HC Deb 24 July 1924 vol 176 cc1558-66
Mr. SPEAKER

The first Amendment standing in tile name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—in page 2, line 15, after the word "parish," to insert the words and to be occupied by a worker whose principal means of livelihood is, or has been, derived from employment in agriculture goes beyond the Money Resolution.

Lord E. PERCY

May I make a submission? The Money Resolution, as I understand it, says that the increased subsidy shall be payable only in the case of houses built in an agricultural parish, but the Minister retains full power to grant or refuse his approval. He would be able to refuse to approve any house which was not built for an agricultural labourer. Therefore, in putting down the Amendment to enable the Minister to apply the contribution to the case of any house in an agricultural parish which may not have been built for an agricultural labourer, I submit I am not going outside the Financial Resolution, as I am not proposing to increase the charges in any way.

Mr. SPEAKER

But it would bring in more houses.

Lord E. PERCY

It cannot possibly do that. When I put the Amendment down it was in a different form. It would have substituted the words "house that was intended for an agricultural labourer" for the words "house be situated in an agricultural parish." It is still necessary that the houses should be situated in an agricultural parish, but only such houses in that parish as are built for agricultural labourers may be proposed for the subsidy, whereas any house in the, area, whether built for agricultural labourers or anyone else, would be eligible.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think I can see my way to allow this Amendment to be proposed.

Lord E. PERCY

I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words Except that in any case where proposals are submitted to the Minister which, in consequence of the adoption of new materials or new methods of construction involve a reduction in the cost of the houses substantially greater than the equivalent of four pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years, the Minister may reduce the contribution by such amount as he shall think just and reasonable, provided that such reduction shall not be so great as to impose any burden upon the local rate or upon the said society, body of trustees, or company, as the case may be. This is the Amendment which is down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ladywood Division (Mr. N. Chamberlain) and myself.

The Minister will remember that when we were discussing what is now Subsection (2) of Clause 8, soy right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood pointed out that it was absurd to say, as the Clause did say, If at any time it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that a local authority has without reasonable cause refused to adopt a new material or method of construction which in his opinion would reduce the cost of the house .… the Minister may make such deduction from the amount of the contribution payable by him as in his opinion is reasonable having regard to the amount of the unnecessary expenditure so incurred by the local authority. In effect, that means that if the local authority refuses to adopt cheap material and other devices to cheapen the house, the subsidy may be reduced in proportion to the amount of savings which the local authority has omitted to effect. It is absurd to say that and at the same time grant a very large sum towards houses which have been in fact built at a very cheap price by reason of the use of these materials. It would be perfectly absurd to give an equivalent to the present value of £157, or, still more, to increase the subsidy in agricultural parishes to an equivalent of the present Value of £230 towards houses which may be built for only £280. That would be, obviously, absurd and my right hon. Friend's Amendment is designed to give the Minister power to reduce the subsidy in such cases.

Mr. WHEATLEY

I have considered this Amendment very carefully, and I am prepared to accept it, subject to some verbal alterations. I do not think there is anything in it which violates the understanding come to in Committee. That understanding was that where the rent on account of such cost of the building had to be increased beyond the appropriate normal rent the tenants and the local authorities were to get the full benefit of the subsidy as applied to an agricultural parish, and, although we do not contemplate there would be a reduction beyond the first three years, if such reduction did take place it should be made upon the State contribution. The proposals here provide that the reduction shall be substantially greater than the equivalent of £4 10s. I shall desire to make a slight verbal alteration in the Amendment, and, subject to that drafting alteration, I propose to accept it

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

I am prepared to accept the drafting of the Amendment which the Minister prefers, and I would like to move my Amendment in that form.

Mr. SPEAKER

I have not been supplied with a copy of the revised form. Perhaps it would be better if the Noble Lord withdrew his Amendment, and it could then be moved in the new form.

Lord E. PERCY

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 19, at end, insert the words Except that in any case where proposals are submitted to the Minister which, in consequence of the adoption of new materials or new methods of construction, involve a reduction in the cost of each house substantially greater than the equivalent of four pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years, the Minister may reduce the contribution by such amount as he shall think just and reasonable, provided that such reduction shall not be so great as to impose any burden upon the local rate or upon the said society, body of trustees, or company, as the case may be."—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

In page 2, line 33, leave out the word "Paragraphs," and insert the word "Paragraph"; leave out "and (c)."

