, or in a reconstruction scheme under Part II. of the Act, to dispense with the obligation to comply with any local Act, Provisional Order, or Order having the effect of an Act or bye-law. These clearance schemes are so costly that they are becoming more and more uncommon, and it is gradually becoming recognised that the solution of the housing problem is not to be found in the enormously costly demolition of insanitary properties, but rather in the provision of new housing in the outskirts of towns. For this reason Part III. of the original Act is gradually obtaining far greater importance than it has had in the past. In the case of London the county council has acquired large estates in the suburbs, and is thus coping with those parts of the housing problem which are not satisfactorily dealt with by private enterprise, and I think that it is doing a very good work in providing cheaper accommodation. But, of course, in providing this kind of accommodation three pence a week in rent makes a very large difference, and unfortunately the task of the central authority in London is very much hampered in providing this accommodation in the outskirts of London, owing to the conflicting bye-laws which are found in force in the various urban districts which surround London. Apparently some of these urban districts are anxious to prevent the working class accommodation being put up in their areas. They find that the working class accommodation is of only a very low rateable value, and they wish to avoid those services, educational and otherwise, which are necessarily far more costly where you get a large amount of working class accommodation. I would like to impress upon the President of the Local Government Board that there is a very strong tendency in a great many of these communities to discourage by every means in their power the erection of working class dwellings. I could give you instances not only of bye-laws but of other methods which have been adopted to try to prevent any property of a low rateable value being put up in different districts. These outlying districts are too often ready to share in the prosperity of London, but they are anxious to shirk their part in meeting the cost of providing for the large industrial population which is seeking accommodation. I can give two instances of how these bye-laws discourage building. In the case 1637 of Croydon there is a bye-law which lays down that the minimum space in the rear of a working class tenement must be 500 square feet. At Edmonton where the county council have also had experience of housing, the regulation is only 150 square feet, and 150 square feet is allowed under certain conditions under the London Building Act. The result of the Croydon bye-law, in regard to a great many plots of land makes it absolutely impossible to build working class accommodation at reasonable rents. If you get a shallow plot of land you cannot get 500 square feet at the back, except at the sacrifice of an enormous frontage, making the cottage so wide that the frontage value increases and makes remunerative houses absolutely impossible at rents which are paid by the working classes. I can give you another instance of the effect of these bye-laws in hampering building. At Tottenham, and also under the London Building Acts, if there is only one opening in the external wall, the separation between the pair of lettings, the pair of separate cottages, may be a half-brick wall. Of course, it is becoming more and more common to build these cottages in pairs. You cheapen your construction very materially by having these half-brick walls and having one entrance through the external wall and by building the roof in one. But in the Croydon district this provision is impossible, because the regulation there lays it down that every cottage must be separated from the neighbouring cottage by a nine inch brick wall, which is to be carried up not only to but through the roof. Of course that means an enormously increased cost in building besides meaning an increased frontage owing to the larger width of the wall. I could point to very extraordinary discrepancies between building bye-laws with regard to drainage, with regard to the width of the streets, with regard to the distances between cross roads, and with regard to the making of the roads. All those enormously hamper the building in certain districts round London.
§ The new Clause which I have put down would give power to the Local Government Board to suspend those bye-laws, and to allow the local authority to dispense with them in cases where the Local Government Board thinks it necessary, subject to any condition which they may impose. I have copied the wording from Clause 23, which applies to Parts I. and II. of the Act of 1890. If this provision is considered safe in those parts, which are of far less 1638 importance, I think we may safely ask that the same provision be extended to Part III. The real object is to get the building bye-laws relaxed. As originally drawn Clause 23 would also have allowed the Local Government Board to suspend general Acts of Parliament, but I think that is going too far. It is quite enough even if the right hon. Gentleman will take the power to relax the building bye-laws in special cases. Those bye-laws have to be approved by the Local Government Board, and as that authority is trusted to make them I do not think it is too much to ask that they should also be trusted to vary them where it is proved to be in the interests of cheap housing. When I moved this Clause in the Standing Committee I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly appreciated its real object. If he had, I do not think he would have opposed it in the way he did. The Clause did meet with a certain amount of support in the Standing Committee, and I hope, now that the right hon. Gentleman has had time to think it over, he may see his way to accept it. I think he would have accepted it at the Standing Committee if he had realised its object, because the whole tendency of the Government on that Committee was to greatly increase the powers of the Local Government Board. In the Bill the Local Government Board have been made the arbiters of the rights and privileges of a very large section of the population, and I think in this case the Local Government Board can safely be entrusted to vary those bye-laws which they themselves have set up, and that the right hon. Gentleman would be very well advised to accept this new Clause. I can assure him by so doing he will very much facilitate the provision of cheap and healthy accommodation in the outskirts of London and other large towns.
§ Mr. W. R. PEELI beg to second the Clause. I do urge this provision upon the Government, because, of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows the enormous difficulty there is in providing a cheap class of houses for those persons least able to provide for themselves and least able to take advantage of private enterprise. It is, of course, true of all local authorities, as it is of landlords, when they are building houses for the working classes, that their natural tendency is to slip in a provision for better class houses with a higher rent, for several reasons. First of all, the natural desire of either landlord or local authority is to have an attractive 1639 set of buildings to which they can point with some sort of pride, and also to have tenants of a higher class, and far better and more reliable tenants than the lower class tenants who change and shift more rapidly; and also so that they can show a better balance sheet at the end of the year. As my hon. Friend has suggested, in London, as in other great towns, it is practically impossible to provide this sort of housing accommodation within the area of London itself. The building of working class houses, either under Improvement Acts or under Parts I. and II., is becoming more and more impossible as more and more land is being cleared in the centre and other parts for manufacturing and other purposes. This enthusiasm of course for housing Londoners is not shared, and is very naturally not shared, by local authorities outside London. Take the area for instance of what is called Greater London. There are something like 140 local authorities within that area. Their building bye-laws vary enormously, and moreover they themselves have no desire to have within their areas or localities great masses of working class houses at a low rent for which they have to provide very large sums in schools and in other ways. It is not, I think, unfair to suggest that they are not, anyhow, likely to go out of their way to place facilities in the hands of the London authority to set up rows of working class houses in large areas in their particular localities. I quite admit that at first sight it seems rather a large order to ask for this suspension. One can only do it because of the pressure of necessity, and because of the situation in which a large city like London is placed of having to plant out or migrate its people beyond its own borders. After all, the whole tendency, both of Government legislation and of the efforts of local authorities, in locomotion and otherwise, is to carry people outside there own areas; but it is no use doing that if proper accommodation cannot be provided for them. Hence, although I feel that it is possibly asking a great deal, yet, when it is remembered that in the proposal itself the rights of local authorities are safeguarded by the Local Government Board, that the discretion for the suspension rests with the Local Government Board, that, as we know from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Local Government Board can do no wrong, and that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, all 1640 matters connected with local government had better be entrusted to the President of the Local Government Board than be dealt with by such inferior bodies as local authorities, I feel that it will be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to deny that his Department would only exercise the right of suspension with great discretion, and that those interested in local authorities outside London would be perfectly safe in placing this power of occasional suspension in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. I trust, therefore, that this request will be granted, in order to facilitate the end of cheap housing for the poorest people outside London, with which I know the right hon. Gentleman deeply sympathises, but which is constantly made more difficult by the varying, tiresome, and hindering regulations of many local authorities. I beg to second the Clause.
