HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.

HL Deb 09 July 1919 vol 35 cc341-408

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]

Clause 14:

Power to acquire water rights.

14. A local authority or a county council may, notwithstanding anything in section three hundred and twenty-seven or section three hundred and thirty-two of the Public Health Act, 1875, but subject to the provisions of section fifty-two of that Act, be authorised to abstract water from any river, stream, or lake, or the feeders thereof, whether within or without the district of the local authority or the county, for the purpose of affording a water supply for houses provided or to be provided under a scheme made under the Housing Acts, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for affording a water supply to such houses, and to any houses or agricultural holdings that may be deprived of sufficient water supply by reason of such abstraction, in like manner and subject to the like restrictions as they may be authorised to acquire land for the purposes of the scheme:

Provided that no local authority or county council shall be authorised under this section to abstract any water which any local authority, corporation, company, or person are empowered by Act of Parliament to impound, take or use for the purpose of supply within any area, or any water the abstraction of which would, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, injuriously affect the working or management of any canal or inland navigation.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the end of the first paragraph, to insert: "Provided that nothing shall be done hereunder to affect prejudicially the supply of the existing users of such water." The noble Earl said: We have now arrived at what is, perhaps, one of the most important clauses of this important Bill. This clause deals with the question of the water supply of the new houses to be erected. Though we very often read articles and hear speeches on the importance of these new houses being amply supplied with bedrooms and open spaces, and of slums being abolished, all these excellent suggestions sink into insignificance compared with the question of a pure and sufficient water supply. Because, after all, that is an absolute necessity of life; and unfortunately in the past, in dealing with housing, certainly in rural districts, this question has, I think, been sadly neglected.

The Amendment that I propose is one which I sincerely hope the Government will accept. I may be met with the argument that the interests of the users of the existing water supply in villages and small towns are already safeguarded by the clause. I frequently find in Acts of Parliament that there are some very dangerous principles tucked away in provisoes which affect the words in the main part of the clause, and if your Lordships will look at the proviso at the end of this clause you will there find that a different treatment is undoubtedly meted out to any local authority, corporation, company or person which by Act of Parliament can "impound, take, or use for the purpose of supply within any area." That is to say, any local authority, corporation, company, or person which is distributing water is absolutely safeguarded and its supply can in no way be touched. The putting in of that clause, therefore, makes it absolutely certain that different treatment is going to be meted out to private persons and local authorities who in the past, owing to their public spirit and forethought, have made provision for the water supply of their houses.

All of us know very well in country villages, especially in many parts of England, how extremely difficult it is to get a satisfactory supply of water. I know of several villages where the water supply at present is not always pure, and is very inadequate and obtained with the very greatest difficulty. It seems to me that there should be most emphatic words placed in this clause to say that the present users of such water supplies should in no way be prejudiced. It seems rather hard that where local authorities and private persons in the past have arranged for water supplies another local authority—because under this clause one local authority may go into another local authority's area—that such an authority, which has been backward in housing and in providing a water supply, should enjoy their rights at the expense of its neighbour.

My own opinion is that the need for water, even in our existing houses, is likely to increase—perhaps it is because they have not so much beer as they had in the past, and also because there is a great movement on foot to provide proper washing accommodation and baths for the inmates of those houses, although I believe that in this respect a somewhat niggardly supporter in another place did not treat very fairly with the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. But there can be no doubt that the need for water is likely to be on the increase rather than to diminish, and it seems most necessary that words safeguarding the interests of the present users should be placed in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 41, at end insert ("Provided that nothing shall be done hereunder to affect prejudicially the supply of the existing users of such water").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)

The noble Earl has stated in an extremely forcible manner an apprehension which must be felt by any person who has given attention to this matter, and which certainly was very clearly felt by those who were responsible for the drafting of this Bill and for the language in which its clauses are expressed. Every one likes to feel, of course, that it is vital that the local authority acting under the clause and the Local Government Board in confirming any Order for compulsory acquisition, must consider the case of those who have existing rights to water as just as responsible a charge as the case of those in new houses for whom they must provide supplies. I cannot think that the noble Earl really believes that any one or any authority whose duty it was to administer this Act would ever dream of treating their responsibility to those who at this moment of time have water as less than their responsibility to those for whom water is being provided

I really thought that the words in the clause had made the matter indisputably clear. Let the noble Earl throw his eye over the language of Clause 14. It says— A local authority or a county council may, notwithstanding anything in section three hundred and twenty-seven or section three hundred and thirty-two of the Public Health Act, 1875, but subject to the provisions of section fifty-two of that Act, be authorised to abstract water from any river … for the purpose of affording a water supply for houses provided or to be provided under a scheme made under the Housing Acts, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for affording a water supply to such houses— I pause there. The effective part of the clause is to enable the local authority to do all acts that may be necessary to afford a water supply to such houses. Observe now the following words— and to any houses or agricultural holdings that may be deprived of sufficient water supply by reason of such abstraction. In other words, the very same language which is used in order to enable the local authority to provide water for the new houses is also used in order to enable them to retain the water which is required for the old houses that may be injured by the abstraction. If I may say so, it really is incredible that the noble Earl should seriously suppose that the local authority is going to rob Peter to pay Paul. After all, those who are responsible in the Government Office that has to supervise the decisions of the local authority are just as deeply concerned with the interests of those who already have a water supply as they are in the cases of new houses.

I almost think the noble Earl saw some sinister meaning in the proviso. Really no such meaning can or ought to be read into it. The proviso says that no local authority shall be allowed to abstract any water which a corporation is empowered by Act of Parliament to impound. Really, if we had not inserted this proviso I can imagine the chorus of indignation which would have arisen from every quarter in the House. These powers have been given by Parliament to corporations because corporations are bound to provide water to those for whose interests they are responsible. If we had not inserted the proviso we should have had opposition—legitimate opposition—from every corporation in the kingdom.

The only objection to the noble Earl's Amendment is that it protects existing users of water, although they are not at the present time in possession of any statutory rights, and gives them statutory rights. With all respect to the noble Earl's argument, I cannot see any reason for giving statutory rights to persons who at present have no such rights. What we have done is the right, the artistic, and the adequate thing—namely, to lay it down as a canon of conduct to the Government Department which is responsible that it shall be a source of equal anxiety to them to see that water is not removed from those who at the present time enjoy it as to provide water for these new houses. I have carefully considered the subject, and I really think that the apprehensions of the noble Earl are groundless.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, first of all, whither the words "any river, stream, or lake" include springs; because we know that in country districts and villages the bulk of the water provided comes from springs. These springs are the private property of the owner of the land, and he has probably utilised them to provide water for the people living on his property. There is also to be power to provide a sufficient water supply to the new houses, but I take it that in many rural districts there is an insufficient water supply. If you are to take away water and supply it to the new houses, it might be that while the previous people have what I may call a liberal supply of water, for baths and so on, the surplus water you might take from them—if you left them as much as they enjoyed before—might give a very insufficient ration to the new people. I want to know whether under this clause it is to be held that the people who had the water before have a sufficient water supply if they have as much as the new people. I cannot help thinking that people who have had their own water—which is their private property and which they have enjoyed; of course there was a surplus as no one will dispute—are entitled to have the full reasonable use of it for their own occupation before any is taken away for the new people.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think there is much force in what the noble Lord has said; but is not the real answer to this kind of question that it must be assumed that those who have the responsibility for dealing with this matter will behave as sensible men? In the first place, you have the popularly-elected members of the local authority. They have a knowledge of the neighbourhood; and I am sure I shall carry the noble Lord with me at least this length when I say that they are very unlikely to wish to divest of his water a man who has taken some care and trouble to provide himself with an adequate supply in order that undue advantages shall be given to people in the new houses.

Take A as the old owner who has provided himself with water rights as a result of considerable care and trouble, and take B as the owner of a new house. I suspect that the local people would say, as between A and B, "We will see that B has enough, but we do not propose to do A any greater injury than we can help." The noble Lord approaches the matter from a different angle from that of the noble Earl, and I think that his apprehension rather re-inforces the general submission would make to the House—namely, that you cannot in dealing with matters of this kind do more than indicate the principle, which we have clearly done, and then leave the administration of it to be carried out by the local authority and by the Government authority in London. However, I will convey in terms the apprehensions which have been expressed by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, and I will see that they are further examined, though I do not really think that the Amendment can be accepted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sure we have listened with satisfaction to the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord at the conclusion of his remarks. But, if I may say so, the weak point in his argument seems to be the existence of the proviso. I do not mean to say that the proviso is not a very just and proper one; yet, if you expressly provide that in a certain number of cases the user of the water shall be protected, there is the natural inference that the user of the water in other cases is not to be protected. That is a risky thing to put in an Act of Parliament.

It is true, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that the user of the water has not in many cases a statutory right to his water, but he has quite as good a right because he has always enjoyed it, and he has it by law. To come down and say that certain persons—namely, corporations, companies, or persons who have an Act of Parliament behind them—are to be protected, is almost as much as to say that the same sanctity does not apply to other people, and such an intimation made to a local authority might prejudicially affect the rights of other users. If my noble friend has appreciated the assurance of the noble and learned Lord—which I understand is that he will consider further how far these words protect all the persons who ought to be protected—perhaps that will be sufficient for this stage of the Bill.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

With your Lordships' permission I should like to say another word on this Amendment. I find myself, of course, in a difficult position when it comes to interpreting an Act of Parliament as compared with the noble and learned Lord who has just addressed you. He assures us that people who already provide a water supply for their holdings or houses will be amply safeguarded under the clause as it stands, though he does admit that it deals differently with statutory bodies who have to supply water under an Act of Parliament.

The point I wish to ask is this. The words of the clause are "that may be deprived of sufficient water supply." I am not a law-giver and I do not profess to say how those words are to be interpreted, but I am doubtful on the point. Who is to be the judge of what is a sufficient water supply? A man may put in a water supply for his farms and houses and may take a different view of what is a sufficient supply for the existing houses from that of some rural district council, which has been remiss in building in the past and has had a tight fit when supplying water for the new houses. In addition to that I also believe that, though the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that the proviso distinctly refers to companies or persons who supply water under Act of Parliament, the clause also says— … take or use for the purpose of supply within any area, or any water the abstraction of which would, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, injuriously affect the working or management of any canal or inland navigation. I am a little doubtful whether these people get their water under Act of Parliament. If you are going, in the proviso, to put in special words to protect those people who manage any canal or inland navigation, I would, if I may, suggest the alteration of my Amendment so that people who have already got the water supply for their holdings and farm houses should be placed in the same category as people who are working or managing a canal or inland navigation, and add my words at the end of the proviso. Considering that the word "sufficient" is the only one in the clause which safeguards the present water supply, I shall, if I get any support, press my Amendment to a Division.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I should like to call the noble and learned Lord's attention to the first point which does not strictly come under the Amendment, though I am sure, as the noble and learned Lord has promised to look into the question, he will not object to my doing so with a view to the Report stage. The provision relates to any local authority, corporation, company, or persons who have taken water by Act of Parliament. A great many parish councils and others have got water supply schemes under Provisional Orders—that is, Acts of Parliaments—but many people sometimes help the parish to save the expense of Provisional Orders, so that it is done by agreement Still, it is done for a public purpose, for the use of the community, and I think it should cover practically any scheme for a public water supply, whether done under an Act of Parliament or in some other way.

As to the other point, will the noble and learned Lord allow me to suggest that the authority in these rural districts is the district council? Now the district council, if they have built new cottages, will think first of their own cottages and get as much water as possible for them and will not be very scrupulous in a large district containing thirty or forty parishes. They will say, "If we have got to be rationed, you must be rationed too, and what is good enough for our new cottages is good enough for you." People who have got their own provision ought to be entitled to a liberal supply of water and only a reasonable surplus should be taken from them for the purposes of the new scheme.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged to the noble Lord. As to the first point he made, that one may add to persons empowered by Act of Parliament persons who, under a recognised scheme, have made such provision, I am disposed to think that it might be very usefully considered, though obviously not at this moment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We want everybody included who has a right to water by law.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am coming to that. I cannot deal with all the points at once. I said I was dealing with the first point of the noble Lord. Now I come to the point of the noble Marquess. I am not sure that he was here when I dealt with it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry to say I was not here.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have dealt with it, and, if I may say so, I am really placed in a difficulty because the noble Earl in the last speech he made did not take any notice at all of the submission that I made to the House on the point.