In page 2, line 42, at the end, insert the words or, in the Case of a house not so let, to the person by whom the rates on the house are Payable."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

Mr. SPEAKER

With regard to the next five Amendments on the Paper, they cannot lie taken on the Report stage, as they involve an addition to the areas eligible for the higher subsidy. They are:

In page 3, line 9, after "parish," insert excluding the value of any permanent railway works.

In page 3, line 1l, after "account," insert Provided that in computing the proportion of agricultural land in a parish the valuation of sporting rents shall be included as part of the value of agricultural land, but railroads, water or electrical works and undertakings, or institutions erected for the public service and conferring no special advantage on the parish concerned shall not be included in the total valuation of the pariah for the purposes of these provisions.

In page 3, line 11 after "account," insert Provided that in computing the net annual value of the agricultural land in a parish such net annual value shall include the valuation of sporting rights, if any, but any valuation in respect of railroads, waterworks, tramway undertakings, docks, and telegraphs shall be excluded in ascertaining the total net annual value of such parish for the purposes of this Act.

In page 3, line 15, at end, insert excluding the inmates of any public, or private hospital or institution.

In page 3, line 19, at end, insert (3) The expression 'agriculture' includes dairy farming, and the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or osier land, or woodland, and the use of the land for the purpose of the trade or business of a market-gardener or nurseryman.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

May I submit that these Amendments, or some of them, do not add anything to the cost of the Bill. I understand it is proposed to recommit the, Bill, and I would ask whether it would not be in order then to discuss these Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER

It all depends on the form in which the House agree to recommit the Bill. The Motion on the Paper is simply to recommit it in regard to particular Amendments, but, if the House so desire, it can widen the terms of recommittal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If we widen the terms of recommittal, would it be possible also to include the Amendment of my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), which you ruled out of order with reference to the question of houses built for agricultural labourers?

Mr. SPEAKER

When the House goes into Committee, it will be for the Chairman to decide that point.

Mr. E. BROWN

May I ask whether, under Standing Order 41, it will he possible to recommit the Bill in respect of such an Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER

It has not been held that the House is barred in a case of this kind, after recommittal, from discussing such an Amendment.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, to leave out the words "and before the passing of this Act."

I may point out that as the Bill now stands these words already appear earlier in the same Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, after the word "house," insert the words "which is subject to special conditions."

This Amendment merely makes the Bill a little clearer. It does not alter the substance of it in any way.

Lord E. PERCY

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is a little beyond the mark in supposing that this Amendment makes more clear what is the intention Of the Bill. The Clause has this effect, that the London County Council may supplement any contribution made by the Minister in respect of certain houses to an extent not exceeding £2 5s., payable annually for a period not exceeding 40 years. I want to know why is this only to apply to houses "subject to special conditions"? Why should it be confined to that class of house? If a Metropolitan Borough Council provides houses under the Act of 1923, and does not subject them to special conditions, why should not the London County Council have the power to make a grant towards such houses? It would be to the advantage of the Exchequer, and I want to know what is the reason for limiting the application of this provision to houses subject to special conditions.

Mr. GREENWOOD

The Noble Lord, I am sorry to say, is quite wrong. The Act of 1923 already provides for supplementary payments in respect of houses not subject to special conditions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to insert the words and for the purposes of paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act the amount of any such supplemental contribution shall be treated as if it were part of the expenses borne by the local rate in the borough. This Amendment is also for the purpose of making clear the intentions of the Bill, and, like the previous Amendment, it does not in any way alter its substance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER

At this point, I have a manuscript Amendment, handed in by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb). I have not had time to master its effects, but perhaps the hon. Member will move, and explain it to the House.

