HC Deb 21 July 1924 vol 176 cc1009-21

In any case where the Minister certifies that a local authority has failed to take the necessary steps for promoting the construc- tion of houses under the Housing, Etc., Act. 1923, or this Act, the provisions of Section three of the said Act of 1923 shall apply to persons willing to undertake the construction of houses in the area of the local authority in like manner as they apply to the societies, bodies of trustees. and companies therein mentioned, and the provisions of this Act relative to such societies, bodies, and companies shall extend to those persons.—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


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

I am proposing to insert this, in fulfilment of the pledge I gave earlier in the evening to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).


I do not want to delay the Committee, but would really like to ask what does the beginning of this Clause mean? It says, In any case where the Minister certifiee— Certifies to whom? Is it to himself? There appears to be no authority to whom he must certify under the Section of the principal Act. Does this alter the procedure under the 1919 Act dealing with cases where the local authority fails, in the opinion of the Ministry, to carry out its obligations? What we are anxious to know is this. Whether the Minister can say at any moment to the local authority that it has not given sufficient encouragement to the Department's private enterprise under the 1919 Act, and therefore he will take the responsibility of dealing with the applications of private persons out of the hands of the local authorities, or is he to say to the local authority, "You never authorised any houses to be built by private enterprise and you have not put the Act into force; therefore I will do it." We want to know under what precise conditions the Minister will be able to take action under this proposed new Clause.


I should like to ask whether, if the subsidies are to be paid to individuals, the local authority is to escape paying any contribution? Is it intended by this Clause that private persons should have the full benefit of the Ministerial subsidy, and is the Minister going to penalise the local authority or charge the local authority with some amount of contribution as the result? There is nothing in the Clause as framed to show what he is going to do in that respect.


I wish to suggest to the Minister the desirability of adding in line 4, after the word "undertake," the words "or who have undertaken." The reason for that addition is that, under the Act of 1923, many rural councils failed to build any houses at all. Men came out of the Army having no home, and having got their military grants and raised money from building societies and other sources, they set to work to build their own houses, relying on getting the subsidy provided for in the Act. As a result of the local council failing to put forward any scheme these men are deprived of the subsidy through no fault of their own. They have no legal claim under the Bill, but they have a very strong moral claim. These men were five years in building houses in their respective districts, and very few houses would have been put up but for the ex-service men using their own money for the purpose. I know of cases where men could not complete their houses, and all their savings have gone, because of the failure of the local authority. I do not think that these men ought to be penalised because there has been laxity on the part of a local authority. The Minister would be doing an act of justice to a large number of men who have put all their savings into trying to build a home for themselves if he would insert the words "or have undertaken the construction of a house."


I am very glad to see this Amendment on the Paper, but I should be glad if the Minister could extend it to include any person of whom he might approve, whether the local authority is in default or not. There are many local authorities and it would be very difficult for the Minister to say whether they are in default or not. If the Minister took full power to sanction any person coming under the scheme whom he might approve, it would go a long way to meeting the difficulty. For instance, there may be the ease of an industry that does not want to form a public utility society: a works owned by one individual, who cannot come under the scheme as at present. If it were left open to the Minister to say whether or, not he is a person whom he could approve, that would be a way out of the difficulty, whether or not the local authority is sympathetic. If he could extend the Amendment in that direction, it would meet with the approval of the Committee.


I hoped that this Clause would have gone through without discussion, because we had already discussed it at some length earlier. I am sorry I cannot go beyond what is laid down in the Clause. We have not the machinery for dealing centrally with applications from all over the country. The very most that we can hope to deal with are the areas in which a local authority refuses to build under this Act and under the Act of 1923. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) asked whether it is to be confined to eases where I think a local authority is not proceeding rapidly. It only applies to cases where they are not proceeding at all. It is true that the 1923 Act did not provide for certification. If certifications are made to me that a local authority is not building or is not providing the machinery whereby people who want houses can have houses built for them, I shall regard it as my duty to make a decision and by that decision certify that they are not doing their duty, and in such cases I shall deal with the persons affected.


