HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.

HL Deb 08 July 1919 vol 35 cc267-338

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair]

Clause 1:—

Duty of local authority to prepare housing schemes.

1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority within the meaning of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), to consider the needs of their area with respect, to the provision of houses for the working classes, and within three months after the passing of this Act, and thereafter as often as occasion arises, or within three months after notice has been given to them by the Local Government Board, to prepare and submit to the Local Government Board a scheme for the exercise of their powers under the said Part III.

(2) A scheme under this section shall specify—

1. (a) the approximate number and the nature of the houses to be provided by the local authority;
2. (b) the approximate quantity of land to be acquired and the localities in which land is to be acquired;
3. (c) the average number of houses per acre;
4. (d) the time within which the scheme or any part thereof is to be carried into effect;

and the scheme may contain such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions (including provisions as to the subsequent variation of the scheme) as may appear necessary or proper for the purpose of the scheme.

(3) The Local Government Board may approve any such scheme or any putt thereof without modification or subject to such modifications as they may think fit, and the scheme or part thereof when so approved shall be binding on the local authority; but if the Board consider the scheme inadequate they may refuse to approve the scheme and require the authority to prepare and submit to them an adequate scheme within such time as they may fix, or they may approve the scheme subject to the condition that the authority prepare and submit to them a further scheme within such time as they may fix.

(4) If the Local Government Board consider as respects any local authority that an occasion for the preparation of a new scheme has arisen they shall give notice to that effect to the local authority, and thereupon such an occasion shall be deemed to have arisen.

(5) Where the local authorities concerned or the Local Government Board are of opinion that a scheme should be made affecting the areas of two or more local authorities, such a scheme shall be prepared by the local authorities jointly and may provide for joint action being taken by those local authorities and for the apportionment amongst the authorities of any expenses incurred in carrying the scheme into effect.

(6) Local authorities in preparing, and the Local Government Board in approving, schemes shall have regard to any proposals by other bodies and persons to provide housing accommodation.

(7) Where any proposals as to the provision of houses for the working classes have before the passing of this Act been submitted to the Local Government Board by a local authority and those proposals have been approved by the Board, either before or after the passing of this Act, the proposals may if the Board so direct be treated, for any of the purposes of this Act, as if they were a scheme submitted and approved under this section.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY (on behalf of LORD DOWNHAM) moved the insertion in subsection (2) of the following three new paragraphs— (e) The total estimated cost of the scheme; (f) The estimated rent obtainable for each house or group of houses in the scheme; (g) The estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme, and the portion of that deficit to be charged upon the rates;

The noble Marquess said: I did not draft this Amendment, but I will move it because it conveniently raises the financial arrangement of the Bill. The real difficulty, as your Lordships are aware, is the enormous cost of this Bill. As was said in the House on the Second Reading, the cost is likely to prove very formidable. Probably the Government will entirely agree that anything which can be done to minimise this enormous cost the better. It is not the object either of the Government or of Parliament to spend more money than is necessary, and I shall not, therefore, apologise to your Lordships for detaining you for n few moments upon this Amendment.

The financial provisions of the Bill are extremely complicated. I doubt whether many Members of Parliament have made themselves fully familiar with the provisions. I am quite sure that there are several members of your Lordships' House who have not considered them. They are not contained in the Bill, but in certain draft Regulations which are laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I confess I do not admire that method of legislation, but it has become increasingly common, and, of course, there is a certain convenience in it. But it does have the effect that unless the attention of Parliament and the public—the attention of the public is even more important—is drawn to the provisions, the real financial proposals remain a mystery almost to the end of time. It is very important that the local authorities should understand what the finance of the Bill is, and I have reason to believe that many of them do not understand it in the least.

Even after the Bill has been before the House of Commons for some months the finance of the measure is largely misunderstood. The popular way of stating it is that whatever the excess cost may be above the normal in the building of these houses, less the proceeds of a penny rate, is to be discharged by the taxpayer. But that is a very rough and very misleading way of stating it. It is not, as would appear from that statement, that any balance which may remain after normal conditions are restored in 1927, less a penny rate, is to be made good by the Treasury. If that were so, it would be profoundly unfortunate. You could not have a more demoralising provision on local finance than that, because it would not matter in the least, once you had exhausted a penny rate, what you spent, as it would be made good by the taxpayer. Any incentive to economy in building or administration would be absent. There is no reason in the world, if that were the true statement of the finance, why any local authority should not be as extravagant as it pleases.

That is not, I know, the proposal of the Government, but the question is whether they have gone far enough in putting a strong reason before the local authorities for economy. I speak in the presence of the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who sits beside him. both of whom are eminently qualified to deal with a subject of this kind. I think I am right in saying that the sum which is to be paid by the Treasury is not a sum of money which is to vary from year to year according as there is more or less balance to be made good as between the actual expenditure and what may be called the normal expenditure, but that it is a sum which is fixed, I think next year, and is subject to one revision and one revision only—namely, in the year 1927. I believe that to be the plan of the Bill, but I should be very glad if a statement that it is the plan were made by a much more authoritative voice than mine, so that local authorities will understand that the actual sum they are to get is to be arrived at after the houses are completed and ready to be let, and is to continue until 1927, and that in that year it is to be revised. After that year it is to be fixed for the rest of the term of the Loan. That is, actually, the statement of the provisions.

VISCOUNT PEEL

After deducting the penny rate.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am obliged to my noble friend; I ought to have said that. But the real point is—and it is raised in the Amendment—When is the first fixing, the first settlement of the Treasury contribution, to be made? As the Bill and as the Regulation stand, it is to be made after the houses are built and ready to be let. What Lord Downham proposes is that the statement of the cost should be made now at once, before the houses are built; and the difference in the effect of the two proposals will be at once apparent to your Lordships. The restraint upon the possible extravagance of local authorities will, on the Government's proposal, not begin until the houses are built, whereas under Lord Downham's proposal it will begin before they are built. In other words, the operation of the Government check will be more against extravagance administration of the houses once they are built, whilst Lord Downham's Amendment will include—I see the noble Lord is now in his place—restraint upon the possible extravagance of local authorities which will operate in respect of the actual building of the houses as well as in the administration of theta when built. That is an enormous difference, and—subject to anything which the Government have to say—it does seem to me to be a very much better proposal than the one which the Government themselves have put forward, because the main extravagance which we have to fear in the case of a local authority not inspired with a due sense of economy is in the actual building of the houses. Every sort of lack of economy is open to a local authority at this stage. Therefore I think a great deal is to be said on this point for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Downham.

Before I sit down I should like to call the attention of the Government to the risks which there are of undue extravagance in the building of these houses. I extravagance said that it is possibly due to a want of a proper sense of economy on the part of the local authority, but that would not be quite a fair way of putting it by itself. The local authority would have great difficulties to content with, and what we have to do is to give them all the support in our power to exercise their authority in restricting undue extravagance. It is in the interests of the building trade to force up the cost of building as much as possible. It is not merely a question of labour, which no doubt will be very anxious to get as high wages as it can, not unnaturally, but it is also the case that the employer would be anxious, quite naturally, to increase the cost of building.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Why should he want to increase the cost of building?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am obliged to my noble friend. I should have said increase the remuneration for building. Naturally, if you are a builder you want to get as much as you can for the job.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I thought you were talking about the rates for labour being increased.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Either the noble Viscount did not follow me, or else I was unsuccessful in explaining myself. I said that there were two dangers which would increase the cost of building. One was the anxiety of labour to get as high wages as possible, and the other the desire of the employer to get increased remuneration for building. I have not exact figures to put before your Lordships, but I think it may be roughly said that labour has received about 100 per cent. increase since before the war, but the cost of building has increased three-fold. Therefore it would seem that part of the increased cost is not due to the increased cost of labour, but to other causes, and I think there is considerable reason to believe that the increased cost is artificially produced by the causes to which I have referred. I know of cases in which all the signs of a ring are apparent in the building trade, to drive the cost of building up; and unless every effort is made to restrain it, it will go on and throw an enormous burden upon the public finance. The local authorities, no doubt, if they were determined, could check this, but to do that they will want all the support that Parliament and the Government can give them. Therefore it is very important that from the very outset we should afford them that support.

The method by which the Government propose to check and restrain is by the Regulation in the Draft Regulations, in which you will see it is said, in effect, that where the Local Government Board are satisfied that extravagant prices are being paid for the houses they are to be at liberty to reduce the Treasury contribution accordingly. That is the method of check which is proposed, but as I have shown, or tried to show, it will operate only after the house is erected; and for the reasons which I have explained, that the first fixing of the amount of Treasury contribution does not take place until after the houses are actually in existence and ready for letting. For these reasons I suggest that my noble friend Lord Downham is well advised in submitting the Amendment standing in his name, and with his permission I venture to move its insertion in the Bill.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 3, after paragraph (d), insert the following new paragraphs: (e) The total estimated cost of the scheme; (f) The estimated rent obtainable for each house or group of houses in the scheme; (g) The estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme, and the portion of that deficit to be charged upon the rates"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD DOWNHAM

I am very much indebted to my noble friend for moving this Amendment. I was delayed in arriving here by a statement which I had to make at the London County Council, over which I was presiding to-day, and by having to listen to the debate which followed upon that statement. I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed my Amendment. After all, the Government are putting themselves into this position, that they are compelling every housing authority to submit a scheme within three months after the passing of the Act and thereafter as often as occasion arises or within three months after notice has been given to them by the Local Government Board, and then the Ministry of Health have this enormous power of saying to the local authorities, "We approve" or "We disapprove" your scheme. They constitute themselves the sole authorities as to whether or not the scheme shall be carried out. If they are going to constitute themselves that authority, they should have information before them which I seek to give them by moving this Amendment.

What is it that they ask now? They ask that the scheme shall specify, first, the approximate number and the nature of the houses to be provided, and I presume by "nature" is meant the number of rooms, whether they shall have a parlour or living room, whether there is proper salutary accommodation and a proper water supply, and matters of that kind. Then that the scheme shall specify the approximate quantity of land to be acquired and the localities in which land is to be acquired; the average number of houses per acre; and the time within which the scheme or any part thereof is to be carried into effect. All these are proper subjects for inquiry, on which it is necessary that the Ministry of Health should have information; but I say it is equally necessary that they should know the total estimated cost of the scheme, the estimated rent obtainable for each house or group of houses, and the estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme, and the portion of that deficit to be charged upon the rates. All this it is absolutely necessary to know before the Ministry of Health should take it upon themselves to say to a great body, like the London County Council for instance, "You shall build 500 houses; you shall build them all, even if they cost you £1,200 a piece; you shall build them even though the working man refuses to pay you more than the proposed 12s. or 15s. per week, and although the deficit that is to be imposed either upon the Exchequer or upon the rates amounts to 20s. per week or even more."

It is more than ever necessary that we should obtain this information, because when this policy was embarked upon it was never supposed that there would be a deficit on these houses of more than 5s. a week at the utmost. I recollect the time when, at the request of His Majesty's Government, I went all over the country holding conferences at Exeter, Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, and other places, and when I only had three columns in my hand—one the supposition that there might be a deficit of 2s. a week, another supposition that the deficit might be 2s. 6d. per week, and a third one—that was the maximum scale—that we contemplated a possible deficit of 3s. per week. When I used to argue whether it was not better to contemplate a deficit of 5s. a week there was no one amongst my advisers who would allow me to mention such a sum. Now when the tenders are coming in—and they are coming in—it is found that the deficit will amount in all probability to 12s., 15s., and even 20s. a week on these houses. Therefore, I say, if the Government is to judge as to whether it is to take away from the local authorities any will in the matter, and to impose upon them the necessity of building these houses whatever deficit may result, it is most important that the Government should have all this information before them.

After all, the local authority is bound to have this information before it. If it is a practical and business-like body it is bound, in estimating what is likely to be the result of building 100, 500 or 1,000 house, to take into consideration what houses of the kind are likely to let at, what is the cost of each house, what are the tenders that have been received, and generally what is to be the whole financial result of the proposals which they make from their own point of view. Such information would be very useful. One local authority will seek to learn from another local authority as to what kind of scheme that local authority is putting forward, and with what financial effect. Let the Local Government Board, or the Ministry of Health, be in full possession of all this information as regards the different schemes of the different local authorities. Let the Ministry be able to say to Liverpool, "We can show you what Manchester is doing; here is a copy of their scheme." Let it be able to tell Birmingham what Sheffield is doing. What is the good of sending information such as is available at present? It does not touch the question of the financial result. I shall be amazed if my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill does not accept this Amendment, or at all events does not concur in the view which I have expressed. Having regard to the fact that the financial cost of this scheme is going to be every day say hundreds of thousands of pounds, I shall be surprised if he does not at least seek that protection which we ought to obtain both for the Treasury and the rating authorities. We should at least know the cost of the scheme, what rents are likely to be obtained from the houses built, and what deficit is likely to result, and how far that deficit is to be shared by the Exchequer and by the ratepayer.

