HL Deb 10 July 1923 vol 54 cc884-918

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Government contributions to expenses of local authorities in assisting construction of houses.

(2) The houses in respect of which contributions may be given under this section shall be either—

  1. (a) a two-storied house with a minimum of six hundred and twenty and a maximum of nine hundred and fifty superficial feet; or
  2. (b) a structurally separate and self-contained flat or a one-storied house with a minimum of five hundred and fifty and a maximum of eight hundred and eighty superficial feet;

such measurements being calculated in accordance with Rules made by the Minister:

Provided that if the local authority in any particular ease satisfy the Minister that, having regard to special circumstances existing in their area, there is a need for houses of smaller dimensions, the minimum measurement may be reduced, as respects such limited number of houses for that area and subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine, in the case of a two-storied house to five hundred and seventy, and in the case of a flat or a one-storied house to five hundred, superficial feet.

Except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, every house or flat to which this section applies shall be provided with a fixed bath.

(4) Where within fifteen months before the passing of this Act a local authority have submitted to the Minister proposals for assisting persons or bodies of persons undertaking to construct houses, or for the provision of houses by the local authority themselves, or where after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and before the passing of this Act, a society, body of trustees or company to which Section three of this Act applies has submitted proposals for the provision of houses, and such proposals have been approved by the Minister otherwise than for the purposes of Section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. Act, 1919, contributions may be made of the like amount as if the assistance had been given or the houses provided after the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding that the houses do not comply in every respect-with the conditions imposed by or under this section.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWAEK moved, in the last paragraph of subsection (2), after "authority," to insert: "(a) the number of houses to which this section applies shall not exceed twelve per acre; and (b)." The right rev. Prelate said: I will detain your Lordships for a very short time in moving the Amendment which stands in my name. I hope that His Majesty's Government may see their way to accept this Amendment. I know that it is desired by a large number of those who are keenly interested in questions of housing and town planning. For a considerable time it has been realised how important it is that houses should be built well and strongly and wisely, but it is only comparatively recently that it has been realised that it is almost equally important that provision should be made that there should be sufficient space between the various houses. The result of this neglect has been that in many districts you can find houses which themselves are quite excellently built, but which are so crowded together that they form an unhealthy and unattractive district We are increasingly recognising that it is impossible to have an Al population unless sufficient air and light are given to the citizens of this country.

In a very striking sentence a noble Lord in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, one who speaks with unique authority on matters of health, Lord Dawson of Penn, said: Germ diseases would be reduced, maladies of infancy would speedily decline, together with all those maladies which modern knowledge tells us are increasingly dependent on the absence of light and air, and the health that would arise from increased light and air would be compensation far out of proportion to the cost which would be involved in any scheme however large. I do not think I need argue the matter of limiting the number of houses to an acre. That is not only largely recognised by public opinion, but it has been officially recognised. It was recognised by the Manual of Housing issued in 1919 where it was laid down that there should not be, normally, more than twelve houses to the acre. And in a more guarded way this is recognised in a circular which was issued by the present Ministry of Health in April of this year, in which it is stated that the Minister is of opinion that a density of approximately twelve houses per acre represents a desired standard, and that as a general rule a local authority should not approve the building of more than twenty houses on one acre.

But notwithstanding this, there is no provision in this measure which prevents overcrowding as the result of having too large a number of houses per acre. There is nothing in this measure which prevents the building not of twenty but of thirty and even forty, possibly fifty, houses to the acre, and there is a real danger that there may be overcrowding of houses which in themselves are good. I understand that the great city of Leeds is now urging a scheme which involves the building of houses back to back, a policy which has been condemned by every competent health authority. I therefore urge His Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment. The main objection may be that this will interfere unduly with the discretion of local authorities. This objection was urged on the Second Reading, but I would point out that already in this measure you are interfering with the discretion of local authorities. You are laying down the exact size of the house which must be built if grants are to be received under the scheme. The Amendment does not lay down a rigid rule which must be applied everywhere. I could not propose or support a rule which would have to be applied in every locality. There must be variety. Twelve houses per acre may be generally accepted, but here and there there must be exceptions, and if the Amendment is adopted it would always be possible for the Minister of Health to grant exceptions.

The paragraph would run— Except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, (a) the number of houses. … And where twelve houses to the acre would prove a real hardship and a hindrance to a good housing scheme it will be perfectly possible for the local authority to appeal to the Minister of Health and make good their case. If the Amendment is accepted the burden of proof rests on the local authority. That is most important. There are a large number of local authorities who will desire to have the best building scheme practicable, and I understand that the vast majority of local authorities have accepted the principle of twelve houses per acre. But, on the other hand, there are some local authorities on which there are a disproportionate number of those who are actively interested in the building trade, and there is a real danger that in those cases where the local authority has on it comparatively few of those who are independent and disinterested it might be ready to accept a scheme of housing which would not be advantageous to the health of the community.

I press this Amendment on the Government. We are eager to do what we can to remove the disgraceful legacy of bad and unhealthy houses, but in doing this we must see that we are not creating new slums and new problems for the future. Experience tells us that many of the housing reforms of fifty years ago are now proving the slum problems of to-day. In accepting the policy embodied in this measure let us also take such safeguards as will prevent the new houses of to-day proving the slum problem in the years to come.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 43, after ("authority") insert: ("(a) the number of houses to which this section applies shall not exceed twelve per acre; and (b)"). —(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)

LORD ASKWITH

I sympathise with much that the right rev. Prelate has said as to the importance of light and air, but I trust that he will not press his Amendment, and that if he does, your Lordships will reject it. It may be ideal but it is not practical, and it will not bring the desired result so far as the number of houses is concerned. It will stop many "housing schemes that are now in being and being prepared. It would bring within a rigid form a rule which might be very difficult to apply in some cases. It might prevent a cottage being built on the edge of a common or close to a recreation ground. The right rev. Prelate goes further than the Act of 1019. In that Act it was provided that in any scheme the average number of houses per acre should be put down, but the right rev. Prelate gives a fixed number of twelve.

