The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.

HL Deb 04 August 1924 vol 59 cc289-344

Clause 1:

Extension of 13 and 14 Geo. 5, c. 24, to houses completed before 1st October, 1939.

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, Sections one and three of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923 (which relate to contributions by the Minister of Health to the expenses of local authorities in assisting the construction of houses and to the expenses of public utility societies and other bodies in building houses), shall extend to houses which are provided in pursuance of proposals approved by the Minister and are completed before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and so much of that Act as limits the operation of those sections to houses completed before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, or the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, shall cease to have effect.

(2) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section one of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923:—

"(b) towards any expenses incurred by the local authority in the provision of such houses by the local authority themselves."

Where a local authority purchase any such houses as are referred to in the said paragraph for the purposes of Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the houses shall not be treated as houses provided by the local authority themselves within the meaning of the said Act of 1923 or this Act if the houses are houses which have been completed before 'the passing of this Act or have been occupied prior to the purchase.

LORD ASKWITH

moved to leave out the words in subsection (2) down to the end of the substituted paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to ascertain the reasons for, and also the meaning of, the proposed omission of a subsection of the Housing, etc., Act of 1923. The subsection proposes to omit paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Act of 1923. This being one of those curious clauses with a reference to a subsection which does not appear, I would ask leave to read the paragraph which it is proposed to omit. The Act of 1923 says that contribution may be made: where the local authority satisfy the Minister that the needs of their area can more appropriately be met by the provision of such houses wholly or partly by the authority themselves, towards any expenses incurred by the authority in making such provision. Instead of that it is proposed to substitute— towards any expenses incurred by the local authority in the provision of such houses by the local authority themselves. There is therefore left out the distinct encouragement to private enterprise which is given in the Act of 1923, and there is substituted for it a payment to the local authority themselves. I do not know whether it is intentional, but private enterprise will be discouraged and municipal enterprise encouraged. At any rate it is a distinct tampering with the Chamberlain Act. Has the Chamberlain Act so failed that it is desired to take away the encouragement of private enterprise and put it upon municipal enterprise?

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 25—(Lord Askwith.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord's question is why paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 1 has been substituted for a paragraph in the Act of 1923. The reason is that the new paragraph (b) is vital for making possible the very principle of the Bill which is now before the House. It is a great mistake to suppose that this Bill seeks to cut down in any way the operation or scope of the Act of 1923. On the contrary, it enlarges the time and makes it possible for that Act to be put into operation. There is, however, a new principle altogether which underlies this Bill, and that is that the local authorities shall build houses and let them to occupying tenants of the class desired. The Act of 1923 was an Act directed to the building of houses for sale—houses built by private builders, who should sell just as readily as let them—and the answer to the argument which we heard a little earlier in the debate, that the Act of 1923 had produced a good many houses, was: Yes! it has, but less than half have been produced for letting; the bulk have been produced for sale, and they cannot reach the bulk of the class with whom we have to deal. Paragraph (b) of the present Bill is inserted in order to express the root principle of this Bill, which is to provide houses, built by the local authorities to be let to work- ing people, who will take them on the terms of tenancy and not on the terms of ownership.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am very glad to hear the noble and learned Viscount say that there is no intention to discourage private enterprise in this Bill. I am not sure that we should have found it out from all the speeches delivered in another place on behalf of the Government, but it is very valuable to have the assurance of so great an authority as the Lord Chancellor that that is the view. Of course, upon this side of the House we continue to believe that private enterprise is really the only resource for solving this question. We believe that whatever may be done to meet a sudden emergency, the only thing which will ultimately solve the housing problem is to encourage private enterprise; and we regret very much indeed the sort of language which is sometimes used by supporters of the noble Viscount, to the effect that private enterprise, ought to be superseded by municipal enterprise. In our experience the latter is both expensive and inefficient, and although it is better than nothing, that is all that can be said for it; whereas private enterprise is the real resource by which the housing problem can be met. Therefore, I am glad to hear the noble and learned Viscount say that he so far agrees with the principle of the Act of 1923, although to some extent he is going to supersede it.

LORD BANBUEY OF SOUTHAM

May I ask one question? Presuming this paragraph remains in the Bill, does it take away from the private builder the subsidy given to him under the Chamberlain Act?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No. It leaves the Chamberlain Act just as it was, and I will only say, in answer to the noble Marquess, that if he goes a long way in one direction Mr. Wheatley goes a long way in another. While Mr. Wheatley did not go so far as the noble Marquess in preferring private enterprise which he thinks has just failed, he does admit that he is bound to recognise the importance of the capitalist system in this matter. Between the two prophets I feel myself unable to decide, and I do not wish to commit myself to either of the abstract doctrines which have been advanced.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

Will the noble and learned Viscount tell us how houses can be built without the capitalist?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The capitalist in this case will be the local authority, aided by the State.