LORD SYDENHAM

May I say one word on the question of the cost? The cost of building depends very largely upon brick-laying. Brick-laying charges are a very large proportion of the whole. At the present time, under the rules of the Bricklayers' Union, a man lays from 550 to 650 bricks per day. Before those rules were established he laid up to 1,500. I am told now that in America, by using strength and sparing it in the most scientific way, a man can without extra fatigue lay 3,000 bricks a day. The cost of this great scheme of housing will be increased by tens of millions, literally, by the low number of bricks which are allowed to be laid per day. Could not the Government make a strong appeal to the Bricklayers' Union to abrogate their rules, and put their heart into the work and urge their men to do an honest day's work? Surely they could be persuaded to do that when this great scheme is entirely devoted to meet the urgent needs of their own class. That being so, an appeal to them should not be in vain. The cost will be enormous in any case, but if an appeal were made to them it might be largely diminished if they would respond to that appeal.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)

I fear that the interest and the importance of the topic is threatening largely to involve us at any inconveniently early stage of the discussion upon some broader aspects of the matter than are contained within this particular Amendment. I am sure the noble Marquess will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not now deal with the more general observations that he made. I would remind your Lordships that Clause 7 is the clause that raises many of the general financial questions which no doubt will receive and require discussion, but the Amendment which is now before the House is of course of a limited nature.

The noble Lord proposes to add, after paragraph (a) as to the returns which the local authorities are to present, that they shall include the total estimated cost of the scheme, the estimated rent obtainable for each house or group of houses in the scheme, and the estimated economic deficit resulting from the scheme, and the portion of that deficit to be charged upon the rates. I rather suspect that the noble Lord (Lord Downham) intended this Amendment to be consequential upon the first Amendment which unfortunately he was not here to move. I can hardly conceive that the noble Lord would have suggested that this information could have been forthcoming within the three months in which the schemes are to be submitted under Clause 1, and if the Amendment were one that your Lordships were disposed to accept it would I think have to be embodied with another Amendment enlarging that period.

I shall state shortly the reasons which lead the Government on the whole to think that this Amendment is neither in itself happily conceived nor very likely to secure in the best manner the object which the noble Lord and some of your Lordships have in mind. These schemes are in the nature of a programme. They are a general outline of proposals. They are not intended from the very nature of the case to be detailed schemes. Your Lordships will see that very clearly when one reflects that it would be unreasonable to require local authorities to submit detailed estimates of this kind, and to go to the expense of preparing them, when the outlines of the scheme may not be accepted by the Local Government Board. The estimates of course would not be of the slightest practical value unless they were based on detailed plans and specifications, and who could reasonably go to a vocal authority and ask them to prepare plans and specifications when they cannot know with any certainty whether their proposals are to be approved or whether they are to be modified by the Local Government Board? This is negative criticism.

Let me tell your Lordships what is contemplated as the procedure by the Housing Department of the Local Government Board, and it is a practice which has already been commenced. Then your Lordships shall judge whether on the whole it does not embody better safeguards against extravagance than those which are contained in the proposals of the noble Lord. First the local authority submit an outline of their proposals, including an estimate of the approximate number and nature of the houses to be provided, and the approximate quantity of land which it is proposed to acquire. In the second place, the Local Government Board give a provisional approval, with or without modification, of the local authority's proposal; and there I repeat my point, how inconvenient it would be that until it is known whether that approval is to be given the local authority should take all these detailed steps. The third stage is that the local authority are in a position to proceed with full knowledge of the general extent of the scheme, and their first step is to acquire the site or sites which are needed for the number of houses which it is proposed to erect. In the fourth place, when the sites are approved proposals are submitted as to the general method of laying out the site. The fifth and the last stage is the submission of house plans, and before final approval is given tenders have to be obtained, and then the Local Government Board are in a position to examine the financial aspect of the scheme. It is not, of course, that tenders will not be obtained with the most meticulous care.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Where is it provided that the tenders are to be submitted to the Local Government Board?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I was informing the noble Marquess of the practice to be carried out.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not find it in the draft Regulations, and I do not know where it is to be found.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will let the noble Marquess have it before the Division is taken. This procedure which I have described is both more convenient to the local authorities than the procedure recommended by the noble Lord, and is better calculated to ensure rapidity in the approval of the scheme; and it would appear to provide—or so it is suggested—a better safeguard for the Exchequer.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

May I say a word about the rents of these houses? The difficulty is in urban and rural district council areas. In regard to my own county, Norfolk, which is agricultural, I may say for the information of the noble and learned Lord that the rent cannot be more than and most probably £4 10s.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In answer to the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) may I say that the scheme which I read out is the scheme which at present is being carried out, and it will form the subject of the directory and explanatory Memorandum which is to be issued. It is not in the form of Regulations.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, but your Lordships will, I think, sympathise with me in my feeling of a little dismay at the way in which the sanctions for this vast expenditure are presented to Parliament. In old days I used to think they ought to be contained in the Bill, but that practice has long been abandoned. Now they are contained in Regulations. But I certainly was under the impression, until the noble and learned Lord was good enough to explain, that these Regulations were Regulations which had already been laid in draft before Parliament, because at any rate we could then see what they are and any noble Lord who would give himself the trouble and had a good deal of time on his hands could appreciate what the Regulations were.

It appears that the Regulations which really are going to protect the taxpayer are hidden in the bosom of the Ministry of Health, and it is only on their practice and not in anything that has yet been published or laid before Parliament that we have to rely. I really do think, without being unduly critical, that it would be a little better to take Parliament into the full confidence of the Government, and to let us see the kind of regulation under which this money is really going to be administered. It is vital to know whether the contracts are to be submitted to the Local Government Board for approval before the buildings are put up rather than after their erection, and yet it is not until the noble and learned Lord explained just now that I was aware that such a Regulation was in existence.

LORD DOWNHAM

Each of these schemes when approved by the Local Government Board will be binding on the local authority. After all, how can the Government form a correct opinion as to whether or not it ought to be binding on the local authority unless it has some knowledge of the cost and effect of these measures? Under the Bill as drawn the local authority in making the scheme is to calculate the averate number of houses per acre. But when you come to calculate that, you naturally say you would like to put as few as possible par acre. I should; eight to the acre in the country, twelve to the acre in the town, if possible. You will never be able to do it, because the cost will be prohibitive as regards many of the great municipal areas. But you cannot come to a conclusion as to what shall be the average number of houses which you are going to put per acre in a great town without calculating what will be the financial effect if you put twelve to the acre or twenty to the acre.

All these matters for which I am asking that the Local Government Board should have information must be a subject of serious calculation by any local authority that is submitting a scheme. I have some practical knowledge of these matters. I am looking at schemes most days, and negotiating for the purchase of land most days. And when we look into the question of our schemes we are bound to ask ourselves, what number of houses are we going to put to the acre, what is going to be the financial effect, what is going to be the total cost of the scheme on one site which we can buy as compared with the cost on another site which we can also buy, what rental are we going to get from our houses, and what is going to be the total cost.

We are thinking sometimes only of protecting the Treasury. But after all, when three and a-half years have passed from the time of passing this Bill into law there ought not then to be any assistance from the Treasury, and the whole of the deficit ought to fall on the local authority. We are passing through an emergency period, and it is unfair to fasten on the local authorities a great and expensive scheme for housing if they are unwilling to take it without any financial assistance from the Government at all. All these matters ought to be put in the Bill, and they can be put in the Bill. The putting of them into the Bill need not cause any real practical delay in the submission of schemes. I hope we shall ask that the Government will put these matters into the Bill, and that we, at all events, will address ourselves to the financial side of the problem.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

In One respect I am somewhat puzzled by the reply of the noble and learned Lord. He seemed to describe the scheme originally submitted as being of so uncertain a character as to put a colour on the word "approximate" in the Bill as it stands, which I confess came to me as something of a surprise. I quite understood that by the use of the word "approximate" it was not supposed or intended that the local authority should rigidly bind itself to the precise details of the scheme either as regards the number of houses par acre—which, however, is strictly limited by the terms of the measure itself—or to the precise quantity of the land to be acquired, for example in a large scheme to an acre or two, or to the locality in which land is to be acquired.

But, on the other hand, no local authority is going to the Ministry of Health with a scheme of this kind without some absolutely definite ideas in its own mind. That has been made clear by the noble Lord the Chairman of the London County Council, and any of us who have had to do with local government know that when the locality in which the land is to be acquired is described as only to be approximately indicated it does not mean that the local authority have not given the closest, almost meticulous attention to the advantages of relative sites, and have clearly made up their mind as to which site they prefer. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord has described the original schemes as presented in far more undecided terms than the facts really warrant. So far as my experience in the country goes, the schemes as presented, though not in their absolute and final form, are so nearly defined as to make it quite possible for them to be accompanied by the further information which the noble Lord, Lord Downham, desires.

There is this further point with which the noble and learned Lord did not deal. He must be aware that it is little trouble to local authorities to supply this information. It will not mean any undue delay if my noble friend's Amendment is accepted. What is very flinch more likely to lead to undue delay is the presentation, which the noble and. learned Lord seemed to consider possible, of a purely nebulous scheme presenting a number of alternatives with no particular preference for any, either as to the nature of the houses or the locality in which the land is to be acquired. That would only mean that correspondence would be bandied backwards and forwards between the local authority and the Department; that several distant visits might be paid by the representatives of the Department, and a great deal of time might ultimately be lust. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will reconsider his refusal to accept this Amendment, mainly on the ground, which I venture to press, that this particular information is in the main almost inherent in the preparation of the scheme by the local authority, and consequently it will mean no serious extra expenditure either of time or pains on their behalf to make it part of the scheme as originally presented.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think that the noble Marquess was entirely fair to the scheme as presented by my noble and learned friend. I think the issue between the Government and the noble Lord is really that the noble Lord wishes the whole scheme—the number of houses, site, price, contracts, and everything else—to be dealt with fully in a complete scheme, before it is presented to the Local Government Board. Is not that so?

LORD DOWNHAM

Before it is imposed upon the local authority.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes. The position of the Government is a different one. It is not a position based upon theory but upon the practice now going on at the Local Government Board. Their system is another system—that is to say, they give their assent to the scheme in the different stages of its formation. The result is. that they find that the scheme can be dealt with and carried out more rapidly than it otherwise could be.

It is clear that you would have to alter the three months. All this full elaboration of the scheme, down to the very acceptance of the contracts, could not possibly be dealt with in the three months. The scheme is adopted to save time, and noble Lords know the intense urgency of this question. Supposing the scheme of the noble Lord and of the noble Marquess is accepted, what will happen? You will get a scheme fully worked out by the local authority and brought after six months or perhaps nine months—a long period—to the Local Government Board for approval. The Local Government Board may say that they approve of certain things about it, but possibly they many not approve of the site or the arrangement of the houses. The whole thing would then have to go back-to the local authority who would have to begin de novo upon the whole thing. The Government say, "We do not wish to run that risk; we want at the different stages to intervene and to give our assent to see that the local authority is proceeding upon the right lines." I suggest to your Lordships that this is a more businesslike, practical, and swift procedure.

I pass to the remarks of the noble Marquess on finance. I am not dealing with the whole question because it arises on Clause 7, but not until the whole business is finally approved of will the loans by the local authority be approved; so that the Local Government Board holds complete control over the whole scheme and knows precisely what will be spent and what the contracts are going to be before they give their assent to the borrowing of the money. That is the main issue, as I have stated, between the two noble Lords and the Government.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I do not think that the argument of the noble Viscount is a fair one. He suggests that there may be undue delay caused by any demand which the Local Government Board may make as to a change in the scheme, and he instanced the case of the site. But, as I understand the Amendment, it does not deal with the case of the site. I cannot imagine anything which is more likely to cause delay than that in the first instance a crude scheme should be put forward which gives no guidance with regard to the probable expenditure; and every one must feel that if the Treasury are to finance these undertakings to so large an extent as is expected, they should at least have some estimate before them of what the local authority thinks it can charge for the houses after they have been put up. That is practically the proposal of the noble Lord. I would venture to tell the Government that in these cases of enormous expenditure of public money not only is there grave danger of always relegating to the background the probable cost, but there is also the danger of—as was found in the case of the Coal Commission—"more haste less speed" in endeavouring to arrive at a decision on great matters at a pace which it is quite impossible for an impartial examination to reach.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is evident that the sense of your Lordships is against the proposals of the Government. It is impossible for me—having regard to the reasons I have stated and the delay which I anticipate will be caused by it—to accept the Amendment. But in view of the feeling of the House on the point, I do not think it necessary or useful to trouble your Lordships to divide.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, after ("scheme") insert ("or part thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved the insertion of the following proviso at the end of subsection (3)—namely: "Provided that before determining whether any such scheme is adequate it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to consider the extent to which the scheme will secure for the occupation of persons employed in agriculture existing houses in the area to t which such scheme relates which from their situation or for any other reason are most suitable for occupation by such persons, but which are in fact occupied, or are likely, but for this proviso, to be occupied, by persons employed otherwise than in agriculture."

The noble Lord said: The only apology I make in moving this Amendment is for its extreme modesty. I do not here ask that any compulsion should be imposed upon any one. This Amendment is intended as a direction to the Local Government Board, when it receives the local authority's housing scheme, to consider the adequacy of the scheme from the point of view of the present existence in rural districts of houses which were originally provided for rural workers, which are suitable for rural workers and which are still required for those workers, but which are in fact not occupied by them, but occupied by persons engaged in some other and different employment. I rather want to indicate that it is desirable to establish the principle that the main onus of housing employees in any industry should rest upon those who employ them.

For many years, in our rural districts, there has fallen upon our agricultural landowners a very serious onus, which it is unfair to ask them to bear any longer. They have, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, been in the habit of housing not only persons employed upon their estates but persons in the employment of the Government and of local authorities, such as road men and the like, and a large number of persons who are either town residents who have travelled outside the urban area in order to enjoy the country air—possibly only at the week-end—or are persons employed in urban industries or as miners. The object of the Amendment is to ask the Local Government Board, when estimating the adequacy of any new scheme of housing sent in by a local authority, to take into account whether, in fact, those houses which were provided for agricultural labourers are still used for that purpose, or whether they are used for a purpose for which other persons ought to be mainly responsible—namely, the housing of the persons whom, they themselves employ.