Having taken some trouble to inquire what would be the effect of this Amendment, I understand that in some cases, particularly where the land has cost a great deal, it would absolutely stop the housing scheme were it stipulated that only twelve houses were to be built to the acre. It would put an end to many schemes that were partly finished before the war or which were designed before the war, and as for new schemes, for houses of the kind which it is desired to build cheaply, the excess of expenditure in making builders' roads and making roads generally, water pipes and gas pipes, and all the other amenities required, would be such that no houses would be built. After all, the Bill gives elasticity. The aim has been not to make things rigid but elastic, and to enable local authorities to adapt the circumstances of the houses to be built to the circumstances of the neighbourhood and the requirements of the population. The Amendment would do much to hinder and prevent many of the advantages which the Bill proposes to confer on the community.

LORD PARMOOR

I heartily support the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. There is a great danger lest in the demand for houses, which is undoubtedly great, too little consideration is given to the class of houses built and the conditions under which the houses are built. For many years I had to deal with building in the neighbourhood of Battersea and Kennington, well known to the right rev. Prelate. We went carefully into the question as to the relative cost of the land adequate for the houses, as compared with the cost of building, and the result of our investigations, in Kennington at any rate, was that the cost of the land was small in relation to the cost of building. The cost of the land generally is an infinitesimal item as regards the rental of the house. That is almost entirely fixed by the cost of building. After all, the Amendment gives the Minister of Health discretion to approve of other schemes on the recommendation of the local authority. I hope that a provision of this kind may be introduced, subject, as the right rev. Prelate has said, to alteration by the local authority under special conditions.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am sure your Lordships will agree very largely, as my noble friend Lord Askwith said, with what has fallen from the right rev. Prelate, and certainly the Government is with him in the object which he has in view. The right rev. Prelate read to your Lordships an extract from a circular which I have here and which, I think, shows that such is the case. That circular is the document which was issued at the time of the introduction of this Bill into another place to explain to local authorities exactly what were the provisions of the Bill and also the methods by which my right hon, friend the Minister trusted that the Bill might be carried out by them. I think that the only question which is at issue between the right rev. Prelate and myself is the question whether a rigid standard should be introduced into the Bill or not, and I may say quite frankly that the Government are strongly of opinion that this is a matter in which the discretion of local authorities may be allowed play and where elasticity is obviously required.

The right rev. Prelate mentioned a certain safeguard which he suggested should be introduced into the Bill in order to enable local authorities to build more than twelve houses to the acre in special circumstances. The suggestion which he made was, I think, that in such cases the local authority in question should submit to the Ministry of Health the suggestion which they had in view, their proposed methods and their reasons for wishing to exceed the standard of twelve houses to the acre. If that were done it would necessitate that the specifications and plans of the whole lay-out of the estate should be submitted to the Ministry of Health, and of course careful inquiry would have to be held into that material. The result of this would be a considerable delay, and we want to get houses built. We cannot allow any reasons for delay to conflict with the necessity of getting houses built at the right and proper time. Your Lordships are, of course, aware that house building is really a seasonal" trade; you must build in summer and use the fine weather while you have it. Any provision which tends to delay the construction of houses must tend to militate against the objects which we have in view. I have no doubt that the right rev. Prelate will have read the circular, a copy of which I sent him, although I believe he had seen it before. He will gather from that circular that our object is to leave full discretion to local authorities while giving them precise guidance as to the manner in which it is hoped, and. I am sure, not hoped in vain, that they will proceed to carry out the provisions of this measure.

Let me turn for one moment to the reasons why it is necessary that discretion should be given to the local authorities, that there should be elasticity, as I think has been admitted even by the right rev. Prelate himself, in regard to this question of the limit of the number of houses to the acre. There may be, and no doubt there are, many partly developed sites, as my noble friend, Lord Askwith, mentioned, close to the centre of large towns, where there are perhaps more than twelve houses to the acre and the lay-out and development of such an estate, which has been partially constructed, has been on a basis of more than twelve houses to the acre. If you have laid out an estate on a basis of sixteen houses to the acre, let us say, and put down your roads, drains, gas, water and so forth, it is very difficult to change it when you are half way through and convert it to a scheme based on the limit of twelve houses to the acre. I am afraid that if you were to introduce, this rigid limit of twelve houses to the acre the result would be that on many of those sites no houses would be built at all. The authorities would give up building houses, or at any rate they would be very seriously delayed by having to allow an inquiry to be held by the Ministry of Health such as I think might equally well be entrusted to the local authority on the spot.

I think the right rev. Prelate made the suggestion that we are running a danger, under the present wording of the Bill, of the construction of thirty or even forty houses to an acre. As my right hon. friend said in the House of Commons, and as, I think, was accepted, there really is no danger, in view of the present state of public opinion, that local authorities would sanction the construction of thirty or forty houses to the acre, especially in view of the very precise terms of the circular which has been issued to them and which was read to your Lordships by the right rev. Prelate. Although there may be places such as I have described where the lay-out has already been made on the basis of sixteen or twenty houses to the acre, we do not think it possible that we should have a recrudescence of such crowding as the building of thirty or forty houses to the acre. To meet cases of the kind where we think that sixteen or twenty houses to the acre might possibly be desirable in certain special circumstances we feel that it should be left to the local authority to decide, and this is the principle which we think should govern the execution of this Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment, and will be content to leave the execution of the Act to the local authority in the light of the wording of the circular which has been issued to them by the Ministry of Health and which prescribes the approximate standard of twelve houses to the acre with the general maximum of twenty houses to the acre.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I confess frankly that I am disappointed with the line that has been taken by the representative of His Majesty's Government. There is, I gather, general agreement that there should be no overcrowding. The noble Earl who has just sat down said that it was inconceivable that we should find thirty or forty houses to the acre in future. The word "rigidity" has been used more than once already this afternoon. As I understood him, the right rev. Prelate did not propose rigidity. His sole suggestion, as I understand it, was that exceptional cases should come before the Ministry for their approval, but that as a general rule, where a local authority was up-to-date in its ideas and desirous of moving with public opinion and carrying out the general intentions of the Government, there should be only twelve houses to the acre, and that in that case it would not be necessary for the plans and lay-out to be submitted to the Ministry. It would be only in exceptional cases where building had already been undertaken and where owing to local circumstances it might be desirable to have sixteen or even twenty houses to the acre that the approval of the Ministry of Health would be obtained.