LORD ASKWITH

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, before this clause is passed I should like to draw your attention to the words in subsection (1) which says that the houses here referred to are to be "completed before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine." That, I think, is the chief mention in the Bill of the term of fifteen years which we are told is the mainstay of the Government programme. The noble and learned Viscount on the Second Reading stated, I thought a little reluctantly, that the treaty with the building trade was embodied in the Report of the Committee. I have perused this document several times, and I am sure your Lordships have also read it very carefully, and I must say that it is difficult to discover in it any sign of a treaty. We know what that word generally means. The Report is a very able and interesting Report by a very able Committee, and it contains much useful information, but beyond that it does not seem to me to go very far. The Bill takes the Report and gives effect to some of the recommendations; others it modifies, and some it rejects altogether. We have heard a good deal about treaties with the building trade and guarantees to the building trade, but it seems to me that all that we have before us is this Report and the Bill, and there is nothing else.

I do not see, therefore, how the scheme is fixed upon a guarantee or a treaty. It seems to me to be fixed on pious hopes expressed in many directions, and it can only work if everybody concerned does exactly what he is expected by the Government to do. Everybody is to cooperate, in the right way, and at the right time. For instance, the local authorities must all agree to work the Bill, in spite of the power given to them expressly in the Bill not to do so. Then the building trade must maintain the output of houses, and the operatives must continue to work for the present rate of wages, and the unions must agree to the admission of apprentices—though I gather that they have not yet accepted that suggestion. The apprentices also must be forthcoming, and the builders' labourers must be turned into craftsmen, and the emigrants must return from abroad Last, but not least, the capitalists, the people with money to lend, must be good enough to lend their money at the present rate of interest. If they do not do that, the Government cannot possibly get the houses built for £475 each, and they cannot let them at the rents at which the noble and learned Viscount said they would be able to let them, at pre-war prices,plus forty per cent. But, unless all these things are done, the whole thing must fall to the ground.

I said on the Second Reading that the Act of 1923 was designedly only operative until 1925. We did that because we wanted to be perfectly free to deal with the situation as it arose in 1925. Last year we felt that the houses which were most necessary were those of the type adapted to the people with the most-limited means, and so we laid it down that the subsidy should be payable in respect of that type of house. We made it perfectly clear that the whole matter must be reconsidered from every point of view in 1925. I think that we were perfectly right to limit the type to the size that we did last year, although it did not find favour with those who are most vociferous in support of the present Bill. I think the Government would be right to maintain that type of house now, because it is the type of house which is most required, and which is least available from the ordinary sources. But what may perhaps be right now, and what was right last year, and what may be right in two or three years' time may not be right five, or ten, or fifteen years hence. The Bill stereotypes the size for the next fifteen years, and, although it contains many facilities for altering the subsidy, and even for bringing it to an end altogether, yet there is no power in the Bill which would enable the type of house to be altered, and that type of house must be maintained right through the fifteen years, if the scheme continues to work as the Government hope it will do.

On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Increased Government contributions in case of houses which are subject to special conditions.

2.—(1) Where, in pursuance of proposals approved by the Minister after the passing of this Act, any houses are provided by a local authority themselves or by a society, body of trustees or company within the meaning of Section three of the said Act, or expenses are incurred by a local authority in promoting the construction of any houses in accordance with Section two of the said Act as amended by this Act, then, if the houses are subject to special conditions as hereinafter provided in this Act, the contribution which the Minister may make or undertake to make in respect of each such house, instead of being a contribution of six pounds payable annually for a period of twenty years—

1. (a) shall be a contribution of nine pounds or. if the house is situated in an agricultural parish, twelve pounds ten shillings; and
2. (b) shall be payable annually for a period of forty years;

and the said Act shall have effect accordingly.

Except that in any case where proposals are submitted to the Minister which, in consequence of the adoption of new materials or new methods of construction, involve a reduction in the cost of each house substantially greater than the equivalent of four pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years, the Minister may reduce the contribution by such amount as he shall think just and reasonable, provided that such reduction shall not be so great as to impose any burden upon the local rate or upon the said society, body of trustees, or company, as the case may be:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a house shall be deemed to be situated in an agricultural parish if at the beginning of the financial year in which the proposal for the provision of the house is approved by the Minister—

1. (a) the net annual value of the agricultural land in the parish in which the house is situated, as shown in the county rate basis then in force, exceeds twenty-five per cent, of the total net annual value of that parish as shown in the same basis (the value of all property in the occupation of the Crown being taken into account); and
2. (b) the population of the parish according to the last published census return of the Registrar-General, is less than fifty persons per hundred acres.