Let me make it again. Under Clause 14 a local authority is authorised to abstract water from any stream for the purpose of new houses. That is their power, and it is expressed in clear language. It is also stated that they may do "such acts as may be necessary for affording a water supply to such houses." These are the only words that give them the power of doing it for the new houses. The clause goes on— and to any houses or agricultural holdings that may be deprived of sufficient water supply by reason of such abstraction. In other words, the very same language which empowers the local authority to use water for the purposes of the new houses obliges them, or authorises them, to make provision for houses which lose their supply as the result of the abstraction.

It would be impossible as a matter of draughtsmanship—I am sure the noble Lord will take the same view—to do what I see the noble Lord would like to do, if it were possible, namely, to define quantitatively the amount that must be permitted to be reserved in cases of such competition between the old owners and the new houses. The Bill would be infinite which carried out the purpose of the noble Earl. Such things really cannot be done except by using general words. The noble Earl says he does not know what is a sufficient water supply. I can assure him that if he were sitting as a jury or as a member of a local authority, and had the facts argued and discussed before him, a landowner of his experience would know perfectly well what a sufficient supply was. There is none of your Lordships, sitting in any capacity in which he may be called upon to sit and having before him the facts, either proved or admitted, who would be in the slightest doubt on the point. I know of no other way, except by general words, of doing it. The noble Earl suggested that canals were not worked under Acts of Parliament and that, therefore, the cases of the old owners ought to be included in the proviso. I may be quite wrong, but I certainly was of the opinion that canals were operated under Acts of Parliament.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Do they obtain the water supply under Act of Parliament?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should be very much astonished to hear that they did not. The noble Earl has asked me a question of which I had no notice, but there are many reasons which would surprise me if canals did not do their work under Act of Parliament. There is every desire to do exactly what your Lordships want. There is every desire to see that the old users of water are treated fairly in comparison with the new houses. I think the words that are contained in the clause do most amply secure it, but I hope very much that your Lordships will allow it to be a little further considered, though I do not wish it to be supposed that I have given an assurance that any change will be made, because, as at present advised, I do not really think a change is necessary. I will take further opinion and advice from the experts.

THE EARL OF HAREWOOD

I am unwilling to detain the House very long, but I only came in when the noble and learned Lord was making his statement, and I understood him to say that under this clause everybody was protected. Perhaps the House will pardon me if I put an individual case. You take the case of a landowner who, at great expense and trouble to himself, has provided a water supply for a village or small farms on an estate, which is sufficient for that village or farms in present circumstances. In the case of a local authority or a landowner building additional houses in this village, in which case the water supply might not be sufficient, is it open to them to provide a source of water from that which supplies this village? Is that to come under the control of the local authority, or is it not? I should like to have this question answered because it appears to me that a great injustice might be created in the case of a private water supply of a village.

VISCOUNT PEEL

May I ask the noble Earl to repeat that specific question as I could not hear him?

THE EARL OF HAREWOOD

The question I was asking was, What is to happen to the landowner who supplies a village on his property, or a small town, with a water supply constructed entirely at his private expense? Is the local authority to have power to take control of that water supply. How is he protected? In this case the landowner does not hold the water supply under any Act of Parliament, and the only people who are protected are those who obtain their water under an Act of Parliament. I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have tried to say before—because it was the same point which the noble Lord made a moment ago—that any person who had made provision for the village himself (and I have borne a considerable part in doing so in my own village) has, as the Bill is drafted at present, this protection—that the local authority are bound, under supervision and control from the Ministry of Health, to take such steps as may be necessary to afford a water supply to any houses or agricultural holdings that may be deprived of sufficient water by reason of the abstraction under the terms of this Bill. In the case cited by the noble Earl, suppose the landlord has provided a water supply for the village, and suppose further (for the question involves this) that that water supply is or may be affected by the grant of water to new houses, the authority is bound—it is the duty of the Ministry of Health to see that this obligation is implemented—to see that a sufficient water supply is afforded to all the houses in that village whose supply may be to some extent affected by the new houses. I do not think I can do more than say—I have listened with the greatest care to all the speeches—that such matters shall be considered before the Report stage.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I respond to the noble and learned Lord's invitation to express my opinion as to the extreme difficulty of framing in language the exact ideas that it is necessary to express in an Act of Parliament such as this. That difficulty is well illustrated by what he has just said. It is plain that his reading of the clause and mine are quite different. I read the clause in this way. There is, first of all, a power given to the local authorities to abstract water from rivers, streams, lakes, and feeders, and then they have the general power of doing anything they like to do—"all such acts as may be necessary for affording a water supply"—for the new houses. That would include making a contribution from an existing well. They may do anything they please for the purpose of obtaining this water; and it contemplates that in the course of this operation houses that now enjoy the benefit of a water supply may be prejudiced.

The noble and learned Lord says that in that event the authorities are bound to take the necessary steps to compensate the person who suffers. It is there that I find myself unable to follow him. I see nothing in the clause which compels them to do anything of the kind. All that it does is that it authorises them to do what they think necessary for affording a water supply to new houses, and if houses have been injured there is no power in the person who is injured to apply to the Court for a mandamus directing that the local authority should compensate. There is nothing here but an option. They may do it or not. There is nothing in the world to compel them to do anything in the matter.

LORD GISBOROUGH

May I put one more point before your Lordships? Take the case of the landowner who has spent a large sum of money in a water company, obtained an Act of Parliament, and has not only supplied existing houses but is ready and anxious to supply any new houses that are built. Under this clause the local authority could go behind the back of that company and so deprive the company of the extra supply which would enable them to return a dividend on their capital. Is not that the case under this Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I first make an observation in reply to the noble and learned Lord. It is, of course, perfectly true that there is no obligation in this Clause 14. I have tried to make it plain that the language of the clause was precisely the same in form in dealing with the old houses as in dealing with the new. In both there is authorisation; in neither is there compulsion.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The noble and learned Lord used the word "bound."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not quite sure whether I used the word "bound," but I shall be able to read the precise word to-morrow. What I said was that the language of the clause was precisely the same in the case of the new as in the case of the old houses; and that is undoubtedly true. In reference to the question of the noble Lord, I have said before that such landowners as he supposes are not subject to the unimpaired control of local authorities. The local authority can only do these acts with the sanction of the Ministry of Health, and it seems to me that it is most unreasonable, if a case such as was put by the noble Lord and other cases of injustice were brought before the Ministry of Health, to suppose that they would not do the best they could to meet any grievance of the kind.

I am on strong grounds in saying that it is not humanly possible to provide for all these cases by intelligent anticipation within the limits of an Act of Parliament. I have not the least doubt that other members of your Lordships' House could suggest half a dozen more cases in which great hardship would follow, but I wish your Lordships to remember that the new houses must have water and that you must define the terms in which they are to be supplied, my suggestion is that it is not possible to do it except in general language.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Power of Local Government Board to assist in preparation of schemes.

16. For the purpose of assisting in the preparation and carrying out of schemes under this Act, the Local Government Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, acquire and hold lands and buildings, erect buildings, and dispose of any lands or buildings so acquired or erected.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had on the Paper three Amendments which were taken together. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not the product of my own unassisted imagination. It was suggested to me. My attention was called to the very strong representations that were made in another place, as late, I think, as the Third Reading of the Bill, that the Government ought in certain cases to take the responsibility of immediate action, without waiting for the time, prescribed by the Bill, during which schemes might be proposed. The words for dealing with such a case were suggested to me, and I will not take the entire responsibility for those words, but I would submit them to the Government for consideration and ask the House now to give attention to them, and to see whether it is a proper power to give—I think it is—to the Ministry of Health.

I do not know why the Government did not accede to the suggestions that were made so forcibly to them in the other House, but they may have had time since to consider the matter and may be able to tell the House now what view they take of the actual words which I have put down. Your Lordships will see that the general effect is that, in cases where accommodation is imperatively needed, and where there really is means of getting accommodation at once, the Ministry of Health ought to take the responsibility and ought to proceed to action at once and do what is absolutely necessary and what is in fact available. I think that those who fully understand the facts upon which this Bill is based know that in some of the districts about London there are many unoccupied houses just now, and that there are, of course, immense demands for them. If power was given to the Ministry of Health at once to put these houses in order they would be able to get tenants immediately. The objection that occurred to me when these words were suggested to me was that it was an interference with the local authority, and certainly I should not wish to suggest anything that would take away from the principle in the Bill of putting these matters upon the local authority. These are, however, very urgent and exceptional cases, and I think that the whole urgency of the problem is so universally recognised that if it should be necessary to make an exception it would be better to do so.

Another objection has been suggested to me, and it is that there is something in the nature of our old friend the Privilege question connected with this, because expense would be incurred under it. I hope that your Lordships will not pay much attention to that objection. It really would be, I think, a case of Privilege going absolutely mad. If that principle were adopted in this case I do not see how the House could ever deal with anything of a practical kind, because almost everything does lead to some expense. I do not think the Privilege objection ought to be raised, and if there is a scintilla of Privilege in the matter I believe there is nothing to prevent the other House, when the Amendment goes down, waiving their Privilege. I submit the Amendment to the Government, and I should be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord whether he thinks it is advisable to press it.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 32, after ("Act") insert ("or for the purpose of securing the immediate provision of dwelling accommodation in the area of any local authority pending the preparation of a scheme by such authority")

Page 12, line 34, after the second ("buildings") insert ("alter, enlarge, repair, and improve buildings")

Page 12, line 35, at end insert ("and for such purposes the Board may exercise any of the powers of a local authority under the Housing Acts in regard to the acquisition and disposal of land and buildings").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I can see the object which the noble Lord has in his mind, and there is munch to be said in its favour, although there is the difficulty of which he has spoken—namely, the difficulty of Privilege. It is a little complicated, but I think I understand the noble Lord's purpose, and he will tell me whether I construe it rightly. Clause 16 empowers the Local Government Board to acquire and hold lands and buildings, to erect buildings, and to dispose of any land and buildings so acquired and erected. One of the objects of the clause was evidently to enable the Local Government Board to conduct experiments in house construction by building novel types of houses, erected in accordance with, it may be, novel methods of construction, perhaps sometimes with the use of novel materials; but it was also contemplated that the Local Government Board might give practical assistance in the carrying out of schemes by building, or arranging for the building, of houses where the local authority experienced any one of those incalculable difficulties which may arise in doing so.

If I understand the Amendment, it is an amplification of the power at present contained in Clause 16. The Amendment, as I understand it, does three things. It makes it clear that the Local Government Board can take action immediately by providing housing accommodation pending the preparation of a scheme by the local authority. In the second place it empowers the Local Government Board not only to erect buildings but also to alter, enlarge, repair, and improve buildings; and in the third place it confers on the Local Government Board the powers of a local authority under the Housing Acts. These powers, of course, include the power of compulsory acquisition of land and houses and the power of immediate entry.

Many speeches were made in the House of Commons in the sense of this Amendment, and similar proposals, though they were not carried there, undoubtedly met with a great deal of strong support from different sections of the House; and it is true that in London there are large numbers of unoccupied houses. Every one of your Lordships must be aware of districts in which there are large houses which at the present moment are wasted, and wasted at a time when there is great demand for house accommodation. It is true that the Amendment of the noble Lord would enable the authorities to convert, or experiment in the conversion, of such houses for the purpose of tenements and so forth. The noble Lord has pointed out that it may be said technically that this is an Amendment which conflicts with the Privilege of the House of Commons.

The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the second Reading of this Bill, in language almost deprecatory, expressed the hope that the House of Commons would not insist, on a matter of this kind, and on a Bill in relation to which your Lordships have of course special knowledge, upon the objection of Privilege. I have conveyed that view to the proper authorities in the House of Commons, and while, of course, it is not a matter on which it would be right to expect from them, or right that they should give, any definite assurance in relation to any particular Amendment, I am encouraged to suppose that the wish expressed by the noble Marquess will be very carefully considered, and that if there be Amendments which contain points of substance coming from your Lordships on this Bill, but which could be rebutted by the Privilege objection, it is not unlikely that steps will be taken to waive that objection, so that such Amendments may be considered on their merits. At any rate, with the caution which I must, of course, give my noble friend, that no one sitting in this House can give any guarantee as to the views which will be taken by the majority in the House of Commons on a question of this kind—subject to that, I accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, which I think is an improvement on the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Amendments moved—

Page 12, line 38, leave out ("the local authority") and insert ("a local authority within the meaning of Part III of the principal Act")

Page 12, line 39, leave out ("of the council") and insert ("thereof")

Page 12, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("of the council of such local authority") and insert ("thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Powers of promoting and assisting public utility societies.