It seems to me that there is everything to be gained by this Amendment. It does not establish the principle of rigidity, and it does give local authorities that power of local autonomy which I think is an object for which we ought to fight. I am a great believer in the principle of local autonomy, of allowing local opinion to make itself felt. In a question of education or the use of permissive health powers it does not matter a bit if a certain number of authorities move rather more slowly than their more progressive neighbours; it does not really much matter if an authority waits a few years before setting up a complete system of medical inspection or treatment of school children; but it is absolutely vital, when you are dealing with houses and when the whole future of a locality may be prejudiced if too large a number of houses are built to an acre, that there should be no delay. There we are dealing with an entirely different question, and I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government may be prepared to reconsider the matter.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I venture to think that on this occasion we may usefully read the words which precede the passage to which the right rev. Prelate wishes to make an Amendment. As amended, the words would run:— Except where otherwise approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the local authority, (a) the number of houses to which this section applies shall not exceed twelve per acre. Surely we give in this case every opportunity to the Ministry in special circumstances to allow the increase. What seems to govern the matter is surely the cost of land, and I think on a previous occasion, when we had to discuss that question, noble Lords opposite rather approved of a remark which I made to the effect that the cost of land was a much smaller item in the cost than it used to be, and that we do not now hear the same attacks which used to be made upon the landlord. The attacks are upon the capitalists who build the houses. I do not think that in most of these cases we should much increase the cost if we made it a general rule that there shall be not more than twelve houses to the acre. I am sure that the right rev. Prelate would be ready to make the necessary amendment of his proposal to safeguard schemes which are pending.

I think the argument used by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is one of weight, and that it would be extremely hard in the case of schemes now proceeding that we should force the local authorities to go to the trouble and expense of changing their schemes. I imagine that the right rev. Prelate would be only too glad to meet cases of that kind, but, as a general expression of opinion, I venture to hope that the Government, keeping still in hand for the Ministry its power to have a larger number of houses, will allow the right rev. Prelate's Amendment to pass into law. If not, so far as my own vote goes I can assure the right rev. Prelate that it is at his disposal, and that if he wishes to press his Amendment to a Division I shall follow him into the Lobby.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Speaking only for myself, I am to a certain extent torn between two conflicting opinions, because in my long connection with this question I have built a very large number of houses, and I have always wished to follow the garden city conditions of building. I do not think there is any question at all, in any part of the House, that where it is feasible and does not conflict with the general policy of the Bill we should all be only too glad to see such a limit inserted as is suggested. I may say, parenthetically, that the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate could not be accepted because twelve houses to the acre is a counsel of perfection, and we know that in very many well-developed estates a larger number have been put up.

The important thing to consider is this: If you are going to control from the centre, under the Act of Parliament or by the authority of the Minister, all these conditions of house building, you cannot stop at this one question of so many houses to the acre. There are a great number of other conditions which probably the noble Earl opposite, and Lord Astor, and others who have studied the question, would like to see carried out in any house buiding but if you once begin to do that you are back in the old difficulty of plans being submitted from the locality to the centre, plans being sent back, rigid conditions being insisted upon, and all the bureaucratic interference that we have seen during these last melancholy years, and which have hampered so much the success of the policy of providing houses for the people. It is not as if we approached this subject without any experience. I suppose everybody deplores the interference of Whitehall in these local matters. It has been shown to be deleterious on the whole, not because the intentions were not of the very best, but because the interference of the central authority has produced rigid conditions not applicable in all cases, and, above all, has produced delay.

Those are things which we want to avoid, and so the policy of the Bill proceeds upon the other basis. I suspect that those who listen to me will say: "What about your baths, which come immediately afterwards?" I regret the baths proviso—it was inserted in another place—not because I begrudge them but because I do not think that they are the sort of things which should be imposed centrally. It is far better to nourish and cherish the freedom of the locality to develop its own responsibility in the best way possible. That is the way in which you get good government. It is always plausible to say: Make your conditions at the centre. You see what ought to be done; enforce it by Act of Parliament. You do that, and then you produce the bureaucratic system that we have seen in operation, and which we know does not work; and although there is a great deal to be said for this particular Amendment, yet, if you once embark upon a provision of this kind, I am sure that logically you cannot stop there—you must go a great deal further and produce instead of a local authority Bill a bureaueratic Bill. I hope that your Lordships will not do that, at any rate on the present stage of the Bill. I hope that the right rev. Prelate, who made a speech with which I greatly sympathise, but whose Amendment I am sure will emphasise or intensify in this Bill the principle of central and bureaucratic control, will not press his Amendment.

LORD TREOWEN

I merely rise to express the hope that the right rev. Prelate will press his Amendment. The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke of a counsel of perfection, and my noble friend Lord Askwith spoke of the Amendment as aiming at an ideal. We want an ideal when dealing with this question. It is the absence of ideals which has produced the terrible condition of things of which we have complained for years, and of which we see the result in the industrial districts at the present time. If there had been in existence such a limitation as the right rev. Prelate proposes, to my own certain knowledge, in certain housing schemes with which I have been familiar in an industrial part of the country, we should have had the number of houses per acre which he wishes to see. As it is, they have in several cases drifted back into a worse condition of things than that at which we had hoped they were in the future aiming. I know that in some of these cases the land has been obtained at the cheapest possible rate, and the whole of the cost of the housing really has been due to the cost of building. The local authorities have not been able to resist the temptation to try to make that a more profitable business by putting more houses to the acre and in that way getting a lower average cost per house. That is the disastrous thing which has happened so many times in the past, and which, I sincerely hope, will be prevented by the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, if it is accepted by the House. If he goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.