In this connection it is interesting to refer to the last census of 1911, which discloses the somewhat extraordinary fact that 581 parishes, classed as rural parishes, in England and Wales had increased in population during the previous decade by approximately 550,000 persons. Of these only 4,779 were agricultural workers, the remaining 545,000 being artisans, colliers, and town residents or else employees of the Government or of local authorities. Since that time there has been a very interesting investigation of this question by the Land Agents' Society and in a Report which was issued as a result of that investigation in 1914, it transpired that, after obtaining returns from 265 large agricultural estates in all parts of England, of a total acreage of nearly 1,800,000 acres, and after carefully collating the information received, it was found that out of 22,727 cottages built for the occupation of men employed on the land and then existing on the estates in question, no less than 41 per cent., or nearly one-half of the whole, were occupied by persons engaged in pursuits other than agriculture.

I may remind your Lordships that county councils are to-day the largest landowners in England and they are likely to become very much larger landowners in the course of the next few years, as a result of the Government's Land Settlement Scheme. A very small proportion of the employees of county councils are to-day housed in houses belonging to the county councils themselves. It is perfectly true that this Bill does appear to make some provision to enable county councils to house more of their employees. In Clause 8 some such provision is made, but there is something most delightfully ironical about subsection (3) of this clause, which says— A county council shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to provide houses for persons in the employment of … the council. They may be deemed always to have had the power, but certainly it is not a power which they have exercised; and, with this increasing tendency to dispossess agricultural labourers from cottages provided for them in favour of persons in other employ, it is only reasonable to ask the Government to emphasise in this very modest way that those houses which were intended for agricultural labourers shall be used by agricultural labourers, and that a scheme shall not be considered inadequate, so far as a rural district is concerned, when, in fact, the rural workers themselves are adequately provided for. There is only one last observation which I want to make and it is this. It is a little unfair upon the ratepayers in purely rural districts, when workers come in as they do to an increasing extent, owing to the facility now of road locomotion, from some contiguous urban locality and occupy the rural cottages at a somewhat larger rent than labourers are able to pay, with the result that a scheme has to be propounded for housing the true agricultural labourers and an increased rate is thrown on the unfortunate landowners and occupiers in that district. I submit to your Lordships that this is a modest Amendment, which I hope the Government will accept.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that before determining whether any such scheme is adequate it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to consider the extent to which the scheme will secure, for the occupation of persons employed in agriculture existing houses in the area to which such scheme relates which from their situation or for any other reason are most suitable for occupation by such persons, but which are in fact occupied, or are likely, but for this proviso, to be occupied, by persons employed otherwise than in agriculture").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend has raised a question which, of course, as he knows, is very much wider than the actual proposal of the Bill which he is discussing. It is a question with which we are all familiar—that a great many cottages, especially nearer the large towns, which should be occupied by agricultural labourers, are occupied by other persons pursuing other occupations who are prepared to pay a higher rent than the agricultural labourer. That is a general problem to which I have no doubt the noble Lord will address his mind, fortified as he is by a wide knowledge of agricultural and such like conditions.

But I must call the noble Lord's attention to the Amendment. He describes the Amendment as a modest one. I call it a very immodest Amendment, because what it really proposes is to turn the Bill from a Bill for providing houses into an eviction Bill. The suggestion is that the Local Government Board shall consider the extent to which a scheme will secure, for the occupation of persons employed in agriculture, existing houses in the area to which such scheme relates which, from their situation or for any other reason, are most suitable for occupation by such persons but which are in fact occupied by persons employed otherwise than in agriculture. I submit that the only meaning of that is that if there is a house which might be suitably dwelt in by an agricultural labourer and is dwelt in by, say, a policeman, you should turn out the policeman and put in an agricultural labourer. That, of course, cannot be done by this Bill. What this Bill would do is to provide for a number of houses where houses are wanted, and I think it is probably clear that, considering the rents of the houses, one effect will be that these persons will be attracted away from the houses which they are occupying but ought not to occupy, and go into houses newly constructed. I think my noble friend, therefore, should rely rather on the indirect than the direct action of the building of houses for the effect that he wants. But, of course, he has raised a question far wider than is dealt with in this Bill. No doubt the noble Lord will seek to deal with that by other means, but he will understand that it is not practicable for the Government to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Is the case quite so simple as the noble Viscount would make out? As usual, he has put his point very clearly, but he has tried to damn the suggestion of my noble friend by calling it a suggestion for eviction. He himself has admitted that it would be a very good indirect effect of the Bill if an interchange of houses takes place between two different sets of occupiers. That is only another way of explaining an eviction, if by eviction is meant, not a forcible and peremptory eviction without notice, but an interchange of dwellings (which is what my noble friend Lord Bledisloe means) by two different sets of people.

I ask the Government's attention to this point. As I understand the noble Viscount—he will correct me if I am wrong—there is no intention whatever under this Bill of allowing local authorities to build isolated cottages on farms. Rather there is the direction to concentrate in villages and centres of population. The point my noble friend makes, and it is a true point, is that at the present moment there are isolated cottages, which were originally built to accommodate men who work on farms, and that these cottages have passed to the occupation of people who do not work on farms because of the lack of housing accommodation in the district. Surely it would be a very unsatisfactory result of this Bill if we eventually found that policemen, roadmen, and railway men, were living in isolated cottages on farms, whilst the farm labourer was living in the village in a new cottage perhaps two miles away from the farm on which he was employed. That is the point my noble friend wants to make, and I venture to think, although this may not be the best way of meeting it, that it is a point worthy of the real consideration of the Government and one not to be dismissed with the rather brief epigram in respect of eviction made by the noble Viscount.

LORD BLEDISLOE

If I am in order I should like to point out, in reply to the noble Viscount, that this Amendment is no more than a direction to the Local Government Board that in considering schemes for building houses in villages they should consider whether there is or is not in that particular locality already existing, contiguous to the farms, accommodation for the class for which provision is sought to be obtained. It is an extremely modest proposal, and if the Government are not satisfied with this particular form of words I am prepared to accept some other form. But I intend to press upon the Government, not at this stage but certainly on the Report stage, the desirability of the Local Government Board being asked by this Bill to take into account in agreeing to housing schemes the requirements of the rural population as distinct from the urban population which may in fact have replaced it. Bearing in mind that such schemes as are being approved to-day by the Local Government Board involve the building of houses in considerable numbers in villages I ask that the noble Earl's last contention should be taken into account, so that farm labourers may not be dispossessed of the particular cottages which are most suitable for them by people who are not engaged in agricultural work.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is, of course, perfectly obvious that the Local Government Board must give due weight to such considerations as those which the noble Lord has just urged. I confess it would in my judgment be extremely clumsy and inartistic, if I may say so with all due respect to the noble Lord, to insert the Amendment at this stage of the Bill when you are dealing with the scheme. Perhaps the noble Lord will address his mind to the question between this stage and the Report stage, and see whether he believes the Bill can readily be improved by the addition of this or similar words. I cannot give him much encouragement on that point at the present moment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow the other noble and learned Lord to speak to him before the Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly.

LORD BLEDISLOE

On that footing I ask leave, with some hesitation, to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to move the insertion of the following proviso at the end of subsection (3)—namely: "Provided that local authorities in preparing, and the Local Government Board in approving any scheme shall take into account, and so far as possible, preserve existing erections of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality, and in order to secure that houses proposed to be built or reconstructed by local authorities under the provisions of the Housing Acts, shall be of suitable architecture, and that the natural amenities of the locality shall not be unnecessarily injured, a local authority may, in accordance with regulations made by the Local Government Board under this Act, employ an architect (at a fee to be prescribed in the regulations and to be discharged in addition to any other expenses under this Act) who shall be selected from a panel of architects nominated by the Royal Institute of British Architects, to advise local authorities in the preparation of housing schemes."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I say at once that the Government will accept the noble Marquess's Amendment as far as the word "locality." The only reason why I demur to the rest of his Amendment is that I think the presence and assistance of architects in competent numbers is secured by existing arrangements. I do not know how far the noble Marquess is acquainted with them, but I thought it would be economical of his time if I told him of the Government's intention.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I understand that the Government will accept the Amendment down to the word "locality"—in other words, they will accept the principle of the Amendment but not the machinery by which I propose to carry it out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We think we have it already.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I venture to doubt whether the Government have the machinery. At any rate the noble Lord will be able to tell the House, as soon as I have finished the few observations I intend to make, what the proposals of the Local Government Board are for achieving this result. We do not know what is the staff with which the Local Government Board or the Ministry of Health are going to work this Bill. From the debates in another place we know that there are to be Commissoners, but it does not appear in the Bill or in the Regulation. These are all matters merely of public notoriety. The Commissioners, I believe, are to be buttressed by architects. There is to be in each great district which a Commissioner has to deal with architects attached whose services will be available to the Commissioner. I do not quite know whether these services will be available to anyone else, but I venture to think that they may b hardly sufficient.

Let me mention the genesis of the proposal I have made. It was contained in the Report of the Reconstruction Panel, of which I was a member, and which was the first of the Committees that reported on this present emergency housing question. In that Report we recommended that there should be a panel of architects in each district, and that if a local authority chose they should be at liberty to use the services of one of those architects, and that if they did they should have those services free gratis and for nothing. That was the proposal made in the Report of the Housing Panel of the Ministry of Reconstruction. We were deeply impressed with the enormous responsibility which lay upon the Government at this moment not to cover the country with 500,000 hideous houses; and there is really a very considerable danger, not of course on the ground of any malicious intention, but only out of ignorance, of that being done; and it seemed to us of vital importance that we should not run any such risk.

The Government, I imagine, conceive that the architect attached to the Commissioners will be sufficient to prevent that danger, and if they can satisfy your Lordships that he will be sufficient I have nothing more to say. Who will the local authorities naturally employ to build their houses? Probably in many cases they will employ the surveyors of a local authority. Those are very worthy public servants, they do immense work for the public, for which we are very grateful, but I do not think you would consider that in every case they are qualified to erect buildings which will correspond to our ideas of beauty. I doubt it very much, and although I do not for a moment wish to suggest that in these days of emergency the country should rush into extra expenditure for reasons of that kind, yet I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is not more expensive to erect well-proportioned buildings than it is to erect ill-proportioned buildings. All you require is the necessary knowledge and architectural training to achieve it.

It was for that reason that we proposed that these architects should be provided by the central authority. I venture to think that our proposal was a good one. I have tried to embody it in this Amendment, but your Lordships who have read the Amendment will see that it lacks one very important particular—namely, that the services of these architects should be had for nothing. The reason is that your Lordships cannot provide for the payment of these architects. That has to be done in another place, and it would not be open to me to say that their remuneration should be out of moneys provided by Parliament. That, however, is what I mean; and if the Government accept this Amendment and take it to another place, I should hope that that little deficiency would be made good there, and that at the end of the words in brackets which appear in the Amendment they would add the words "out of moneys provided by Parliament." I hope they will do that, and indeed I am pretty well convinced that if the Government were good enough to support my Amendment in another place, the House of Commons would most willingly accept such an addition to the expenditure. It would not be very much, but it would act as a direct incentive to every local authority to employ a good architect.

It is not my own proposal only, but it is the recommendation, unanimously made, of the Committee of which I was chosen chairman. That Committee had upon it not only an eminent architect but persons who were very expert on this particular question, and we were anxious that on the very face of our Report it should be seen that we had regarded this particular matter. After what the noble and learned Lord has said, I shall not press my Amendment beyond the words to which he has agreed on the present occasion, because I should like him to consider between now and the Report stage whether he can go the whole length. I hope, however, that before the debate closes he will tell us upon what the Local Government Board rely in order to carry the conditions to which I have referred into effect. If he is able to satisfy your Lordships that those conditions will be safeguarded I shall have nothing more to say; but, if not, I shall ask leave to return to the charge, if I may use such a phrase with reference to so friendly a matter, upon a future occasion, in order that adequate machinery may be erected for carrying out an arrangement which the Government, like myself, are anxious to adopt.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 17, at end insert: Provided that local authorities in preparing, and the Local Government Board in approving, any scheme shall take into account, and so far as possible preserve, existing erections of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Everybody who admires the charm of what is admittedly the most beautiful countryside in the world must appreciate the efforts and share the interest of the noble Marquess to ensure that we shall build as worthily as our forefathers, the results of whose exertions are a source of pleasure to all the nation to-day. Nobody can exaggerate the importance of this matter, and the only question is whether we do possess adequate safeguards without attempting to import those which are contained in the proposal of the noble Marquess. Let me state how the situation stands. The Housing Department includes, as many of your Lordships know, a number of architects of the greatest eminence, and among them men of acknowledged skill and experience in laying out building estates on town planning lines, and general supervision from the source will be entrusted to them. In addition to this an architect is attached to the stall of each of the Housing Commissioners, the aggregate number being considerable. The local authorities—and this is a point on which I place particular reliance—are being encouraged to employ the most competent architects available, and—this is a very important point—the fees which are paid to them are to rank for inclusion in the capital expenditure under the schemes. So that under the terms of the financial assistance the cost would in practically every case fall upon the State. Therefore the situation is that the local authorities, who after all may be supposed to share our desire that the beauty of the countryside should be preserved, provided its maintenance does not involve them in any considerable expenditure, may be expected to avail themselves of the services of these architects under the arrangement that the fees are to rank for inclusion in the capital expenditure and the charges will fall mainly upon the State and not upon the local authority. It was considered that this method on the whole afforded complete security, and I accept what was said by the noble Marquess that between now and the Report stage he and I might think over what his proposal is and my reply should be.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert, at the end of subsection (5), the words "and for the purposes of this subsection 'local authority' shall in any case where the consent of the Local Govern-Board consent, and subject to any conditions which, the Board may prescribe, include a county council."

