- (1) Where it appears to a local authority that the provision of dwelling accommodation within their area is or is likely to be delayed by a deficiency of labour or materials arising out of the employment of labour or material in the construction of any works or buildings, and that the construction of those works or buildings is in the circumstances of the case of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation, the authority may by Order prohibit for such time and on such terms and subject to such conditions as the Minister may from time to time prescribe, and either in whole or in part, the construction of those works or buildings.
- (2) Any person aggrieved by an Order made by a local authority under this Section may appeal to the Minister, and on any such appeal the Minister shall have power either to annul the Order or to make such Order in the matter as the local authority could have made, and the decision of the Minister in the matter shall be final and not subject to appeal to or review by any Court.
- (3) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of an Order made under this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and if the offence is a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for each day during which the offence continues, and where the person guilty of an offence under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his consent or connivance.
- (4) In any action or proceedings for breach of a contract to construct any works or buildings, it shall be a good defence to the action or proceedings to prove that due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of an Order having been made under this Section.
- (5) In this Section the expression "construction of any works or buildings" includes the making of alterations or additions to existing works or buildings.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word" area" ["within their area"], to insert the words 1552
or the repair of any dwelling-houses therein which are not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.We have now reached the Clause which deals with the prohibition of building operations which interfere with the provision of dwelling-houses. But it seems to me equally important that the repair of dwelling-houses which have become unfit for human habitation should not be interfered with. It would be a great pity to tie the hands of local authorities so that they can only stop unnecessary building when it is actual new building. If any existing houses are out of repair and unfit for human habitation we ought to say that we will not allow unnecessary building to take place until those dwelling-houses have been properly repaired.
§ Dr. ADDISONI think the words are quite unnecessary. The "provision of dwelling accommodation" would cover the repair of dwelling-houses when repair was necessary in order to allow them to be occupied. That would be the provision of dwelling accommodation. What we are seeking to do is to limit—shall I call it luxury building?—so as to get labour for dwelling accommodation.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIf any right hon. Friend assures me that that point is already covered, I have nothing more to say, but I did not know it was covered.
Amendment., by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. T. WILSONI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word" buildings" ["any works or buildings], to insert the words" or dwelling-houses."
We had some doubts in our minds whether the word "buildings" would include" dwelling-houses," or whether it might not cover the erection of large houses—luxury buildings, if you like.
§ Dr. ADDISONI deliberately did not put in the words "dwelling-houses" there, because if I had done so I should have committed myself to distinguishing between different classes of dwelling-houses. I think, too, that if you consider the trivial amount of effort that would be involved in what the hon. Member has in mind, it really is neither here nor there. Houses with more than four bedrooms are urgently wanted, and though we give them no financial assistance, we do not want to prohibit them from being built. It is very desirable that they should be built. What. I want is to prevent the erection of un- 1553 essential house and buildings. I think the word "buildings" is as far as you can fairly go.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. INSKIPI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "of less public importance," and to insert instead thereof the words "less urgent."
It is difficult to decide the relative public importance of two things, and it is very easy to determine which is the more urgent, and I suggest "urgent" is the better word.
§ Dr. ADDISONIf the hon. Member will accept it, I would like to add after "importance" the words" for the time being." I think that really meets his point.
§ Mr. INSKIPIf the right hon. Gentleman thinks that better, he may put it in as far as I am concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "importance" ["public importance"], insert the words "for the time being."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Mr. LORDENI beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "shall" ["the Minister shall"], to insert the words
refer all such cases to a standing tribunal of appeal, to be appointed by the Minister, consisting of three persons, two having technical knowledge or training with an independent chairman who shall.I wish on appeal to substitute a tribunal for the Minister. I do so for two reasons. The first is that the Minister will never be able to deal with these matters himself, because in London alone you will get 5,000 appeals a week for the first five or six weeks. Nobody will be satisfied in the first instance with the decision of the local tribunal, and it is felt that there should be some tribunal set up that should deal exclusively with these matters. I think the Amendment would get rid of something that would be an intolerable nuisance to the Minister, something he could not possibly attend to personally, because there would have to be some evidence in these cases. The tribunal I am suggesting is the same as the tribunal of appeal with regard to the London Building Act. That would be a very simple method of dealing with it. Further, there is this other objection. The local authority are obliged to get, and are desirous of getting, houses. They are a prejudiced authority with re- 1554 gard to houses, and, therefore, no doubt, in their area, these new buildings would get no opportunity of being built if there were any housing scheme within the area. The Minister is in exactly the same position. He has said repeatedly that he is desirous of getting houses, and it seems to me that this is a matter which he could not deal with in a judicial way at all, even if he had the time. I have suggested a way in which the matter might be dealt with. I would limit it to reference of such cases to a standing tribunal of appeal, to be appointed by the Minister. I think such a. tribunal would have to sit almost continuously for some time in order to deal with these cases. I will not press the question of the constitution of the tribunal, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the principle, leaving it to him to carry out the details.