LORD LOVAT

I do not think sufficient stress has been laid on the difference that occurs in the cost of these schemes owing to the question of roads, drainage, gas, and electric light. I sat for more than four years on the Royal Commission on Scottish Housing, and, while I think all the members of that Commission were agreed that twelve houses per acre was the ideal to be aimed at, it was also agreed by the large majority that it was an ideal unattainable in a great many cases. The cost of land, as has been stated, is quite a minor matter: it really hardly counts: it means only the difference of a few shillings per annum. But what is a substantial cost arises from the number and length of roads that have to be made. The natural configuration of the ground and the employment of the population make it quite impossible, in many cases, to have twelve houses to the acre. A standard case in Scotland is the town of Greenock, a large and flourishing place, where, from the configuration of the ground, it is impossible to build any houses except on a couple of plateaux near the beach. Another instance would be the narrow valleys of Wales, where it is almost impossible to get good building ground except at the bottom of those valleys. If you were to build on either side of the hill it would make your building scheme very costly, and a large number of the workers would also be at a considerable distance from their work. That, I submit, is an important matter. We wish to get as many of the population as possible within reasonable distance of their work.

A second point upon which I do not think sufficient stress has been placed is that where you have to make a reference to a central body it always leads to delay. In the case of a very small local authority with which I am acquainted we found that wherever we have had to refer anything to a central authority it generally meant two months' delay before we could expect an answer. The building season is remarkably short, and two or three months' delay might mean the postponement for a year of a building scheme. I am whole-heartedly in favour of twelve houses to the acre, where it can be managed, but I hope the Government will adhere to the Bill as it stands, because I believe that it is in the interest, if not of ideals, certainly of getting houses built—which is what we mainly require.

VISCOUNT BURNHAM

I hope that, with even the highest aspirations you will not altogether forget the object and purpose of this Bill, which is to provide for the better housing of the people. I wonder whether the right rev. Prelate who moved this Amendment in perfectly good faith is aware that in the enormous area of the County of London not a single house would have been built by public authority if his proposal had held good, save by special leave and privilege accorded by the Ministry of Health. And if you took the Administrative County of London and all the big cities out of the Bill not very much would remain. I am bound to say I thought that in this House, where members have so much practical experience, you would not, for the mere sake of ornament (if I may so express it) and to win public assent to an excellent principle, have so far curtailed and limited the possibilities of building and rebuilding under the Bill as to exclude all the big centres of population.

It is true that under the Amendment exceptional cases may be dealt with in an exceptional way. On the other hand, it is in the great centres that there is the greatest call for better housing, and I most earnestly support the argument of my noble friend Lord Askwith that the greater the elasticity and the better the Bill is adapted to the circumstances that prevail, the more effective it will be. I hope that the right rev. Prelate will not put us in a position of having to vote against what we all admit to be an ideal standard wherever it is possible, and certainly outside the great boroughs and urban districts, but which cannot possibly apply to the existing state of things in them.

LORD SEMPILL

I should like to support what Lord Burnham has just said. I think we are rather inclined to lose sight of what house-building for the working classes really is. Our ideals are nearly always too extravagant. I have had something to do with housing committees, and I hold in my hand papers on the cost of a building scheme and what it has done towards finding accommodation for the working classes. This is a scheme in a part of the world to which I belong, where they built seventy-six houses at a cost of about £97,000. In addition to that amount we had to spend about £5,000 on roads and lighting; and the more you spread your houses out the greater this expense becomes. That is the point upon which Lord Lovat touched just now.

Having built these houses, what was the result? In Scotland we have a very valuable thing which, I believe, you have not in England—a valuation roll, which enables you to look up what any person pays for his house, and what the landlord receives for it. I was thus able to ascertain how many working men had occupied those houses, and I found that the number was very small. I wrote for information, and I was told that out of seventy-six houses practically only forty working men occupied them. But my informant added that, owing to decrease in wages, many working men had been obliged to leave their houses. In the other cases the unfortunate taxpayer is being taxed for supplying with houses people who are not working men; they are being subsidised to the extent of about 50 per cent. These seventy-six houses produce a net rental of a little under £2,000. But the interest on the money spent upon them, at six per cent., amounts to nearly £5,000, and, after deducting the local rate of four-fifths of a penny, which is the maximum you are allowed to raise, it leaves £2,000 to be found. That is to say that the majority of these householders, who are capable of paying a bigger rent, are being subsidised by the unfortunate taxpayer to the extent of £26 a year. That is to say, they are having their houses at 50 per cent. below the economic cost. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Derby, talking the other day about cutting one's coat according to one's cloth, and I think we ought to follow that idea too. If the housing question is such a clamant one surely, instead of building palaces, a man ought to be only too glad to go in for something more moderate.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The next Amendment on the Paper is a drafting amendment to subsection (4), Section 19 of the Housing Act refers to assistance to public utility societies under the old scheme, in the same way as Section 7 already in the clause refers to local authorities under the scheme of 1919.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, after ("seven") insert ('" or Section nineteen").—(The, Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause a (Power of local authorities to promote the building of houses by means of grants, etc.):

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The Amendment standing in my name to this clause is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13, leave out ("that").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Government contributions to expenses of public utility societies, etc., in building houses):

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 20, after ("classes") insert ("being a society, body of trustees, or a company").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Power of local authorities to make advances, etc., for the purpose of increasing housing accommodation.

5.—(1) A local authority for the purposes of Part III of the principal Act may, subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Minister, at any time before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-six:— (b) undertake to guarantee the repayment to such building society as aforesaid of any advances made by the society to any of its members for the purpose of enabling them to build houses or acquire houses the construction of which was commeneed after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three;

Provided that the local authority before granting any such assistance shall satisfy themselves that the houses, flats, or tenements, in respect of which assistance is to be given will, when the building, alteration, or conversion has been completed, be in all respects fit for human habitation, and in particular that the superficial area of any such house, flat, or tenement will not be less than the minimum permissible under Section one of this Act.