The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to the subsection which deals with joint schemes prepared by two or more local authorities, and the Amendment is designed primarily to meet the views of the County Councils of Middlesex, Surrey, and Essex, who are anxious to have a joint scheme for Greater London and as County Councils to take their share in the preparation of such a joint scheme. The Government have also reason to suppose that in Middlesex, Surrey, and Essex the minor local authorities are willing that the county council should be introduced in the manner proposed. It certainly is not intended, as your Lordships would surmise, that county councils should be brought in unless there is a degree of agreement which we might almost call substantial among the local authorities concerned.

Amendment moved— Pane 2, line 29, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this subsection 'local authority' shall in any case where the consent of the Local Government Board consent, and subject to any conditions which the Board may prescribe, include a county council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I observe that in stating the counties involved the noble and learned Lord did not include my own county, the county of Hertfordshire. I am glad that he did not do so. The county of Hertfordshire is not willing to be altogether absorbed in the way which the Government desired I do not want to detain your Lordships at this moment, but I hope that before the Bill has left this House I shall be able to submit a form of Amendment which may meet the views of the Government under which the County of Hertfordshire might be protected to the extent which it is desired, but I have no reason to resist the present Amendment.

LORD HARRIS

I have instructions from the County of Kent to act as far as possible in unison with the noble Marquess opposite.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that your Lordships, with county councils not mentioned yet, will not all think it necessary to do this.

LORD HARRIS

There is another question I should like to put. Has the noble and learned Lord in preparation the procedure to be followed where joint action in preparing schemes is taken? One local authority may be very much stronger than its neighbour. How is equalisation going to be provided for in cases where two local authorities come together for the purposes of preparing a joint scheme? There must be some rule laid down in order that one local authority of less strength than the other shall not be over-ruled or out-voted in the preparation of the scheme.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have reason to suppose that some rules are in preparation, and I will see that the question which the noble Lord has asked is answered before the Report Stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON had on the Paper an Amendment to omit from subsection (6) the words "have regard to" and to substitute "make inquiry respecting and take into account."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Lord will allow me, it will save time if I say that I accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 31, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("make inquiry respecting and take into account").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Power to authorise county council to act in place of local authority.

3.—(1) Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that a local authority have failed or are not prepared to fulfil their obligations as to the preparation of schemes under this Act, or their obligations under any such scheme, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any such obligation should be performed by the county council instead of by the local authority, the Board, after considering the circumstances of the case and giving the local authority and the county council an opportunity of being heard, may, if they think fit, by order, transfer to the council of the county in which the district of the local authority is comprised the obligation to prepare and carry out a scheme, or to carry out in whole or in part the provisions of a scheme prepared by the local authority.

(2) Where the Board make an order under this section the order may, for the purpose of enabling the county council to give effect to the order, apply any of the provisions of the Housing Acts or section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, with such modifications and adaptations as appear necessary or expedient;

Provided that the local authority shall be entitled to appeal to the Local Government Board if, in their opinion, the amount of the expenses which the county council require them to defray or propose to charge against their district is excessive or unreasonable, or against any refusal by a county council to make an order under the said section sixty-three vesting in the local authority all or any of the powers, duties, property, debts, and liabilities of the county council in relation to the powers transferred to them, and upon any such appeal the Board may make such order as they may deem just, and an order so made shall be binding on the county council and the local authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to Clause 3 the following new subsection: "(3) This section shall apply in cases where a joint scheme has been or in the opinion of the Board ought to be prepared with the substitution of references to the local authorities concerned and their districts for references to the local authority and the district of the local authority."

The noble and learned Lord said: This is almost a drafting Amendment. Clause 4 includes an express reference to cases where local authorities fail to fulfil their obligations in regard to a joint scheme, and it is desirable that there should in the same way, as a mere matter of artistic drafting, be an express reference to joint schemes in Clause 3.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 37, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection: (3) This section shall apply in cases where a joint scheme has been or in the opinion of the Board ought to be prepared with the substitution of references to the local authorities concerned and their districts for references to the local authority and the district of the local authority."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Power of Local Government Board to act in place of the local authority.

4.—(1) Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that a local authority, or, in cases where any powers or duties of a local authority have been transferred to a county council, such council, or, in cases where a joint scheme has been or in the opinion of the Board should be prepared, the local authorities concerned, have failed to fulfil their obligations as to the preparation of schemes under this Act or their obligations under any such schemes, the Board may, after considering the circumstances of the case, and after giving the local authority, authorities, or county council an opportunity of being heard, themselves prepare and carry out a scheme or take such steps as may be necessary to carry out any scheme prepared by the local authority or council, or by two or more local authorities jointly, and shall for that purpose have all the powers of a local authority under the Housing Acts, and those Acts shall, with the necessary modifications and adaptation, apply accordingly.

(2) Any expenses incurred by the Board in the exercise of such powers as aforesaid shall in the first instance be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, but the amount certified by the Board to have been so expended, and to be properly payable by a local authority, shall on demand be paid to the Board by the local authority and shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown, and the sum so payable to the Board shall be a purpose for which the local authority may borrow under Part III of the principal Act.

LORD DOWNHAM moved to insert at the end of subsection (1), the following proviso:—"Provided that with respect to the failure of a county council to fulfil their obligations, the Local Government Board shall only proceed under the provisions of this section if His Majesty in Council by Order authorises them so to do, and before any such Order is made, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft of the Order can be obtained, shall be published in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for ensuring publicity, and a draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting, and the Order shall not take effect until both Houses, by resolution, have adopted the same, and shall take effect subject to any modifications and adaptations which may be agreed to by both Houses."

The noble Lord said: This is one of the Amendments that I move on behalf of the London County Council. It will be apparent to your Lordships that this Amendment applies only to county councils. We are content, and I am snore than content, with Clause 3, that the Local Government Board if satisfied that a small local authority has failed shall ask the county council to take the place of that local authority and to act for it. I myself brought in a Bill in the last Government to give effect to that clause. But we certainly think, taking the case of the London County Council for instance, that the London County Council's opinion as to whether or not 2,000 or 3,000 houses should be built in a certain portion of Surrey, or Middlesex, or Essex, or any adjoining county, is likely to be a far more sound opinion than that of the Local Government Board, and that it is without any precedent whatever to declare a great county council in default because the Local Government Board does not agree with its scheme, and then to give the power to a Government Department to build say 3,000 houses somewhere in Surrey or Essex or in an adjoining county, and to impose the whole of the expense of the building of the houses upon the London County Council. That is a power which has never yet been given to any Government Department, and what we on the London County Council object to is that in case of a dispute between the London County Council and the Local Government Board as to whether or not the scheme is a sound one, and as to whether or not the London County Council have failed in their duties, that the Local Government Board, which itself may be the real cause of the London County Council having failed, shall be the accuser and the judge in its own case.

After all, it will resolve itself very often into a dispute between the authorities of the London County Council and tine authorities of the Local Government Board as to which knows most about the needs of London. On the London County Council we have very eminent officials—a very eminent architect, a very eminent valuer—men in high official positions, well chosen and well paid, to advise us. We maintain that our officials are much more likely to be right on a question of London than the officials appointed by the Local Government Board, many of whom appear to be appointed without any qualification whatever for the particular purpose. I am surprised sometimes when the various Housing Commissions and Boards are appointed when I look at the names of those appointed upon them. Sometimes I can find no qualifications whatever for the position.

In the third place, we say that the Local Government Board ought not to be the accuser and judge in their own case where there is a dispute between the Government. Department and the London County Council as to whether or not the London County Council has carried out its duties in an efficient way. There ought to be some other tribunal to judge which is right and which is wrong. The London County Council is an elected body and is responsible to those who elect it. If it does not go fast enough in the direction of housing, the people can displace it and elect another body. The Local Government Board officials are not elected and are not in any way responsible to the electors. I maintain that as between those two, the elected representatives are more likely to be right in their opinions than the non-elected. I have nut down a proviso to this Bill to ensure that in case of a dispute between the London County Council and the Government Department the Order of the Local Government Board imposing a very heavy expenditure upon the local body shall not be operative until the two Houses of Parliament have had some opportunity of judging as to which is right and which is wrong, and as to whether a very extensive scheme of housing ought or ought not to be carried out. I have taken this precedent from the Ministry of Health Bill which was lately passed through your Lordships' House. I think that precedent is very appropriate for the present case, and I hope the Government on consideration will see that at least there ought to be some fair tribunal to judge as to whether or not the Local Government Board should be set aside or whether the heavy expenditure should be imposed on a great authority like the London County Council.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, at end insert ("Provided that With respect to the failure of a county council to fulfil their obligations, the Local Government Board shall only proceed under the provisions of this section if His Majesty in Council by Order authorises them so to do, and before any such Order is made, notice of the proposal to make the Order and of the place where copies of a draft of the Order can be obtained, shall be published in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as the Minister thinks best adapted for ensuring publicity, and a draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting, and the Order shall not take effect until both Houses, by resolution, have adopted the same, and shall take effect subject to any modifications and adaptations which may be agreed to by both Houses").—(Lord Downham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is an Amendment which the Government will certainly never willingly accept. It would lead, as several of the noble Lord's proposals seem to me to lead, to intolerable delay, and to delay that I am sure it is not his object to cause, and it would defeat the main purposes of this Bill. What would the proposal of the noble Lord mean? It would mean that every case in which the central Department found the County Council in default would have to be debated by each House of Parliament. Your Lordships May judge how far such a proposal is consonant with the necessities of the moment. This Amendment has not been as ked for by any county council in the kingdom except the London County Council under the influence of the noble Lord.

LORD DOWNHAM

Certainly not under my influence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord greatly under-rates his influence if he supposes that the circumstance that he sits there day after day, presiding over that assembly, holding strong views and expressing them in this House, does not secure powerful reflection on a body which, like other bodies, may be impressionable. It is a fact that no other county council in the Kingdom has asked for this. No one says that the London County Council is not a very great body indeed, but give me leave to tell the noble Lord that there are other great bodies in the country besides the London County Council. What is good enough for the other county councils is good enough for the London County Council. The central scheme of this Bill is that a county council which is in default, however important it may be—even the London County council—must be in such a position that the Government has power to step in instantly awl take action in the place of the defaulting authority. If an Amendment to the effect of that proposed by the noble Lord were adopted it would be absolutely impossible to refuse a similar concession to the great county boroughs, such as Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. And at a moment when every one in the country, and all parties in the country, are saying that it is a vital and imperious national need that we should have houses, and have houses now, the noble Lord has introduced the proposal that there should be Papers laid for thirty days in the House of Commons, and no action taken until affirmative Resolutions have been passed by the Houses of Parliament. If you accept such an Amendment it would destroy the whole purposes of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships with confidence not to consider it.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Although I have in the past filled the same office as the noble Lord (Lord Downham), I have had no previous consultation on this subject as it affects the London County Council; neither, I imagine, has the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who has held the same office. I think the Lord Chancellor is a little hard upon my noble friend.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I was trying to be complimentary.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I have no knowledge of what the views of other county councils may be. I should have thought myself that the county councils, say, of Lancashire and the West Riding, would have somewhat resented being placed precisely in the same position as a defaulting district council, only at one remove, instead of two. I am bound to say that the feelings which have been forcibly expressed by the noble Lord below the gangway would also, I should have supposed, have been shared by the great city councils, such as those of Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

None of them has expressed it.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

No; as the noble and learned Lord says, they have not expressed it. One may say, if one likes, that this is mainly a question of amour propre. Still amour propre is not a thing which can be altogether disregarded; and although I imagine that my noble friend the Chairman of the London County Council, after what the Lord Chancellor has said, will not wish to take the sense of the House on his Amendment, yet at the same time I can quite believe that he is not in the least ashamed of having brought it forward.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Though in many respects I agree with my noble friend, Lord Downham, I am not in agreement with him on this Amendment. I think his views are very natural, placed as he is at the head of the greatest county council in the world. Naturally they consider that, representing as they do the great body of the citizens of London, they are so important that they ought not to be controlled in any respect by the Local Government Board without the special assent of Parliament. But I would rather suggest to my noble friend that he must look at it, not in terms of the London County Council indeed, but of every county council throughout the country. And it is perfectly clear that the result of his Amendment would possibly be that every county council which did not agree with the Local Government Board in these matters would bring their case before Parliament. I am afraid that would lead to delay, which in this case is a serious matter. I am very much in favour of leaving as much as possible to local initiative, provided the bodies which we are contemplating are sufficiently powerful and responsible, and no doubt the county councils are. But then, the necessary corollary in my judgment to leaving the initiative with them is that, if they do not do right, there should be some central authority who should act as a check upon them, and that is what the Government provide in their Bill. I believe that the principle of the Government Bill is therefore correct, and I should be obliged in case of a Division to support the Government. I rather hope that after what the noble Lord has stated very temperately to the House he will not press the matter further.