18.—(1) A local authority within the meaning of Part III of the principal Act, or a county council, may promote the formation or extension of, or subject to the provisions of this section assist a public utility society, whose objects include the erection, improvement or management of houses for the working classes, and where such a society is desirous of erecting houses for the working classes which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, are required, and the local authority of the area in which the houses are proposed to be built are unwilling to acquire land with a view to selling or leasing the same to the society, the county council, on the application of the society, may for this purpose acquire land and exercise all the powers of a local authority under the Housing Acts in regard to the acquisition and disposal of land.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "and the provisions of those Acts as to the acquisition of land by local authorities within the meaning of Part III. of the principal Act shall apply accordingly."

The noble and learned Lord said: This is not quite a drafting Amendment, and yet it really is drafting. The latter part of sub-clause (1) of Clause 18 enables the county council to acquire land for the purpose of selling or leasing such land to a public utility society if the minor local authority is unwilling to act. The additional words proposed to be inserted will make it clear that if a county council decides to act in the circumstances proposed it will have the same powers for the acquisition of land for this purpose as the local authority.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 16, after ("land") insert ("and the provisions of those Acts as to the acquisition of land by local authorities within the meaning of Part III of the principal Act shall apply accordingly'').—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 40, leave out ("from the date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 24, at beginning insert ("In the case of loans made") and after ("period") insert ("after the passing of this Act")

Page 15, line 27, after ("solely") insert ("may exceed two-thirds but").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause [...]0 as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

Amendments moved—

Page 16, line 16, after ("authority") insert ("within the meaning of Part III of the principal Act of the district in which the house is situated")

Page 16, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("of the district in which the house is situated")

Page 16, line 21, leave out ("of") and insert ("for").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Relaxation of by-laws.

23.—(1) Where in pursuance of a housing scheme to which this section applies new buildings are constructed, or public streets and roads are laid out and constructed, in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Local Government Board, the provisions of any building by-laws shall not apply to the new buildings and new streets carried out in pursuance of the scheme so far as those provisions are inconsistent with the plans and specifications approved by the Local Government Board, and notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act any street laid out and constructed in accordance with such plans and specifications may be taken over and thereafter maintained by the local authority.

(2) Where the Local Government Board have approved plans and specifications which in certain respects are inconsistent with the provisions of any building by-laws which are in force in the district in which the works are to be executed, any proposals for the erection therein of houses and the laying out and construction of new streets which do not form part of a housing scheme to which this section applies may, notwithstanding those provisions, be carried out if the local authority are satisfied that they will involve departures from such provisions only to the like extent as in the case of the plans and specifications so approved, and that where such plans and specifications have been approved subject to any conditions, the like conditions will be complied with in the case of proposals to which this subsection applies:

Provided that in the application of this subsection to the administrative county of London the expression "local authority" means the London County Council with respect to the matters within their jurisdiction and the Common Council of the City of London or the council of a metropolitan borough (as the case may be) with respect to other matters.

(3) The housing schemes to which this section applies are schemes made by a local authority or county council under the Housing Acts, or by a public utility society or housing trust, and approved by the Local Government Board.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 15, leave out ("carried") and insert ("constructed and laid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DOWNHAM moved, towards the [...] said: This clause contemplates a situation under which the Local Government Board may, as regards the building scheme, dispense with the provisions of the ordinary local by-laws—a very proper power to give to the Local Government Board. But this case may arise—indeed, it has arisen on more than one occasion—that where the local by-laws are dispensed with the local authority may refuse, or at all events may considerably delay, taking over the new roads. That is a matter of very serious inconvenience, and I think that if the Local Government Board sees fit to dispense with the ordinary by-laws of the local authority, in that case the local authority should not have the option but should be bound to take over, in accordance with plans and specifications, any streets or roads that have been properly constructed. They should not have any option in the matter but it should be imposed on them as a liability.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Downham.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

If the noble Lord is of opinion that in all these cases the duty should be laid upon the local authority to take over these streets, there is no objection on the part of the Government to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DOWNHAM

I move to add a proviso to subsection (1). Here again I am requested by the London County Council to ask that if the Local Government Board set aside the building by-laws which the London County Council now has to enforce throughout London, they will only do so in consultation with the London County Council. That, I think, my noble friend in charge of the Bill will not object to. After all, we are the power that will have to administer these by-laws, and I can hardly imagine there will be any difference of opinion between us, but at least it would be wise to consult the administrative authority in order that they might at all events know in what cases these building by-laws have been relaxed.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 21, at end insert ("Provided that as regards the Administrative County of London, the Board shall not approve any plans and specifications inconsistent with the provisions of any building by-laws in force in the county except after consultation with the London County Council either on the general question of the relaxation of such provisions in connection with housing schemes or a relaxation with respect to any particular scheme").—(Lord Downham.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think in the case of the building by-laws in London, if they are altered or superceded in any way, that it is reasonable that the County Council should be consulted, but I would make one reservation if I might on the Amendment, and that is that the Board should have the general duty of consulting the London County Council on the question of the relaxation of by-laws—that is to say, they would indicate the general lines on which they propose to supersede the by-laws.

But I would be very glad if my noble friend would not press the second part of his Amendment in which he wishes a consultation in respect to any particular scheme, because I am advised, if that is done, that there will be considerable delay. The matter will have to be referred to surveyors and it will take some time. At a general consultation there would be indicated the main lines in which the relaxation should take place. I hope that satisfy my noble friend, and if he agrees perhaps he will leave out the last line of his Amendment—namely, "or a relaxation with respect to any particular scheme"—and also the word "either" ["with the London County Council either"]. Subject to that I accept it.

LORD DOWNHAM

I cannot agree with my noble friend that it would cause delay, but as my noble friend has met me in accepting the larger part of the Amendment I do not press the addition.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I personally have no objection to this Amendment, but I should be very sorry if the Government were to extend it under pressure beyond the administrative county of London. It is quite true that the administrative county of London stands in a very special position, and perhaps it is right to take the course proposed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is only as regards London.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should regret if it were extended beyond the county of London.

On Question, Amendment (as amended on the suggestion of Viscount PEEL) agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 24, leave out ("which are").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "local authority" ["if the local authority are satisfied that they will involve"] and to insert "Local Government Board." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is a very simple one. Under the second subsection ordinary persons—private individuals or others—who build in the same place as the local authority whose by-laws have been dispensed with under the first subsection of the clause are allowed to take advantage of the relaxation. That is evidently fair. If the by-laws are relaxed in a particular place in favour of a local authority the relaxation ought to extend to everybody else building in the same place. But the difficulty arises as to who is to judge whether the particular variation from the by-law is the same in the two cases; and, as the Bill is drawn, it is the local authorities themselves who are to decide whether that is the case.

In a great number of cases—I will not say by any means in all—the relaxation of the by-law under sub-section (1) will not be very welcome to the local authority. The local authority have their own ideas on by-laws. Many of them are very good, but many of them are exceedingly inconvenient and unreasonable. Those by-laws will be overridden under the first subsection, then it will become a question under subsection (2) whether the person who is attempting to take advantage of the relaxation is doing so or not, and the appeal lies not to an independent authority but to the very local authority whose bylaws are over-ridden. That is not likely to lead to an equitable and a just result. And therefore, instead of the local authority being the persons to whom the appeal should lie, the appeal should lie to the Local Government Board. When I say the Local Government Board—or the Ministry of Health, as it will be now—I do not of course mean the Local Government Board in London but their representative in the area in question. As your Lordships know, every area is to have a Commissioner to represent them and to carry out this Housing Bill, and he would evidently be the person upon whom the responsibility would lie to decide in case of difference whether the relaxation in question was being properly availed of by the ordinary person, or whether he was not going beyond the relaxation granted to the local authority under the first subsection.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 29, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("Local Government Board").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The suggestion of the noble Marquess, or part of the suggestion, is one with which everybody will agree—that private builders should have the same advantage of relaxation of bylaws in any district as is allowed to the local authority, but the noble Marquess suggests that the local authority may in some cases not be willing to give precisely the same degree of liberty to the private builder as to themselves. And I suppose, as they are to some extent competitive builders, it might be suggested that they are prejudiced. Why not then, the noble Marquess suggests, let these plans be passed by the Ministry of Health or its local representative? I do not think there is very great difference between us, but I will make this offer to the noble Marquess, that we shall assume in ordinary cases that the local authority will act with reasonable fairness and will not go out of its way to put any difficulties in the way of the local builder, and that therefore the plans should come before them in the first instance, but, in order to obviate any possible unfairness, that the private individual should then have a right of appeal to the Ministry of Health. That, I think, would save a good deal of time from an administrative point of view, and if the noble Marquess thinks fit to accept that suggestion words could be brought up on Report.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that is a perfectly fair offer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved the insertion of the following new subsection: "Subject to any conditions which may be prescribed by the Local Government Board, the provisions of any building by-laws shall not apply to any new buildings and new streets constructed and laid out by a county council or local authority in pursuance of a scheme approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under Small Holdings and Allotment Acts, 1908 and 1910, or any Act amending the same."

The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 23 provides, in subsection (1), for the relaxation of by-laws in connection with housing schemes in certain cases, and it applies, of course, to schemes made by a local authority or county council under the Housing Acts, or by a public utility society or housing trust, and approved by the Local Government Board. It is, of course, well known that county councils and other local authorities under the existing Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and under the Land Settlement Facilities Bill, will provide a number of houses suitable for the working classes, and the view is taken—and I think it is a reasonable one—in regard to such houses which form part of the small holding schemes and are therefore technically not part of the housing scheme, that a similar relaxation of by-laws should be made possible to that which would be possible if the houses were provided by the same local authority under the Housing Acts.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 4, after subsection (3), insert the following new subsection: (4) Subject to any conditions which may be prescribed by the Local Government Board, the provisions of any building by-laws shall not apply to any new buildings and new streets constructed and laid out by a county council or local authority in pursuance of a scheme approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under Small Holdings and Allotment Acts, 1908 and 1910, or any Act amending the same."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

Consent of local authority to erection and use of buildings.

24.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any building by-laws a local authority may, during a period of three years from the passing of this Act, consent to the erection and use for human habitation of any buildings erected or proposed to be erected in accordance with plans approved by the Local Government Board.

(2) The local authority may attach to their consent any conditions which they may deem proper with regard to the situation, sanitary arrangements, and protection against fire of such buildings, and may fix and from time to time extend the period during which such buildings shall be allowed to be used for human habitation.

(3) If any person feels aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of the local authority to give such consent or by the conditions on which such consent is given, or as to the period allowed for the use of such buildings for human habitation, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final, and shall have effect as if it were the decision of the local authority, provided that the Board may, before considering any such appeal, require the appellant to deposit such sum, not exceeding ten pounds to cover the costs of appeal, as may be fixed by rules to be made by them.

(4) Section twenty-seven of the Public Health Amendment Act, 1907, shall not apply to any buildings to which this section applies.

(5) In the application of this section to the administrative county of London, the expression "local authority" means the London County Council with respect to matters within their jurisdiction, and the common council of the City of London or the council of a Metropolitan borough (as the case may be) with respect to other matters.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "plans approved" and to insert "any regulations made." The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to save the Central Department from the administrative inconvenience of having to examine particular plans of temporary buildings which are proposed to be erected by private persons. The Amendment, I think, will add to the convenience of the operation of the Act. If every person who wishes to erect a building which he thinks will not, or may not, comply with the local by-laws sends his plans to the Central Department a great deal of unnecessary and troublesome work to everybody will be involved. The intention of this clause is to facilitate the use of Army hutments as a temporary expedient, and also to allow experiments in materials and methods of construction, and the effect of this Amendment will be to enable the Central Department to issue general regulations prescribing the types of material and the general construction under the powers conferred by the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 9, leave out ("plans approved") and insert ("any regulations made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25:

Byelaws respecting houses divided into separate tenements.