§ Dr. ADDISONI am entirely sympathetic with the purpose of my hon. Friend. I am perfectly certain that the Minister himself would not be able to deal with these cases, and that he would have to set up some machinery. I have already contemplated the setting up of a small tribunal to which such matters would be referred, and I have no objection to putting it in the Bill. I would accept the Amendment with the alteration that the tribunal should consist of five persons. I do not think it can be done with fewer than five, and I have already been considering the question of discussing it with the Joint Industrial Council of the Building Trade. Certainly two members will be required to represent them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after word "shall," insert the words
refer all such cases to a standing tribunal of appeal, to be appointed by the Minister, consisting of five persons, who shall."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Mr. SEDDONA manuscript Amendment has been handed in, in the name of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) and myself, dealing with this point.
The CHAIRMANWhen there are two Amendments dealing with the same point, it rests with the Chairman to decide which he shall take, and I thought it was right to take the one that was on the Paper.
§ Mr. SEDDONThe Amendment I am referring to deals with another point, although it also involves the one to which 1555 you refer. It is the question of the authority that shall be responsible for the appointment of the five persons.
The CHAIRMANI think that, if the hon. Member desires to amend the present proposal, he must do so later, on Report. The Committee has already accepted the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "Minister" ["and the decision of the Minister in the matter"], and insert instead thereof the words "tribunal of appeal."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Mr. INSKIPI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
The law at present is that, if, owing to a supervening law, any contract becomes impossible of performance, performance of it is excused. In so far as this Clause is concerned, it merely states what is the law applicable to every contract But, unfortunately, it does not state the whole law. It has become very familiar, during the War, for the whole basis upon which parties have contracted to be altered, and then either party is excused from performing the contract. That has generally arisen in connection with some Order the duration of which is uncertain, as, for instance, where the Minister of Shipping has stopped the building of one ship in order that some other ship might be proceeded with. It rests with the Minister, or with someone else, to suspend the Order or bring it to an end, and its duration is uncertain. In such a case the whole basis of contract has been altered, and performance ought to be excused. If in the present case it is desired to codify the, law in respect of breach of contract by reason of supervening impossibility by the operation of law, the Clause ought to codify the whole law, and I respectfully suggest that it will be a serious blot in this Clause if an attempt is made to codify inaccurately and incompletely the existing law with reference to contracts. If it were intended to alter the law with regard to these particular contracts, there might be some sense in having a special Clause, but it is not, as I gather, intended to alter the law, but merely to state the law. I suggest that the law is perfectly plain and well known, and that it is undesirable to make an inaccurate statement of it. I therefore move to omit Sub-section (4). The Courts will give effect to it precisely 1556 as if it were there, but its omission will leave the Courts to administer the law in a well-understood manner.
§ Dr. ADDISONI have some hesitation in replying to my hon. Friend on a point of law, but my legal advisers tell me that it is necessary to have this Sub-section in the Clause. We ought to give people all the proper safeguards that we can in carrying out contracts. Therefore, I should be reluctant to run the risk of any misunderstanding arising from the omission of any such words as these in this Clause. At all events, an additional safeguard will not do any harm.
§ Mr. INSKIPIt will do harm if it is incomplete, because the effect will be to deprive a contractor of a protection which the law at present gives him by implication, because it states half the law as if that only would be a defence in all action. May I state how it will work? Supposing a local authority exercised its power to make an Order for such time as they thought fit, and the builder does not know where he is. He dismisses his workmen and takes his plant and materials away. Then the local authority cancels its Order, whereupon it would be impossible for the man to prove that the performance of the contract was rendered impossible. He ought, to have the defence that the fundamental nature of the contract had been so altered that it was inequitable to ask him to proceed. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to state the whole of the law so that these people may be protected, then I agree.
§ Mr. H. SMITHOn the Second Reading of the Bill I criticised the wording of this Clause and I still criticise it, but I think the difficulty can better be met by an Amendment than by striking out the Subsection. I would remind my right hon. Friend that the putting in of this Subsection does not in the least excuse a person who has broken a contract. I would ask him to take particular note of that. It is purely a question of fact for the Court as to whether any action taken under this Section has rendered the contract impossible. That is a question of fact, and a very difficult one. The question immediately arises, Has the contract been ended or merely suspended?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThis is an important point. We ought to have the advantage of the advice of one of the Law Officers, 1557 and I hope my right hon. Friend will reserve the point for the Report stage. More important litigation has arisen on the question of contract and the breaking of contract than on any other subject. My right hon. Friend knows that in some cases under the Defence of the Realm. Act there has been litigation of a most important and expensive character. This being a temporary and emergency Act it would be very unfortunate if expensive litigation were to follow through any lack of time in drafting this Clause more carefully. I would ask him not to come to a decision without definite advice from the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ Dr. ADDISONI will gladly accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend. As a matter of fact, I was prepared with a form of words, but I shall be glad to have the whole matter over again when the Law Officers are here. I am advised that it might be well to delete the words "due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of" in Sub-section 4 and to insert the words "non-fulfilment of the contract was due to."