(2) Any such advance as aforesaid shall be subject to the following conditions:— (a) The advance with interest thereon shall be secured by mortgage and shall not exceed ninety per cent. of the value of the mortgaged property; and the mortgage deed may provide for repayment being made either by instalments of principal of by an annuity of principal and interest combined, so, however, that in the event of any of the conditions subject to which the advance is made not being complied with, the balance for the time being unpaid shall become repayable on demand from the local authority; and the advance may be made by instalments from time to time as the building of the house progresses, so that the total of the advance does not at any time before the completion of the house exceed fifty per cent. of the value of the work done up to that time on the construction or on works incidental to the construction of the house, including the value of the interest of the mortgagor in the site thereof; and

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "such building society as aforesaid" and insert "a society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1891, or the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913." The noble Earl said: This is a Scottish Amendment. In Scotland, building societies are not generally incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, but under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the local authorities may give guarantees in those cases.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("such building society as aforesaid") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am under an engagement to the noble Lord opposite, and if he does not want this Amendment put in at this stage I will put it off to the next. I think it is very-little more than a drafting Amendment.

LORD DYNEVOR

That is so, I believe.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON had on the Paper an Amendment to omit "or tenements" from the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Lord said: There is no matter of controversy in this Amendment. In another place the words "or tenements "were connected with this clause, but now, I think, they are unnecessary. Unfortunately, my Amendment as it stands on the Paper is not quite correct, and I think it should be so drafted as to make the proviso read in this way: "Provided that the local authority before granting any such assistance shall satisfy themselves that the houses or flats in respect of which assistance," and so on. I hope the noble Earl will accept it in that form.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am quite ready to accept my noble friend's Amendment, but I am not sure that the addition he has suggested quite covers the point. I think that in addition to what is in his Amendment it would be necessary to move to insert the word "or" after the word "houses" in line 32. He said that I think. We also want to insert "or" after "houses" in line 36 on the same page. If my noble friend will move his Amendment in that form I should be glad to accept it.

LORD MONK BRETTON

I am obliged to the noble Earl, and I move my Amendment in that form, and the suggested consequential Amendments.

Amendment moved — Page 7, line 32, after ("houses") insert ("or").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 32, leave out ("or tenements").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to. Page 7, line 36, after ("house") insert ("or").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON

The next Amendment is consequential. Page 7, line 36, leave out ("or tenement").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The next Amendment which stands in my name is merely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 42, after ("and") insert ("the advance").—(The Earl, of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "mortgaged" and insert "interest of the mortgagor in the." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to make clearer what I believe to be the intention of the paragraph in question. That is, that the advances should not exceed a certain percentage of the value of the interest in the property mortgaged. As drafted I do not think it is accurate. I would call your Lordships' attention to lines 16 and 17 on page 8 of the Bill where reference is made to "the value of the interest of the mortgagor," and there is also another place in the Bill in which that reference is made. I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept my Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Yes, I shall be glad to do so.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 43, leave out ("mortgaged") and insert ("interest of the mortgagor in the").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after "building," to insert "or alteration." The noble Lord said: This deals with the same point as the last Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 10, after ("building") insert ("or alteration").—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I will accept that Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions us to housing schemes outside area of local authority.

(4) Where a scheme to which this section applies has been carried out, whether before or after the passing of this Act, by the London County Council within the area of a metropolitan borough, the council of the metropolitan borough shall be under the like liability as to the maintenance of roads as if the metropolitan borough had been a borough outside London.

LORD MONK BRETTON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after the first "borough" and to insert "the liability to maintain the roads shall vest in the council of that metropolitan borough unless that council, or on appeal the Minister is satisfied that the roads have not been properly constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Minister." The noble Lord said: My objection to the language of the subsection as it stands is that it would have the effect of applying to the Metropolitan Borough Councils in relation to the maintenance of roads under the clause, the law which is applicable to authorities outside London. In London the law is contained substantially in the Metropolis Management Acts, while outside London the law, generally speaking, is contained in the Public Health Acts. I am very anxious, therefore, that it should be made clear that the law applies only in its relation to the liability of the Metropolitan Borough Councils.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 1, leave out from ("borough") to the end of the clause, and insert the said new words.—(Lord. Monk Bretton.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I shall be very glad to accept that Amendment. What the noble Lord has said is quite correct. It is really a drafting Amendment, and I think it improves the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Provisions as to licensed premises included in Part I and Part II schemes):

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Amendment to Clause 9 is also a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 30, leave out ("was") and insert ("had been").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Provisions as to by-laws relating to new streets.

12.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the erection of dwelling-houses, the Minister may prescribe a code of building by-laws relating to the level, width, and construction of new streets, but no such code shall have effect unless and until adopted by resolution of a local authority; and where such code or any part thereof is so adopted it shall not be necessary for the local authority to comply with the requirements of Section one hundred and eighty-four of the Public Health Act, 1875, or, if the by-laws are made under a local Act, the corresponding provisions of that Act, and the code or such part thereof shall have full force and effect as part of the by-laws of the local authority in substitution for such of the existing by-laws of the authority as may be specified in the resolution.

LORD LAMINGTON moved to insert the following new subsection after subsection (1):— (2) A code made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented by either House within twenty-one days from the date on which that House has sat next after such code is laid before it, praying that such code, or any part thereof, may be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the code or any part thereof to which objection has been taken, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

The noble Lord said: The clause to which I am moving this Amendment authorises the Minister to frame by-laws dealing with the construction, levelling, and width of roads, which are very important objects, no doubt. Local authorities can adopt these by-laws wholly or in part by simply advertising the fact in the local Press and so relieve themselves of any obligation to carry out the procedure laid down in the various Public Health Acts. It seems to me to be only-right in a matter of such importance that Parliament should not lose all control over the Departments, and that, possibly, the Departments would be more careful, if they were aware that their actions might be considered and, it may be, revised by Parliament. As the interests of individuals might be very largely affected by these by-laws, it seems to me that some such provision as that suggested in my Amendment should be adopted. The Amendment is a moderate one. No delay would be involved by its adoption. The local authority could carry out the by-law, and it would be permissible for the Minister subsequently to modify it at the dictation of Parliament. The Amendment affords some protection to the individual, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to give it favourable consideration.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lamington.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon the Amendment, because it would introduce a new principle in regard to by-law making. The code which is contemplated in this Bill, and which will be drawn up by the Minister, has no effect of itself. It is merely a model which local authorities may adopt either wholly or in part as they think fit. Therefore the functions of the Minister, under this clause, are purely advisory, and any suggestion which he might make by way of model by-laws could be modified by the local authority, which would then submit their by-laws in the ordinary way for confirmation. I should explain that under other Acts of Parliament local authorities are constantly making by-laws based on models—as is contemplated here—which are suggested by the Ministry, and in no other case, to my knowledge, has it been suggested that such by-laws should be laid before Parliament. The validity or the reverse of a by-law is a matter cognisable by the Courts.