(6) Where the person on whom obligations are imposed by any by-laws made for the purposes specified in subsection (1) of this section with respect to houses so occupied as aforesaid holds the premises under a lease or agreement and satisfies the local authority that compliance with such by-laws is contrary to the provisions of the lease or agreement, or that the whole or any part of the expenses of carrying out the obligations ought to be borne by his lessor or other superior landlord, the local authority may, after giving the lessor or any such superior landlord an opportunity of being heard—

1. (a) in the first case, order that the provisions of the lease or agreement be relaxed so far as they are inconsistent with the requirements of the by-laws;
2. (b) in the second case, grant to the person who carries out the works necessary for compliance with the by-laws, on proof to the satisfaction of the local authority that the works have been properly carried out, a charging order charging on the premises an annuity to repay the expenses properly incurred in carrying out the works or such part of those expenses as the local authority consider ought to be so charged.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (6), after "may" ["superior landlord, the local authority may"] to insert "make application to the county court, and the county court may." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of some substance. Its object is to render it possible, in every case where the person upon whom obligations are imposed by by-laws, by a local authority, and who alleges that his own tenancy agreement or lease is incompatible with those by-laws, to go for adjudication before the County Court, as indeed is provided in a subsequent section in a similar case, and not leave it to a rural district council (which has no knowledge whatever, and certainly no knowledge of conveyancing and which has no capacity for altering agreements) to decide whether or not the agreement is incompatible with the by-laws, and enforce upon the landlord an alteration in his lease or agreement.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Perhaps I may say, to save time, that the Government have no objection to accepting this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 1, after ("may") insert ("make application to the county court, and the county court may").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 21, line 13, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court")

Page 21, line 15, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next three Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 21, line 30, after ("might") insert ("had the lessee not been the local authority")

Page 21, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("on the application of a person desiring to convert a house as aforesaid")

Page 21, lines 39, after ("Council") insert ("and any by-laws so made shall supersede any by-laws made for those purposes by the Council of any Metropolitan Borough").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26:

Power to authorise conversion of a house into several-tenements.

26. Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the county count on an application by the local authority or the lessee of a house that, owing to changes in the character of the neighbourhood in which such house is situate, the house cannot readily be let as a single tenement but could readily be let for occupation if converted into two or more tenements, and that the provisions of the lease do not admit of such conversion, the court, after giving any person entitled to any interest in the house an opportunity of being heard, may vary the terms of the lease so as to enable the house to be so converted subject to such conditions and upon such terms as the court may think just.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out Clause 26 and to insert the following new clause:

"26. Where an application is made to the county by the owner or the lessee of a house, or the local authority in whose district the same is situate after it has acquired an interest in the house that owing to changes in the character of the neighbourhood in which such house is situate the house cannot readily be let as a single tenement but could readily be let for occupation if converted into two or more tenements, and that the provisions of the lease or of the restrictive covenants express or implied of the estate on which the house may be situated do not admit of such conversion, and that a variation of such provisions or covenants in that respect should be sanctioned, the court, after giving notice to all persons having an interest in the house, such notice to be given in accordance with the rules hereinafter mentioned, shall refer the question whether the terms of the lease or such restrictive covenants as aforesaid, if any, should be varied so as to enable the house to be so converted as aforesaid to an arbitrator to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution, who after hearing all parties entitled to be heard shall determine whether the application shall be granted, and if so, the terms and conditions including the payment of compensation to any parties adversely affected by his decision and by whom the costs of the application should be borne. Provided that all rights and remedies for enforcing performance and observance of the covenants of the lease, including a right of re-entry (i f any such there be) shall apply to the covenants so modified as fully as if the modification had been effected by a clause in the lease coming into operation at the same time as the Order of the Court modifying the same. Provided also that any person aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator may appeal to the County Court Judge on a point of law and such person or any other interested party aggrieved by the decision of the County Court Judge may appeal from him to the Supreme Court of Judicature.

"Rules as to the carrying out of this section shall be made by the Lord Chancellor."

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, which I regret is rather a long one, I would point out that Clause 26 of the Bill gives power to a lessee or to a local authority to convert a house into two or more tenements, where the lease does not allow this to be done, after procuring the leave of the County Court. There is a proviso in the Bill that this shall only be done when, owing to the changes in the character of the neighbourhood in which such house is situated, the house cannot be readily let as a single tenement. This question would be tried by a County Court Judge who after hearing any person with an interest in the house would decide whether it should be done.

My amendment is to do away with this clause altogether and to put in its place another clause which I think is more explicit. The principle is not altered, but the Amendment would also give the right of applying to the County Court Judge to the owner as well as to the local authority and to the lessee, as the lessor may be just as anxious to have a restrictive covenant removed which he has often no power to remove. You will notice that my amendment compels the County Court Judge to refer the matter to an arbitrator to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; because I submit that a County Court Judge is hardly fitted by his training and his practice to assess the damage and compensation in such cases. An experienced surveyor is required to deal with questions of structure. One can hardly conceive a County Court Judge taking a three-ft. measure and attempting to convert, say, an L-shaped London drawing-room into kitchen, scullery, and larder. There would be an appeal on points of law, first to the County Court Judge and from him to the Supreme Court of judicature. The surveyor, after hearing all parties entitled to be heard, would determine whether the application should be granted, and if so, the terms and conditions, including the payment of compensation to any parties adversely affected by his decision, and by whom the costs of the application should be borne. The rules for carrying out this clause would be made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who I am sure would be most willing to make them.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 26 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord is not one that would willingly in its present form be accepted by the Government. As the clause stands at present it provides that on an application by the local authority or the lessee of a house this matter may be dealt with by a County Court Judge. May I begin by saying that this clause was inserted in the Bill on the express recommendation of the Metropolitan Borough Councils; and it is designed to meet what is universally recognised to be a crying need in the various parts of London where there are numbers of large unoccupied houses which could provide adequate accommodation in the most difficult period of transition through which we are passing if they were converted into tenements.

The noble Lord suggests an alternative clause to that which the Government have put forward, and I am bound to say that it appears to me that his clause will very much militate against the prospect of making any substantial use of powers which are universally admitted to be desirable. The Bill as we drafted it gave to the local authority the independent power of applying to the Court, whereas under the clause of the noble Lord the local authority can only apply to the Court if it has acquired an interest in the house. That is obviously an extremely restrictive alteration of the proposal of the Government, and it is one which in our judgment would very greatly destroy the efficiency and the usefulness of the clause. In the second place, my noble friend's Amendment takes the decision out of the hands of the County Court and refers it to an arbitrator to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. It then allows an appeal to a County Court Judge on a point of law, front him to the Supreme Court, and so on, I suppose—I do not know whether that is his object or not—through all the Courts. The delays that would be involved in a proposal of this kind are apparent. In fact, it is not too much to say that if appeals were permitted on these points, as is contemplated by the Amendment, the whole critical period might easily pass without anything at all being done. The whole object of the Government is to deal with a situation which is charged with anxiety and even with peril at the present moment.

I confess that if I have a sight prejudice it would be in favour of the County Court Judges. They are men of great experience and of great impartiality, and I should contemplate with anxiety giving power to a surveyor to vary the provisions of a lease. I have a great respect for the profession of surveyor, but I think that a surveyor's function is to give evidence before a Court and that then these matters should be dealt with by the Court. I have, of course, read the noble Lord's Amendment with great care and I think there is one point in it which is probably not covered by the Bill as at present drafted, a point. Which ought to be covered. The Bill refers in the clause under consideration to the provisions of the lease; the proposed clause of my noble friend refers also to the restrictive covenants express or implied of the estates on which the house may be situated, and I have no doubt that he has in mind the provisions of a building scheme. It may be that the provisions of the lease would cover the restrictive covenants, but I am not sure that they would. It is obvious that this case ought to be met. If the noble Lord does not think it necessary to insist upon the other parts of his Amendment—about which I feel the difficulties I have indicated—and if he will allow me the interval between the present day and the date when your Lordships will take the Report stage, I will satisfy myself that the words as they are to-day in the Bill cover that case, or I will move words—or invite the noble Lord to do so—which will make that clear.

LORD SHEFFIELD

In this clause, either as drafted by the Government or as proposed to be amended, I think one's attention is called to the fact that very serious questions arise in connection with legislating in a hurry. Clause 26 was put in under pressure, at the request of the people of London, largely to turn houses which are rather a drug in the market as single residences into flats for several people. In many of these estates there are covenants which apply to the lessees of the whole estate, and a man who has a house occupied by a single family might object to have the house next door turned into what would be practically a lodging house, although he may have a covenant that the whole thing should be kept as a single residence. I feel that it is very important that there should be legislation to enable, after a proper hearing of all persons interested, covenants to be superseded which have become obsolete by time and change of circumstances. It is clear that there are large districts where there is a covenant that houses should be used only as private dwelling-houses and where there is prohibition even against putting a brass plate for a doctor on the door, or of opening the house as a shop, or a hundred other things. The moment you begin to interfere with the rights and duties of parties as expressed in legal documents, on account of changed circumstances, you ought to look at the question as a whole and not merely, in a hurry, deal with one particular point. In South Kensington there are houses which are not easily let at present. However, I do not propose to raise any question, though I think there is great danger in this legislation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am rather impressed by what the noble Lord says. I rather think that the point he takes would be met by the substitution of words giving any persons interested the opportunity of being heard.

LORD SHEFFIELD

That would do.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

And if he will accept the invitation—

LORD SHEFFIELD

I do not move an Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It would be easy for the noble Lord to move an Amendment, and I think it would very likely meet with support, but I am not sure that the Government should not do so on the Report stage.

LORD DYNEVOR

May I point out that I have included in my Amendment the words, "all persons having an interest in the house."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That does not meet the case. The noble Lord will observe that the clause itself contains these words "after giving any person entitled to any interest in the house an opportunity of being heard." That does not meet the point raised. The noble Lord explains that there are other persons who are really interested in the allocation of house A though they may have to live in house B, and that ought to be considered.

LORD DYNEVOR

I feel strongly on this point. I have taken the opinion of a great many people in connection with it, and I am sorry that my noble and learned friend does not see his way to accept the Amendment as it stands. The clause in the Bill, as drafted, is very inadequate and I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble and learned friend, much as I should like to do so. I must stand by my Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Repair of houses.

27.—(1) If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to make and keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days specified in the notice, to execute such works as may be necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.

(2) If the notice given by the local authority is not complied with, the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice given by them to the owner, do the work required to be done.

(3) Any expense incurred by the local authority under this section may be recovered in a court of summary jurisdiction, together with interest at a rate not exceeding five pounds per centum per annum from the date of service of a demand for the same till payment thereof from the owner, and until recovery of such expenses and interest the same shall be a charge on the premises. In all summary proceedings by the local authority for the recovery of any such expenses, the time within which such proceedings may be taken shall be reckoned from the date of the service of notice of demand.

(4) The local authority may by order declare any such expenses to be payable by monthly or annual instalments within a period not exceeding thirty years with interest at a rate not exceeding five pounds per centum per annum from the date of the service of notice of demand until the whole amount is paid, and any such instalments and interest or any part thereof may be recovered in a summary manner from the owner or occupier, and may be deducted from the rent of such premises.

(5) The local authority, if they think fit, from time to time (in addition and without prejudice to any other remedy) may recover in a court of summary jurisdiction, or us a simple contract debt, by action in any court of competent jurisdiction, from the owner from the time being of any such premises the whole or any portion of such expenses and interest.

(6) In this section "owner" shall have the same meaning as in the Pubic Health Act, 1875.

(7) This section shall be deemed to be part of Part II of the principal Act.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "Provided that the owner may within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house."

The noble Lord said: I may remind your Lordships that this clause provides that if the owner of any house should fail to make and keep such house in a condition fit for human habitation, the local authority may serve a notice on such owner, requiring him to execute such work as may be necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. By moving this proviso what I am in effect doing is to ask the House to reinstate in this Bill words which, for some reason unexplained, have dropped out of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909. This proviso is intended to meet the case where the process of making a house habitable, according to modern ideas, might involve so large an expense as would be, in fact, more than the house itself was worth. The process of reconstructing a house which is not fit for human habitation may be impossible, and, even if it is possible, it may only be possible at most prohibitive cost.

I would like to remind your Lordships that very nearly all these cases, where houses are unfit for human habitation, are cases not of houses owned by your Lordships or by large landowners, but are houses owned by some of the poorest people in the land and in such cases they have not the means, they have not the capital—particularly in existing circumstances, when construction is so extremely expensive—to lay out on the reconstruction of the houses. All I ask—and the difficulty seems to have been contemplated at the time the 1909 Act was passed—is that where the house is, according to modern ideas, deemed to be unfit for human habitation (although there may for the time being be a tenant in it), if, and only if, the local authority consider that that house is unfit for habitation, the owner shall have the opportunity of closing the house rather than be called upon to expend money in a most extravagant, and possibly uneconomic, fashion.

May I say one thing further in this connection? There have, during the last five years, been a considerable number of houses which were possibly only just fit for human habitation five years ago, which are no longer fit according to modern ideas, and the owners are perfectly well aware of the fact, but, in view of the extreme shortage of accommodation, they are reluctant to turn the poor tenants into the street. If, simply because, out of charity and probably for no rent at all, they are willing that those persons should occupy the houses that are not deemed by the local authority to be habitable, they are going to be asked to lay out a large sum of money on reconstructing the houses, even assuming reconstruction to be possible, it would be a most unfair burden to place upon them, and, at the same time, possibly it would be a real unkindness to the poor inhabitants of those houses. I think it is a very reasonable proposal to make. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will favourably consider the Amendment and that your Lordships will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 29, after ("habitation") insert ("Provided that the owner may within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house")—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend complained that Sections 14 and 15 of the Housing and Town Planning Act to which he referred have, by some mysterious means, slipped out of the Act. The explanation is a very simple one. They have been found not to work, to be too limited, and to require strengthening. If my noble friend looks at this particular clause he will see that it does give the local authority power to compel owners to keep their houses in proper repair and, in cases of default, to recover costs, and so on.