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns)The Government cannot accept this Amendment, generally for the reasons stated before the Standing Committee when the matter was there discussed. Apart from those reasons, which it is unnecessary to go into to-day, the hon. Member (Mr. Guinness) stated that this Clause was moved practically for the relief of the London County Council. I have listened to a number of speeches on housing which he has made in this House and in Standing Committee, but I never heard a claim put forward with so few arguments and so little evidence in its support as the hon. Member has adduced to-day. The proposal is that the London County Council shall, subject to the Local Government Board, be able to suspend all the existing bye-laws and regulations which are very properly imposed upon it and all other local authorities. The reason suggested is that in one or two instances—it only applies to London—where the county council has been allowed to build outside its own administrative area, namely, at Norbury, Tottenham, and Edmonton, it has come into conflict with the local authority for doing things which in the judgment of the local authority were not in the interests of public health, safety, and protection from fire. The hon. Member does not suggest that the action of Tottenham was unreasonable, nor that Croydon had been arbitrary to any great degree. He asks that immediately the London County Council goes outside its own administrative area it shall, subject to the consent of the Local Government 1641 Board, set aside all bye-laws and regulations. Having asked that, which I think is unreasonable, the hon. Member does a thing which really surprises me, seeing the hon. Members sitting around him. He wants to put upon the Local Government Board the arbitrary power, which I have been accused of accepting too often, not only of being the confirming authority, which we are now, for bye-laws when drafted, not only of being the advisory body, which we now are, before the bye-laws assume their final shape, but also of being the supreme authority to veto all bye-laws and regulations affecting the public health whenever a powerful body like the London County Council asks us so to do. Let us see the danger of that.
What is the London County Council doing at this moment? Through the hon. Member it is asking that the Local Government Board should suspend all bye-laws and regulations when it goes into the area of an outside authority. Recently it had done another thing: it has asked me to dispense with its obligation to build on land which it had acquired through Parliament for the purpose of properly housing people of the working classes who could not be accommodated within its area. I say that that is unreasonable. The reason adduced by the hon. Member is that in one or two instances there have been objections taken. Let me deal with those objections. The hon. Member surprised me. He belongs to a body of Gentlemen who have been associated with some fairly good schemes for housing the working classes. To-day he suggests almost with horror that it is unreasonable for a local authority to demand that a 4½ineh wall should be abandoned and a nine-inch substituted. It is not re-housing the working classes either in or outside London to take them from the mean streets of Shoreditch or Hoxton to equally mean streets in Tottenham, Norbury, Edmonton, or elsewhere. It is merely reproducing the evil in a worse form, without the justification of dear land which prevails in London, to house these people under cheap and nasty conditions, with 4½ inch brick walls, and the wall not going through the roof as it ought to do. I was a member of the Fire Brigade Committee of London for 18 years, and, from the point of view of fire alone, in my judgment, when you are beginning to house the working classes de novo, where land is relatively cheap, you have no right to ask for a 4J-inch partition instead of the one brick which the Totten- 1642 ham, Norbury, and Edmonton people have very properly demanded.
So much for the diminution of the brick and the matter of the roof. What is the objection they have? It is a trivial objection. Any architect knows that for fire the wall right through is an advantage, as everybody knows that for the sake of comfort and of hearing too much of what a neighbour does in these days of cheap pianos and those instruments that are mechanically propelled, to the anger of people who like quietude and repose, we ought not to have a four-inch wall. I should like to see some of the hon. Members after they had been working, say, 16 to 18 hours a day on a London omnibus or in an underground bakehouse, going home to Tottenham, Edmonton, or Nor-bury, to hear one of these gramophone instruments going with only a four-inch wall between! The hon. Member objected to as arbitrary that every letting should be separated by a nine-inch wall.
I had the pleasure of seeing some of these places on Saturday and Sunday at Walthamstow. In these days of every convenience for the working classes, where two tenements with one opening—but two doors, a separate entrance to each—where, as a matter of convenience and economy, you have these arrangements, it is advantageous that the partition between the two, where there is one front door, you should have at least a 9-inch brick wall. Now I come to his last objection—as to procedure. The hon. Member begins at the wrong end. He should have read the lesson from the history of past Local Government Boards. He wants such regulations to be issued and to be suspended. But is it not a better way to do what we are now doing? That is that when a local authority plans out a new area for building under this Bill—I am glad to say that it will be a Town Planning as well as a Housing Bill—when that local authority roads a district, drains, make streets, and lights it, what happens now is this: The local authority prepares a set of model bye-laws. Rural areas have rural bye-laws; Urban areas have urban bye-laws. The County Council, under both their Building Acts and special housing conditions, plus the Act of 1890 as amended, has also wider powers than either of these two. What happens is this: These bye-laws and regulations setting out the thickness of the walls, the size of the lamps, the fall of the drainage, the construction of the roof, the protection from fire, and for safety generally, are submitted to the Local 1643 Government Board. The Local Government Board can either approve or refuse to approve of them. When the refusal is sent the local authority probably adapts itself to the suggestions offered. Now what my hon. Friend wants is that the whole of this procedure should be abandoned, and that regulations, accounted reasonable and effective, should be set aside at the whim or caprice of the President of the Local Government Board, who, anxious though he is in some matters where whims and caprices are not concerned, where the safety of the public, and the health of the community is, is not disposed to undertake such arbitrary power. I would ask the House of Commons to support us in this view.
