LOANS AND GRANTS FOR IMPROVING AMENITIES (Hansard, 21 July 1978)

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Lords amendment no. 7.

§ Mr. Barnett
These are two Government amendments moved in the Lords to deal with points that were raised there. They extend slightly the range of environmental works that can be aided in improvement areas, and cover the clearance of land, where this falls short of full landscaping, and the painting and repair of buildings and structures, where this improves the amenity of the area. These are, I believe, useful extensions to the works for which help can be given.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg
We cannot let this matter go through without more explanation. Lords amendment no. 7 was moved by Lord Sandford and was carried against the wishes of the Government on a Division, so how the Minister can say that it is one of two amendments put forward by the Government is puzzling. We need to examine the arguments advanced by Baroness Birk in another place, telling their Lordships why they should resist the amendment, which concerns painting and cleaning.
12.45 p.m.
I think that the Baroness does not understand very much about inner urban areas, because in discussing the question of environment she said that making a building fit for industrial use it not only fulfils an industrial purpose but certainly adds to the social environment because it is in use, is in good repair, looks very much better and adds to the quality of life of the locality as opposed to something that is not. Then she contradicted herself, saying: I find this very difficult, but my own personal sympathy will always be to extend things to cover amenity areas. But we are dealing 1051 with a Bill which is revitalising and encouraging industrialisation in the inner areas. She went on to advise the House not to accept the amendment, and then said: The amendment refers to regular painting and ties that up with the fact that the clause covers cleaning. I do not think that anyone who understands industry can begin to accept Baroness Birk's next statement as being sensible. She said: We distinguish this from cleaning, which can be a major task and one which is not always normally regarded as essential to maintaining the fabric of a building in sound condition".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30th June 1978; Vol. 394, c. 603.] Anyone who has anything to do with buildings—the Property Services Agency, anyone—will say that regular cleaning is essential to maintain the fabric of a building. Yet the Minister's advice to the other place, overturned, was not to do that sort of work.
In his usual pleasant way, the Minister tells the House "We don't wish to resist these two amendments; they were both our amendments in another place", without telling us that one amendment was carried after a Lib-Con pact against the Government. We welcome the fact that it was carried, but it would have been better if the Minister had come clean.

§ Mr. Alison
Come clean?

§ Mr. Finsberg
That was not meant to be a pun. I do not think that the Minister would want a pun at this stage.
There is a difference between the two amendments. The Opposition are glad that the Government have not tried to overturn them. But it would be interesting to know why the Minister, who showed throughout Committee a fair and firm understanding of the problems, found his sentiments not echoed by his colleague in another place.

§ Mr. Sever
Will my hon. Friend the Minister elaborate a little on subsection (2)(c), which refers to the cleansing of watercourses, whether natural or artificial, or the reclamation of land covered with water". Presumably that would refer to areas of canal development. Given that most canals are in the ownership of the British Waterways Board, is it envisaged that local authorities with boards such as that 1052 and with other public undertakings would be encouraged to provide assistance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Minister is not in a position to make any comment on that matter, because it is not part of the amendment. The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. As many as are of that opinion—

§ Mr. Alison
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to catch the eye of the Chair for a second time to reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
It would be perfectly in order for the Minister to obtain the leave of the House and speak on the amendment.