HC Deb 21 December 1927 vol 212 cc449-61

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 33, at the end, insert new Sub-section: (2) is considering whether the improvement is reasonable and suitable to the character of the holding the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought before it by the landlord or any superior landlord (but not any other person) that the improvement is calculated to injure the amenity or convenience of the neighbourhood.


I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is not a drafting Amendment, but an Amendment that ought to be introducerd in order to carry out an undertaking which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). On the Report stage, he and several of my colleagues desired to get brought before the tribunal, in any question of alteration, the question of altering the amenities of the district. They desired that the tribunal should take into consideration the amenities of the surrounding country. I thought that that was importing into this Bill conditions which really belonged to town planning, and that it was not right to make this tribunal cognisant of such conditions. After a good deal of thought, however, we have evolved the terms of this Amendment, which provides that in considering whether an improvement is reasonable and suitable to the character of the holding, the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought before it by the landlord or any superior landlord that the improvement is calculated to injure the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Under the Bill, no one is entitled to say that an improvement would be an injury to the amenities of the whole of the neighbourhood, but it is within the ambit of the Bill, I think, that we should give the landlord the right to say to the tribunal, "If you will allow my tenant to turn his very nice shop into a horrible petrol station, it will be an injury to the amenities of the neighbourhood." It gives my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University something of what he asked, but I cannot give him all. I think it is reasonable that a landlord should be entitled to put those views before the tribunal, but it would be for the tribunal to say whether or not they were influenced by the evidence so put before them.


It is all very well to say that the landlord shall have this power, but there are other people as well as the landlord concerned in the amenities of a neighbourhood, and I would ask that the local authorities and any other interests should be brought in as well as the landlords. Why should it be left in the hands of the landlords to say what should be done in a district? A local authority may be spending money on certain improvements by using the rates, and yet we leave power in the hands only of a landlord to say whether or not a thing is an amenity to the district. It should not be left in the hands of one man. Surely an amenity means a concensus of opinion as to what is good or bad in a community, and since an amenity can only be something that applies to the whole of the community, the community ought to be consulted, and the power ought to be given to the community, through its local authority, to determine, with the landlord, it may be, whether an amenity will be injured or otherwise. I wish to move, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or local authority."


I cannot accept that Amendment. I have already put the Question "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."


I think the Home Secretary has lost a little of his usual clarity of mind over this Amendment. I am only too delighted to do anything to give a little sop to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers), but why should we give this power to the landlord or superior landlord specifically? Has not the right hon. Gentleman in his mind that if a tenant wishes to make a certain improvement which does not accord with the amenities of the neighbourhood, he may reduce the value of the adjoining property of the landlord? He may injure the landlord, but the property on one side may belong to that landlord and on the other side to another landlord, and surely, if you are going to give a right to one person whose amenities may be injured by a bad alteration, you must give, logically and in justice, to any other person whose amenities are equally injured the same right to appeal against the alteration. I can quite understand the logic of the case which says that there are to be no appeals or the logic of the case which says that not only the local authority, but any other party that says it is injured shall appeal, but to select one person only is not logical.


I think the Amendment ought to be dropped altogether. I agree with the last speaker. There may be an alteration in a house in a beautiful street, and the landlord may agree to it, but surely the man who owns the house is not alone affected; people who live in the neighbourhood are also affected. If we insert a Clause of this sort, I think it ought to be wider. There is one further point which I want to ask. I suppose it is quite clear that the tenant can bring rebutting evidence? Take the case of a house let as a dwelling-house. The tenant wants to put in a shop front, but the landlord says that the improvement is not reasonable, because of the character of the neighbourhood. In some cases it may be, and in some cases it may not, and I am not sure, on the reading of this Amendment, whether the tribunal could consider any other evidence except that of the landlord to the effect that the improvement was unreasonable or unsuitable. I may be wrong about that, but I feel very clearly that the landlord is not the only person affected, and I am not sure but that the best plan would be to drop the Amendment altogether.