I regret that the Minister has not been able to go a little further. With other hon. Members I took a very active part earlier in regard to this matter, and I think we have satisfied the Ministry of Health that there have been some genuinely hard cases which have in certain instances actually received the approval of the council to build houses, or they have received the approval of some officials of the council. In one instance, the person had received the approval of the surveyor, went on with the work, gave the contract for the building of the house, only to find that he could not get the grant because the local authority had failed to put the Act into force. I would have been satisfied if the Minister could have made it obligatory upon the council to pay the subsidy in every case where it could be proved by the man himself that he had the approval of the council or its officials. If the Minister had done that, it would have had the full consent of the Committee. Everybody would be behind the Minister in insisting that every man who has been encouraged to build a house should have the subsidy, just as if he had been living under an authority which actually had put the Act into force.


It appears to me that the effect of this Clause will be to encourage those local authorities which are not progressive to hold their hands. If they are going to save £4 10s. per house, which they would have to pay out of the rates, by failing to put the Act into operation, they will feel that it is to their interest to neglect their duties, in order that private persons may put up houses and thereby the rates be saved to the extent of £ 4 10s. per house. I feel that this is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of encouraging the local authorities to build houses, this will encourage them to do the opposite thing and to hold their hand in order to induce private persons to come in and build. I would suggest to the Minister that while he gives the £6 subsidy under the 1923 Act he should at the same time give the private person who builds £3 out of the local rates, so that instead of getting the £4;6 they would receive £9, and the local authority would not have the same inducement to refuse to go forward, because they would have to pay at least £3 of the £4 10s. In that way the right hon. Gentleman would be endeavouring to bring those local authorities more into the position they ought to occupy, and would be doing something for the man who builds a house because he cannot get one from the local authorities.


I should also like to make a plea in the interest of individuals who have built houses expecting that they would have the subsidy. There are many cases. I have one case particularly in mind where there was any amount of evidence that the local authority gave the person to understand that he was on safe lines in going ahead with his building. It is not only unjust, but it is discreditable to this House that a man who has spent all that he has in putting up a house, believing that he was going to get the subsidy, is now turned down. These men were really the pioneers. They built at a time when the housing conditions, if possible, were worse than they are to-day. They came from the Army, many of them wounded men, and they put what money they had into building a home for themselves I suggest that where there is unmistakeable evidence that a local authority has given a man to understand that he was on safe lines, he certainly has a just case for getting the subsidy


Am I to understand that, if a local authority build houses under the 1923 Act itself, and refuses to put into force the provisions of the 1923 Act as regards private enterprise, the Minister is powerless to put this Clause into effect?


If the Noble Lord will read the Amendment he will see that point is answered. I submitted this Clause to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), to whom made the promise, and he is perfectly satisfied with it. I sympathise with all the difficulties and hardships of the people who have attempted to build houses and who have been misled by certain local authorities or their officials, but if I were to make that Clause retrospective it would be the cause of endless trouble. The best I can do is to provide for these cases in future, but I cannot extricate these people from any difficulties in which they have been placed by legislation or administration in the past.


I hope that this is not quite the last word on the subject. This Clause is governed entirely by cases in which the local authorities failed to take the necessary steps. It applies only to a very small number of local authorities. You leave a certain number of rural districts in which there are very hard eases, as the Minister of Health knows himself, in which men have built, expecting to get the Chamberlain subsidy, and have been actually encouraged to go on in the belief that the local authority would adopt the Act and give the subsidy, and it seems to me monstrous that many of those people should be left in a state of bankruptcy at the present time when, by giving a small amount of money and not over-exercising the brilliant brains of the Department which the right hon. Gentleman controls, those cases might be provided for. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt the Amendment.


I am dealing with such cases almost every day, and on many occasions am able to get them the help that is expected. Whatever I can do administratively, I will be anxious to do, but I cannot do what is now asked.


May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in cases which are brought to his notice, he will use his influence with every authority to see that what, is necessary shall be done?


Yes, I will be very pleased to deal with any such cases that hon. Members may bring to my notice.


The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the question which I asked, and which he has misunderstood. The 1923 Act contemplated two different kinds of building, building by local authorities and by private enterprise under a subsidy given by the State through the local authorities. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that if a local authority is carrying out building under the 1923 Act in one way, that is to say itself, but refuses to give any subsidy on private enterprise in any form, then the Minister will be enabled under this Clause to take away private enterprise from the local authority and to take it into his own hands. If that is so, then from the point of view of my Noble Friend, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), this Clause is quite nugatory, and I would ask the Minister whether that is the case?