LORD DOWNHAM

I have felt obliged to put this Amendment down, as the London County Council were unanimously desirous that it should be adopted. But I have felt all along that this Amendment, although put down at their instance, did cover a very large amount of ground; that whereas the London County-Council—a council which has done far more as regards housing than any other municipal body—might well be trusted to carry out actively a very forward and progressive programme of houses, there might be counties which might not be equally trusted. When President of the Local Government Board I used the expression myself that, as regards the smaller housing authorities, they must either move on or move off; they must either carry out their duties, or those duties must be carried out for them. As my noble friend has pointed out that my Amendment covers too much ground I am content with having raised this protest on behalf of the London County Councils, and I shall not press the Amendment to a Division, particularly as my noble friend intimates to me that it would be charged against me that I am desirous of delaying this measure—a measure which was very largely laid on the stocks when I was President of the Local Government Board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "and" ["and the sums so payable to the Board"], to insert "the payment of." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 21, after ("and") insert ("the payment of")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Power to act in default of local authority under Parts I and II of the principal Act.

5. Without prejudice to any other powers for enforcing the provisions of the Housing Acts, where the Local Government Board are satisfied that any area within the district of a local authority is an area in respect of which the local authority ought to exercise their powers under Part I or Part II of the principal Act, irrespective of the sufficiency or otherwise of their resources the Board may by order require the local authority to make a scheme for the improvement of such area either under Part I or wider Part II of that Act and to do all things necessary under the Housing Acts for carrying into execution the scheme so made, and if the local authority fail within such time as may be prescribed by the order to make a scheme to time satisfaction of the Local Government Board, and to carry the scheme into execution, the. Board may either authorise the county council to make and carry out a scheme, or themselves make and take such steps as may be necessary to carry out a scheme, and the provisions of the last two foregoing sections of this Act in regard to the powers of county councils and the Board, an the case in be, shall apply.

LORD DOWNHAM moved to delete from Clause 5 the words "irrespective of the sufficiency or otherwise of their resources." The noble Lord said: This Amendment was debated at considerable length, I think, in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. I certainly think that these words, although they were not struck out in the House of Commons, ought to go out of this Clause. What is their real effect? The clause says that where the Local Government Board are satisfied that any area has not adopted its powers under Part I or Part II, the Local Government Board may step into the place of the local authority, and the Board may authorise the county council to make and carry out a scheme, or they may themselves take such steps as may be necessary to carry out a scheme under Part I or Part II. A great Metropolitan borough may be called upon by the Government to enter upon a large scheme under Parts I and II, and having been called upon by the Government and having refused to carry out that scheme may not be able to allege, "Well, we found our rates were already 11s or 12s. in the £; we should have to borrow an enormous amount of money to carry out the scheme and we could only borrow the money very likely at 7 per cent., therefore we urge that at present at all events we are really not in possession of the financial resources which will justify us in carrying out that scheme." I certainly think that any business man looking at this as a business proposition—

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not know whether it would save time if I interrupted my noble friend. His reasoning is so forcible on this matter—as would, no doubt, be the arguments of the noble Earl (Lord Grey) opposite—that I think at this stage I might accept my noble friend's Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, leave out ("irrespective of the sufficiency or otherwise of their resources")—(Lord Downham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the addition to Clause 5 of the following proviso: "Provided that the Local Government Board shall not approve or confirm or themselves make or carry out any scheme under Part I or Part II of the Principal Act if the Board is of opinion that the carrying out thereof will prejudice or delay the provision of houses under Part III of the Principal Act unless in any particular case the Board is satisfied that the scheme is one of special urgency."

The noble Marquess said: I do not know what attitude the Government take with regard to this Amendment. I am hoping that they will, perhaps, see their way if not to accept the Amendment at any rate to accept something in the same direction. I will not repeat the argument which I addressed to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill. As every one knows, the real difficulty is lest the Bill should collapse by its own weight; lest the enormous mass of building which it contemplates will become absolutely unmanageable. Therefore most of us interested in this question have been seeking, ever since the Bill has been before your Lordships, some method by which we could, if possible, limit the great burden which the Bill is going to throw upon the resources of the country hen I speak of "the resources of the country" I do not mean only money, but materials and labour. I am hardly able to believe that the country can find the labour and materials necessary to erect the vast number of buildings contemplated in England and Scotland under the two Bills.

One of the directions in which some of us have thought that a limitation might reasonably be effected is by asking the Government not to encourage the local authorities to proceed with the replacement of buildings which are not altogether satisfactory until the leeway of want of new buildings has been made up. If I may be allowed once more to refer to the Committee of which I was a member—the Reconstruction Panel—we were very careful to explain that the emergency problem of new buildings ought to be differentiated from the replacement of slums. I still hold the view—not in the least that I desire that the slums should be allowed to continue indefinitely, but when you have such a tremendous problem to solve it is better to take the most urgent part of it first—namely, the new buildings, with certain exceptions. I say "with certain exceptions" because there are some shuns so bad that they cannot wait at all. Those no doubt ought to be replaced at once. But there are a very large number of buildings which, without being very satisfactory, are really still habitable. What I an afraid of is that fairly-well-to-do localities which have a certain number of buildings in their jurisdiction that are not quite satisfactory will say, "Here is our opportunity to get rid of them; let us take advantage of the Bill. We stand in as good a position as any one else, let us rush in and have a scheme and replace them." They may thereby deprive other localities of the labour and materials of which they are urgently in need for new buildings and for the replacement of very had slums. It is merely with the object of helping the Government that I suggest they might put Parts I and II (as it were) behind Part III, and see that Part III is fully dealt with before Parts I and II are attempted, always with the exception of extreme cases. My Amendment is drawn simply on those lines, and I hope the Government may be willing to accept it.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 42, at end insert: Provided that the Local Government Board shall not approve or confirm or themselves make or carry out any scheme under Part I or Part II of the Principal Act if the Board is of opinion that the carrying out thereof will prejudice or delay the provision of houses under Part III of the Principal Act unless in any particular case the-Board is satisfied that the scheme is one of special urgency."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Marquess, has suggested that if Parts I. and II went on concurrently with Part III there might be too great an absorption of materials and labour—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

And of money, too.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes. I think in that respect we might for a moment look at the past. I notice that the noble Marquess says in his Amendment, "unless in any particular case the Board is satisfied that the scheme is one of special urgency." I have had some experience of dealing with Part I and Part II schemes and they are always extremely urgent. They are not taken up lightly; but there are a great many schemes which ought to be done and which are not done; therefore I do not think that the noble Marquess is very much protected in that way. Moreover, it is always more attractive to local authorities to proceed to build new houses under Part III than to deal with schemes—very difficult to deal with in many ways—under Parts I and II. Therefore I do not think-that there is much danger—if you deal with the human nature of the local authorities (so to speak)—that what he fears is likely to happen. I thought possibly he might be putting forward the argument that you ought not to pull down old houses before you build new ones, but I do not think that he laid stress on that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Nevertheless it is a sound argument.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I want to call the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that in this Bill we are. legislating for sometime to come; and although at the present time it may be more urgent to build new houses under Part III than to clear away old ones under Parts I and II, the situation may entirely change in eight or nine years. Then it might be more urgent to deal more with shunts than new houses, and the position might be hampered by this particular legislation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is possible to pass another Act of Parliament in the course of eight or nine years.

VISCOUNT PEEL

That is so. But it is better to legislate for a few years ahead, if possible. If it is not necessary it might become dangerous a few years hence. However, if the noble Marquess has any anxiety on the subject I am ready to give an assurance on behalf of the Ministry of Health that the chief attention of that Department will be given to the preparation and pushing forward of schemes under Part III, and that they will secure that a large and adequate number of houses are built before they deal with Parts I and II, except in those cases of urgency to which the noble Marquess alludes. Possibly that may meet the views of the noble Marquess.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended; agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Power to recoup losses.

7.—(1) If it appears to the Local Government Board that the carrying out by a local authority, or by a county council to whom the powers of a local authority have been transferred under this Act, of any scheme approved under section one of this Act, or the carrying out of a re-housing scheme in connection with a scheme made under Part I or Part II of the principal Act, including the acquisition, clearance, and development of land included in the last-mentioned scheme, and whether the re-housing will be effected on the area included in that scheme or elsewhere, or the carrying out of any scheme approved by the Board for the provision id houses for persons in the employment of or paid by a county council, has resulted or is likely to result in a loss, the Board shall, if the scheme is earned out within such period after the passing of this Act as may be specified by the Board with the consent of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay to the local authority or county council out of moneys provided by Parliament such part of the loss as may be determined to be so payable under regulations made by the Board with the approval of the Treasury, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by those regulations.

(2) Such regulations shall provide that the amount of any annual payment to be made under this section shall—

1. (a) in the ease of a scheme carried out by a local authority, be determined on the basis of the estimated annual loss resulting from the carrying out of any scheme or schemes to which this section applies, subject to the deduction therefrom of a sum not exceeding the estimated annual produce of a rate of one penny in the pound levied in the area chargeable with the expenses of such scheme or schemes; and
308
2. (b) in the case of a scheme for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by a county council, be an amount equivalent to thirty per centum of the annual loan charges as calculated in accordance with the regulations on the total capital expenditure incurred by the county council for the purposes of the scheme:

Provided that the regulations shall include provisions—

1. (i) for the reduction of the amount of the annual payment in the event of a failure on the part of the local authority or county council to secure due economy in the carrying out of a scheme or otherwise to comply with the conditions prescribed by the regulations;
2. (ii) for the determination of the manner in which the produce of a rate of one penny in the pound shall be estimated; and
3. (iii) for any adjustment which may be necessary in consequence of any difference between the estimated annual produce and the actual produce of the said rate of one penny in the pound;

(3) Every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House, within twenty-one clays from the date on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annual the regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

(4) Where a loan is made by the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the purposes of a scheme towards the hisses on which the Local Government Board is liable to contribute under this section the loan shall, notwithstanding any thing in section three of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, be made on such terms and conditions as the Treasury may prescribe.

This subsection shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, as respects any proposals made by a local authority and approved by the Local Government Board before the passing of this Act as respects which the Board may have signified their intention to direct that they shall be treated as a scheme for the purposes of this section.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "county council" ["persons in the employment of or paid by a county council"] to insert "or a statutory committee thereof." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 20, after ("Council") insert ("or a statutory committee thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DOWNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "such period" ["if the scheme is carried out within such period"], and to insert "five years." The noble Lord said: We now reach an Amendment of very great consequence not only to the London County Council, of which your Lordships have heard rather too much, but to other bodies which are proposing schemes of housing. As the Bill stands, the financial assistance which the Government is to give to any scheme put forward by any local authority is limited to schemes which are carried out "within such period after the passing of the Act as may be specified by the Board with the consent of the Treasury." I propose instead of such a term words to provide for a term of five years.

The history of this offer on the part of the Government of financial assistance to local authorities is shortly this. Up to March; 1918, the Government promised assistance to local authorities in this shape—that, if they approved of any scheme, they would come to the support of the local authority by paying 75 per cent. of the estimated deficit on the scheme, the local authority to pay the remaining 25 per cent. or if that 25 per cent. involved the local authority in more than a penny rate, the President of the Local Government Board was authorised to exercise his discretion in a very generous way and to limit the liability of the local authority to the penny rate. Thus it stood until February, 1919, when that scheme was scrapped by the Government. About that I have already said. a good deal and shall probably say a good deal more in other places. Another scheme altogether was substituted, whereby the Government said to local authorities, "We will come to your financial support to this extent—when you have spent a penny rate in meeting your deficit we will then undertake the whole of the rest of the deficiency, but we will only undertake it on schemes which must be carried out within two years from February 12." That, in the case of London, would have meant that the Government would have given no financial assistance of any sort or kind, because it would have been quite impossible for us to have spent the proceeds of a penny rate within two years.

But, fortunately, as I have observed before, if Englishmen cannot squeeze this Government, Scotsmen can, from the point of view of local authorities, and, when the Bill was in Committee, the Scottish Members persuaded the Minister in charge of it to extend the period over which the Government would finance the scheme to the local authorities from February, 1921, to a further period which would cover three and a half years from the passing of the Act. Anybody will see that it is most important to the local authorities to know what financial assistance they are going to have for their schemes. My noble friend in charge of this Bill gave an undertaking that that concession which was given to Scotland should also be given to England. We are very grateful to him for it. We now know that, so far as we can carry out any schemes within three and a half years, we shall be able to obtain financial assistance from the Government; but, after all, that, for the London County Council at all events, is not so good a scheme as the scheme of March, 1918, and that scheme recollect was a contract.

Not only the London County Council but other bodies, including that representing Edinburgh, have asked that this financial assistance given by the Government should be given for all schemes that can be carried out within five years, say, from the passing of the Act. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend is prepared to make that further concession, but undoubtedly, in the case of London, it would be of enormous importance if we could get it, because what we have undertaken to do, by resolution unanimously passed in the London County Council, is to build 10,000 houses within the next two years, and then, if we can get financial support from the Government, to build another 19,000 houses, making 29,000 new houses to be built by the London County Council within the next five years.

When we come to frame our scheme we are in this difficulty. We find that, so far as we can carry out this scheme within two years, that scheme will be financially assisted by His Majesty's Government, but, so far as we over-step the period of two years, we shall get no financial assistance whatever from the Government. I cannot help thinking that it will be very much better to have a clear-cut five years than to have in the Bill a period which is to be in the discretion of a Department of His Majesty's Government, to be used from time to time as that Department thinks fit. The present proposal of the Bill, I think, will lead to all kinds of political pressure being brought to bear on the Government. Political pressure of that kind will particularly be brought to bear at any time when an election is about to take place. Local authorities with their schemes will come to the Government. One local authority will say, "Cannot you give us another year for our scheme"; another local authority will say, "Give us two years for our scheme." I think it would be infinitely fairer if we had a definite period of five years inserted in the Bill, and, after the five years are over, the great financial question should be reconsidered afresh and the Government would then, I hope, be able to say to the local authorities, "We have gone as far as we can in assisting local authorities. You must now bear your own burden and we hope you will be able to build your houses and let them at economic rents in future."