I support the Amendment. The suggested Amendment to the Amendment is based on grounds which I should have thought were wholly outside this Bill. I did not know that we were dealing with anybody except the landlord and the tenant, but now it is suggested that the public authority and the adjoining landlords should be brought in. The public authorities have their rights at law now, and they have town planning. The adjoining owners have their rights, too. For instance, if I deprive the adjoining owner of ancient lights or pure atmosphere, he has his rights at law against me. What does this Amendment propose? That the landlord or his predecessor in title are the only people to be heard on this question. Is not that right? What concern has anybody else? I can do anything I like with my property, so long as I do not infringe the public law and the rights of private individuals. Even now, this proposal is an immense advance on anything that exists, for it enables something to be done against the landlord's will or the superior landlord's will, and why should any third person or the local authority come in and give evidence? I think this provision is right, and, if you look at the remainder of Sub-section (1) of this Clause, you will see that it will reduce the expense of these inquiries, because the tribunal, in considering the proposed alteration, is to have regard to the question whether it will affect the amenities or damage other property of the owner. In these circumstances, as the tribunal may do that over the head of the landlord or superior landlord, the landlord or superior landlord should be heard. I am entirely in favour of the Amendment. I am putting myself in the position of a superior landlord. [Laughter]. Well, and a very nice position, too! Supposing my immediate tenant says he is going to get a premium from his sub-lessee for allowing him to erect a petrol station or a fried fish shop, is not it right that the superior landlord should step in and object?


Many claims have been made in Parliament for landlords as an institution, but this one, I think, is the least offensive. If it were true that landlords considered amenities it would be another question. But I am mainly opposed to the Amendment on the ground that I understand the tribunal is, to be a committee to decide the issues between landlord and tenant. If you refer to the panel of referees, you will find that they are going to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Law Society. I do not know what qualifications these gentlemen have to appoint a tribunal to determine what are the amenities of a district. If it were to be referred to a Minister of Arts or to a Fine Arts Commission I could understand it, but these gentlemen are being appointed to decide on judicial issues. There is nothing that I desire more than that the question of the alteration of property should be the subject of public approval, but at the same time I do not know any tribunal less fitted to undertake the duty than the tribunal under this Act.


I desire to ask the House to support this Clause. In Committee I was responsible, originally, for an Amendment somewhat on these lines, but it was on broader lines and it was on that ground opposed by the Home Secretary. When it came to the Report stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) took the matter up again. I am very sorry he is not here, because he is unwell. The suggestion was originally taken up at the instance of substantial associations which are interested in maintaining what I might call nice eligible properties on the outskirts of London and other towns, and they were afraid that the amenities of their residential property might be very much damnified by the erection of some unseemly or unsightly improvement to business premises. The Home Secretary has mentioned petrol stations, and there were other suggestions which occurred to these people, and they were very much afraid that their property might be damnified by such improvements. The Clause that was accepted by the House of Lords meets to a considerable extent the views of these people. May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) that although it is true that it says that the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought by the landlord, the landlord would necessarily take that evidence from people in the neighbourhood who would think that they would be disturbed by the proposed improvement.


I am beginning to suspect the integrity of the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler), for in the Committee stage he said that he was not in favour of the lawyers' side of the question, but he is now taking the line that local authorities and adjoining landlords can have recourse to Acts of Parliament.


I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not accept these statements as accurate.


I was going to say that perhaps there might be a way out. The Home Secretary will be anxious to hold on to as many words of this Amendment as he can, but I do not see how he can deprive a local authority under the Amendment, because a local authority might be a superior landlord. Surely a borough surveyor of a local authority is the best person to consult about the amenities of the neighbourhood. As a way out of the difficulty, might I suggest that the parenthesis which appears in the Amendment might be dropped out. If that be not done, and if it be not accepted that the local authority has a right to intervene as a superior landlord, there is nothing for it but to oppose the Amendment as it stands.

5.0 p.m.


This proposal is in the interests of the landlords in the residential areas. There is a number of residential areas served by traders, and there are certain people in those areas who desire to be served with goods. There is ample power already provided in statute law for dealing with this question. We have frequently to deal with local authorities under the Town Planning Act, and the point which is submitted by the supporters of the Amendment could be met by the local authorities by having the particular areas scheduled under that Act. There has been no case submitted beyond the case of the landlord, and traders have already quite sufficient troubles to put up with in meeting the requirements of the Town Planning Act, in regard to the preservation of the amenities of neighbourhoods.


I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is particularly desirous of agreeing with the Lords in this Amendment; but, if he is not, I see no reason why we should not disagree with it, because I look upon it as somewhat illogical and inconsequent. What has amenity or convenience to do with whether a specific improvement is reasonable or suitable? Having regard to the one desire that this Bill should be made as simple as possible—it is not particularly simple, and it cannot be made simple, especially with the other changes which are to be proposed later on—I should recommend my right hon. Friend, unless he thinks it would cause delay, not to accept the Amendment.


I wish to refer to two things which were dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler). I think his criticism of the local authorities was irrelevant, because I understood, by the Speaker's ruling, that that subject was not before us. He said that the landlord would simply be a collector of evidence in this case; but I do not see how he could collect evidence without considerable bias. He also said that there were the two parties, the landlord and the tenant; but, if it be right that the landlord in his interest should collect evidence, why should not the tenant also collect evidence? Yet the tenant is expressly ruled out here. I think, even on the principle laid down that there are only those two parties in the case, that it is altogether biased and one-sided. Therefore, I support the proposal that we disagree with the Amendment.


I understand that these words were inserted to meet the wishes of the Home Secretary, because he said that, if we did not have some limitation of this kind, outside people like the Automobile Club and others would want to give evidence before the tribunals to the effect that their members were very much prejudiced because some beautiful old building in some picturesque village had been dealt with in a horrible and barbarous manner, and that they were entitled to bring evidence. I should have liked this Amendment to have been very much wider; but there has been a compromise reached in another place, and I hope that the House, in the interests of everybody and to preserve the amenities of neighbourhoods, will allow this to go through.


I should like to add a word in support of this Amendment. The hon. Member for the Spelthorne Division (Sir P. Pilditch) seems to have misunderstood or not to have realised what we are doing here and what is the effect of this Clause. The whole spirit of this Act is that it is taking away certain rights from the landlords in certain circumstances, never mind whether rightly or wrongly. This Clause is assuming that in a case heard before a tribunal, to which the parties are the landlord on the one side and the tenant on the other, and nobody else whatever, it is surely reasonable, if he happens to be a good landlord who wishes to preserve the amenities of the neighbourhood, that he should be allowed to bring evidence on that subject. That is all it means. Surely this is in the interests of everybody.


While we all desire to maintain the amenities of neighbourhoods, it does not seem to me that this is the place in which to do it. This Clause seems to bring complications into the Measure, which is already complicated enough. It does not seem to be drafted fairly between the parties concerned. There are other persons who would necessarily be interested in the matter, and who ought to be allowed to state their case as to what was or what was not an amenity. It seems to me, therefore, that the words proposed ought to be of wider scope or that they should not be here. It is not wholly true, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) has said, that this Bill takes rights away from the landlords. It seeks rather to adjust rights between landlords and tenants, which is a very different thing, and it seems to me that the proposed Clause will not add to the smooth working of the Bill.


May I make a suggestion to the House? This is an Amendment which I had put down and which the Lords passed in order to meet certain views which were expressed to me. It goes as far in the direction of pleasing the town planning people as I could go, because this Bill is one which deals only with landlords and tenants, and I cannot let anybody else appear before the tribunal except landlords and tenants. This does give the landlord power to put the tribunal in possession of his views and the views of any witnesses he chooses to call regarding the amenities of the neighbourhood. I will make this suggestion to the House. I do not want to force any Amendments through the House, and I shall be quite prepared if the House will now come to a decision to leave the question to the free vote of the House. If the House on either side feels that this Clause is undesirable, it is not of the essence of the Bill, and I shall be quite willing that the House shall give a free vote.


The landlord may not desire to make any alteration in his property which would affect the amenities of the neighbourhood, and in these circumstances it would be only fair that he should have an opportunity of going before the tribunal and urging that the alterations in his property would be detrimental to an old building, say to an old church next door. If a landlord who, but for this Act, would of himself never have agreed to an alteration of the kind, it would be only fair to let him go before the tribunal, and I think this Amendment ought to be made.


May I appeal to those who are opposing this new Clause to withdraw their opposition, because it is only making a mountain out of a molehill? As one who has proved, during the progress of this Bill, that he has the interests of the tenants at heart, I hope we will not waste time on this proposal. I do not think any reasonable tenant will object to it.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 88.

Division No. 487.] AYES. [5.13 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Dlxey, A. C. Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Drewe, C. Harst, Gerald B.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Eden, Captain Anthony Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Balniel, Lord Edmondson, Major A. J. Iveagh, Countess of
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Ellis, R. G. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Berry, Sir George Fairlax, Captain J. G. Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Betterton, Henry B. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Blundell, F. N. Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Lamb, J. Q.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fleiden, E. B. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Fraser, Captain Ian Long, Major Eric
Brittain, Sir Harry Ganzoni, Sir John Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gates, Percy Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Buchan, John Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lumley, L. R.
Buckingham, Sir H. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lynn, Sir R. J.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Goff, Sir Park Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. McLean, Major A.
Caine, Gordon Hall Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Campbell, E. T. Grotrian, H. Brent Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Carver, Major W. H. Gunston, Captain D. W. Malone, Major P. B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Harrison, G. J. C. Margesson, Captain D.
Christle, J. A. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Clayton, G. C. Haslam, Henry C. Merriman, F. B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hawke, John Anthony Meyer, Sir Frank
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Cope, Major William Henderson,Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Couper, J. B. Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Curzon, Captain Viscount Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Dalkelth, Earl of Holt, Captain H. P. Penny, Frederick George
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sandeman, N.Stewart Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.
Perring, Sir William George Sandon, Lord Warrender, Sir Victor
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Savery, S. S. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carllsie)
Pllditch, Sir Philip Smithers, Waldron Wayland, Sir William A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Williams, A. M. (Cornwell, Northern)
Price, Major C. W. M. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G, F. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Ramsden, E. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Remer, J. R. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Rentoul, G. S. Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Stuart, Crichton, Lord C. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge amp; Hyde)
Rice, Sir Frederick Tasker, R. Inigo Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Ruggles-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Rye, F. G. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Salmon, Major I. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Mr. Dennis Herbert and Mr. Withers
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Potts, John S.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Groves, T. Ritson, J.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Scurr, John
Barnes, A. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney amp; Shetland) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Barr, J. Hardle, George D. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Batey, Joseph Harris, Percy A. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)
Bondfield, Margaret Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Sitch, Charles H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hayes, John Henry Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bromley, J. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Snell, Harry
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hills, Major John Waller Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sutton, J. E.
Charleton, H. C. John, William (Rhondda, West) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Cluse, W. S. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Thurtle, Ernest
Compton, Joseph Kennedy, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Connolly, M. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M Varley, Frank B.
Cove, W. G. Kirkwood, D. Viant, S. P.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lawrence, Susan Wallhead, Richard C.
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lindley, F. W. Wellock, Wilfred
Day, Colonel Harry Lowth, T. Wiggins, William Martin
Dennison, R. MacLaren, Andrew Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Dunnico, H. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Windsor, Walter
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Wrignt, W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Maxton, James Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Montague, Frederick
Fenby, T. D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Gardner, J. P. Naylor, T. E. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.
Gosling, Harry Palin, John Henry
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Ponsonby, Arthur

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 9, at the end, insert new paragraph (c) for securing any rights of the public over the foreshore or bed of the sea.


I beg to move, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

By this Amendment the Board of Trade reserves its rights over the foreshore so that nothing may be done to interfere with navigation rights.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 14, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 23, leave out "suspend the execution of" and insert "defer making."


I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is not a drafting Amendment. When we were discussing this question on Report, we were faced with the possibility that a tenant might get an order, or leave to make an improvement, and afterwards the landlord might oppose the order. In such a case the tenant might win his case before the tribunal and get an order for costs. Under these circumstances it occurred to some of us that it might be possible for an ingenious tenant, having got his order and his costs, to decide that he would not go on with the improvement at all, and that might inflict a great hardship on the landlord. To meet that difficulty the Lords Amendment proposes to leave out the words "suspend the execution of" and to in- sert the words "defer making." The effect of this is that the order may be suspended until such time as the improvement has been made. It simply gives power to the tribunal to defer the order for costs until the improvement has actually been made.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 25, at the end, insert new Sub-section: (5) Where a tenant has executed an improvement of which he has served notice in accordance with this Section and with respect to which either no notice of objection has been served by the landlord or a certificate that it is a proper improvement has been obtained from the tribunal, the tenant may require the landlord to furnish to him a certificate that the improvement has been duly executed; and if the landlord refuses or fails within one month after the service of the requisition to do so, the tenant may apply to the tribunal who, if satisfied that the improvement has been duly executed, shall give a certificate to that effect. Where the landlord furnishes such a certificate, the tenant shall be liable to pay any reasonable expenses incurred for the purpose by the landlord, and if any question arises as to the reasonableness of such expenses, it shall be determined by the tribunal.


I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a new Sub-section which, I think, will be of some value where an improvement has been made under a lease which may not come to an end until 20 years have elapsed. At the end of that time there might be difficulty in the tenant proving that the improvement for which he claims compensation was the one agreed to by the landlord or the one which was authorised by the tribunal. Accordingly it is provided, under this Amendment, that when the improvement takes place the tenant may secure either from his landlord or from the tribunal a certificate that the improvement has been duly executed. Consequently when the tenant comes to make his claim for the improvement, he would have a certificate showing that the improvement was an authorised one.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 6, line 34, agreed to.