What my noble friend proposes to do is this. He proposes, as I understand, to give an absolute right to the owner, if he chooses, to have the house closed when he is being served with notice that he has to put it in repair. My noble friend might argue that this would be declaring a house of very little value and that it could be bought at a reasonable price by the local authority. No doubt in ordinary times there may be something to be said for the contention, but at the present time the necessity of having houses is immense, and it would be a very dangerous thing to allow absolute freedom to the individual owner, if he liked, to shut down a house and not put it in proper repair. He might have various reasons for doing it; it might be the rather pathetic one to which the noble Lord alluded. He might have a quarrel with the local authority.

If the case is a very hard one; if the house is in so hopeless a state of repair that practically it is impossible to make it fit for human habitation, that is a case for the local authority to decide. But my noble friend wants to put that power entirely into the hands of the owner. I submit it ought to be left with the local authority. Under tie se circumstances, I hope, he will not press his Amendment, because he will realise no doubt the great necessity of having houses at the present time and the unwisdom of allowing owners at their own will, when pressed to do some repairs, to close houses and say they should be no longer used.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I do not think the noble Viscount really sees the difficulty in which he has landed the Government. Conceive what the position is after the speech he has just made. The Government practically say that if you have any houses in your possession you are bound to put them in order at the demand of the local authority no matter what sum is to be spent upon them. The Government have themselves established a Wages Board in agricultural districts who have laid down arrangements which are familiar to your Lordships including a rent of 3s. a week for a cottage. Therefore, what the noble Viscount demands is that every landowner should be forced to spend any sum, no matter what it may be, on a cottage. £100 was not an unusual sum to spend in putting a cottage into good repair long before the war. I myself have had to spend a great deal more on many cottages with no return in the matter of rent. Many of your Lordships know that £100 before the war is £300 now. Therefore, what the noble Viscount asks is that a cottage which requires to be modernised (which might have been done for £100 before the war, and which at present prices would cost between £400 and £500 now) must be done by the landlord, very often for the benefit of some agricultural labourer who does not work on his farm and who pays a rent of 3s. per week.

The landlord is therefore bound to be at an enormous loss in order to re-establish a cottage which he does not wish to have, and which he has only kept open because he did not like to turn the tenant out. I could give numerous instances of this. A landlord at this moment must not raise his rent; he must let at an uneconomical rent; he must pay an economic wage, and he has to do repairs to any degree that the local authority regard as up to the higher standard we all hope to obtain under improved conditions entirely at his own expense without any possible return, at an expenditure of capital which he is most unwilling to make merely because there happens to be this building on this farm. The proposition is not a tenable one. I deeply regret there should be any case of eviction in order to avoid reasonable expenditure, but unquestionably I think that the method out of it is the way of my noble friend's Amendment; then lay it upon the local authority to build, or to provide for building, and to exercise some discretion, say for two or three years, in allowing a cottage which is not actually insanitary but requires improvement to continue during that period. I hope the Government will reconsider the case; if not, I hope my noble friend will go to a Division

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I think this Amendment is most important, and I shall [...] my noble friend if he goes to a [...] At the same time I fully recognise that there ought to be some method of compulsion on landlords who refuse to do reasonable repairs. I do not think there is any provision in the clause which deals with these repairs, and I feel quite certain that if any rural districts find they are behind with their work they will place a very unfair pressure on landlords to spend money on property on which it is not worth spending money at all. I think that any expenditure which incurred by the Council should not be charged on the owners' effects. If the council like to recover money which they have spent on the property out of the property itself then well and good. If they like to spend money on houses which are not worth repairing let them take the property. It is extremely hard indeed in many cases whore these houses are owned by men who are as poor as those who live in them that the debt should be recoverable front them if the council is foolish enough to spend money on the repair of houses which are not worth repair.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is, I think, not much difference of intention between the noble Viscount and myself and those who flame spoken in support of the Amendment. A hard case can be supposed, and a hard case has been made out, by more than one of those who have taken part in the debate. On the other hand the Government has, of course, as everyone knows, a very deep responsibility to see that owners are afforded every degree of inducement that circumstances may require in order to make such expenditure as will put houses which ought to be, in the interests of the community as a whole, used for workmen's dwellings into proper condition. I am prepared to accept the Amendment, though I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Viscount who has given me so much assistance in the conduct of this Bill, but I ought to add, and give warning, that it may be necessary on the Report stage to move some additional words which will supply the safeguard against the mischiefs of which the noble Viscount spoke.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), after "with," to insert "and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid."

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 31, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 22, line 34, leave out ("expense") and insert ("expenses")

Page 23, line 11, after ("and") insert ("if recovered from the 'occupier'") and after ("deducted") insert ("by him")

Page 23, lines 12 to 17, leave out subsection (5).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause: "In the case of houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes the name and address of the medical officer of health for the district and of the landlord or other person who is directly responsible for keeping the house in all respects reasonably fit for human occupation, shall be inscribed in every rent book or where a rent book is not used, shall be delivered in writing to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy."

The noble Marquess said: I offer this Amendment to the Government, though I have no desire to press it if they are unwilling to accept it. The new clause has been submitted to me by one of those women's organisations who have made a speciality of looking after this kind of thing, and they represent to me that it often happens that the occupier does not really know who, of the persons under whom he holds, is actually responsible for what we call landlord's repairs. As the Government and your Lordships are well aware, tenancies of this kind change very rapidly, and it is represented to me that in many cases the occupier for the rime being is ignorant as to whom he has a right to go in order to obtain those repairs which the landlord is by law compelled to make. In the same way it is represented to me that; the occupier is equally ignorant of the name of the medical officer of health and of his address, if his assistance is required in the matter. All that my Amendment suggests is that in every rent book or corresponding document, there should be included the name and address of the owner who is the particular owner under whom the occupier holds who is responsible for landlord's repairs, and also the name and address of the medical officer of health.

I submit this Amendment to the Government. It has been on the Paper several days, and no doubt they have considered it. If in their opinion it is unnecessary I shall not press it, but I must say on the general question that it is very important the occupier should know who to go to. These occupiers are very poor people, and they have great difficulty in knowing what their remedies are. Nothing is more touching in the case of the poor than the way in which they submit to all sorts of discomforts, and even injustices, with a sort of idea that it is fate which they cannot avoid and that it is better to endure. Therefore anything which this House or the House of Commons can do to give them full knowledge of their rights, and to whom they should go to secure those rights, seems to be a step in the right direction. In that spirit I offer the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause:

"Information to tenants of houses for the working classes.

"28. In the case of houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes the name and address of the medical officer of health for the district and of the landlord or other person who is directly responsible for keeping the house in all respects reasonably fit for human occupation, shall be inscribed in every rent book or where a rent book is not used, shall be delivered in writing to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Every one, of course, must sympathise with the object which the noble Marquess has in mind, but I am a little doubtful whether this clause as at present drafted will very effectively secure his purpose. I am not sure whether knowledge of the name and address of the medical officer of health, for instance, would be very useful to the tenant. I should have thought that the sanitary inspector would be really the person whose whereabouts it might have been very desirable to define. In its present form I also think that the new clause is a little open to objection, because the noble marquess will not have failed to observed that there is no sanction in the clause—no penalty. It is expressed peremptorily, but instructions of this kind peremptorily expressed and unattended with any penalty are very unusual and not very operative in an Act of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Marquess between now and the Report stage will take the opportunity of discussing this matter with myself or the Local Government Board.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I quite agree. I am perfectly satisfied with the suggestion, and no doubt the authorities at the Local Government Board will take notice of what has been said, and I shall have some opportunity of placing the matter before them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32:

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 6, leave out ("appear to them") and insert ("in their opinion").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clauses: "Notwithstanding anything in section fifty of the Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891, a local authority or county council shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of that Act in respect of any injury or damage to any houses belonging to such local authority or council, and provided under a housing scheme towards the losses on which the Local Government Board is liable to contribute under this Act."

The noble and learned Lord said: This new clause ought to be briefly explained. I ought to explain, in order that the history of this proposal may be understood—it is not without importance—that the Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891, made provision for compensation to the owners of property suffering from the subsidence of ground caused by the pumping of brine, but by Section 50 of the Act local authorities, among others, were specifically excluded from the right to compensation under the Act. Now, my Lords, a deputation of the Northwich Urban District Council—and I believe they are not alone in this matter—recently attended at the Local Government Board to urge that a provision should be inserted in the Housing Bill, to the effect that notwithstanding anything in Section 50 of the Act of 1891 local authorities should be entitled to compensation, from any compensation board which might be formed under the Housing Act, in respect of damages to houses owned by the local authorities.

On the merits, the Government have formed the view that the Northwich Urban District Council have a good case, which should be met, and that it would be unfortunate to the prospects of the Bill and to its efficiency if the case were not met. The conditions are entirely altered since 1891, and altered by reason of the new housing programme, for which, of course, the Government are responsible. The Northwich Urban District Council contemplated building—and it is the case of many other councils—some five hundred new houses. It would be intolerable that they should run the risk of having those houses damaged by subsidence after the Exchequer subsidy had been finally fixed, and it would be also anomalous for the Treasury to continue paying a subsidy in respect of houses which no longer existed or remained in an inhabitable condition. The particular Urban District Council felt very strongly and expressed itself very strongly, and said that unless they got such a clause in the Bill, or alternatively received a guarantee that the Exchequer subsidy would be varied to cover any additional deficit due to loss occasioned by a subsidence, they could not see their way to building houses at all. The experts of the Government have been consulted upon the case so made, and although the change recommended to be made by the Government is undoubtedly a change of policy since 1891, I am hopeful that the great change of circumstance which I have explained, and which justifies the Amendment I now propose, will be treated by your Lordships as an adequate reason for such change of policy.

Amendment moved— After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:

"Compensation in cases of subsidence.

"34. Notwithstanding anything in section fifty of the Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891, a local authority or county council shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of that Act in respect of any injury or damage to any houses belonging to such local authority or council, and provided under a housing scheme towards the losses on which the Lord Government Board is liable to contribute under this Act."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

The object of the new clause which I now move is to enable local authorities in the County of Hampshire to obtain the necessary Crown land in the New Forest for the provision of houses under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919. I would point out to your Lordships that in many parts of the New Forest no land is available for housing the working classes except Crown lands, which are administered by the Commissioners of Forests. The New Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes) Act, 1902, empowers the Commissioners to sell land for sanitary purposes only. The effect of this new clause would be to extend the powers of the Commissioners, so as to enable them to sell land to the local authority for housing purposes, and the local authority would have to—

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not know whether it would shorten the discussion if I assure the noble Earl on the part of the Government that we think this quite a reasonable Amendment and are prepared to accept it.

Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause:

"Application of Act to New Forest.

"35. The provision of houses under the-Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, shall be deemed to be a local sanitary requirement for the purpose of the New Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes) Act, 1902."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

Before that is finally disposed of, may I ask whether there is in existence any powers in the case of the Forest of Dean, which is the other Royal Forest, where the population is very much greater and where there is an urgent need for a large number of houses.

LORD ERNLE

Under the Act affecting the Forest of Dean there is power to sell land up to £1,000 per plot.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I should like to be assured as to the limit of the powers that will be enjoyed if this clause is inserted. Will it be competent to some local authority to turn large pieces of the new Forest into a garden city? Is there to be any limit placed upon their desire to build rows of houses over what is now certainly one of the most beautiful public places in the whole of England? I thought the anxiety of everyone was to preserve absolutely intact as far as we possibly could the large public spaces which we now enjoy. This clause it seems to me is to enable people to build over the open spaces without as far as I can understand any limit or restriction whatever

LORD ERNLE

We are satisfied that the clause moved by the noble Earl will not have the effect which has been indicated by the noble and learned Lord, because it is necessary that a local inquiry should be held by the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Health should be satisfied on three points—that the land is immediately required for the purpose of housing in the interest of the public health of the locality, that no suitable land not being part of the Forest is obtainable without due expense, and that the land proposed to be sold is in respect of situation, extent and otherwise, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the case. It is only on receiving a certificate to that effect, given after local inquiry held, that the Commissioner of Woods is enabled to act. I may further add that provision is made that if the land is not used for the purposes for which it is sold it reverts at once to the Crown.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ERNLE moved to insert a new Clause (Extension of powers of Commissions of Woods). The noble Lord said: The new clause which stands in my name requires some little explanation. The land referred to in the clause is situated at the extreme eastern boundary of Bushey Park. It is separated from that park by a wail, and it abuts on the high road which separates it from the two urban authorities of Hampton Wick and Teddington.