Sir C. COBB

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, after the words last inserted, to add the words and the Council and any metropolitan borough council may enter into agreements by which the metropolitan borough council may contribute such amounts as may be agreed, subject to the provisions of this Act, towards the provision of houses by the Council within or without the county to meet any special needs of any such metropolitan borough council. The object is to meet the difficulties of borough councils who have no space within their own area in which to provide houses in those cases where, under special circumstances, they have to evict tenants or tenants are, as a matter of fact, evicted. We have had an alteration of that kind quite recently in Fulham. The Clause itself deals, in its earlier portion, with the difficulties of three particular borough councils, Woolwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham. These three councils have a certain amount of land within their own areas, which they are able to use for housing purposes, but the other boroughs in London have practically no land within their own areas which they can use for these housing purposes, and the object of ray Amendment is to bring it about that an agreement may be made between the London County Council and any particular borough council when special difficulties arise, so that the cost of rehousing these people in houses provided by the London County Council may he met by the borough council. That is to say, the borough council would pay the £4 10s. instead of the County Council, and houses built by the County Council would be put at the disposal of that particular borough to meet, the special circumstances of the case. There are hundreds of small slums in London consisting of 10 houses or less, which could be dealt with in this way, and it would be a very great advantage to our London housing schemes if we were able to deal with these small slums in the various parts of London when they get in such a condition that the tenants have to be evicted and the houses to be demolished, because they are no longer suitable for human habitation.

Mr. P. HARRIS

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is a concession to some local authorities in London who are very anxious to deal with some of the worst small slums in their district. The large authority, the county conned, is responsible for dealing with large slum clearances, but the local authority, the borough council, deals with the small slum areas, and many of these borough councils find themselves held up in their desire to make small improvement schemes, because they have no land where they can rehouse the people. They want to be able, outside their area, to rehouse some of the people whom they have to evict from these small slums. Further, a local authority sometimes finds itself in the position of wanting to build, say, new baths or public offices of some kind, and that entails the removal of a certain number of dwellings. At present, owing to the fact that there is no land unbuilt on, the whole of the county boroughs of London, except, Woolwich, Lewisham and Wandsworth, find themselves held up. We have had one example recently where a council, taking a long view, are not anxious to add to the number of persons living in the borough, and while they are making a slum clearance, they do not want to rehouse the people in the district, but they want to go to the central authority and say: "We want you to allocate to us houses on one of your large estates, where we can put, the people whom we are turning out." It is not a big thing, but it will do something to oil the complicated wheel of the machinery of building in London. It is a question of agreement between the borough councils and the County Council, and where there is no agreement, of course, the provision will not operate.

Sir K. WOOD

I have no objection to the Amendment, although it is somewhat difficult to follow, but I hope there will not be too much optimism about it. My own constituency of Woolwich has been referred to and if there be any question of people evicted from Fulham coming down there, I must remind the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) that we have our own evictions in Woolwich, and they must be dealt with first. Secondly, if there be any question of anybody thinking that at some date in the immediate future people from Fulham can go to Woolwich, or that, by some means or other, houses are going to be erected quickly in Woolwich, I must disabuse their mind of that also. There is a difficulty in Woolwich, as elsewhere, in getting the men to build the houses, and at one time or another ail the schemes there have been retarded on that account. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend, ably as he represents Fulham on this occasion, will not have undue hopes, because I think most hon. Members will agree that, at any rate, the needs of Woolwich must first be met, and that the very large number of people on the waiting lists at Woolwich, many of whom have waited patiently for years now, must first be considered.

Mr. WHEATLEY

It is rather embarrassing to have an Amendment thrown at one's head without having had a script copy put before one. There may be good reasons for the omission, but it makes it very difficult to deal with the Amendment. However, I have been legally advised that this is an Amendment that may be accepted, subject to this, that it may be necessary in another place to make certain alterations in it. I accept it.

Mr. MILLS

I happen to be a constituent of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), but it by no means follows that he knows much more about the housing problem because, of that. I also happen to be an alderman of the borough of Woolwich, and I would like to mention that the Woolwich Borough Council, with 23 Labour councillors out of 29, have built more houses than any, other two boroughs put together in London. The difficulty has not been one of getting builders, but the difficulty has been that we can deal with quite a lot of the people that come from other districts, and I hope the more we get the quicker we shall enable the hon. Member for West Woolwich to represent Fulham

Amendment agreed to.