I would like to recall to your Lordships' recollection an instance which occurred the other day. A certain local authority made by-laws based upon models supplied by the Ministry with regard to the slaughter of animals. These by-laws were called in question before the local Court of summary jurisdiction, which held that they were ultra vires. An appeal against that decision was made to the High Court, which decided that the by-laws were not contrary to the relevant Statutes. That is the procedure, and I give it as an example of what governs the making of by-laws. There are a great number of cases in which by-laws are made on models. That those by-laws should be laid before Parliament in one solitary case would be an undesirable precedent, and would cause confusion. Therefore I could not advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down.

LORD LAMINGTON

Do I understand that the only procedure is to go to the High Court if there is anything objectionable in the by-law?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

If it is thought that the by-law is contrary to the relevant Statutes its validity can, as I understand, be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, and the appeal from the decision of that court is to the High Court.

LORD LAMINGTON

The noble Lord said that the local authority can have its by-law confirmed. By whom is it confirmed?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

It is confirmed by the Ministry concerned—sometimes the Home Office and sometimes the Ministry of Health. It depends upon which Ministry has authority over the subject dealt with by the by-law. In regard to this matter it would be the Ministry of Health, in regard to good government it would be the Home Office, and in regard to some other matters it would be the Ministry of Agriculture.

LORD LAMINGTON

I do not press the Amendment, although I think it is an important point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

By-laws respecting houses divided into separate tenements.

14.—(1) Section twenty-six of the Housing. Town Planning, Etc. Act, 1919 (which relates to by-laws respecting houses divided into separate tenements), shall, in its application to the administrative county of London have effect— (b) as if in paragraph (a) of subsection (10) of that section for the words "for those purposes" there were substituted the words "under Section ninety-four of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.

LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I will endeavour to explain as briefly and clearly as I can this rather difficult point. It arises on paragraph (b) in the, first part of Clause 14, and refers, as so many of these subsections do, to other Acts of Parliament. The matter is a dispute between the County Council and the joint standing committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and I am speaking on behalf of the joint standing committee of the Borough Councils who offer strong opposition to this subsection which was passed in another place upon a statement being made that an agreement had been come to when no such agreement had been reached. The Minister accepted that statement. The clause has come out in its present form, and is put forward as being an agreed clause. In stating that this agreement had been made the subsection was said to have a certain meaning attached to it which I am advised does not attach to it, and into a Bill providing a subsidy for houses there has crept, by a side wind, on this supposed understanding and on the initiative of the County Council, an alteration of the law which has existed since the year 1898 and which, almost without their knowledge, takes away from the Borough Councils the power of making by-laws which they have had since that year. It is not germane to the purpose of this Bill, and it is a very unusual sort of thing to have happened.

I am not sure whether, if the noble Earl were willing to call the parties together and to exercise his good offices, he might not get some clause which would at least save the existing rights, or if not that, a small agreed Bill could be passed dealing with the by-law question. My point is that this matter ought not to have been brought up in this hurry in this Bill. It takes away an authority, and leaves outside of by-laws a very large number of houses which up to the present have been the subject of by-laws. The Public Health (London) Act of 1891, Section 94, conferred upon all Metropolitan boroughs the power of making by-laws for houses of all classes letting lodgings. That power was confirmed by the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909, Section 16, and remained with the borough councils until the passing of Dr. Addison's Act of 1919. In that Act—the Housing (Town Planning), etc. Act of 1919—it was said that, in regard to houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes, the by-law power should be transferred to the London County Council. The result was that the Metropolitan Borough Councils still had the power of making by-laws in respect of all houses letting lodgings other than houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes.

Then there comes forward this Bill of 1923, and the County Council seem to have thought that it provided an opportunity for transferring to them the power of making by-laws in all cases. That may be a good thing, or it may not be, but on May 15 they passed a resolution to that effect." It was not till May 31 that the honorary treasurer of the standing joint committee of the Borough Councils received a telephone message that an Amendment was going to be put down on this Bill. On June 2 an Amendment was proposed at a meeting between the parties, but it was objected to by the standing committee of Borough councils, and a new suggestion was made that by-laws should be made by the County Council, and that if the Borough Councils objected to thorn the two authorities should meet and discuss the matter, and, failing agreement by them, the Minister of Health was to decide.

When the Bill came before Committee in the House of Commons, on June 11, the County Council strongly objected to the final appeal to the Minister of Health, and at the suggestion of the Minister of Health the clause was withdrawn. He invited them to try to come to some arrangement. On June 18 a new clause was proposed during the Report stage. It was objected to on June 19 by the Borough Councils, but on June 20 it was brought forward, and the representative of Wandsworth said this— The Minister of Health, therefore, in Committee, proposed that we should try to get an agreement. Since then the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the London County Council have come to an arrangement. The London County Council has agreed with the Metropolitan Borough Councils, so that we have omitted powers over the houses above those of the working classes. And this was emphasised by the seconder of the new clause. He stated— Local authorities took some exception to this clause as introduced, but I am able to say that meantime their objections have been met, and now there is pretty well general agreement. These gentlemen must have been misinformed, or must have misunderstood the position, because I am authorised to say on behalf of the standing joint committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils that they are entirely opposed to this clause; they do not desire to have these powers taken away from them in this manner.