The land in question has been for some time in the immediate occupation of His Majesty. It is under the management of the Master of the Horse, and the whole of it up to a recent date was used for grazing His Majesty's horses. Last year His Majesty approved of a portion of this land being used for allotments. Now it has been represented to His Majesty that this land is required for building purposes, and His Majesty has graciously intimated his consent to the appropriation of this land for that purpose provided that the Ministry of Health is satisfied that it is essential in the national interest that it should be taken. The area of land is marked out and coloured on the plans which are desposited according to the necessary formalities.

But here the difficulty arises. The provision of a statute of the reign of George IV prohibits the Commissioners from selling or letting land which is part of a public park, and though it may be open to question whether this piece of land ever was part of the Royal park, yet out of greater caution it is considered desirable that the Commissioners should be specially enabled to deal with the piece of land specifically delineated and coloured on the map in question, provided that the Ministry of Health certifies that its appropriation is required in the national interests for housing purposes.

Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause:

"Extension of powers of Commissioners of Woods.

"36. The Commissioners of Woods may under and in accordance with the provisions of the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1906, sell or let to a local authority for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act any part of the land described on the duplicate plans which have been deposited with the Clerk of Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons notwithstanding that such land may be part or parcel of a royal park, if the Ministry of Health, after holding a local inquiry, are satisfied that the acquisition of the land by the local authority for such purposes as aforesaid is desirable in the national interest."—(Lord Ernle.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34:

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

Amendments moved—

Page 26, line 1, leave out the first ("sell") and insert ("sale") and leave out ("the power to sell") and insert ("sale")

Page 26, line 3, leave out ("sale") and insert ("sell")

Page 26, line 6, leave out ("Act, 1893, or any amendment thereof") and insert ("Acts, 1893 to 1913")

Page 26, line 20, after ("buildings") insert ("including the drainage thereof")

Page 26, line 21, after ("construction") insert ("and drainage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36:

Application to London of certain provisions of the Housing Acts.

36.—(1) For the purposes of the application of Part III of the principal Act to the county of London—

1. (a) the London County Council shall be the local authority For the county, to the exclusion of any other authority, so far as regards the provision of any houses outside the administrative county of London;
2. (b) the council of a metropolitan borough shall be the local authority for the metropolitan borough, to the exclusion of any other authority, so far as regards the provision of houses within the metropolitan borough;
3. Provided that where the London County Council is satisfied that there is situate within the area of a metropolitan borough land suitable for development for housing, the county council may submit a scheme for the approval of the Local Government Board for the development of such land to meet the needs of districts situate outside the area of such borough, and the county council may carry into, effect any scheme which is so approved.
4. (c) the Local Government Board may by order direct that any of the powers or duties of the council of a metropolitan borough under Part III of the principal Act shall be transferred to the London County Council, or that any of the powers or duties of the London County Council under Part III of the principal Act shall be transferred to the council of a metropolitan borough.

(2) Any loss which may be incurred by the council of a metropolitan borough in carrying out a scheme to which section seven of this Act applies shall be repaid to them by the London County Council, and any payments so made by the London County Council shall be deemed to have been made as part of the expenses incurred by them in carrying out a scheme under that section.

(3) The London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London may at any time enter into an agreement for carrying out any scheme for the purposes of Part I or Part III of the principal Act, and for the apportionment of the expenses incurred in carrying out such scheme, and if the scheme is a scheme to which section seven of this Act applies, any payments made under such apportionment by the county council and the, common council shall be deemed to have been made as part of the expenses incurred in carrying out a scheme under that section.

LORD DOWNHAM

The Amendment in my name to subsection (1) (b) of this clause is really a small clarifying Amendment. It is very doubtful unless these words are inserted whether the London County Council would be able to develop and manage properties which it has already built in the areas of some of the metropolitan boroughs. I will take the area on which it has built a very large number of houses in the borough of Hammersmith. I think these words ought to be inserted in order to make it perfectly clear that the London County Council will still be able to manage and develop these estates.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 36, after ("Provided") insert: (i) That nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the rights, powers and privileges of the London County Council in regard to any lands, buildings or works acquired, provided or carried out by the County Council before the date of the passing of this Act, and (ii)."—(Lord Downham.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think that some such words are necessary. It is clear that there ought to be no doubt that the Council can proceed to develop its own estates, and I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DOWNHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1) (b), to insert "and such approval should be deemed to have been given under section 1 of this Act." The noble Lord said: This also is a small clarifying Amendment. The financial assistance under Clause 7 is to be given to schemes under Clause 1 if they fulfil certain conditions. Clause 36 found a place in the Bill during the discussion in Committee, and I am afraid that unless these words are inserted it will be doubtful at all events whether schemes which come under Clause 36 would be entitled to financial assistance under Clause 7. The Amendment is merely to make it clear that they will be entitled to that assistance.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 7, at end insert ("and such approval shall be deemed to have been given under section one of this Act").—(Lord Downham.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

It certainly is the intention of the Government that this assistance should be given, and I am willing to accept the Amendment to make the matter clear.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DOWNHAM moved to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: This clause is a valuable one and was inserted by the desire of the London County Council. It clears up the position in London. The position in London was very complicated before this clause was introduced. The clause makes it clear that the London County Council shall be the authority in future so far as regards the provision of any houses outside the administrative county, but that the councils of the metropolitan boroughs shall be the local authority for each metropolitan borough to the exclusion of any other authority so far as regards the provision of houses within that metropolitan borough. This is thoroughly satisfactory to the London County Council and to the metropolitan boroughs. But we certainly did not think that, having made that decision, the Local Government Board should take the power to over-ride the decision which has been come to, and on its own initiative to make some scheme by which the powers which are given to the London County Council under Clause 36 shall be transferred to a metropolitan borough; or, on the other hand, that the powers given to a metropolitan borough should be transferred to the London County Council. We would certainly rather that subsection (c) was not in this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 27, lines S to 15, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Downham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that the noble Lord will not think it necessary to carry this Amendment further. It is really included in the atmosphere of the decision which your Lordships reached yesterday upon an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, which would have had the effect of excluding the London County Council altogether from the scope of the Act. The noble Lord recognised, I think, that the sense of the House was opposed to that proposal, and having, as he said, made his protest, he did not press the particular Amendment to a Division. The proposal here really is that a subsection which has the effect of providing that in the case of default, either of a Metropolitan borough council or even of a body so important as the London County Council, the Government—not a smaller authority, but the Government—should be in a position to transfer the powers of the defaulting authority to another authority, which will carry out the work. I think I am not exaggerating the matter when I say that a negative answer to the present Amendment is logically required by the decision which your Lordships reached last night, if there either is default or there is not default. If there is default, the Government must be in a position to transfer the powers of the authority; and even if there is no default I should have thought it was convenient that there should be power to transfer the duty of carrying out a scheme to the authority which, in the view of the Government, is able to carry it out most efficiently and most expeditiously. I hope that the noble Lord, whose many contributions to this Bill we have been able to accept, will not think it necessary to press this one.

LORD DOWNHAM

I do not intend to press it. I expressed the view not only of the London County Council but of most of the Metropolitan borough councils, so far as I have been able to gather their opinion. They would rather have done without this subsection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendments are drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, lines 22, leave out ("under that section") and insert ("to which that section applies")

Page 27, line 32, leave out ("under that section") and insert ("to which that section applies").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 40 agreed to.

Clause 41:

Duty of local authorities to prepare town, planning scheme.

41. The council of every borough or other urban district, the population of which exceeds twenty thousand, and any other local authority which the Local Government Board may require, shall, within three years after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, prepare and submit to the Board a town planning scheme in accordance with provisions to be determined by the Board with reference to any land within the area of the local authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment in my in name to this clause is also purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 37, at end insert ("in regard to which a town planning scheme may be made under the Act of 1909").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DOWNHAM moved to leave out Clause 41. The noble Lord said: I come now to what is certainly one of the most important Amendments which we have yet discussed, or are likely to discuss and that is the omission of Clauses 41 and 42. That raises the whole question of town planning. Neither of these clauses was in the original Bill. Indeed, these clauses only found a place in the Bill on the very last day on which the Bill was discussed in Committee in the House of Commons. They were not the clauses of the Government; they were, I rather think, forced upon the Government. Certainly the Government did not accept them with any willingness, and I cannot help thinking that my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill would really, even now, be without them.

These clauses are very formidable. Clause 41 says that the council of every borough which exceeds 20,000, and any other authority which the Local Government Board may require shall, within three years after the 1st day of January, 1923, prepare and submit to the Board a town planning scheme in accordance with the provisions to be determined by the Board with reference to any land within the area of the local authority. Notice the words "any land." And Clause 42 goes on to say that if any of these local authorities fail to submit a scheme which is satisfactory to the Local Government Board, the Local Government Board shall itself submit that scheme, carry out that scheme, and impose the whole of the expense of that scheme upon the local authority.

Now, no local authority is bound to take any action until three years after the year 1923. Why, then incorporate these Clauses at all in this Act? The whole object of this Act really was to provide houses and to do all that was reasonable and practicable to make the present houses available as healthy dwellings. There was no necessity to incorporate these clauses about town planning, and when we come to think that no local authority is called upon to act till three years after 1923, what hurry is there to produce this kind of legislation?

Town planning is a very large and important, and a very serious matter, on which we know very little indeed at the present time. We have had very little practical experience of it. But it is just worth while for a moment to turn to the Town Planning Act of 1909 (Mr. Burns's Act), and to see what is meant by town-planning, and what powers are included in town-planning. Those are best described, I think, in Schedule 4 of the Act. The matters to be dealt with under a town-planning scheme are—

1. 1. Streets, roads, and ether ways, and stopping up, or diverging of existing highways;
2. 2. Buildings, structures, and erections;
3. 3. Open spaces, private and public;
4. 4. The preservation of objects of historical interest or natural beauty;
5. 5. Sewerage, drainage, and sewage disposal;
6. 6. Lighting;
7. 7. Water supply;
8. 8. Ancillary or consequential works;
9. 9. Extinction or variation of private rights of way and other easements;
10. 10. Dealing with or disposal of land acquired by the responsible authority or by a local authority;
11. 11. Power of entry and inspection;

and generally very large powers dealing with land, with buildings, with roads, and almost every kindred topic. Those are the powers under a town-planning scheme. I think we ought to be exceedingly careful before we pass an Act of Parliament which shall compel every local authority to submit a scheme for town planning dealing with these immense matters.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Local authorities over 20,000.

LORD DOWNHAM

There are also words in the Act about any other local authority which the Local Government Board may call upon. So I do not think it is limited to places of 20,000 inhabitants. However, I will limit my argument to that. Every such local authority is to be forced to submit a town planning scheme, and if the town planning scheme is not satisfactory to the Local Government Board the Local Government Board can impose a town planning scheme upon that local authority at any expense, and can carry out a town planning scheme of its own and put the whole expense upon the rates of that unfortunate authority.

That is really one of the most startling proposals, I think, that has ever been made to any House of Parliament. The local authority may already have a rate of 12s. in the £ It may say that this enormous town planning scheme is altogether unnecessary, and it may be a better judge, after all, than the Housing Commissioners employed by the Local Government Board. But, after all, we must have some regard to the power of local authorities to regulate their own expenditure and to see that this expenditure is regulated with some regard to the rate which is to be imposed upon the ratepayers in the area of that local authority

I cannot help thinking that these clauses have been put in without any adequate consideration. I will take the first, which says that "the town planning scheme is to have reference to any land within the area of the local authority." The Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 confines a town planning scheme to "any land which is in course of development or appears likely to be used for building purposes, and the town planning scheme cannot apply to any land that is already built upon, except with the express sanction of the Local Government Board." The Local Government Board very rarely applies a town planning scheme to land that is already built upon because, in the first place, it is enormously expensive. I want to know from my noble friend whether the words "any land" in Clause 41 are in any way safeguarded; whether "any land" means any land, or whether it means any land within the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909? I want to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that these two clauses are really one of the most slovenly possible pieces of legislation. There are some new clauses put into this Bill which give certain powers to the Local Government Board and which to a certain extent repeal the original provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909; and by one of the Schedules to this Bill the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 is further repealed in certain of its provisions. But I will defy the ablest lawyer in this House to say, by reading this Bill, how far the powers that were strictly limited in the Act of 1909 are limited by these two clauses; how far these two clauses practically repeal the great Act of 1909.