If the London County Council is so fond of housing as has been suggested, it should be a model and exemplar to outside authorities in its regulations for building, for safety and protection from fire, and immunity from disease. And it is because in one or two instances there has been a conflict between Norbury and another local authority and the county council architect, that this is suggested. The better view is that the Local Government Board ought—as in both instances they have done their best to do—not by exercising arbitrary power that is sought to be imposed upon them, but by distributing sweet reason to the local authorities, bring about a much more harmonious feeling than has recently prevailed. I can assure the House that this proposal would put upon the Government an immense amount of extra work. Plans and estimates that should be left to the local authorities would have to be examined, and the individual merits of each house, and the local circumstances of every housing scheme would necessitate a large increase in staff, and such a possible exercise of arbitrary authority that I, for my part, think that Parliament has no right to trust us with. I rather suspect that that is not altogether the reason, but because there has been a paltry little disagreement between Norbury and the county council, which might have been got over in a better way than that suggested by this Amendment. Anxious as I am, and as our Department is, to do its very best to leave to the local authorities, including London, in the important matter of housing all possible powers, I believe this Amendment would not have that effect, but that it would be the means of reproducing the mean streets and cheap and 1644 nasty houses which have not only prevailed in London, but in many of the outside parishes. Instead of encouraging good houses it would tend to make suburban slums, and therefore we cannot support the Amendment.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I inquire whether it will be possible for me to move the Clause standing in my name, beginning "If the Local Government Board is satisfied by local inquiry or otherwise," if this Clause is negatived? If so it would possibly be more convenient for me to make such observations as I have to make on the present Clause.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe two Clauses seem to deal with matters somewhat similar, but I think there is a very clear distinction between them. Therefore I will call upon the Noble Lord when his Clause is reached.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am extremely glad to be able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said, that the whims and caprices of the President of the Local Government Board should not have effect over the lives and property of his fellow-citizens. I do not know whether his sudden conversion to that doctrine has anything to do with the few remarks that I happened to make nine or ten days ago. I have no desire or wish to be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, but I ventured to point out that he was constituting himself emperor over the lives and property of his fellow subjects, and that the whims and caprices—though I did not venture to put it in those words—were really going to be, if this Bill became law, all-powerful over the members of the community. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes down, and, in response to the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend, says, "Oh, no, I cannot accept this new Clause, for, if I do, the whims and caprices of the President of the Local Government Board would have effect over every Act of Parliament, and over every other authority; and it is a bad thing. The President of the Local Government Board ought not to be entitled to such power." Very well; but I regret that I cannot support this Amendment. What does this new Clause do? It is a further example of the evil effects which will result if this Bill becomes law. If this Bill becomes law the President of the Local Government Board will have very great powers. What has been the result of that suggestion? The London 1645 County Council, seeing that this great power is going to be conferred on the President of the Local Government Board, says, "Why should not we have the same powers?" There you have the force of bad example!
My hon. Friend says he copied his Clause from Part II. of the Bill, but that only emphasises what I am saying about the evil effect of the legislation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman which is bearing fruit. Even before the Bill has become law the county council, following the bad example set by the right hon. Gentleman, are saying Acts of Parliament are all very well, but the will of the London County Council must prevail. The county council are superior to the House of Commons, and know much more about the people, and anything they desire to be done should be done without further bother. It is true they say there is a controlling authority, and that they must get the permission of the President of the Local Government Board, but how long would it be if this Clause were carried before my two hon. Friends came down to the House, and said. "We have come to the conclusion that the London County Council know more about these matters than the President of the Local Government Board. After all, if we desire that there should be four-and-a-half-inch brick walls between different houses, who is to say nay; we know better than anybody else." Four-and-a-half-inch brick walls are excellent things, provided no one leans against them. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches would support that because it would make work for the unemployed; the walls having fallen down they would have to be built up again. I would ask the House of Commons to learn something from this lesson before them. From the moment this pernicious Bill came before the House everyone who wants to do something comes down and says, "Let me do this thing without any controlling authority from anybody else." I believe one of the great events of the age is that people, to whatever class they belong—I make no invidious distinction—desire to be free from authority, and desire to work their own sweet will. We begin with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, then we come a little lower down to the London County Council. Later we shall have the district councils, and later on again it will be the parish councils. I hope the House will pause before sanctioning a Bill of this sort, and that in voting against the Clause 1646 of my hon. Friend they will also vote against all similar clauses.
§ Mr. J. D. REESI congratulate the President of the Local Government Board that he did, with his usual robust common-sense, like Julius Cæsar, to whom the hon. Baronet compared him, putting away a kingly crown. Having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's official station and his position in regard to this class of legislation, it is all the more creditable that he declines to take upon himself those arbitrary powers. I do think the Clause put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite is distinctly a large order, and however meritorious the object of the London County Council, this Motion would give it a power which I think is rather beyond anything it ought to claim.
§ Mr. PEELIt is not the power it claims; the power is with the President of the Local Government Board.
§ Mr. REESYes; but the result would be the county council would be able to get greater power into its hands as compared with other bodies. I understand the President of the Local Government Board so stated, and for my part I so understood it. That is a state of things which is viewed with considerable alarm. It is felt that the local bodies around Greater London would be much better able to manage their own affairs than the London County Council or the Local Government Board, however great their confidence in the President might be. I think these powers should be restricted as far as possible. The hon. Member for Hackney complained yesterday that the House is sitting into September, which he very much depreciated on account of the plague of lawyers. The grasshopper becomes a burden at this time of year, and the Session becomes an obsession. We should, I think, all combine to let the President of the Local Government Board get his good Bill through, and the last thing we ought to do is to enter upon new clauses and new legislation. I could not understand fully what the President of the Local Government Board said about repeating these street slums in Greater London. It seems to me there is a disposition on the part of the local authorities to build houses that are far too expensive and grand for the people who are to inhabit them. I have often seen slums pulled down in which people could afford to live in order to put up other buildings in which they cannot afford to live, and as the object is to enable people to live that does not seem 1647 to me to be providing satisfactorily for the housing of the working classes. I am very strongly of opinion the President of the Local Government Board exercised the robust common-sense he always displays in refusing to accept the new Clause.
§ Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERmoved, latter Clause 63, to insert the following Clause:—
§ Saving of Existing Rights.
§ "Subject to the provisions of any scheme made under this part of this Act, all powers given by this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by Act of Parliament, law, or custom, and such other powers may be exercised in the same manner as if this Act had not passed."
§ The object of this Clause is to save existing rights. In most great cities, like Manchester and Liverpool and other places, they have special power in regard to town planning, and it is very desirable that there should be no doubt that these powers given by Parliament should be left intact. I beg to move that the Clause be read a second time.
§ Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHURI second the Motion.
§ Mr. BURNSThe hon. Member probably did not notice when he put this Amendment down that it applies both to housing and town planning. In no case could we exempt housing. When this Bill becomes law I trust that the consolidation of all the housing of the working classes Acts, including this Bill, will be placed, so far as housing is concerned, in a general statute. Therefore we cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. Member suggests that we should accept the latter portion of this Amendment, so as to safeguard the rights of local authorities who have already secured town planning Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member represents himself one of the Divisions of Liverpool which I believe is the only authority which has promoted what, by any stretch of the imagination, can be called a town planning scheme. Consequently the general reasons he advances for the acceptance of this Amendment, on the ground that existing rights should be secured, are not quite so universal as he implies. Even with regard to town planning, we do not think that this 1648 is at all necessary, because when this particular Bill becomes law and the various Clauses and Schedules are set into operation, it stands to reason that any town planning scheme that might he put forward under this Bill would in no sense invalidate Liverpool's rights, and I see no reason why we should make this a Liverpool relief Bill any more than we should make it a London relief Bill by the acceptance of the previous Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, and if he is under the impression that the rights of Liverpool are in any way assailed by this Bill, although I do not think they are, I shall be pleased between now and another place to consult with the hon. Member to consider whether he has not exaggerated the effect of this Bill upon Liverpool. This measure in no way invalidates the rights of Liverpool, and it would be a dangerous precedent to establish a special exemption departing from what we consider to be a good common-sense plan adapted to the growth and improvement of our large towns and cities. For these reasons I ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.
§ 1.0 P.M.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILApparently the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind not to accept any Amendment, however reasonable it may be. Surely the Clause suggested is one which cannot interfere with or militate against the objects of this Bill. This Clause merely provides for what is almost a common form in legislation of this description, namely, that the rights conferred by this Bill should be in addition to and hot in derogation of rights and powers already conferred. Surely the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must see that provision ought to be made to prevent this Bill interfering with schemes which are already in operation. I hope the Government do not desire to interfere in that way. It is better to provide on the face of the Bill that the rights conferred by previous legislation shall not be invalidated by this Bill. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this proposal. The President of the Local Government Board began his speech by saying that he desired to consolidate the Housing Acts. Of course every Minister desires to consolidate Acts, but it takes an immense amount of time to get consolidating Acts through Parliament, because the the moment you attempt to consolidate the 1649 opportunity will be seized in order to make various improvements which are desirable in the interests of the public in the Housing Acts. It is quite possible that there will be no further consolidation of these Acts for another 10 or 15 years, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that has been our experience in the past. I press upon the House the desirability of accepting this Clause. It will effect a clear improvement of the Bill, and no kind of reason has been given by the Government against it. Let me ask hon. Members to read the terms of the new Clause which has been proposed by my hon. Friend. The words are: "Subject to the provisions of any scheme made under this part of this Act, all powers given by this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers conferred by Act of Parliament, law, or custom, and such other powers may be exercised in the same manner as if this Act had not passed." Can anything be more reasonable or more desirable in the interests of good housing legislation? I hope the House will accept this proposal, and, if not, I trust my hon. Friend will proceed to a Division.
§ Mr. BURNSIn so far as this Amendment applies to town planning, I am prepared to accept the substance of it, and between now and another place I will take care that, so far as it relates to town planning, I shall be pleased to meet the hon. Member.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERWith that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe next two Amendments, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Summerbell), are beyond the scope of this Bill. With regard to the first Clause, standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), the words, "shall be exempt from the operation of this Act," seem to be rather wide, and might exempt them from rating. The second Amendment, in the name of the hon. Baronet, is beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand that unless the Clause I propose is carried, the Bill would amend the law as to rating, 1650 and my Amendment is to leave the law of rating in the same position as it is now.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn that case the hon. Baronet's Amendment is in order.
§ Sir F. BANBURYmoved the following Clause:—
§ Abatement of Bate Payable by Occupiers of Land Used for Public Purposes or of Land Covered with Water.
§ "As regards any rate levied under or for the purposes of this Act, or any increase made under the authority or for the purposes of this Act in any rate, the occupier of any land used as a canal or towing-path for the same or railway constructed under the powers of any Act of Parliament for public conveyance or the occupier of any land covered with water shall be assessed in respect of the same in proportion of one-fourth only of the annual value thereof."
§ This new Clause would leave the matter of assessment for rating as it is now, and my belief is that unless it is adopted an alteration will be made in the manner in which railway and canal companies are assessed. If I am wrong in that there is no reason why this Clause should not be adopted, because it will leave the law exactly in the same position as it was before the Bill was introduced. Hallway companies in many rural parishes own the greater part of the property assessable for rating, and, in some oases, 80 and 90 per cent, of the rates are paid by railway companies. They have, however, no power over the expenditure in the different areas in which they are rated, having no persons to look after their interest, either upon the district council, the county council, or the parish council, and it seems to me hard that the President of the Local Government Board, especially with regard to the enormous expenditure which will be entailed by this scheme, should propose to alter the law which says a railway company shall only be charged on a fourth of the assessment. I do not want to gain any advantage for railway or canal companies, but merely to have the law left in the same state as it is now. We have for many years been promised a Bill dealing entirely with the law of rating all over the country, and when that Bill comes it may be right to deal with the present manner of assessing railway companies; but, until it does come, it is not just that one particular form of property should be singled out and an alteration made in the law of rating as regards it.
1651§ Lord ROBERT CECILWould the hon. Baronet kindly explain which Clause in the Bill proposes to alter the form of rating of railway companies?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am sorry I cannot tell my Noble Friend for the moment. The solicitors of the railway companies who are managing the matter are of opinion that the Bill would alter the law; but, if they are wrong, this new Clause would have no effect, and it cannot therefore be held to be a bad Clause.
§ Mr. ABEL SMITHseconded the Clause.
§ Mr. BURNSI am sorry I cannot accept the new Clause. I will tell the House briefly why we cannot support it. The new Clause moved by the hon. Baronet does not affect the law either of assessment or rating in respect of railway companies except in rural areas, but it would, if carried, confer a partial exemption in favour of land in rural districts used for railways, canals, etc. They would only be assessed at one-fourth of their value. The existing law is briefly this: Under Section 65 of the Act of 1890 the expenses in connection with housing are defrayed as follows: The London County Council defray the expenses out of the Improvement Fund, levied upon all ratepayers, including the railways, which pay their full share. If there is any deficiency, it comes out of the county fund, to which the railways also contribute, with other ratepayers, on their proper scale. In London, therefore, any deficiency or expenses incurred by the county council practically comes out of the poor rate. In the City of London it comes out of the general rate, and in the Metropolitan boroughs it comes out of the general rate, which is equivalent to the poor rate. In boroughs and other urban districts railways and canals pay on a fourth towards expenses incurred under the Public Health Act. The expenses of a council of a rural district are defrayed as special expenses under the Public Health Act, and the railways pay on a fourth, but the county council can make those special expenses general. The Bill proposes to repeal—
§ Sir F. BANBURYWould the night hon. Gentleman say to which Clause he refers?
