§ After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
§ "Purchase of building materials in possession of a Government Department.
§ "23. Any bricks or other building materials in the possession of a Government Department which are available for purchase by a local authority for the erection or improvement of houses under the Housing Acts shall also be available for purchase on not less favourable terms by any owner of a house or building or site who enters into an agreement, with such security as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board, to use all building materials so purchased by him in the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes."
§ The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: After Clause 22, insert as a new clause:
§ " Provisions as to sale of building materials.
§ ".Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury, any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purpose of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or Public Utility Society may during a period of two years from the passing of this Act be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale of the materials so sold."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment is concerned with the proposed insertion of a new clause after Clause 22, which I think was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. The object of the noble Viscount was to secure that private purchasers of building materials should not be altogether excluded from some prospect of obtaining raw material by the operation of corporations in accumulating material. I took the view that the language suggested in the new clause was inapt to secure this purpose, and I pointed that out when the matter was under debate. The House of Commons, as your Lordships see, propose an Amendment in lieu of the noble Viscount's Amendment. Their Amendment undoubtedly is an attempt to secure the purpose of the noble Viscount. I understand that there has been some discussion between the noble Viscount and the draftsman, the result of which has been to suggest a further modification of the form of the new clause suggested by the Commons, which will at once satisfy the desire of the noble Viscount and not 1065 offend against the view taken in another place. I believe that effect can be given to that view by the Motion which I now make.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment, subject to the following Amendment—Leave out after the words ("working classes") where they first appear, the words ("and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or Public Utility Society").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONI am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having endeavoured to meet the strong feeling which was expressed. As he has made this concession and taken out these words, I think we could accept the Common's Amendment. There is one other Amendment I should wish to make, and that is that the word "two" should read "five." It is really unreasonable to suggest, if a building programme is completed in two years' time, that at that moment all supplies should be cut off. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to substitute the words "five years" for "two years."
§
Amendment moved—
To omit from the proposed new clause sent up by the Commons the word ("two") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD SHEFFIELDBefore we pass away from this Amendment I should like to ask whether the condition at the end of the Common's Amendment, that these materials are to be sold at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale, is not really possible in any case. It is putting the private purchaser under it worse condition as to price than the local authority.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYDo I understand that the Lord Chancellor is willing to accept the suggestion that the two years should become five? I think it is a most reasonable suggestion. These building operations are not going to be done as quickly as some sanguine people imagine, and the programme of the Government must last for a considerable number of years, during which they will practically absorb the vast mass of building material in the country. Private owners are to be called upon to replace and repair buildings under very heavy legal obligations, some of which are included in this Bill, and it 1066 really comes to this, that they must repair although there is no materials to repair with. I do not mean that my noble friend has solved the problem altogether. He has been very modest in his demand, and has confined it to a small compass. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept the suggestion.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI would remind your Lordships that the original proposal of the Bill was one year, and that it was only after discussion that the one year was increased to two years. I would also remind the House that the view of the authorities is that before the end of five years the building programmes will be completed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf the building programme of the Government is finished in two years it would be no hardship for them to part with their building materials.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat, no doubt, is perfectly true, but it is a question whether at this stage it is worth while sending the matter again once more to the House of Commons to be considered. But holding the view that there is very reasonable prospect that this matter will be dealt with long before five years are past, I do not propose to divide the House upon it.
§ On Question, Amendment ageed to.
§ Motion, as amended, agreed to.