I call it "the great Act of 1909." I am aware that Dr. Addison spoke of it in a very different way the other day when he said that it was "a verbose and impudent Act; one of the worst Acts the Liberal Government ever passed." I have had something to do with the procedure under that Act, and my opinion is that the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 carried us a very long way on the road to housing reform, and that-the Government of that day can take great credit for the passing of that Act. But I say that this is a subject which requires far more consideration than the Government have given to it; that the whole question of town planning ought to be very carefully considered by the Government; that we ought to have some Housing Consolidation Act. We ought to have some new Town Planning Act put into a perfectly separate Bill; a Bill which we can clearly understand; a Bill which we can read, and a Bill which after reading will tell us how far the Act of 1909 has been repealed and how far its provisions still stand.

It is very important in considering this question of town planning—compulsorily taking land which has already been built upon—to know what safeguards will be put into your measure as regards compensation to those whose property you take away for the purposes of town planning. I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill whether the compensation clauses in the Act of 1909 still stand if these two clauses now under discussion are passed; how far the clauses in this Bill wipe out the whole of the Act of 1909; how far they wipe out the safeguards to those who possess property that is taken; and how far this is a repealing measure. I am certain that these two clauses were put in without any adequate or proper consideration; that the whole subject requires the most careful consideration by those who are capable of giving us an opinion on difficult legal questions. I am of opinion that we shall be well advised if we strike out these two clauses and send the Bill back to the House of Commons in the shape in which it was drawn by the Government, who had never the slightest intention when they introduced the Bill to deal with the whole of the complicated subject of town planning.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 41.—(Lord Downham.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Are we quite dear of the intention of this clause? The noble and learned Lord will see that the wording is rather curious. It says— The council of every borough or other urban district, the population of which exceeds 20,000, and any other local authority which the Local Government Board may require …" That may read, according to the commas, in one way or the other. It may mean that every local authority of over 20,000 must prepare a scheme after the year 1923, or every local authority of over 20,000 and every local authority of under 20,000—in either case—which the Local Government Board may require. That is a wholly different proposition. It is not quite clear to some of us what is intended by the wording of the Bill. There are, of course, three courses. You may put compulsion by Act of Parliament on every authority of over 20,000. That can be justified only if the Government have satisfied themselves that every place of over 20,000 requires a town planning scheme—a proposition which, I think, would be one of the most extraordinary every put forward in this House. That is one point. The second is in every case which the Local Government Board may require. That is contrary to the whole principle of local government unless it is accompanied by an Inquiry at which local authorities could be heard, and ultimately the decision might no doubt rest with the Local Government Board.

But what I would urge on my noble friend is this. There is probably no man in this House who speaks with greater knowledge of the course of these town planning schemes than my noble friend who has just sat down. I was with him on the London County Council for six years. During most of that time he was responsible for finance, and in that position it was no doubt his duty most carefully to scrutinise these very large schemes. I can bear witness that, although (as it were) briefed on the side of economy and care, my noble friend throughout took the strongest possible interest in all these schemes of town planning and encouraged them to the utmost extent in his power That being so, I think we ought to be more careful in regard to the protest he has made to us this afternoon on this subject; and I hope that the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will see that this absolutely unbounded provision—forcing every town of every description to enter upon what is one of the most expensive courses that could possibly be entertained without regard to the state of its population—is one which certainly requires modification.

LORD ISLINGTON

Before the Lord Chancellor replies to the Amendment moved by my noble friend, I should like to say a word in strong support of the Amendment. This proposal, as my noble friend has explained to the House, has been inserted in the Bill as an afterthought and is not the original scheme of the Government's Bill. I expect, if we were to know the truth, it was rushed into the Bill by a number of well-meaning enthusiasts for town planning, but it is a proposal which I sincerely hope will be omitted from the Bill. If these two clauses are retained you will really have a Housing Bill with provisions in it as autocratic as the proposals in the Transport Bill which is now undergoing such modifications in the House of Commons. It is almost inconceivable that Parliament should, by Act of Parliament, furnish the central authorities—not only those with a population of over 20,000 but, in accordance with the wording of the Bill, those with a smaller population—with such a tremendous power as that of mandamusing for great schemes such as those which would have to be elaborated under a town planning scheme.

The omission of these two clauses, I venture to say, would in no way interfere with meeting what is the most urgent demand of the day—namely, the provision of houses in all parts of the country. They embody a really academic suggestion thrown in at the tail end of a Bill designed to meet an immediate urgency. It is not suggested in the Bill that these schemes are to mature either this year or next year, but some; years hence; but, of course, if they are to be practical schemes and if the clauses really mean anything of a practical character, they will entail an immense amount of protracted consideration and work on the part of the respective staffs connected with local authorities, and, to that extent, they will divert those staffs from the far more pressing and urgent course of their housing operations.

I entirely associate myself with what my noble friend said in regard to the matter of town planning. It is one of those questions which still require, before they can be regarded as matured, deep consideration, and I would point out to your Lordships one aspect of it which is advancing day by day and which, therefore, must necessitate very careful thought and possibly very considerable modification of the original scheme as laid down in the Act of 1909. A revolution has taken place in regard to the by-laws and housing conditions over urban areas. It is only a very few years ago that an astute surveyor could place upon an acre of land no fewer than fifty-three houses. Such cases are to be found in the City of London, and, I have no doubt, in some of the larger cities throughout the country as well. Now, by Act of Parliament, the number has been reduced to not more than twelve or, at the outside, fifteen houses upon an acre. This very condition of the by-laws is approximating ordinary housing schemes to what were regarded as town planning schemes a few years ago. Therefore, the actual development under the Housing Act, by which it is incumbent on the local authority to see that not more than twelve houses are placed on an acre of land, must correspondingly entail considerable open spaces, considerable modifications of by-laws in connection with roads, and so on; and, as I say, ordinary housing schemes are brought very close to what were regarded as the ideal town planning schemes only a few years ago. I venture to point that out only to show that this question of town planning will require most careful consideration.

Before I sit down I should like to draw attention to one other consideration, which I think is of first-class importance in regard to London. I hope, and I ant sure many of your Lordships share the hope, that at an early date there will be introduced something in the nature of a central authority for London traffic. It is a proposal which has been postponed for no less than fifteen years and one to which effect ought to have been given as the result of the Report of the Royal Commission which sat twelve or fifteen years ago. These schemes, which are to be imposed by mandamus by the Central authority, will have a very close connection with the adjustment of the main arteries of traffic that are to be constructed from the centre to the outskirts of London, and it would be absurd, in my judgment, to give to the Central authority, at this juncture, the arbitrary power to impose a town planning scheme involving the construction of all those roads in the outskirts of London, until something has been done, as I hope it will soon be done, in the form of machinery to co-ordinate and to adjust the whole of the traffic conditions and the road conditions of the metropolis. Taking all these matters into consideration, as well as, of course, the vital matter of expense, I do think that we in this House will in no way be detracting from the merits of the Bill—the object of which is to meet the great emergency of housing—but we shall, I hope, at the same time be supporting the Government in their original Bill, by giving the House of Commons an opportunity to reconsider a rather ill-thought acceptance of these two clauses.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The history of these Amendments was given quite accurately by the noble Lord who moved them a few moments ago. It is quite true that these clauses were not contained in the Bill as originally drafted by the Government draughtsmen, and the withers of these very accomplished gentlemen are, therefore, entirely unwrung by the noble Lord's censures upon the drafting of the two clauses in their present state. I missed, I confess, from the speeches that have been made, any appreciation of the very great importance that there should be some direction, properly guided and instructed, in relation to the very large number of new houses that will be constructed under this Bill. There have been, so many Amendments that I do not pretend exactly to recollect, but I think your Lordships inserted an Amendment the object of which was to provide that the beauty of the countryside should be safeguarded. Surely this ought to be borne in mind.

As I have said, a very large number of houses are to be built. In some districts the whole character of the town will be altered and will be affected, if not permanently for a very long period of time, by the form in which these houses are constructed. I will say a word as to the drafting of the particular clauses and as to these particular proposals in a moment. But surely no one can dispute that it is of the greatest possible importance, in relation to something which was said by Lord Salisbury yesterday (with which I entirely agreed), that the direction should be in the hands of an authority which, in the first place, is central; in the second place, is experienced; and, in the third place, is armed with the powers to make its recommendations effective. Your Lordships will not fail to observe that, unless there are some powers of compelling local authorities to submit a scheme, the central authority is absolutely helpless. Therefore unless they have such powers they are helpless, and you are face to face with this fact that this new England of ours, or that part of it which will be new, will grow up without any artistic direction and the whole beneficent work of town-planning will produce no new conditions of any particular consequence at all.

I must deal with an observation made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I do not recall his exact words but he suggested that it was ridiculous and inconceivable Parliament would consent that tile Local Government Board or the Ministry of Health should be armed with the power, by mandamus, of compelling public authorities to submit schemes. I cannot help thinking that if had read the Clause a little more carefully he would not have failed to have perceived that the whole object of Clause 42 is to avoid the necessity of proceeding by mandamus. It will also probably surprise the noble Lord to learn—although he thinks it so absurd Parliament should arm the Local Government Board with the power by mandamus of compelling local authorities to produce such a scheme—that it is exactly what the Act of 1909, which the noble Lord who moved this Amendment so much praises, did. In substance it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the only difference between Clause 42 of the present. Bill and Section 61, subsection (1), of the Town-Planning Act of 1909 is, that in the Act of 1909 the remedy was by mandamus, whereas the present remedy is the substi tution of one authority by another authority. Section 61 of the Town-Planning Act of 1909 says— If the Local Government Board are satisfied on any representation, after holding a public local inquiry, that a local authority—

1. (a) have failed to take the requisite steps for having a satisfactory town planning scheme prepared and approved in a case where a town planning scheme ought to be made; or
2. (b) have failed to adopt any scheme proposed by owners of any land in a ease where the scheme ought to be adopted; or
3. (c) have unreasonably refused to consent to any modifications or conditions imposed by the Board;

the Board may, as the case requires, order the local authority to prepare and submit for the approval of the Board such a town planning scheme, or to adopt the scheme, or to consent to the modifications or conditions so inserted … I am at least entitled to say, when I am confronted with these gloomy prospects as to what the consequence will be if the Local Government Board is armed with the power of coercion by mandamus on public authorities in order to prepare schemes, that such powers have existed for ten years. I am also entitled to say that these very powers have been in force for ten years and they have not caused one of the mischiefs which the noble Lord said would follow if this Clause is substituted. I would add this, that Clause 41 stands in a different position, and I am disposed to think that the feeling which I suspect is general among your Lordships in relation to Clause 41 might be given effect to by assenting to the proposal made by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and by accepting his Amendment. When I say "accepted" I desire that it should be understood here and elsewhere that I am giving way to what I am sensible is the general opinion, that Clause 41 in its present form has not perhaps been sufficiently considered, and if the House of Commons desire to consider it further they will have an opportunity of doing so. I am sure your Lordships will respectfully consider anything they send up to us.

Clause 42 is in a different position, and I would ask the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, and your Lordships, to consider whether Clause 42 is not both a useful and almost a necessary Clause having regard to the circumstances I have mentioned. If there are any safeguards in the earlier Act which are not in this I would willingly assent to a modi- fication of the present proposal in order to bring it into line. The real difference is only in machinery. Instead of proceeding by mandamus you proceed by subsection (2)—"any order made by the Local Government Board under this section shall have the same effect as a resolution of the local authority deciding to prepare a town planning scheme in respect to the area in regard to which the order is made." Instead of a mandamus, which is a clumsy remedy, you have the substituted authority. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment asked me whether the compensation section of the Town Planning Act was affected or done away with by this section. This clause does not in any way affect the compensation section of the. Town Planning Act. The noble Lord will no doubt accept that assurance. Under these circumstances I venture to recommend that your Lordships should accept, as the Government are prepared to accept, the Amendment moved in relation to Clause 41, but for the reasons I have put forward I hope Clause 42 may still retain its place in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

This has been an interesting and important discussion, and so far as the substance of Clause 41 is concerned I am glad the noble and learned Lord does not think that its retention would be an advantage. It appears to me to possess, in its present form at any rate, two disadvantages, one of which was pointed out by the noble Viscount—namely, that it seems hardly reasonable to compel a community of 20,000 inhabitants or upwards to submit a town planning scheme within a limited time without reference whatever to local conditions.