I hope the Government may extend the period. They have shown a willingness to extend it from two years to three and a half years. I now ask, on behalf of the London County Council and knowing that the request is made by other bodies, that the Government will reconsider the situation, and, instead of leaving the period at the discretion of Department which may be worked upon by political influences, it will put in a period of five years, as I have suggested, in order that local authorities may know exactly what their financial position is. I am quite sure that if my noble and learned friend wants the local authorities to hurry up, as I want them to hurry up, with the practical operation of these building proposals, he will greatly facilitate these operations if he can see his way to meet me in this matter.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 22, leave out ("such period") and insert ("five years").—(Lord Downham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is not possible for the Government to accept my noble friend's Amendment, though I should like him to understand that I did not accuse him—I should never be so impolite—of wishing to delay the Bill. I carefully excluded myself from that. I did say that the unfortunate effect of the two Amendments which up to that time he had moved would be, in my judgment, to cause very great delay. I should be unwilling that my noble friend should misunderstand me.

The effect of this Amendment is to allow a definite period of five years. It is true, as Lord Downham has said, that the draft Regulations contemplated a. period of two years, and that it has been finally decided, as he also said, to allow a period of three years, or such further period as may be allowed by the Local Government Board, "regard being had"—these are the words—"to the supplies of labour and material available from time to time and the other local or general circumstances affecting the carrying out of the scheme."

The issue between Lord Downham and the Government is really this. He says there ought to be a universal all round period of five years. The Government hold the view strongly that they would not be justified at this stage of our knowledge in recommending to the country that they could assure all local authorities that for five years the State would be prepared to shoulder this immense and staggering burden. It may be, I do not know, that when three years are over the proportion of local authorities who will need this form of subvention, and who will have earned it, will be larger than now seems probable. He would be a bold man who could foretell what will happen in the future; but it is certain there is no adequate reason for depriving ourselves of the opportunity of correcting our present ignorance by the knowledge we shall have gained in three years. We have deprived ourselves of no opportunity of assisting local authorities who show at the end of three years that they have done the best in their power; that their programme was adequate; and their energies sufficient for the crises with which they have had to deal. Any local authority who can establish such a record will be received as it would deserve to be received by the authorities.

Your Lordships must not ignore the fact that the proposal of the noble Lord involves what I plainly call the absurdity of allowing a period of five years to many hundreds of local authorities who could and should carry out their schemes in the next three years. If there are 50 local authorities whom it may reasonably be expected, having regard to the small scale on which they operate, can carry out their scheme in three years, what reason can there be why we should tax ourselves for a further period of two years after?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Will the noble and learned Lord read the revised form of the Regulation he read just now? I gather it is not laid before Parliament.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is one which has been drafted by the Department, sent to Treasury, and accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It merely provides for "a period of three years, and such further period as may be allowed by Local Government Board regard being had to the supplies of labour and material available from time to time, and other local or general circumstances affecting the carrying out of scheme." This formula has been agreed upon between the Department and Treasury.

LORD DOWNHAM

I am not in the least convinced by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, but I am satisfied with having drawn from him the undertaking that the Government, so far as he can speak for the Government, will at the end of the period of three and a half years survey these schemes, and that they will not shut the door on the further extension of the three and a half years to a period of five years, or possibly even longer. The Lord Chancellor has used time argument, Why put in five years, a stereotyped term of five years, when so many local authorities can carry out these schemes and very likely they can in three years: you are really inviting them to take five years to do something which they can do in three years. I might use the word "absurd" with regard to that argument. If he will read to the end of subsection (1) of Clause 7, he will see that this financial assistance even if given for a period of five years, must be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by Regulation, and it would be perfectly simple to prescribe a Regulation under which local authorities which asked for financial assistance over a period of five years should show some earnest of their prompt and adequate consideration of the housing scheme at the present time, and should at least have done all they could in the next two years to deserve financial assistance for the following three years. The control would be entirely within the power of the Government. However, I am not going to ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment. I am satisfied with having drawn the statement from the Lord Chancellor that the three and a half years is no more conclusive and final than the two years, and as the two years has been stretched to three and a half years by a little pressure so by a little more pressure the three and a half years may be stretched to five years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK moved, in subsection 2 (b) (i), after, "carrying out," to insert "and administration." The noble Earl said: The object of my Amendment is to strengthen the provisions of the Bill for securing due economy by local authorities not only in carrying out the schemes but in their administration, including the rent to be charged for houses. I am aware that these matters are referred to in the Regulations of the Local Government Board, Article 52, and in the Schedule, but I submit that the Regulations and the Rules in the Schedule as to the determination of rents are left somewhat vague. Moreover, they are not mandatory on the local authority: they leave time question of rent at their discretion and will not be effective in securing that local authorities charge sufficient rent for the houses they build. So far as I understand the Bill and the Regulations of the Local Government Board the only pressure which can be put on local authorities is a threat that under Article 52 of the Regulations a deduction will be made from the Exchequer subsidy.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Earl forgive me? The Government will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 9, after ("out") insert ("and administration").—(The Earl of Northbrook.)

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

Am I to understand from the noble and learned Lord that in the word "administration" will be included the determination of the amount of rent that will be charged by the local authority?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Earl is a little unreasonable. He puts down an Amendment on the Paper which must be assumed to have a meaning. I cannot do more than accept it, and he really must not ask me to construe it.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept my interpretation of my Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble and learned Lord is very witty on this point, and it induces me to put a further question to him. We are not engaged in a merely pleasant discourse across the Table of the House but in drawing up an Act of Parliament, and it is important for us to know whether as a matter of absolute fact the Local Government Board will exercise control over local authorities in respect of obtaining what is commonly known as an economic rent. That is the object of my noble friend's Amendment, and it is only if the noble and learned Lord can assure us that this is absolutely secured under the Bill, either with or without the Amendment, that we shall be satisfied.

I suggest to the Lord Chancellor, from the point of view of a friend of the Bill, that this is almost the most critical part of it. The real question is whether there is going to be an economic balance in the administration of this Bill. If there is not, we are saying good-by once and for all to private enterprise in the matter of the provision of houses. Therefore the matter is absolutely vital. I do not mean to say that it all hangs upon the Amendment, but it is upon this part of the Bill that the future success of the housing policy really turns, and therefore we do not apologise for urging this upon the Government. I am quite aware that there is a certain Regulation, which my noble friend has properly quoted, namely Article V (2), but I wonder how far the local authorities are aware of that, and how far we may be quite certain that the Government will enforce that Regulation. Your Lordships will observe that there is a great deal to be said for this form of legislation. The Regulations are very detailed, and it might be impossible to put them all into the body of the Bill, but the objection to them is that they can be altered almost unlimitedly, whereas the Act of Parliament is fixed. What we are very much afraid of is that when it comes to administration of this Act the pressure put upon the Government to allow uneconomic conditions will be so great that they will give way, and the economic balance of the Bill will be destroyed.

I am not going to quote again the figures which were quoted on the Second Reading debate, but I will quote new figures. I cannot sec myself that even in rural districts under this Bill the economic rent can be less than 11s. or 15s. per week. That is a very formidable prospect—that in order to make this Bill work properly, and to prevent the final destruction of private enterprise, including that of Public Utility Societies, rents will have to be raised to 11s. or 15s. per week. I believe the Government are working in perfect good faith, but it is most important that the noble and learned Lord should take every opportunity in debate to emphasise this point, so that the country may know that the Government are determined upon preserving the economic balance of the Bill. I am very much afraid of what is coming, and what makes me particularly afraid is that when the Wages Board under the Corn Production Bill came to fix the wages, and had to make allowance in respect of cottages which were lent rent free, they fixed the equivalent at 3s. per week. That was, if I may say so, a most disastrous decision. It had no correspondence whatever with the facts, and if one Government Department can make such a mistake as that, can we be quite certain that the Ministry of Health will not be equally open to the tremendous pressure which will be brought to bear upon them and fail to enforce their own Regulation V (2), and thus destroy the balance of the Bill and private enterprise.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess has certainly travelled over a very wide range—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. My remarks were perfectly relevant and wholly germane to the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I may be respectfully allowed to take quite a different view. I must still decline to construe the Amendment which the noble Earl moved, and which I accepted. I accepted the Amendment not because I thought it necessary—I thought it quite unnecessary—but because after considering the matter carefully I came to the conclusion that it could not possibly be either miscontrued or do any harm, and I was sanguine enough in those circumstances to think that the discussion might be somewhat accelerated.

The reason I thought the Amendment was unnecessary was that it seemed to me that the objects which the noble Earl had in his mind, and which he very clearly expressed in his speech, were already secured by Article V of the Regulations, which deals with the circumstances under which financial assistance shall be granted to the local authorities. Article V, subsection (2), is as follows— In determining the amount of the Exchequer subsidy based upon the estimate submitted by the Local Authority the Board may make such deductions as will represent—

1. "(a) an item of estimated expenditure which they consider to be excessive or not properly chargeable to the debit of the assisted scheme; or
2. "(b)any deficiency of estimated income which they consider to be due to the insufficiency of the rents proposed to be charged by the Local Authority; or
3. "(c) any deficiency of estimated income which they consider to be due to the inadequacy of the arrangements for supervision, management or administration; or
4. "(d) the omission from the estimate of any item of income which they consider should be included therein

Provided that in any consideration of the sufficiency of the rents proposed to be charged by the Local Authority regard shall be had, so far as possible, to the rules set out in the Schedule to these Regulations: Provided further that, in the event of any difference arising between the Board and the Local Authority as to the sufficiency of the rents proposed to be charged by the Local Authority, the question at issue shall be referred for decision to… —an arbitrator. I venture to think that those Regulations supply an infinitely stronger guarantee of the object of the noble Earl than any construction of his Amendment, whatever the right construction can possibly be.

In answer to the appeal made by the noble Marquess, that the power of control of the Government should be exercised zealously and stringently, I assure him that nobody is more alive than the Government to the extreme nature of the demands made in this Bill. But for the emergency of which I spoke upon the Second Reading the Bill would be wholly unjustifiable, and I wish, if I have not already done so, to make it plain that the Government feel a deep responsibility for the matters to which the noble Marquess has referred.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

May I venture to say, with all respect, that I cannot agree that these Regulations will put any effective pressure upon the local authorities to exercise economy in administration, or in securing a sufficient rent, and for this reason. The threat held over the local authority is that, in certain events the subsidy will be reduced. Well, my Lords, Dr. Addison, the Minister of Health, and Major Astor, in their speeches in the country, have given a most distinct pledge to the local authorities, and the inducement which they have held out to them to immediately adopt schemes is that in no event whatever shall the charge upon the locality exceed the produce of a 1d. rate. The Government, through Dr. Addison and Major Astor, have given that distinct pledge to the local authorities. Now, my Lords, supposing that owing to want of economy the subsidy has to be reduced. You cannot call upon the local authority, without breaking your distinct pledge, to put a higher rate upon the locality. How, then, is the deficiency going to be met? I want to know whether the Government have considered the matter, because as long as the local authorities have that distinct pledge I do not see how you can put any pressure upon them to exercise economy.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Of course, there would be an obvious answer in cases in which all the payments would not be made in relation to a scheme which is not, at the moment it is being considered, completed. In such a case it would always be in the power of the Government to deal with the local authority. If there was a case in which the scheme had been absolutely completed I think the matter would undoubtedly be more difficult. A question would then arise as to whether methods should be devised for dealing with the situation, but if the noble Earl is interested in this question, and cares to, raise it at a stage to which I think it is more appropriate, I will be careful to see that it is more fully explored.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 22, leave out ("from the date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STUART of WORTLEY moved the addition to Clause 7 of a new subsection. The noble Lord said: I move the Amendment which stands in my name at the request of the Clerk of the Peace of the West Riding, on the grounds that, although in most counties the county council is the asylum authority, it is not the case in Lancashire or the West Riding, where special statutory powers exist in giving effect to agreements made between the council of the administrative county and certain great county boroughs within the county. In the case of the West Riding the Asylums Board desires to adminster this Act and to be considered the competent authority for that purpose, and I have reason to believe that the corresponding authority in Lancashire has the same desire. The case is not met by the Amendment put in at the instance of the Lord Chancellor higher up, because in fact this Asylums Board is not a Statutory Committee of the County Council.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, after line 40, insert the following new subsection: (5) The provisions of this section relating to the carrying out of a scheme for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by County Councils shall apply to the Lancashire Asylums Board, the West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Board or other body constituted for the purpose of the administration of the Lunacy Acts, on behalf of any combination of County Councils and County Borough Couneils."—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

Though the Amendment is not absolutely met by the Amendment of my noble and learned friend, it follows very much on the same lines, and I am, therefore, able to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL GREY

My Lords, before Clause 7 is put I should like to suggest to the noble and learned Lord a scheme which has only been brought to my notice to-day, which I think will probably fit into Clause 7. I do this with a view to asking him to consider it before the next stage. Briefly the suggestion that was made to me—and it comes from a source which is well qualified to deal with such a matter—is that we might possibly be able to make use of the very large funds that have been accumulated by the building societies during the course of the war. From the 1912 Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies upon the funds of building societies I find that building societies in that year had 600,000 members, and that in 1911 they lent on mortgage £9,000,000 for building. As during the four years of the war it was presumably quite impossible that they should have been able to use the funds that must have been accumulating in payment of previous advances for building schemes, I think it is reasonable to suppose—indeed, I believe it to be a fact—that the building societies have accumulated some £30,000,000, which no doubt is very largely in Government securities at the present time.