In order to understand the effect of this clause I shall have to deal with the law upon it. The clause refers to Section 26 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, and that section says that the power of making and enforcing by-laws shall in the case of houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes be deemed to include the making and enforcing of by-laws. Subsection (10) of Section 26 provides that as respects the County of London the by-laws for the purposes specified shall be made by the London County Council; that is, for "houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes," and any by-law made for those purposes was to supersede any by-laws made for those purposes by the council of any Metropolitan borough.

That has been the law. The proposal in the present Bill is that instead of the words "for those purposes" there should be substituted the words "under Section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891." The effect of that would be this. Power is taken away from the Borough Councils to make by-laws with regard to lodging houses which are not intended or used for occupation by the working classes, but that power is not transferred specifically to the London County Council, and, therefore, that class of house would not be subject to any by-laws made by any authority. There can be no reason why Borough Councils who have had powers to make their own by-laws since 1898 should have them taken away because of a misunderstanding which has arisen in another place.

I have suggested that the noble Earl might deal with the parties between now and Report stage, but I do not want to have to go through this rather long statement again or listen to what my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has to say on behalf of the London County Council. I should prefer to take the opinion of the House to-day. It, is not a Government matter. It is a question whether these powers ought to be taken away in what I may almost call a hole and corner manner. It may be suggested that some Borough Councils have agreed to it but the joint standing committee certainly have not. They have expressed the strongest opinion against this proposal. They wish to keep the powers they have at present, and if they are to be handed over to the London County Council then it should be done in a proper manner. They should not be pushed into it at a moment's notice.

Amendment moved— Page 15, lines 32 to 30, leave cut paragraph (b).—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD MONK BRETTON

I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment but will leave the Bill as it was left in another place, with the approval of Mr. Chamberlain, the Minister of Health. I really cannot follow all the details of what has been going on between the standing joint committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the London County Council, and I do not suppose your Lordships wish to do so either. What we on the London County Council desire is to have one set of by-laws. At the present moment there are two authorities making by-laws for London. One authority, the Metropolitan Borough Councils, does it under the Public Health Act, 1891, and the other, the County Council, under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919. We have duality. What we want is uniformity. We bless this clause, which was inserted after a great deal of consideration in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, and finally adopted and recommended by Mr. Chamberlain. I hope the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, will stand by it.

The noble Lord has made a speech about the standing joint committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. Your Lordships are aware of the sort of authority one gets in a hybrid delegation from other local authorities. You are acquainted with the County Councils' Association. It is a worthy association, but your Lordships would never take the opinion of the County Councils' Association as the opinion of county councils throughout the country. You would ask the county councils themselves for their opinion. The same thing obtains in connection with the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I must give your Lordships one instance. The Association of Municipal Corporations was deeply interested in the question of a censorship of cinemas and passed a unanimous resolution that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs should be the censor. The Secretary of State called them together. I was present, and I do not think there were two who agreed with one another on the point: and they had to disperse. I say that in order to show that because a hybrid delegation says a thing it does not follow that it is truly representative.

Consequently, if the noble Earl follows the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Askwith and calls a conference, I hope that he will deal with the boroughs and not with the standing committee of the boroughs, because I do not think he will get the truth unless he goes to the fountain head. I am quite prepared to agree that the London County Council should come before the noble Earl, but I do not think any useful purpose would be served by asking the London County Council to confer with the bodies to which I have alluded. I only hope that the noble Earl will hold to the opinion which was stated by the Minister of Health in another place and will stick to this clause, which I think is a good clause and will abolish this duality and bring about uniformity in the making of by-laws, the administration resting with the boroughs. The clause is quite satisfactory as it stands.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This point, as my noble friend Lord Askwith has said, relates really to a domestic difference, if I may say so with great respect, in the government of the great Metropolis. I think the whole question seems to have been misunderstood. I was not present in another place, but so far as I am aware the clause was brought up by the representative of the London County Council and was not accepted by the representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. My right hon. friend said that in those circumstances he was unable to accept the clause and suggested that the London County Council should try to reach agreement and bring up a new clause on Report. The new clause was brought up on Report and was embodied in the Bill. My right hon. friend accepted it because he was under the impression that it was an agreed clause. Evidently some misapprehension has arisen. I do not quite know how it happened, but it was clearly a misapprehension, and nobody was to blame in the matter. These things will happen occasionally, and it cannot be helped.

The result is that we are really back at the stage in which we found ourselves when the Bill was in Committee in another place. The clause has been put in under the impression that there was agreement about it, but there really was no such agreement. I would suggest that the same course should be pursued as was pursued when the clause was brought forward and there was found to be disagreement—namely, that the two parties concerned should confer together. If the Department which I represent can be of any service it will, of course, be only too glad to render such help as it may be able to render. I would suggest that we now leave matters as they are, and that between now and Report both parties should get together and endeavour to come to an agreement with regard to this matter. I do not see that any other course would really solve the problem which is before us.

LORD ASKWITH

May I ask the noble Earl whether he would attend such a conference himself and invite both parties to come? Otherwise I do not think there is the slightest hope of their getting together and coming to an agreement. I am a great believer in the persuasive powers of the noble Earl, and I have an idea that, either by means of a new clause or in some other way, he might secure an agreement which would lead to a settlement of this matter. It is really a thing which ought to be settled, but if it is not settled, do not let us have this Bill delayed, for there is plenty of time for making by-laws concerning the houses in question.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I do not think we need delay the Bill, because, as my noble friend behind me said, the Secretary for Scotland must be present on the next occasion in order to give certain explanations for which the noble Lord asked, and there will be plenty of time before the Report stage. As regards the request made by my noble friend, if I can be of any service, and if my right hon. friend agrees, I shall be glad to do so.

LORD ASKWITH

Will the noble Earl take the initiative?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I will bring the matter before my Department, and I am sure they will do anything they can.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 20 agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:—

Power to make town planning Schemes in special cases.

(".Where it appears to the Minister that on account of the special architectural, historic or artistic interest attaching to a locality it is expedient that with a view to preserving the existing character and to protecting the existing features of the locality a town planning scheme should be made with respect to any area comprising that locality, the Minister may, notwithstanding that the land or any part thereof is already developed, authorise a town planning scheme to be made with respect to that area prescribing the space about buildings, or limiting the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribing the height or character of buildings, and, subject as aforesaid, the Town Planning Acts, 1909 to 1923, shall apply accordingly.")