I have not heard of any local authority that is providing houses for letting but refuses to provide facilities for houses for the owner occupier. If I find that I have any difficulty in carrying out my intention by this Clause, I will make the necessary Amendment. I do not think that such cases exist, but if I find that I am labouring under a misapprehension, I will amend my Clause to that extent, but I do not think that there will be any necessity.


What exactly is meant by the first line of this Clause?— in any case where the Minister certifies that a local authority. It is very vague. To whom will the certificate be given

10.0 P.M.


I put a very definite case in which I show that the local authority would have an inducement not to provide the houses because it would escape the payment of £4 10s., and I ingested that the Minister should take into consideration the provision of a £3 subsidy from the local authority. The Minister has not given any reply.


I am very sorry that I cannot accept that suggestion.


I am anxious to discover exactly what machinery the Minister has in contemplation for the purpose of giving effect to tills Clause. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer) and others have referred to cases under the last Act in which people came forward to build houses expecting a subsidy afterwards, and then found that there was no subsidy, with the result that many of them have regretted their action. Now the words at the beginning of this Clause do not make quite clear how these people are to ascertain that they will become entitled to a subsidy. The words refer simply to a certificate which the Minister has to give. There is no indication that any public notice is to be given to anybody that the conditions have arisen, and before the Report stage my right hon. Friend might well consider putting into the Clause some provision for a public intimation being made. If such notice were given people who then accepted the position would become entitled to the subsidy, but think that there is a great deal of substance in the right hon. Gentleman's point that it is impossible for him at this stage to deal retrospectively with the people who had such an unfortunate experience.

There is another point which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden. There is no indication of the time in which the Minister has to certify under this Act, and a great many other things are left vague. I think that the right hon. Gentleman indicated in one of his replies that it was only in case the local authority failed to do anything at all, but that is not the provision here. If they took a step under one Act or the other it seems to me that if they made a very slight effort in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would not be able

to put this Clause into operation. I think that the opening proviso, laying down the conditions, is open to the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Black) that this Clause gives an inducement to local authorities to evade their responsibility in the hope that private individuals will do the work and that the local authorities will thus escape their responsibility.

Clause read a Second time.


I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 4, after the word "undertake," to insert the words "or who have undertaken."

The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause retrospective as regards the 1923 Act. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have put to him several cases of extreme hardship which have been submitted to the local council and turned down by the local council and the Minister of Health for the simple reason that the council does not want to pay its share, of the subsidies. These men are pioneers in house building in their districts. Theirs are extremely hard cases, which are very well known to the Department, and much machinery is not required to deal with them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 155.

Division No. 175.] AYES. [10.8 p.m.
Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James Briant, Frank Darbishire, C. W.
Alstead, R. Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Brunner, Sir J. Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Aske, Sir Robert William Buckingham, Sir H. Dawson, Sir Philip
Atholl, Duchess of Burman, J. B. Deans, Richard Storry
Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L. Burnle, Major J. (Bootle) Dickie, Captain J. P.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Butt, Sir Alfred Dodds, S. R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Calne, Gordon Hall Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Barnett, Major Richard W. Cautley, Sir Henry S. Dudgeon, Major C. R
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Dunn, J. Freeman
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Edmondson, Major A. J.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Chapman, Sir S. Elliot, Walter E.
Berry, Sir George Chapple. Dr. William A. Elveden, Viscount
Betterton, Henry B. Clarry, Reginald George Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Birkett, W. N. Clayton, G. C. England, Colonel A.
Black, J. W. Cobb, Sir Cyril Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Blundell, F. N. Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Falconer, J.
Bonwick, A. Collins, Patrick (Walsall) Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Bourne, Robert Croft Cope, Major William Ferguson, H.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.) Finney, V. H.
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward. A.
Brass, Captain W. Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert Forestier-Walker, L.
Franklin, L. B. Lumley, L. R. Ropner, Major L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. McCrae, Sir George Roundell, Colonel R. F.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) McLean, Major A. Russell. Alexander West- (Tynemouth)
Greenall, T. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M. Maden, H. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D,
Gwynne, Rupert S. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel Savery, S. S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine.E) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Harland, A. Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Meller, R. J. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Harris, John (Hackney, North) Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Spencer. H. H. (Bradford. S.)
Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne) Mitchell.R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth) Spero, Dr. G. E.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Steel, Samuel Strang
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Morris, R. H. Stewart. Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Moulton, Major Fletcher Stranger, Innes Harold
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel Murrell, Frank Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hindle, F. Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hogbin, Henry Cairns Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Terrington. Lady
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St.Marylebone) Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Hood, Sir Joseph Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Hope, Rt. Han. J. F. (Sheffield, C.) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Thornton. Maxwell R.
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie Owen, Major G. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northn.) Pease, William Edwin Ward, Lt. Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Warrender. Sir Victor
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Perring, William George Wells. S. R.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Phillipps, Vivian Weston, John Wakefield
Jephcott, A. R. Raffan, P. W. Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby) Raffety, F. W. Williams, Col. P. (Middiesbrough, E.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent.Sevenoaks)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Rankin, James S. Wilson. Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Kay, Sir R. Newbald Rathbone, Hugh R. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Kedward, R. M. Rawson. Alfred Cooper Wise, Sir Fredric
Kindersley, Major G. M. Rea, W. Russell Wolmer. Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas Rees, Sir Beddoe Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L
Lamb, J. Q. Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Lane-Fox, George R. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Laverack, F. J. Remer, J. R. Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Rentoul, G. S. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Lessing, E. Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Loverseed, J. F. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes. Stretford) Sir C. Starmer and Mr. Linfield.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Gillett, George M. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gosling, Harry Kenyon, Barnet
Alden, Percy Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) Kirkwood. D.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lansbury, George
Ayles, W. H. Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Law. A.
Baker, Walter Greenall, T. Lawrence Susan (East Ham. North)
Banton, G. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Lawson. John James
Barker, G, (Monmouth, Abertillery) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Leach W,
Batey, Joseph Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lowtn, I.
Beckett, Sir Gervase Groves, T. Lunn, William
Bondfield, Margaret Grundy, T. W. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) McEntee. V. L.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Mackinder. W.
Buckle, J. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maclean Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Burney. Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Hardie, George D. March, S
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Hastings, Sir Patrick Marley, James
Cape, Thomas Hastings, Somerville (Reading) Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Charleton, H. C. Haycock, A. W. Maxton. James
Church, Major A. G. Hayday, Arthur Middleton. G.
Clarke, A. Hayes, John Henry Milne. J. S. Wardlaw
Climie, R. Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) Montague, Frederick
Cluse, W. S. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Morel, E D.
Cove, W. G. Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Crittall, V. G. Hillary, A. E. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hirst, G. H. Muir John W.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Hodges, Frank Murray, Robert
Dickson, T. Hoffman, P. C. Naylor. T. E.
Dukes, C. Hudson, J. H. Nichol, Robert
Duncan, C. Isaacs, G. A. O'Grady, Captain James
Eden, Captain Anthony Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) Oliver. George Harold
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Paling, W.
Egan, W. H. Jewson, Dorothea Palmer, E. T.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) John, William (Rhondda, West) Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North) Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Perry S. F.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Potts, John S.
Gibbins, Joseph Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Purcell. A. A.
Raynes, W. R. Snell, Harry Westwood, J.
Richards, R. Spence, R, Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Stephen, Campbell whiteley, w.
Ritson, J. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wignall, James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwich) Sullivan, J. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Romeril, H. G. Thurtle, E. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Scrymgeour, E. Tinker, John Joseph Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)
Scurr, John Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Sexton, James Turner, Ben Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Turner-Samuels, M. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Shepperson, E. W. Varley, Frank a. Windsor, Walter
Sherwood, George Henry Viant, S. P. Wright, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Wailhead, Richard C. Young, Andrew (Glasgow, partick)
Smillie, Robert Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Smith, T. (Pontefract) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Mr. Warne and Mr. John Robertson.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Welsh, J. C.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.


The next proposed new Clause on which I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown).


On a point of Order. Do I understand that the proposed new Clause, standing in my name—(Prohibition on demolition of dwelling-houses)—is ruled out of order?


That Clause and also the proposed new Clause standing next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member—(Prohibition of building operations which interfere with the provision of dwelling-houses)—are outside the scope of the Bill.


With all respect, may I submit that, in so far as the first. Clause seeks to provide additional housing, it can he read as incidental to the financial provisions of the Act of 1923: and, as regards the second Clause, insofar as it would prevent the use of materials or labour for purposes other than the provision of dwelling-houses, it will also carry out the provisions of the 1923 Act.


I have been considering those points. This Bill is a Bill to amend the Housing Act of 1923 within the very specific and defined limits of the Financial Resolution. In my opinion, these Clauses are quite outside the scope of that Resolution, and, therefore, are out of order.