In the second place, some criticism can be levelled at the clause from the opposite point of view. It is clearly the object of every one, at least of all sensible people, that where a large number of houses have to be erected they should not be erected hurriedly and in a manner which would interfere with the details of a large town planning scheme for the future, and they should not be erected in such a way as would affect the improvement of arterial communications in the future. But if the building of the houses is to be carried out within the next two or three years and the town-planning scheme need not be presented for six years, it seems to me that this safeguard to a great extent disappears, and if the presentation of a town planning scheme is necessary in order to safeguard building schemes under Clause 1, then something ought to have been said on Clause 1 to make that care for the future a necessary part of the duties of local authorities in preparing their scheme.

I think that some modified form of Clause 41 might assist and back up Clause 42, and I am bound to say that I differ from the noble Lord who desires to omit Clause 42. That appeals to me to be a distinctly valuable adjunct to the Bill, and I should be very sorry to see it go. And if it is thought desirable to add some modified form of Clause 41, which would not possess the objections that I have ventured to indicate as existing in its present form, those who are deeply interested in town planning might derive some satisfaction, and this House would not be under the imputation of having thrown out, without any attempt at modification, a proposal made in another place. Very shortly I put this as a suggestion to those in charge of the Bill, in case they think it worth while, supposing some modification of the clause were presented on Report, to reconsider the matter.

LORD ISLINGTON

The noble and learned Lord poured contempt on me just now, by suggesting that I had not accurately or carefully read Clause 42. I beg to say to your Lordships that I have read it with very great care, and I am bound to say that the argument of the noble and learned Lord has not in any way altered my opinion as regards what I said just now, namely, that subsection (3) of that clause does lay down that the central authority, in certain circumstances, can actually mandamus these local authorities for a town planning scheme. I hope your Lordships will fully realise that that is what the subsection proposes, and that is what will be embodied in the Bill. It clearly says that the Board may either authorise the county council to act or may themselves act in the place, and at the expense of, the local authority. It is perfectly clear that the central authority can insist upon the scheme being carried out, and being carried out at the expense of the local authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Really! my Lords, the words in the subsection are extremely clear. If the local authority fails to prepare a scheme the Board may either authorise the county council to act or may themselves act. That, and that alone, is the effect, of this subsection. On the other hand I have pointed out very clearly that there was a mandamus on precisely similar circumstances under the Act of 1909, which is in force to-day. No mandamus is needed, merely because it is the law of the land at present.

LORD ISLINGTON

If that is so, I do not see the object of including it in this Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is no mandamus provided for in this Bill. What we have done is simply to provide an alternative and swifter method, and we have done it by substituting one authority for another.

LORD DOWNHAM

I think I understand my noble and learned friend to accept the Amendment to omit Clause 41. I should just like to make one or two remarks on what has fallen from my noble and learned friend in expressing his intention to accept the Amendment. He says it is most desirable that the central authority should have some power to supervise and direct large schemes of housing—I agree—and that without these two clauses the central authority would not have power. The central authority has that power now. Every scheme must be submitted to the central authority, and they can approve of the scheme as a whole, or some modification of it; and if Clause 41 is looked at carefully it is seen that after all this Clause does not come into operation until three and a-half years from row, and that is the date which is fixed for the limit of the period for which the Government gives any financial assistance. Therefore these schemes are to be imposed upon local authorities without financial assistance from the Government, and that is my complaint—that the Government Department can say to a local authority, "You are to carry out a most expensive town planning scheme and if you will not do it we shall do it for you, and at great expense, and charge the whole of the expense upon you."

I think it requires very great consideration before we give that power to any Government Department. The Government Department may say to the London County Council, under Clause 42, "we think you ought to have an enormous town planning scheme for a certain portion of London. It may be very expensive, but that does not matter to us. We do not find the money, but the ratepayer does." The local authority may say: "Well, looking at our rates and the work which we are obliged to do, and the many loans which we are obliged to raise, we do not think it prudent to carry out such a scheme within five years." The Government Department may then say, "We will carry it out for you." My noble and learned friend says that the power of mandamus exists at the present day, but that is hedged round by certain conditions. In the first place there must be representation made by representative people, and, secondly, there must be a local inquiry. No such safeguard is provided in Clause 42, and there is no necessity for the Government Department to have any representation from those who are really interested in the area, or a local inquiry.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I thought I said that there were certain precautionary measures taken under the earlier Act which I would accept if any noble Lord moved them on the Report stage. Therefore it is really of no use for the noble Lord to say that there are earlier safeguards. That is what I have said, and I have said that I will accept them on the Report stage.

LORD DOWNHAM

I am very sorry if I did not catch all that my noble friend said with regard to safeguards. If I understand loin to say that he will put in this Bill the safeguards which are in the Act of 1909, that will make a considerable difference, but there is still one other point to which I called attention in my original speech, to which he omitted to give me any reply. Clause 41 applies to "any land"; is Clause 42 to apply to "any land" or is it to be limited, as in the Act of 1909, to particular land?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Those words are in Clause 41, and I have excluded those words from the Bill by accepting the Amendment. Therefore I do not know why the noble Lord should call upon me to explain words which I said, speaking of the clause as a whole, were ambiguous, and therefore I accepted the Amendment. I do not think it is reasonable to ask me to explain the words of a clause which I have dropped.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

It would, perhaps, be better to get Clause 41 out of the way.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42:

Power of Local Government Board to require town planning scheme.

42.—(1) Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that a town planning scheme ought to be made by a local authority, the Board may by order require the local authority to prepare and submit for their approval such a scheme, and if the scheme is approved by the Board to do all things necessary for enforcing the observance of the scheme or any provisions thereof effectively, and for executing any works which, under the scheme or under Part II of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909, the authority is required to execute.

(2) Any order made by the Local Government Board under this section shall have the same effect as a resolution of the local authority deciding to prepare a town planning scheme in respect of the area in regard to which the order is made.

(3) If the local authority fail to prepare a scheme to the satisfaction of the Board within such time as may be prescribed by the order, or to enforce the observance of the scheme or any provision thereof effectively, or to execute any such works as aforesaid, the Board may either authorise the county council to act, or may themselves act, in the place and at the expense of the local authority.

LORD DOWNHAM

Do I understand that on Report stage the noble and learned Lord will move to insert safeguards?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not tie myself to every word that is contained in the Act of 1909, but I think the idea that there should be some sort of local inquiry is reasonable, and I will agree to that.

LORD DOWNHAM

There should also be some definition of "land."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think I see what the noble Lord has in his mind, and I will deal with it on the Report stage.

LORD DOWNHAM

I shall certainly take a little time to consider this question, and by the time the Report stage comes on we shall have probably upon the Paper certain Amendments which may be put down to provide the safeguards that I think ought to be offered before we accept the clause.

LORD HARRIS

May I for explanation ask a question of the noble and learned Lord. Why have county councils suddenly had a new responsibility put upon them? Under the existing Acts the county councils are not responsible for invading an important borough and having to lay out a town planning scheme over land with which they have nothing to do, and in a town with whose affairs they have no concern whatever. Why is this liability suddenly thrust upon the county councils? The Government is imposing every day additional burdens upon the county councils, and in my opinion they are overdoing it. I therefore must protest unless a good explanation is forthcoming against this further liability being put upon the county councils.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Lord tell me to what words in the Bill he refers?

LORD HARRIS

Subsection (3): "If the local authority fail to prepare a scheme," the Board may authorise the county council to act.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I understand that my noble friend's contention is that the county council ought not to be given the power to act in default of the local authority.

LORD HARRIS

It is a new provision.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I would point out that the county council is not acting in the first place, but is only acting in default, and this subsection is to avoid that unpleasant and rather difficult and cumbrous method employed under the Act of 1909 of using the power under mandamus. The proposal is that either a county council or the Board itself shall act in default of the local authority doing its duty. There is no particular mystery about it. Very often it may be quite convenient in the county that the county council should act in default of the local authority instead of the work being carried out by the central authority. I should have thought that my noble friend would have welcomed the suggestion that the county council should do the work instead of the central authority being brought in.

LORD HARRIS

What have the county councils to do with boroughs?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am talking about the small local authorities in rural districts.

LORD HARRIS

But the boroughs are local authorities.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Non-county boroughs are local authorities, but if the county councils made a protest they would not be impressed with the duty of doing it.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I think this is a reasonable proposal. It is surely reasonable in a county, if a small urban district or if a rural district council refuse to act—and they may reasonably refuse to act, because the question of laying out roads may involve neighbouring little towns or two rural districts one with another and they cannot easily act in agreement—that the county council should act. I am sure that for county life it is very convenient that the county authority should take up the matter, and the local councils would I think prefer the county council rather than the Government to act. I do not think it is a burden on the county. All the county has to do is to plan out the scheme. The cost will fall on the local authorities.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I think the noble Lord has failed to grasp Lord Harris's point. The provision is that if the local authority fail to prepare a scheme the Board may act or it may authorise the county council to act. Supposing the local authority is a considerable borough, this puts the county council into the position of having to do that which it may be very unpleasant for it to do—take the place of the borough. I am not at all certain what the effect of the words "authorise the county council to act" is; whether it only gives the county council license to act or whether it will be construed to mean that the county council must act. I think the words are not carefully chosen. It is a distinct consideration whether or not this sort of intermediate authority should be introduced. As far as I mil aware it is a wholly new idea. It may be a good one, but it is a quite new one, and it ought to be very carefully considered before we introduce it. I imagine that there are a great many boroughs which will be extremely distressed if the county council were introduced upon them in this way.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I gather that under this proposal the Government do not intend the county council to act in default in the case of large boroughs. I admit that the words cover that, and I suggest to the Government that in that respect probably Clause 42 will require a little amendment. But when you come to, rural districts who might in certain eventualities be called upon to make a town planning scheme it does not seem unreasonable, if they do not do their work, that the county council should take the work over. That is in keeping with a. great deal of other legislation which Parliament has passed. There are many places where an obligation is laid upon a rural district and upon a small urban district, and if that obligation is not carried out the county council is called upon to act in the place of the authority concerned. If the clause were confined to a provision of that kind it would have my hearty support. I imagine that that is what the Government really intend, and if they would say that, they would between, this and Report stage reconsider the clause, in respect of the larger urban districts most, of the criticism on the clause would disappear. I have always, if I may say so, been a tremendous county council man. I believe in the county councils. I believe they are extremely successful bodies. They quite fulfil all the hope which Parliament had of them, and it is a good thing, that they should be called upon to act for the smaller local authorities who do not do their duty, but it ought not to apply to a considerable town, as that would be very inconvenient indeed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess is entirely right. It is not the intention of the Government, and never was, that the county council should assume to act on behalf of the larger urban bodies. I agree also that ought to be made plaint and it shall be made plain. With reference, to what my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore said I also agree with him. I do not think "authorise" is a term of art. I think it is ambiguous, and if this also, meets with your Lordships' approval I will see that the word is changed and a more suitable expression adopted before the Report stage.

Amendment moved— Page 30, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act") and insert ("Act of")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule:

Amendments moved—

Page 34, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("or any member of the local authority")

Page 34, line 11, at end insert—

Section 21 (2)

Before the word "householders" there shall be inserted the words "justice of the peace or"

Page 34, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("or any member of the local authority")

Page 34, line 23, at beginning insert ("The word 'or' shall be inserted before the words make any rate' ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The Amendment in my name is a small but a useful one, and I believe the Government are willing to accept it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

They welcome it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Unless your Lordships wish it I will not trouble to explain this Amendment, but in a sentence the object of it is to enable the Committees which can be appointed by the local authorities under the principle Act to co-opt other members to serve upon their bodies. That, of course, is a very well-known procedure in the county council, and it is a very valuable procedure, and I think it ought to be extended to these Committees who will act for the local authorities in most cases in respect of this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 23, at beginning of line insert ("the words out of their own number, and ' ");and in line 24, at end insert ("after the words provided that a committee as appointed shall' there shall be inserted the words consist as to a majority of its members of members of the appointing local authority, and shall'").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 25, leave out ("Commissioner") and insert ("Commissioners").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should like to ask the Government what they intend to do with regard to the Report stage of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord will recognise that I have not tried to act in any hostile spirit to the Bill, but a good many points are left over for Report, and I hope the Government will give us a few days in which to draft Amendments.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Do noble Lords think that the interval between now and next Tuesday would be adequate? That would be a convenient date for the Government, and it would give us six days.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Will the Government give us till Thursday? It really is very difficult; we have so much to do now.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

I suggest putting the Report stage down for Tuesday, and to-morrow we shall see how the matter develops.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Certainly.

House resumed.