As the Bill stands I cannot see how you can bring into use, for the purpose of reducing the shortage of houses, these accumulated funds of the building societies, and until I had this scheme put before me to-day—it is a scheme which was drawn up by a clever banker in consultation with officials of building societies—I did not see how they could be used. I am quite aware that it does involve the subsidising of an individual who wishes to build himself a house, but, as what we are suffering from is a shortage of houses, it seems to me that a house is a house whether it is built by an individual or by a local authority, and if an individual builds it it helps to reduce the shortage.

If I may, I will quote an example to illustrate the scheme. Taking the cost of building at 1s. 3d. per cubic foot, and taking a building containing 10,000 cubic feet, that would bring out the cost of a house at £630. The suggestion is that the Government should find 6d. per cubic foot, the building societies perhaps 8d., and the workman who wanted to build his house the other one penny. Those are not exactly the proportions, but they indicate the sort of scheme I mean. The building societies could not sink money unless they saw their way to getting it back fairly quickly, and the way it is proposed to achieve that is that the Government should charge no interest at all for the money found by them for a period of fifteen years. After that period they should charge 5 per cent for fifty years, which would repay them. During the first fifteen years, when the Government charges no interest, the building society would charge 10 per cent. on the capital provided by it for the building of the house, and that rate of 10 per cent. for fifteen years would extinguish the loan made by the building society on a £600 house. Proceeding on that basis it would mean that for the first fifteen years the interest charges would come to about 12s. a week, all of it going to the building society, and that at the second period, after the fifteen years, the 5 per cent. on the Government loan would only amount to 5s. a week. I am informed by the banker who suggested this scheme that that would result in the long run in the Treasury having to bear a smaller total loss than would be involved in the proposal of 30 per cent, of the total cost as provided in the Bill. Even in certain eventualities, such as the rate of interest falling, it might result in an ultimate small profit to the Government.

In view of the fact that these 600,000 members of the building societies are really from the pick of the trades union move-merit in the country, and are men who deserve every encouragement in this species of self-help which they have promoted, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not turn the suggestion down on the score that it would be subsidising an individual, but, if he will allow me to forward him a copy of the scheme as it has been given to me, I should most earnestly beg him to give it his very best consideration with a view to seeing if something of this nature could not be incorporated in the Bill at the next stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl has very clearly indicated, in dealing with a subject matter of some difficulty and complication, a scheme which seemed to me to be a very interesting one. But he would, I think, hardly expect either that the Government itself or, indeed, your Lordships would be in a position to reach a conclusion upon matters brought to their attention for the first time and without notice in the middle of a. Committee debate. But what the noble Earl has suggested will, of course, in the ordinary way appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and I can certainly give him the assurance that it will be very carefully read both by myself and by those who give the Government technical advice in these matters.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Without going into the complications of the scheme which my noble friend has put forward, and which appears to be very ingenious, it is a most formidable fact, if it be true, that all the capital of these great building societies which they have gradually accumulated will, under the operation of this Bill, be rendered useless for building purposes. I want to press that upon the Government. Here you have a great fund which has been collected by the thriftiness of the working classes of this country in the hope that it would be used for building, and if it be true that this Bill will kill the whole of that endeavour, and that all this money will be quite useless for the purpose for which it was subscribed, that is a formidable fact, and I think that, if upon reflection the Government agree that that is likely to be the result of the operation of the Bill, even if they are not able to approve of the scheme of my noble friend, which possibly they will be able to approve of, it is up to them to try and produce some proposal which will prevent such very serious consequences following upon the proposed legislation. I am sure the Government will agree that that would be a most formidable result.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I really do not know whether it is true or not, and I confess I had little knowledge of it until the noble Earl raised it, but I will attempt to make myself more familiar with it.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Borrowing powers of county councils in connection with the housing of their employees.

8.—(1) Where money is borrowed by a county council for the purpose of the provision of houses for persons in the employment of or paid by the council, or of acquiring land for such houses, the maximum period for repayment shall be eighty years, and as respects money so borrowed eighty years shall be substituted for thirty years in subsection (5) of section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888.

(2) When a loan is made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to a county council for any such purposes as aforesaid, it shall be made on the same terms and conditions as a loan to a. local authority for the purposes of the Housing Acts.

(3) A county council shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to provide houses for persons in the employment of or paid by the council, and for that purpose a county council may be authorised to acquire land in like manner as a local authority may be authorised to acquire land for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendments standing in my name to Clause 8 are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 7, line 3, after ("Council") insert ("or a statutory committee thereof")

Page 7, line 15, after ("Council") insert ("or a statutory committee thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved the addition of a new subsection. The noble Lord said: That is consequential on the Amendment which the Government have been good enough to accept.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, after line 18, insert the following new subsection: (4) In this section the expression 'county council' shall include any such board or body as is mentioned in section seven of this Act."—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In reference to the new clauses standing on the Paper after Clause 8 and in the names of Lord Northbrook and Lord Ernle, I understand that they are willing to move them later after Clause 33.

Clause 9:

Provisions as to assessment of compensation.

9.—(1) Where land included in any scheme made or to be made under part I or Part II of the principal Act (other than land included in such a scheme only for the purpose of making the scheme efficient and not on account of the sanitary condition of the premises thereon or of those premises being dangerous or prejudicial to health) is acquired compulsorily, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any buildings thereon, shall be the value at the time the valuation is made of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building byelaws for the time being in force in the district:

Provided that if the scheme requires that provision shall be made for the re-housing of persons of the working classes on the land or part thereof when cleared, or that the land or a part thereof when cleared shall be laid out as an open space, the compensation payable to all persons interested in any land included in the scheme (other than as aforesaid) for their respective interests therein shall be reduced by an amount ascertained in accordance with the rules set forth in the First Schedule to this Act.

(2) The provisions of sections twenty-one and forty-one of the principal Act shall cease to apply as respects lands to which the provisions of this section apply, in so far as such first-mentioned provisions are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this section.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had on the Paper an Amendment, in the first paragraph of subsection (1), after "including any buildings thereon," to insert "other than buildings not shown to be insanitary or dangerous or prejudicial to health by evidence under subsection two of section twenty-one or subsection three of section forty-one of the principal Act." The noble Earl said: I should be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill if he would explain whether the object which I have in view is already met by the clause. My object is to exclude from the operation of this clause buildings which are not shown to be insanitary. Your Lordships will realise that in any scheme which may be undertaken by the local authority there may be many buildings which are not insanitary and which are occupied already.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Earl has put down this Amendment under a misapprehension. The expression "land" in line 22 includes buildings, and therefore the buildings which the noble Earl quite rightly wishes to exclude are, beyond all question, already excluded from the operation of the Bill.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

What I have in my mind is that among buildings and houses which are insanitary you frequently come across perfectly sanitary houses.

VISCOUNT PEEL

They are included under the parenthesis.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is that in the definition of "land"?

VISCOUNT PEEL

"Other than land."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sure the noble and learned Lord is quite right, but he said that "land" included buildings, and I want to know where he finds that to be so.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The words of subsection (1) are that "where land included in any scheme made or to be made under Part I. or Part II. of the principal Act (other than land included in such a scheme only for the purpose of making the scheme efficient and not on account of the sanitary condition of the premises thereon or of those premises being dangerous or prejudicial to health) is acquired compulsorily, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any buildings thereon, shall be the value at the time the valuation is made of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building byelaws for the time being in force in the district." If the noble Earl is in any doubt I shall be glad between now and the Report stage to make it quite clear to him. It is a little complicated.

LORD DOWNHAM moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building by-laws for the time being in force in the district," and to insert'' for houses of the working classes." The noble Lord said: One of the objects of this comprehensive Bill is to enable large municipalities to operate under Parts I and II of the principal Act, and to set to work to clear slum areas, and generally to improve the sanitary condition of the congested districts in which so many of the working classes unfortunately have to dwell. And one of the principal objects that the Bill has in view is to cheapen the process of effecting these slum clearances. Hitherto the difficulty has been the enormous cost of carrying out these clearances, owing to the excessive value which was often placed, even by arbitrators, upon the property which had to be purchased. This clause goes to a certain extent to meet that difficulty, because it enacts that the value of property which is to be cleared compulsorily for the purpose of Part I and Part II shall be the valuation made of the land as a site without buildings, and available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building by-laws for the time being in force.

But when this was debated in the House of Commons there was a very strong body of opinion which undoubtedly thought that the valuation clause did not go far enough in the direction of cheapening the process of acquiring this property. An amendment was moved in that House to leave out all the words after the word "site" and to insert the words which I now ask your Lordships to insert, "for houses of the working classes." If these words were inserted the valuation of this slum property would be its valuation as a site cleared of all buildings, but as a site which could only be used for the erection of working class dwellings. Many of us think that that is a perfectly fair valuation to put upon a site of that kind. Here there has been a large slum area with much insanitary property upon it, and it has been used for working class dwellings for some time. It is now proposed to take that property compul sorily, and we who support this Amendment say that that site ought to be valued only as a site which can be used for the housing of the working classes. That is the object for which that site is sought; that is why we are buying it compulsorily, and the valuation ought not to be the valuation of that site if it were offered in the open market for a railway station, or a big factory, or something of that kind. As I said, this was an Amendment much debated in the House of Commons. I myself am of opinion that those were right who sought to cheapen the value of this site by limiting its valuation to the purposes of houses for the working classes.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 28, leave out from ("site") to end of line 30, and insert ("for houses of the working classes").—(Lord Downham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is not an Amendment which the Government have any interest in resisting. It ought to be borne in mind, however, that it may be thought to be rather unfair to the owners; because, if I understand the effect of my noble friend's Amendment, the local authority might conceivably buy the site at a reduced value and then sell it again at the full market value.

LORD DOWNHAM

No.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It seems to me that this would be possible; but the noble Lord will show me where I am wrong. I do not see the safeguard which would render such a course on the part of the local authority impossible. If, however, your Lordships approve of the Amendment, I would accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is a very difficult and intricate part of the Bill, and I hope that I shall not expose myself to criticism by not understanding it fully. I am not quite sure that I approve of my noble friend's Amendment; but I think, if I may say so, it is better than the clause of the Government as it stands; because the clause of the Government makes the value of the land uncertain. I cannot think that this can be right.

The clause has two paragraphs—the paragraph upon which we now are, and then a proviso. The paragraph with which we are now dealing provides that the compensation shall not be payable in respect of houses which are ex hypothesi slums, and worthless, and ought to be abolished. That appeals to be sound as a principle; and I agree with the first paragraph of the Government proposal. Then comes the proviso which goes on to say that, though the land is to be valued merely as a bare site without any compensation in respect of the slum buildings upon it, yet the amount of the compensation shall be varied in accordance with the fact of what the destination of the land is going to be; if the land is to be used for working class dwellings it is to be one price, if it is to be used for other purposes it is to be another price. That cannot be fair; and I cannot believe that the Government can really defend the provisions of the clause as they stand. My noble friend Lord Downham proposes to cut the matter short and to say that the only price to be given for the land shall be for the bare land destined to be covered again, with working-class dwellings. That is a simple and straightforward proposition. I am not sure that it is altogether fair to the owners of land, but anyone can understand it.

In a moment my noble friend Lord Malmesbury will move another Amendment to cut out the proviso altogether. That is another way of making the clause clear. Then it would be that the land is to be compensated for as a bare site without anything being given for the slums; but its true value as a bare site including—as the arbitrator or the valuer would have to include—any possible reasonable destination which the land might have. To my mind that is the fair value of the land. You do not give him anything for his bad slums—which he ought not to have at all and which ought to be abolished—but you give him the full price of the land, whatever it may be. You cannot very well limit the price to the price it would fetch simply if the land were going to have working-class dwellings upon it. I say this with all the more emphasis because it is a little doubtful under the provisions of the Bill whether the working-class houses which will be put upon the land will have any value. Unless they can be let at an economic rent they will have no value at all. The only purposes for which the land is allowed to be used, if the proviso becomes effective, is either for the dwellings themselves or for open spaces. By the practice of valuers open spaces have no value; they are very valuable to the philanthropic housing reformer, but the valuers says they have no value because no rent is given for them. The upshot will be, if the worst happens to the owner of the property and the proviso is brought into full effect, that he will get no value for the land at all. I do not think that is the intention of the Government. However, as between the alternative of my noble friend Lord Downham and that of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury, speaking with great respect I prefer the latter.

LORD ISLINGTON

I have considerable sympathy with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I think the wording of the clause as it stands at present is open to great ambiguity if that it is to be the basis upon which land is to be valued in the future. It will depend largely on the geographical position of the land. As I myself knew when I was concerned in housing matters on the London County Council, you may have a filthy slum area right on the confines of the City of London, and in accordance with the wording of this clause undoubtedly that land would be valued at a very much higher price than land in a slum area in parts of London further from the most valuable.

But I cannot help feeling that there is more consideration required by my noble friend Lord Downham before this Amendment is accepted. The noble Lord lays it down that the value of the land should be that of the site for housing purposes. Though the wording may lead to ambiguity, I would remind your Lordships that this proposal has made an immense advance on what has hitherto obtained; because, as I understand, it sweeps away all compensation for interests upon the slum area. I myself was responsible, along with my colleagues on the Housing Committee of the London County Council, for the demolition fifteen years ago of three great areas at a cost to the ratepayers of something over £600,000. A great deal of that money was absorbed in paying for the interests upon those areas; because alongside the slum houses will always be found other houses which would not come actually under the category of slums, and houses also which have a considerable trade interest and a trade value to the occupant.