The noble Earl said: This new clause is simple, it is very limited in its character and I think it is useful as providing for an omission in the existing Act. It authorises the preparation of town planning schemes in places where there is a special interest, whether architectural, historic or artistic, and the Minister is empowered to authorise a town planning scheme in such eases, including partly developed areas, prescribing the number of buildings, the height and character of the buildings, and so forth. This can apply only to a very small number of areas in this country, but those areas are in many ways the most interesting and the most historic areas in Britain, and as such are "most deserving of consideration. This clause provides in a very modest fashion an opportunity of preserving the historic character of such places, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Onslow will see his way to accept it.

Amendment moved— After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Crawford.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I do not think I need say any more than that the Government are very glad to accept the clause and that they regard it as an addition to the Bill.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I am much obliged.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 (Amendments of 62 and 63 Viet):

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Amendment to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 21, after ("is") insert ("to be").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

Application to Scotland.

22. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:— (1) References to the Minister of Health in this Act, except in Section ten, shall be construed as references to the Scottish Board of Health, and the references to the Minister in Section ten shall be construed as references to the sheriff. (4) Section eight, Section nine, and paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of Section ten shall not apply. (13) Section nineteen shall apply with the substitution of the words "councils of burghs and other local authorities are or may be required" for the words "councils of boroughs or urban districts are required.

THE EARL OF ON SLOW moved, in paragraph (1), after the second "in," to insert "paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of." The noble Earl said: This is a Scottish Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite would like me to press it now or to postpone it. It is consequential on an Amendment which was accepted by the Minister of Health on the Report stage in another place, and is intended to put the matter on all fours in Scotland and in England.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 6, after ("in") insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD PENTLAND

By all means.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My further Amendments to this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 19, line 8, leave out ("Section ten") and insert ("paragraph (b) aforesaid") Page 19, line 27, leave out ("paragraph (d)") and insert ("paragraph (e)") Page 21, line 31, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule (Assimilation of proceedure under Parts I and. II):

THIS EARL OF ONSLOW

I have a drafting Amendment to the First Schedule.

Amendment moved Page 25, line 20, after ("forty-one") insert ("of the principal Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Minor Amendments of Housing Acts.
Enactments to be amended. Nature of Amendment.
Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, 53 & 54 Vict. c. 70. s. 38(10) The words "at the expense of the owner" shall be omitted, and after the words "alter the same" there shall be added the words "and the expenses of such abatement or alteration shall be recoverable from the owner summarily as a civil debt."
Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909. s. 12 … For the words "four inhabitant householders of" there shall be substituted the words "justice of the peace acting for the district, or by any four or more local government electors therein," and after the words "exercise their powers under" there shall be inserted the words "Part II. or," and for the words "that Part" there shall be substituted the words "the said Part II. or the said Part III., as the case may be."
s. 59 (1) At the end of the subsection the following words shall be inserted" or are contained in any general Act or local Act, or Order in force in the area."
Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919. s. 26 (2) For the words "The Public Health Acts" there shall be substituted the words "the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, as the case may be."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My first Amendment to the Second Schedule is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 18, after ("owner") insert ("thereof").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after the paragraph relating to Section 39 (1) of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, to insert— Section 39 (2). For the words from ' be served in manner provided in Part I of this Act ' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words ' be published and served as provided in Section seven of this Act. The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment. It is intended to secure uniformity of machinery throughout the Acts. I think I mentioned on the Second Reading that we propose as soon as possible to introduce a consolidation of the Housing Acts, and this Amendment will facilitate that end. The Amendment which follows is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 40, at end insert: ("Section 45. For the words 'inhabitant householders' there shall be substituted the words 'four or more local government electors in the district'"). —(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in the paragraph relating to Section 12 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, to leave out from "therein" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Earl said: The omission of these words is suggested with the object of minimising the complications of the already elaborate provisions as to default. As I said just now, we are proposing to introduce a consolidating Act, and the numerous provisions with regard to default will be dealt with therein, but in the meantime it is convenient, as I hope your Lordships will agree, that the provisions regarding default should not be made more confused than they are already. This is an attempt to simplify them.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 5, leave out from ("therein") to the end of line 12.—(The. Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The Amendment which follows is consequential on that which has just been accepted.

Amendment moved—

Page 30, line 12, at end insert: ("Section 53 (11) (a). For the words 'four inhabitant householders of' there shall be substituted the words 'four or more local government electors in'"). ("Section 53 (11) (b), For the words 'four inhabitant householders of' there shall be substituted the words 'four or more local government electors in'"). —(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 30, leave out lines 13 to 17 and. insert: ("Section 59 (1). After the words 'if or so far as the provisions' there shall be inserted the words 'are also contained in any public general or local Act or order having the force of an Act of Parliament in force in the area or'").— (The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Enactments repealed.
Session and Chapter. Short Title. Extent of Repeal.
3 Edw. 7.c.39 The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903. Subsection (1) of section thirteen.
9 Edw. 7. c. 44 The Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1909 Subsections (3) (4) (5) (6) and (8) of section fifteen.
Section thirty.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The inclusion, after Section thirty, of the words mentioned in my next Amendment is required in consequence of the Amendment to Section 50 (1), made in the Second Schedule.

Amendment moved—

Page 32, line 34, at end insert: *("In subsection (1) of Section fifty-nine in its application to Scotland the words ' or are contained in any general Act or local Act or order in force in the area'") —(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, with reference to the next stage of the Bill, I propose to put it down for Report on Monday next, when Lord Pentland will have an opportunity, if he avail himself of it, of dealing with the Scottish side of the Bill.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The next Amendment, to add to the amendments of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1909, has a certain amount of substance. The county councils can buy land for building houses, but they cannot buy land for police or other purposes. This is to give them power to appropriate as well as to buy.

Amendment moved—

Line 22, at end insert: ("Section 8 (3). After the words 'to acquire' wherever they occur there shall be inserted the words 'or appropriate'"). —(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as Amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule: