§ 69. Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the communication sent from the National Federation of Property Owners and Ratepayers, pointing out the hardship involved to property owners who keep their property in a good state of repair, notwithstanding that it is situated in a slum area, and who are now only to be entitled to receive site value for their premises by reason of the fact that they are in a clearance area and notwithstanding the fact that the buildings are in good tenantable repair; and what action he proposes to make it clear that the existing compensation provisions are not intended to apply to sound property?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare)I am aware of this communication, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South West St. Pancras (Mr. Mitcheson) on Thursday last, of which I am sending him a copy.
§ Sir W. DAVISONDoes my hon. Friend think that it is fair treatment on patriotic owners who have kept their property in good repair, notwithstanding the great disadvantage of being in a slum area, that they should have that property condemned as if it were insanitary and bad for housing?
§ Mr. RADFORDHas my hon. Friend heard of the many cases of grave injustice which have already come to light in the Hulme area of Manchester, where a slum clearance area has been declared?
§ Mr. SHAKESPEAREAs to the first question I think there may be a mis- 926 understanding. A clearance area is an area of houses which are unfit for human habitation and for which the appropriate compensation is site value. If a house is fit and not condemned in the area, it can only come into a clearance area on a market basis of compensation. If it is improperly included, it is excluded when we hold an inquiry, and if by any chance there is still a mistake, it is further considered by the Minister of Health, and again excluded.
§ Sir W. DAVISONSurely the fact of a house in good repair obstructing a new street is no reason for pulling it down without compensation?
§ 70. Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that owing to their residence in districts widely removed from towns in which they own property, many owners of houses involved in slum-clearance schemes never know the intention of local authorities until it is too late to make representations; and whether it is the practice of all local authorities to ensure that in every case the owner of each house is properly notified well in advance of the official intentions with respect to it?
§ Mr. SHAKESPEAREMy right hon. Friend finds it difficult to understand how the suggested inconvenience can arise, for all local authorities are required to serve notices of the making of either clearance or compulsory purchase orders in respect of a clearance area on the owners, mortgagees, lessees and occupiers of property included in the area. The notice is required to specify a period of not less than 14 days within which objections to the order can be submitted to the Ministry.
§ Sir J. LAMBCan my hon. Friend say whether the notice also specifies to the owner his rights with regard to the question of appeal?
§ Mr. SHAKESPEAREYes, the notice states his right of appeal.