§ Mr. BURNSClause 32, Sub-section (1). The Bill proposes to repeal the provisions of the principal Acts as regards the ex- 1652 penses of rural district councils, and make them general expenses, unless the Local Government Board declare them to be special. It is well that we should go a little further, because I think we may come to a rough agreement. The general expenses of a rural district council are paid out of the poor rate. The special expenses are met by a special rate, to which the railways pay on a fourth only. We think the proposal in the Bill to make what are special expenses general expenses and to give to the Local Government Board power in rare instances to make them special, is the best way out of the difficulty. We have to face this fact, and it is well railways should recognise it. Railways, I am glad (to say, are increasing, owing in no small way to competition, adapting themselves to cheaper and more rapid transit all over the country. For everything that makes for that desirable end the House of Commons and the public generally, I think, are grateful to the railway companies. But the effect of doing that is this: Very frequently when a railway constructs a branch line or an extension, and carries it into a new area, any housing scheme carried on in that, new area cannot be confined to one special area. The special expenses in that case I think should be allocated generally. It does seem unfair that where a railway company goes into a new area and is interested commercially in the development of that area it ought, to the extent that it goes into that area, to meet public demands and convenience and be put in precisely the same position as any other ratepayers in the area in meeting the public health expenses of that area. We consider that where you have a growing township made by a railway which is deriving benefit, where it is divided into four or five parishes with rateable or assessable units it ought to be a general expense, and not a special expense on any one particular parish, and it is because of that we ask for this amendment of the law. We follow it up by frankly saying that where circumstances are such that the general should be converted into the special the railway company have the knowledge, ability and experience to represent their views in the right quarter, so that the idea that they are likely to suffer under this provision is purely illusory. Because we want to make the expenses under this Bill generally applicable to everybody we cannot see our way to give the railway company that exemption from the general law which the hon. Baronet so soundly backed 1653 me up in refusing to the London County Council. For this reason we must resist the proposal of the hon. Baronet.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI quite recognise that this is a very difficult question to settle: the question where, and to what extent, there should be an exemption. But I am not quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has given sufficient weight to the general grounds on which railway companies are exempt in rural areas. As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, it constantly happens that an enormous proportion of the rates are paid by railway companies which happen to have a line running through a parish. It may be as much as seven-eighths or nine-tenths of the whole rate is paid by a company. Under these circumstances there is something to be said for the railway company, seeing that if a rural district council is going to launch out into expense of an experimental character, which may or may not be of advantage to the district, there ought to be some limitation of liability on the part of the company. I suppose that was the original reason why
§ the one-fourth was allowed. As a matter of fact, owing to anomalies in the conditions of rating, it constantly happens that while the railway company pays the great bulk of the rates in a rural district, it has no voting power and no control over the expenditure; therefore it is not unreasonable, under these circumstances, that it should be, to some extent, exempted from the rating. There is, too, the other reason-to be advanced, and that is that the railway company is discharging a duty to the public as much as the rural district council. While I am ready to support my hon. Friend in many of his proposals, I hope-he will not press this to a Division, because I am sure the President of the Local Government Board will give the matter careful consideration on its merits, and, should he come to the conclusion that some modification is desirable, will deal with the question between now and the appearance of the Bill in another place.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 95.
1655| Division No. 630]. | AYES. | [1.20 p.m. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Fell, Arthur | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Stanier, Beville |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | M'Arthur, Charles | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Moore, William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Parkes, Ebenezer | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley | F. Banbury and Mr. Walter Guinness. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lupton, Arnold |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Fullerton, Hugh | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gulland, John W. | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Beale, W. p. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Massie, J. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hart-Davies, T. | Mooney, J. J. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morse, L. L. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon, R. R. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Myer, Horatio |
| Cleland, J. W. | Henry, Charles S. | Nicholls, George |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hogan, Michael | Partington, Oswald |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pointer, J. |
| Crossley, William J. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Cullinan, J. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rees, J. D. |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) | Jowett, F. W. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Joyce, Michael | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dillon, John | Kekewich, Sir George | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Elibank, Master of | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lambert, George | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lament, Norman | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Falconer, J. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Findlay, Alexander | Lewis, John Herbert | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wintrey, R. |
| Summerbell, T. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Walters, John Tudor | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey. |
| Waring. Walter | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
§ Lord ROBERT CECILmoved the following Clause:—
§ Power to Local Government Board to Revoke Unreasonable Bye-laws.
§ "(1) If the Local Government Board is satisfied by local inquiry or otherwise that the erection of dwellings for the working classes within any county district is unreasonably impeded by the building bye-laws and regulations in force in the district, the Board may require the local authority to amend the same. And if the local authority does not within three months after such requisition amend such bye-laws and regulations so as to render them free from unreasonable restrictions, the Local Government Board may revoke the existing bye-laws and regulations and put in force within the district bye-laws and regulations in accordance with the requirements of this Section.
§ "(2) In bye-laws and regulations to be made under the Public Health Acts or this Act with reference to the erection of dwellings for the working classes, reasonable latitude shall be allowed as to materials and methods of construction, having special regard to the materials or method of construction available or ordinarily employed in the district. But it shall be essential to provide therein for protection against damp and the risk of fire, for the free access of light and air, and for the licensing of temporary detached structures to meet special local requirements in connection with small holdings or otherwise."