§ Mr. INSKIPI do not press my Amendment. I think that the Law Officers should consider this, because it really is an important point. It has been found most difficult, in practice, to codify the law and state in four or five lines the whole of the law. On the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Dr. ADDISONI was waiting until I should hear the proposal of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Smith).
§ Mr. H. SMITHI beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "impossible," to insert the words" or that the contract is fundamentally altered."
I did not want to ask the Minister to come to a conclusion to-night, but if he is to take fresh legal advice I might in a sentence get in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reason why I suggest the words "or that the contract is fundamentally altered." I do this in order that the Law Officers may see my point when they consider this question. If the Committee will turn to Sub-section 1 of Clause 5 they will observe these words—and I leave out the irrele- 1558 vant words—" the authority may by Order prohibit either in whole or in part the construction of those works or buildings." I invite the attention of the Committee to the words "in part." If the authority has prohibited in part the construction of these buildings it imposes a very serious difficulty if you are asking the Court to say that the whole contract has been rendered impossible, particularly in respect of contracts which are called measure and value contracts with a percentage. The hon. Member will See the difficulty with regard to this kind of contract. A great many people take the view that the contract is not broken. I suggest that the words in the Amendment should be carefully considered. This question came before the Courts since the Defence of the Realm Act came into operation, and the Lord Chancellor, in a learned, considered judgment, held that the question was whether the contract was ended or suspended by reason of the Regulations under that Act. He said that they had to ask whether the contract was fundamentally altered.
§ Dr. ADDISONI am putting in amending words, but I should like to consider them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
§ Dr. ADDISONI beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words" due fulfilment of the contract was rendered impossible by reason of," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the nonfulfilment of the contract was due to."
§ Mr. H. SMITHI hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press these words.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt would be better to leave to over.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LORDENI beg to move, at the end, to add the words
Provided that tins Sections shall not apply to buildings, alterations, and addition to buildings or premises used for commercial and industrial purposes, nor to dwelling-houses not exceeding two hundred pounds per annum rateable value.I think that the word "only" on the Paper is a misprint in my Amendment, and I leave that word out. In regard to the latter part of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat modified his Clause. It seems to me that the dwelling-house for the middle classes is £200 rateable value on a basis of £100 pre- 1559 war. Many people want these houses, but they would have to pay at the rate of £200 for a house which before the War was rented at £100. You are forcing people to go back into these houses unless there is some latitude allowed. I do not think that the Minister wants to stop building for industrial and commercial purposes. If that were done, you would bring about unemployment because it would affect not only the building trade, but other trades. In London there is a large number of commercial houses which have had to take hotels in order to get the accommodation they want. I think you will find that many new factories are badly wanted not only by the firms but for the sake of the people working in them. Therefore I do not think it can be the intention of the Minister to stop all this sort of building. If it were done, we would get into a terrible impasse, because there would be unemployment for want of factories and of houses for the people.
§ Dr. ADDISONI cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget what the Clause is based upon. The local authorities are at present dealing with the housing conditions in their areas, and we do not want to do anything that would delay the work, or divert labour or material from it. Under present conditions I fear there must be a certain scarcity of labour or material. That, however, is a condition precedent of our proposal, and I do not think that we would deal with it in such a way as to hamper really important building and cause unemployment. That would be entirely wrong. It seems to be impossible to imagine that any building of that kind would come under the Clause. We must have all kinds of new buildings as far as possible, but I ask the hon. Member to read the words of the Clause, and he will find that it allows for that. If there was any essential industrial building, clearly it would not be interfered with. That is an essential preliminary to any action we would take. Then there is the appeal which is the real safeguard. But what we regard as of most importance is to facilitate the progress of housing. There are many other minor things which can be dispensed with. I think that, in view of the Second Reading of the Bill, which gave the preference to housing, we should not interfere with the Clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1560 Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. PRETYMANI should like to refer to the words of the Clause, which particularly contain the provisions for an appeal. How would a person stand upon an appeal, assuming that the person who appealed was carrying on the work? Would he have to stop the work until the appeal was decided?
§ Dr. ADDISONI should consider that he would not, but I world like to look into it for further consideration.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI was anxious that it should be made clear, as it might lead to litigation.
§ Mr. J. TAYLORMay I ask if the provisions of the Section apply to cinemas, which may be in a state where the plans have been put in but building operations have not begun? My reason for asking this is that, in one of the towns in my Constituency, a great deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed because plans have been passed. The local authority could not refuse to pass them because they were in order. There is, however, a great need for housing accommodation, and the town is up in arms because this building is being built. If my right hon. Friend can assure me that the local authority has power in this matter, notwithstanding the fact that the plans have been passed, I shall be quite satisfied.
§ Dr. ADDISONThat would be so, I think.
Question put, and agreed to.