§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ 3.54 p.m.
§ Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I was given leave to bring in the Bill in December I gave fully the reasons for bringing it in. It remains for me, in the few minutes that are left, to say something about the actual form in which the Bill comes before the House.
The purpose of the Bill is to make it possible for local authorities with planning powers to ensure that developers carrying out private development make provision for the rehousing of persons who may be displaced by the redevelopment. The method I have chosen is simply to enable them to use powers which they already have to make conditions, and it is envisaged that they will come to agreements with developers in applying those powers.
Many local authorities are able to do this now by other means. Sometimes, they already own a property in the redevelopment area and, by agreement with the developer, they arrange to sell the property they own to the developer, in return for which the developer agrees to rehouse the residue of tenants who cannot obtain accommodation by other means. However, where a local authority is not in that position or has no other way of bringing pressure on the developer, there is no power to ensure that the developer rehouses persons who have no agreement with their landlord as regards other accommodation.
The developer has to rehouse persons who are controlled tenants. Owner-occupiers can usually reach agreement with the developer and, by selling their property to him, are enabled to buy other property for themselves. But the residue of tenants cannot do this. Many of them are old. Many have limited means. When development takes place, they are forced to turn to the local authority. The local authority has to do its best to find alternative accommodation for them, in addition to all its other problems, and very often it cannot do so.
1831 This very short and simple Bill enables planning authorities to make suitable conditions in respect of private redevelopment. The method I have chosen has, in my view, been reinforced, since I drew up the Bill, as the right way to do it. I have considered very carefully the legislation which is operating in New York. There are similar arrangements there. Under what I believe are called the Title 1 Project activities in the City of New York concerned with slum clearance and urban renewal, a similar method is applied.
It seems to me that, in the absence of Government action on these lines, something must be done. The previous Minister of Housing and Local Government made it clear that he would take no action. In the debate on urban renewal a few weeks ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave very little hope of legislation which would make such a scheme possible.
I have, therefore, introduced this Private Member's Bill in the hope that the House will give it a Second Reading and go on to help the few but very needy people who are displaced by private developers and made homeless.
§ 3.59 p.m.
§ Mr. Dudley Smith (Brentford and Chiswick)The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has said that this is a short and simple Bill, but it has widespread implications and it is not, I suggest, the appropriate vehicle to deal with this matter. I want more debate about it before we agree to it. 1832 This is not to say that I have not great sympathy with the aims and objects of the Bill. It is just that I question very much whether the hon. Lady's Bill is the best way to deal with the matter.
From the start, the Bill would bring about a great deal of slowing down in redevelopment schemes by private enterprise. As we know, there are some—a small minority—of landlords who are hard-hearted and unscrupulous. Undoubtedly—
§ It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.