§ The object of this Clause is twofold. In the first place it gives the Local Government Board, after a local inquiry, power to revoke unreasonable bye-laws—that is to say, bye-laws which unreasonably restrict the erection of dwellings for the working classes. The second part of the Clause provides that in bye-laws and regulations reasonable latitude shall be allowed as to materials and methods of construction, but that it shall be essential to provide for protection against damp and risk of fire, for the free access of light and air, and for the licensing of temporary detached structures to meet special local requirements. As to the first part of the Clause, I venture to think that the President of the Local Government Board will not be altogether without sympathy with that proposition. A somewhat similar sug- 1656 gestion was made at an earlier stage of the Bill, but this is essentially different from that in several respects. In the first place, it is not urged particularly with respect to one particular local authority; and in the second, it does not provide for an exemption for existing bye-laws, but for the revocation of any unreasonable ones, which will then have to be re-enacted according to the existing statutes. I do think that there really is a very serious grievance to be met with reference to existing bye-laws. At present the condition of the law is this: Bye-laws once made cannot, so far as I know, be revoked at all by any means, except possibly, I am not quite sure, whether they can be revoked by the authority that made them, but there is no other means of getting rid of them at all, and that has turned out to be in several cases a very serious impediment to the building, particularly of cottages for labourers in country districts. We are all familiar with the kind of dispute which has taken place. There was a celebrated one in which one of the learned judges was concerned, and in which the bye-law required plans to be deposited before any such building was erected. The learned judge, I think, himself drew upon a bit of paper what he conceived to be necessary for what was proposed to be done, but the local authority said they were bound under their bye-laws to have proper plans prepared by a builder or architect. It is obvious that that kind of impediment will enormously increase the cost of building in rural districts.
§ It is not really a desirable thing at all, and there are cases of a serious character where such bye-laws are deliberately kept in force and acted upon for the purpose of benefiting individuals who have special influence with certain members of the local authority. Of course, that does not happen in the case of a big local authority, and I do not suggest for a moment it does, but there are scattered up and down the country certain local authorities who deliberately use their power under their bye laws in order to take care that a particular person or a particular trader shall be employed for the benefit of those who have influence with the local authority. I do not want to labour this unnecessarily, but I remember another case which came under my own notice, where it was pro- 1657 posed to build a row of four or five cottages in a field hundreds of yards away from any other habitation. The cottages were to be built in order to secure cheapness, and they were to be of only one storey. No objection was raised, and they were perfectly satisfactory in construction, but it was insisted that every one of those cottages should have a wall carried to the roof with the result that four or five cottages were stuck down in a rural district in that form. It was obvious that the cottages, all having but one floor, if any fire took place all the inhabitants could escape, and that was an unreasonable bye-law enforced unreasonably. It is desirable that there should be some kind of appeal to prevent that kind of unreasonable action on the part of local authorities. I think the President of the Local Government Board has had brought before him, by an association with which he is acquainted, a considerable number of instances of unreasonable bye-laws of that description, and I cannot help thinking that this is really rather a good opportunity to extend the power of the Local Government Board, because it is only extending a power to revoke bye-laws which is already in existence. Of course, when the bye-laws are made they have to receive the assent of the Local Government Board. That is the law at present. Some of these bye-laws have been enacted many years ago under conditions which no longer prevail, or under a state of knowledge which is quite different from the present, and when you get a recalcitrant local authority it seems very desirable to give the Local Government Board power to hold a local inquiry, and after hearing everything that can be said, to revoke the bye-law. In regard to the second part of the Clause it is of much smaller importance, though I should have thought it was desirable generally to lay down some such rule.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERseconded the Motion.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESSI trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Clause. It meets the point which I have urged in a far more satisfactory way than my new Clause, because it will not only relax building bye-laws in favour of local authorities, but of private enterprise as well. That is most necessary if the housing problem is to be solved, The right hon. Gentleman, in objecting to my new Clause, said I ought to have blamed previous Local Government Boards for having created those bye-laws. I think 1658 the case of the revision of bye-laws does not necessarily mean that the bye-laws, when first made, were inadvisable, but only paints to the fact that there have been very great improvements in building methods. At present the London County Council is seeking for very large and important alterations in the London Building Act owing to methods of building which had never been heard of at the time when these Building Acts were first passed. It is, no doubt, the same with many bye-laws which have been passed by the Local Government Board, and no President of the Local Government Board can be so far-seeing as to foretell at the time of approving the bye-laws how construction will be carried out in future, and what modifications may be necessary. Quite apart from that, there are very great advances which have lately been made in the science of town planning, and it is ridiculous now to have to lay down wide pavements in all cases, instead of having green verges and trees by the side of the road. It is an absurdity that in some parts of the suburban districts you must have 50-ft, roads, however short they are and however little importance they may have as means of communication. In Wood Green you must have 50-ft. roads, whereas in the neighbouring districts of Tottenham and Edmonton, where there is already far more traffic, you need only have 40-ft. roads. I believe, if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Clause, it will do far more to encourage the building of houses than all the rest of the Bill put together.
§ Mr. ABEL SMITHIt is essential that steps should be taken to modify bye-laws which unreasonably interfere with the building of houses for the working classes. I agree that the first paragraph of the Clause is really the important one, and I am not sure it would not be better to omit the second paragraph, altogether, so that the Local Government Board may have the power in a general way to deal with bye-laws which are thought unreasonable and which interfere with the construction of cottages, and that it should not be laid down in the Clause that there are any special matters to which their attention should be directed. The questions of material and the methods of construction are important, but there are several other points in which it would be a very good thing if the bye-laws were modified. With regard to protection against damp and the risk of fire, these would be taken as matters 1659 of course, and it would continue to be the duty of the Local Government Board, as at present, to see that such matters as these are properly dealt with in the bye-laws. I think it will be much better to leave general power to revoke bye-laws which are unreasonable, and which interfere with the building of reasonably good cottages at a reasonable cost in both town and country districts.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI hope the right hon. Gentleman will be very careful before he makes a concession on this point, because, whilst there may be some districts where the bye-laws handicap the builders in erecting houses, there are other districts where it would be well if the bye-laws were tightened up considerably. Speaking as one with some practical knowledge of the building trade, I know that in many of the rural districts there is not that careful inspection of houses that there ought to be; and I hope, before accepting the Amendment, the Government will carefully consider the matter. I know that in some of those places where it is suggested that there might be some relaxation, and I do not deny that bye-laws are sometimes extremely harsh, it would simply mean the erection of a cheap and nasty kind of dwelling.
§ Lord R. CECILThat is not the object of the Clause, nor do I think it will be the effect. It only comes into operation where the erection of buildings is unreasonably impeded, and that has to be ascertained by local inquiry and the decision of the Local Government Board, but it does not give power to anyone to build what he likes.
Mr. TYSON WILSONUnreasonable is not a very good word to introduce into legislation, because different views may be taken of the meaning of the word. Whilst agreeing that it is necessary that some relaxation might be made in some districts, the wording of any alteration of the Bill will have to be very carefully thought out, otherwise people who like to take advantage of the bye-laws will do so.