This interest will be swept away by a stroke of the pen by this new clause. I understand the trade interest would go because the whole compensation is to be assessed upon the site value. If that be so, and if in addition to that great advance—if I am correct in my reading of the Bill—you go a stage further and assess the land for housing purposes, I cannot help thinking that there will be occupants upon the slum areas who are carrying on respectable businesses, shops and so on, who will suffer a certain amount of injustice in regard to the new assessment. Before this Amendment is accepted I would ask my noble friend if he would not agree that further consideration should be given to this subject, because this Amendment, I cannot help feeling, would entail a certain amount of injustice to the occupants of these areas.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The discussion has been an interesting, and, I think, a valuable one. I was struck by some of the observations which fell from the noble Marquess opposite. Your Lordships will remember that when I said that so far as the Government were concerned we had no objection to this Amendment I indicated that the matter was looked upon as one of difficulty. I would suggest a course which I hope will not be disagreeable to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and convenient to the rest of your Lordships. I think that the course of the debate has made it plain that this clause and the proviso to it require further consideration, and I should propose, if your Lordships sanction this course, to use the interval between the Committee and Report stages in discussion, both with the experts and, if I may, with my noble friend, as to the terms of Clause 9. I thought there was much force in the criticisms of the noble Marquess, and I am not completely satisfied myself with the basis adopted in the Bill in its present form. Equally, I think your Lordships as a whole would probably prefer that I should take the course of postponing, if that be the course ultimately adopted, the acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment till your Lordships have considered it a little more carefully. If your Lordships are prepared to leave the clause in its present form and the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, will abstain from moving his Amendment at this stage to omit the proviso, both these points will be very carefully considered between now and Report, and I shall be prepared to make a statement or recommendation to your Lordships on the Report stage.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

After what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, on behalf of the Government, there is only one course open to me and that is to withdraw the Amendment. We are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will consider the point raised by the two Amendments, and I hope the Government in considering them will remember that, unless something is done to modify the proviso, a great and unfair hardship will be imposed on the owners of land. It is true that, under the Bill, the superior landlord is given the power to re-enter on the land, but he is given the power at a moment when it is practically impossible for him to do anything.

LORD CLINTON

May I point out that I think the noble Earl is speaking to an Amendment which has not yet been moved?

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I am explaining, if I am in order, why I am withdrawing at the request of the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Earl's Amendment has not been moved.

LORD DOWNHAM

The Amendment under discussion, I believe, is the Amendment that I moved. If so, I am quite content with the course taken by the noble and learned Lord. I am quite sure that, if he will apply his legal intellect to the question, he will at least get rid of this most complicated and intricate proviso, which it is almost impossible to understand, and he will substitute something more simple and enable us to go a step further perhaps—although the Government have gone a great way—to enable us to acquire these slum properties at a cheaper rate.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The proviso shall certainly be reconsidered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Earl of Malmesbury does not move his Amendment.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Power of entry on land acquired.

10.—(1) Where an order authorising a local authority to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of Part III of the principal Act has been made and confirmed under the provisions of Part I of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, then. at any time after notice to treat has been served, the local authority may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to the owner and occupier of the land, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent or compliance with sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, but subject to the payment of the like interest on the compensation awarded.

(2) Where a local authority has agreed to purchase land for the purpose of Part III of the principal Act, and the land is in the possession of a person having no greater interest therein than as a tenant for a year or from year to year, then at any time after such agreement has been made, the local authority may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to the occupier of the land, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent but subject to the payment to the occupier of the like compensation with such interest thereon as aforesaid as if the local authority had been authorised to purchase the land compulsorily and such occupier had in pursuance of such power been required to quit possession before the expiration of his term or interest in the land, but without the necessity of compliance with sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved several Amendments to subsection (1). The noble and learned Lord said: There is a clause in the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill on the same lines as the clause under consideration here and with the same general object, and it is desirable that the clauses should be drawn as nearly as practicable in the same form. I make this general explanation, that all the Amendments to Clause 10 which stand in my name are designed with that object, and they are in the main, almost all of them, simply drafting Amendments. The first Amendment in line 13, however, introduces a very small point of substance, which is why I say a word about it. The object is to enable the local authority to enter into possession of a part only of the land acquired without entering on the whole at once. It is obviously convenient, in the interests of the local authority and of the owner and occupier, and without this very small Amendment it would be difficult to attain it.

Amendments moved—

Page 8, line 13, after ("land") insert ("or such part thereof as is specified in the notice")

Page 8, line 15, at end insert ("compensation for the land of which possession is taken and")

Page 8, line 16, after ("awarded") insert ("as would have been payable if those provisions had been complied with").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "Act" ["for the purpose of Part III of the principal Act"] to insert "or has determined to appropriate land for that purpose," and, after "made" ["after such agreement has been made"], to insert "or such appropriation has been approved by the Local Government Board." The noble and learned Lord said: The first of these Amendments requires a very short word of explanation. Both of them have been suggested by the Association of Municipal Corporations. Subsection (2) of Clause 10 gives the local authority, which has agreed to purchase land for the purposes of Part III, rapid means of obtaining possession from a yearly tenant. The Association of Municipal Corporations have approached the Government and told them that there are cases within their knowledge where the land intended to be used as a housing site is already the property of the local authority but is subject to yearly tenancies, and it is therefore suggested by the Association that in such cases, where the local authority have decided to appropriate land as a housing site, they should have the same means of obtaining possession as they have in regard to land which they have agreed to buy. That view would seem to be reasonable and one that should receive assent.

Amendments moved—

Page 8, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("or has determined to appropriate land for that purpose")

Page 8, line 21, after ("made") insert ("or such appropriation has been approved by the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 8, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("and the land is in the possession of a person having no greater interest than as") and insert ("subject to the interest of the person in possession thereof and that interest is not greater than that of")

Page 8, line 23, leave out ("occupier of the land") and insert ("a person so in possession")

Page 8, line 24, after ("land") insert ("or such part thereof as is specified in the notice")

Page 8, line 25, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("person so in possession")

Page 8, line 27, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("person").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Additional powers as to acquisition of land and houses.

12.—(1) The powers of a local authority to acquire land for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act shall be deemed to include power—

1. (a) to acquire any houses or other buildings on the land proposed to be acquired as a site for the erection of houses for the working classes; and
2. (b) to acquire any estate or interest in any houses which might be made suitable as houses for the working classes, together with any lands occupied with such houses;

and the local authority shall have power to alter, enlarge, repair and improve any such houses or buildings so as to render them in all respects fit for habitation as houses for the working classes.

(2) The purposes for which land may be acquired under Part III of the principal Act shall be deemed to include—

1. (a)the lease or sale of the land, under the powers conferred by this Act, with a view to the erection thereon of houses for the working classes by persons other than the local authority; and
2. (b)the lease or sale tinder the powers conferred by this Act of any part of the land acquired with a view to the use thereof for purposes which in the opinion of the local authority are necessary or desirable for or incidental to the development of the land as a building estate, including the provision, maintenance, and improvement of houses and gardens and other works or buildings for or for the convenience of persons belonging to the working classes and other persons.

(3) Subject to the consent of the Local Government Board and to such conditions as the Board may prescribe, a local authority may for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act contract for the purchase or lease of houses suitable for the working classes, whether built at the date of the contract or intended to be built thereafter.

LORD DOWNHAM moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "gardens," to insert "factories, workshops, churches, places of recreation." The noble Lord said: This clause gives power to local authorities to acquire land under Part III for the purpose of developing that, land as a building estate, or as a great town planning estate, or for purposes that are amongst the main object of the Bill. I think that, if the great local authorities are to have this power—and I quite agree that they ought, to have it—the words in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) are hardly wide enough. The words at present are to the effect that they may sell the estate for the development of land "as a building estate, including the provision, maintenance, and improvement of houses in gardens and other works or buildings for or for the convenience of persons belonging to the working classes and other persons." I propose that the words "factories, workshops, churches, places of recreation," should be inserted after the word "garden." After all, town planning is a large part of the housing programme. We do not want to buy large quantities of land and then merely to develop that land as houses for the working classes. Otherwise we shall add city of the poor to city of the poor. If we buy large tracts of land and develop them by local authorities or by selling them to others to develop, we ought to have the power to build factories and workshops and to put up churches, places of recreation, and buildings of that kind. These words, if added, will amplify the powers which are given to the local authority, and I hop my noble and learned friend will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 3, after ("gardens") insert ("factories, workshops, churches, places of recreation").—(Lord Downham.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

May I say a word before the noble Viscount replies. I quite sympathise with the desire of my noble friend that there should be not merely houses but the necessary appurtenances, such as gardens, churches, and places of recreation, but surely it is opening a wide door to suggest that we should allow municipal authorities to take land compulsorily and set up workshops and factories. I am one of those who think that one of the greatest difficulties which have arisen with regard to housing have been because men have been allowed, companies have been allowed, to establish factories and workshops without making any provision for the housing of the people they employ. I am not at all certain that it is wise or right to lay on municipal authorities the whole responsibility of providing what is necessary for the temporary population which may have been brought into a locality by some one who sets up a factory or workshop on a large scale and employs a large number of workmen. The factory may fail, in which case the municipality will have to keep up the houses. Whatever happens we certainly ought to refuse to allow municipalities to take land com- pulsorily and put up factories and workshops. That is really a matter private enterprise ought to undertake. If the noble Lord intends to continue with his Amendment, and if the Government are willing to accept it, I venture to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "factories, workshops."

LORD DOWNHAM

The noble Viscount has misunderstood the meaning of the Amendment. What I am proposing is this, that local authorities shall have power to acquire land and lease it or sell it to those who will develop the property. I will take the London County Council which is now contemplating the purchase of land on a very large scale indeed. It may be much better that it should lease or sell a great portion of that estate to some company or body of men who will develop it, not only for the housing of the working classes but for factories and workshops and places in which the working classes can be employed. It is not that the local authority shall develop this land but that the local authority shall lease or sell a portion of the property which they buy to some body of men who will be able to develop it for these purposes and generally turn the land into a city in which men can not only dwell but have their living with all the amenities which attach to ordinary conditions of social life.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is not necessary for me to reply to the noble Viscount because the reply which the Government would have made has been already given by the noble Lord. It is a little uncertain as to whether the powers proposed by the Amendment are already included, but there is no objection to the words and I am quite ready to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not want to resist the Government but I hope they will not lend their countenance to any scheme by which large quantities of land not wanted for the housing of the working classes can be disposed of for factories and workshops. That is not the object of the Bill, and. I should be rather sorry if anything which passed here should give local authorities the idea that is what they are to do. As to the provision of gardens that is quite right, because they are part of the amenities of the houses of the working classes. The same may be said of places of recreation, and ought also to be said of churches. But when you come to factories and workshops the local authority should only be allowed to dispose of the land for that purpose if they happen to have more land than they can deal with. The idea of buying land in order to erect great factories and workshops would be entirely foreign to the purpose of the Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

That could not be done under the Bill. The governing words are: "for purposes which in the opinion of the local authority are necessary or desirable for or incidental to the development of the land as a building estate." Those are quite clear governing words, and it would be quite impossible to buy land for factories and workshops.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I move to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words "factories, workshops."

Amendment moved to the Amendment— Leave out the words ("factories, workshops").—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I agree with what has been said by the noble Viscount and Lord Downham. I do not think it makes the slightest difference to the governing words, which were read by my noble friend. I never thought the Amendment was a very necessary one, and I was quite indifferent as to whether the words were inserted or not.

LORD ISLINGTON

I hope the words "factories, workshops" are not going to be omitted. I should like to see this clause made as comprehensive as possible. We want to do away with these great monotonous streets of little houses. These schemes, if they are to be of any use, should have the capability of developing the whole of the area for all purposes of human activity, and to merely confine them to buildings for the working classes is only going to perpetuate, I admit under better conditions, one of the great evils in generations to come, namely, the segregation of the working classes in their own area. You want to have in the development of these areas all classes of the community and all activities of industry. The only fault I find with the Amendment is that by specifying certain of these activities some must be left out. I should like to see the Clause made as comprehensive as possible, and I hope the Government will agree and the House assent to the Amendment.

On Question, whether the words "factories

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), after "purchase," to insert "by," and after "lease" to insert "to them."

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 9, after ("purchase") insert ("by") and after ("lease") insert ("to them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Your Lordships have made considerable progress with this Bill to-night, and probably it will be a convenient course if I move now that the House do resume. In doing so I may inform your Lordships that it is proposed that this Bill shall take precedence over the other Orders of the Day to-morrow.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

workshops" shall stand part of the Amendment?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33: Not-contents, 18.

CONTENTS
Bradford, E	Ampthill, L	Hylton, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Annesley, L.	Islington, L. [Teller.]
Jersey, E.	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)
Lytton, E.	Beresford of Metemmeh, L.	Newton, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Bledisloe, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
	Clwyd, L.	Rotherham, L.
Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)	Colebrooke, L.	Saltoun, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L Chamberlain.)	Denman, L.	Shandon, L.
Cowdray, V.	Downham, L. [Teller.]	Somerleyton, L.
Devonport, V.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Stanmore, L.
Falkland, V.		Wigan, L.(E. Crawford.)
Peel, V.	Ernle, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M.	Chaplin, V.	Lambourne, L.
	Goschen, V.	Lawrence, L.
Ancaster, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) [Teller.]	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Grey, E.		O'Hagan, L.
Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]		St. Levan, L.
Northbrook, E.	Clinton, L.	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Onslow, E.	Dinevor, L.	Wittenham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.