§ Mr. F. MADDISONI agree with the view of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). My hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) on the whole supported the Noble Lord, because the question of inspection does not come in. The official mind is always at war against any new experiment, and the local official mind in the country districts ap- 1660 pears to me to regard any new departure from old-established custom as almost high treason. Confronted with a set of bye-laws, which have been all right under certain circumstances, a person comes along who has got a new idea as to cottages. He is quite prepared to conform to all reasonable conditions required of him. I am sure we are all agreed about that, but he wants to erect the cottages in a different way. There is no possible means by which the official can allow that to be done. The work must be done on the approved lines. He must go along the old path, because the bye-laws are dead against him. I take it that under the new Clause the President of the Local Government Board, whoever he might be, when he had satisfied himself that the fundamental requirements of health were to be observed, would say that it was worth while making the experiment. I believe that experiments are of great value in rural life. The labourer is poorly paid, and we should all like to see that remedied, but still, under present conditions, we want to give him healthy house accommodation at the cheapest possible rate. There may be some obstacles to prevent the President of the Local Government Board from accepting the Amendment, but if there are I hope they will not be the stereotyped Departmental objections. Unless there is some real, good objection, I shall be obliged to support the Noble Lord.
Captain CRAIGThe hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division (Mr. Wilson) expressed himself in favour of tightening up the bye-laws passed in some country districts, and I associate myself with that view. But the hon. Member forgets that this particular Clause would enable the Local Government Board to do that where the tightening up of the bye-laws was necessary to the carrying out of a scheme. The advantage of this Clause would be that it would standardise to a large extent the modern requirements for working class dwellings throughout the country. The difficulty with a great many local authorities is that they have their own stereotyped ideas as to the erection of buildings, sanitary arrangements, and the construction of drains. Take, for instance, the bye-law which insists that all cottages or dwellings must have a nine-inch brick wall between two buildings. Since that bye-law was introduced concrete has come to be used largely in the construction of such houses. Many people consider that it 1661 affords a better protection against the spread of fire. Indeed, as regards strength it is superseding the nine-inch brick wall, and yet under the bye-laws in operation in certain localities concrete would be barred out. The inspectors visiting the various localities would be able to see for themselves what were really the most satisfactory forms of sanitary and drainage arrangements, and by keeping in close touch with the whole country they would naturally be able to render most valuable assistance to local authorities in framing new bye-laws or altering old bye-laws. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison) has pointed out, local authorities in some cases have got into a groove, and no amount of local pressure is sufficient to get them out of it. I have in my mind several instances where localities adhere to old-fashioned methods of carrying off sewage. I know a case where a private individual had a system of drainage put in according to the bye-laws sanctioned by the local authority, and later on he engaged the same contractors to put in a new form of drainage. The very people who did the work 10 or 15 years ago told him that the old system was absolutely out of date, and yet under the bye-laws then existing it would have been impossible for him to have the work done in the up-to-date form. It happens sometimes that bye-laws are approved in local councils by very narrow majorities. The whole council will be only too glad if under this Clause the Local Government Board had power with the knowledge they have at their back to abrogate some of these bye-laws with the view of bringing the arrangements up-to-date. I would suggest to the Noble Lord that he should drop out Sub-section (2) giving details of the subjects in regard to which bye-laws are to be made. It appears to me that the sub-section would render it difficult if not impossible to make bye-laws in future in regard to other matters which might be discovered to be equally important.
§ Mr. BURNSThe subject now before the House is one of general interest. Speaking generally, the Local Government Board associate themselves with the objects sought to be secured by the various Members who have spoken, and it may be well, before I deal with the precise Amendment, that I should ask the House to realise that during the last three or four years, owing to the publicity given to the discussion of this matter in the Press, and 1662 particularly in the technical journals, the local authorities are more reasonable in the matter of preparing bye-laws, and, above all—and this is more important—in abolishing bye-laws which are shown to be unreasonable than they were eight or ten years ago. The question was raised in a most judicial way a few years ago, and I think the general public are extremely indebted to the judge who raised it in a celebrated case, and pointed out very clearly that it was possible for a local authority, in the arbitrary exercise of their powers, to make bye-laws which are not adaptable to the materials used or capable of being assimilated to the local circumstances. It is possible for a local authority to abuse their position, and, not only to impose unnecessary expense, but to inflict on the working class in a locality itself considerable disadvantage by the pedantic way in which they adhere to archaic and what ought to be obsolete rules. This brings us to the practical difficulty which I am as anxious to avoid as any Member who has spoken. Speaking generally, I have done my best, so far as the local authorities are concerned, to suggest to them that the past conditions, to a great extent, have got to be reviewed, that owing to the growth of knowledge and the incoming of new methods and new materials, the existing bye-laws and regulations have got to be reviewed, and that it is necessary to adapt themselves to the new conditions. I am glad to say, and I think that the Noble Lord will agree with me, that great progress has been made in that direction by the Local Government Board taking that particular line. That brings me to the method we shall adopt to bring unreasonable local bodies, and, above all, recalcitrant local bodies, to a sense of justice and reason. That is one of the difficulties that have been disclosed by various speakers. For instance, the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. A. H. Smith) has appealed to the Noble Lord, and I trust not without success, not to press Sub-section (2), on the ground that it goes beyond what the Noble Lord seeks to secure; and I think, if he refers to this stage of the Bill, it would be unreasonable to press it, even if there were a chance of accepting it. That was supported by one of the Irish Members. Further diversity was shown by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, who speaks with direct personal knowledge of house building by virtue of his trade as a carpenter. He urged the Government, whilst meeting proved hard I cases, not to adopt a general rule with 1663 regard to the relaxation of bye-laws; that if such a policy were adopted it would encourage people who wanted bad conditions and cheap and nasty houses with insanitary regulations that have not prevailed for a long time, and to restore conditions the very opposite to those which the Noble Lord desires. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison) that the Local Government Board should take some action in the matter and not adhere too strictly to local rules. To me that advice, though welcome at all times, is rather belated, because immediately I went to the Local Government Board my practical knowledge of building bye-laws and regulations demonstrated to me three or four years ago the need for some action of this kind, and, so far as we can take it by confirmation and approval of bye-laws, we have done so. But though on this point I am rather in advance of many Members who have spoken, yet while providing for cases that it is desirable to deal with I do not want to provide exemptions that will be followed in a large number of bad cases that might occur if a general exemption from bye-laws and regulations were resorted to. What is the way out? The Noble Lord has suggested one or two ways. I do not think that the Noble Lord will admit that public inquiry alone is the only means by which the unreasonableness or otherwise of bye-laws or regulations could be proved. There are about 25,000 local authorities in this country, and nearly everyone of them have something to do with sanitary or public health or building bye-laws and regulations, and obviously we cannot have a public inquiry in every case; and therefore it means that we must have it in a certain number of cases.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWherever a prim â facie case is first made out.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BURNSThe Noble Lord then limits the inquiry to cases in which a primâ facie case is made out for intervention by the Local Government Board for the revision or the revoking of the building bye-laws. There is a great deal of difficulty now as to local authorities revoking their bye-laws. If model or other bye-laws are issued by a local body within two months, it is possible, if exception is taken to them and it is proved to be feasible and reasonable, to revoke them. 1664 That is a considerable advance upon the past practice. I admit it is possible that in some cases provision not only for revision but probably for veto by the central authority might be desirable, and I have done my best to look at this sympathetically. I would like the Noble Lord and others who have spoken to recognise the complexity of this matter, because we should have not only to deal under bye-laws with building regulations, but with public health, and that is a matter for a Public Health Act, which this does not pretend to be. I trust that I may carry the House with me when I make this suggestion, that between now and this Bill reaching another place I will see whether any other process than a public inquiry can be adopted, and I will go even further than that, and if some form of words can be adopted to meet special cases of bye-laws, by giving some additional power to the Local Government Board to revoke or refuse, or if some special method can be devised, to deal with bodies who subject owners, and, incidentally, themselves, to great inconvenience. I will pledge my word to see whether something of that kind cannot be done. The reason I cannot go further than that now is that I am very reluctant in providing for exceptionally bad cases in which owners and the community suffer for the mistakes of their own local authorities, to adopt any rule that will encourage other people to use the exemptions granted as a means of breaking through the building bye-laws and regulations generally. If the Noble Lord will agree to that suggestion I will be only too pleased to carry out the view which I have indicated. Apart from that, there was a Bill brought in in another place by the Noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with whom I had a number of conferences and whose Bill in the main I agreed to support. But we cannot put these matters into this Bill, because the Noble Lord, in another place, agreed with me that if we were to meet this case fully we should have to amend the Housing Bill and run side by side a Public Health Amendment Act dealing with bye-laws and regulations to meet all the cases that the Noble Lord suggested; But beyond what I suggest, I will go so far as to see whether it would not be possible, this Bill pointing the way, to have an Amendment of the Public Health Act and building bye-laws, in so far as they are not touched by this measure, in order to meet a number of other points, apart from those mentioned 1665 this afternoon. If the Noble Lord will accept my pledge, I think it will foe the best way out of the difficulty, which I admit to be apparent, and which ought to be dealt with. I pledge myself to deal with it in the most practicable and efficient way that can be found.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWhile thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic reference to my Noble Friend's Clause, I venture to submit that he has not read it with sufficient closeness. It is a Clause which has been most carefully drawn by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and it gives no powers in regard to exceptional cases. The character of bye-laws and the evil which the Clause is intended to meet are recognised by both sides of the House. Private owners are the best people to build houses on their own estates, but they have been subjected to oppressive and unreasonable bye-laws. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if we would be bound to have a local inquiry.
§ Mr. BURNSI am quite aware that a public inquiry may be supplemented by information obtained by private representation or otherwise; but in a case like the Grantham case, a public inquiry would have to ensue after the reception of the complaint. I am thoroughly conversant with what the Noble Lord seeks to secure, and it is because I am in hearty sympathy with him that I do not want to be bound by the exact words he proposes, in view of difficulties not contemplated by those words, and which I should not be able to provide against if the Noble Lord's proposal were incorporated in the Bill.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, though I am bound to say his remarks sounded as if he thought a local inquiry necessary.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe right hon. Gentleman's second point as to total exemption does not occur in the proposed Clause. It simply gives power for a local inquiry "or otherwise." This Clause simply gives power to the Local Government Board, if they are not satisfied by local inquiry or otherwise, with the unreasonable restrictions imposed by local bye-laws, to deal with the matter themselves. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Clause either here or in another place. I quite agree with him that this Bill goes a long way to meet the evils with which it is intended to deal, but in 1666 regard to other evils which exist, I submit that, with the incorporation of this Clause, the measure would afford a much better chance for the passing' of an amending Bill.
§ Mr. COURTENAY WARNERI desire to speak a word of warning against holding local inquiries. I have had considerable experience in dealing with these bye-laws and the housing of the working classes. A local inquiry held publicly involves the advertising of a public meeting in connection with the inquiry, and it is a bad way in which to collect local information. If you are going to give these powers to the Local Government Board, I think they ought to proceed by way of private inquiry. In the case of a local inquiry accompanied by a public meeting you get all the wordy people of the district to come and give their evidence. I think that is a bad form in which to get information, and, if the Clause is accepted—and I do not see any reason why it should not be—I trust it will be with these words, as to a local inquiry, left out.
§ Lord R. CECILI quite agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtenay Warner) that a publicly advertised notice of a local inquiry is a futile operation, but there is this advantage in a public inquiry—that people cannot say that they have not been afforded the opportunity to be heard. Apart from that, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me that he cannot accept the Clause now, then, of course, I do not wish to press it. But I would suggest that he might take the first part of it and drop the second. If the first part is put in the Bill the principle stands, and if he thinks, after Departmental consideration, that it requires some alteration or amendment, that could be done in another place. We have every confidence in the right hon. Gentleman and his good wishes in the matter, but we feel that it is a great thing to get the principle into the Bill, so that it shall not be overlooked or crushed out. Once it is in, then we are satisfied that something is going to be done; and if this be not the right way;, some modification could foe introduced so that the proper machinery might be introduced. I venture very respectfully to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to grant the insertion of the first paragraph, on the understanding that the matter will be reconsidered by the Department, and that they are not in any way bound to the wording of the machinery, but only to the general principle that some such Clause 1667 should be inserted. I think I may say that such a course would meet with the general acceptance of those who approve of this Clause, and I believe would be a source of great gratification.
§ Mr. BURNSI trust the Noble Lord will not press me in this matter and ask me to go further, after the full and sympathetic response I have made to speeches from all quarters of the House. To insert those words in the first Section of the Bill would prevent my doing what hon. Members are seeking to accomplish, and would retard, if they did not prevent, my effecting that which hon. Members below the Gangway opposite desire. I can assure the Noble Lord I will endeavour to meet the points he has raised.
§ Lord R. CECILAfter the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.