(5) Where, in pursuance of proposals approved by the Minister under this Act, houses are provided by a metropolitan borough council, the London County Council may, in respect of any such house which is subject to special conditions, supplement any contribution made by the Minister in respect of such house to an extent not exceeding two pounds five shillings, payable annually for a period not exceeding forty years, and for the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act the amount of any such supplemental contribution shall be treated as if it were part of the expenses borne by the local rate in the borough, and the council and any metropolitan borough council may enter into agreements by which the metropolitan borough council may contribute such amounts as may be agreed, subject to the provisions of this Act, towards the provision of houses by the council within or without the county to meet any special needs of any such metropolitan borough council.

LORD STRACHIE

moved, in subsection (1), after "and the said Act shall have effect accordingly, "to insert: "Provided that no contribution shall be paid for any house which is not let to a member of the working classes and who will reside continuously in the district. "The noble Lord said: I move this with the object of preventing these large contributions being made from the taxes for the building of houses for letting which are only used for week-end cottages. At the present time under the Addison Act—I do not know whether it is so under the Chamberlain Act also—you constantly find houses are being let for that purpose, and not to the working classes. In one case a house was let to a sanitary inspector, and in another case to a clerk. It seems very desirable that some precaution should be taken to see that these houses should not be let for such a purpose.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said proviso. —(Lord Strachie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The difficulty is that this proposal is entirely inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill. We have already got a restriction on the house being tenanted by somebody who does no fall within the class of tenant prescribed. In Clause 3 (1) (c) the very thing which is the subject of the noble Lord's Amendment is not only provided for, but provided for in a way with which his Amendment is quite inconsistent. It says:

"that if the local authority desire to sell or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise dispose of the houses the sale or disposal shall not be effected except upon and subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper, including, if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both reduction and curtailment …" and so on.

Of course, there may be, and there are, a good many working men, most legitimate tenants of these houses, who, having saved a little money, desire to buy the houses which they have rented, and it is quite right that they should be allowed to do so. They should be encouraged to do so in every way. But in order to make sure, that there is no jobbery in this, and that the houses are not let as week-end cottages, we have put in words to the effect that it is not to be done except subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper. The result is that the object which the noble Lord seeks to attain is attained with the necessary elasticity without which the clause would not work. For this reason, I regret to find myself unable to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I really do not quite follow the argument of the noble and learned Viscount. He directed his answer to my noble friend as though my noble friend had been advocating sale instead of letting. The point of my noble friend's speech was that he thought that as we were going to spend this vast sum of money in order to provide dwellings for the working classes they ought to be confined to the working classes. That was his object.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But the noble and learned Viscount in his answer hardly touched that point at all.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Marquess look at the words I read?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have done so, but I do not find any words to say that they are only to be let to the working classes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Look at paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 3 (1).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

"Tenants who intend to reside therein "—that is the first paragraph.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But cannot a "black coat" intend to reside there? The next is: "that it shall be a term of every such letting that the tenant shall not sublet, "etc. But the two points are not reallyad rem. They do not answer the noble Lord at all.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Surely they do. They prohibit everything that ought to be prohibited.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That may be the view of the Lord Chancellor, and he may be right. All I said was that the argument of the Lord Chancellor did not meet the argument of my noble friend.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It was intended to meet it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am hardly ever right when I contest a point with the noble and learned Viscount, but I submit, with great respect, that this argument was not a real answer, because my noble friend said that if you are going to spend money to this enormous extent to provide dwellings for the working classes, the dwellings ought to be let to the working classes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I agree.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But my noble friend said that "such lettings as aforesaid" had nothing to do with the working classes and had no bearing on this at all. The Lord Chancellor entirely failed to answer my noble friend's argument. If the noble and learned Viscount said that it was very difficult to do as my noble friend desired, there may be an argument in that; I do not know. But I must say that I think it is a most astonishing thing that we should be asked to burden the finances of the country with this huge sum, which is to last for I do not know how many years, and that this should be done in behalf of something in which we all believe—the interests of working-class housing—and yet there should be no term in this Bill confining the dwellings to the working classes. Why should we be asked to spend this vast sum of money in order that the doctor, the lawyer, the parson and the "weekender" should have cheap houses at the expense of the taxpayer and the ratepayer?

If it is said that the housing of the working classes is deplorable, I agree. I have said so over and over again. By all means make a great effort to meet the difficulty and spend sums of money for the purpose of improving it. Our complaint is that the sums of money which the Government are going to spend are ineffective for the purpose, that they will not provide houses for the working classes— which is quite another matter. It is not that I object to spending money. What I object to is spending it on something ineffective. And the most ineffective thing you can do is not to provide dwellings for the working classes. That is why my noble friend moved his Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

He has moved an Amendment; but what he has not seen is that Clause 3 contains the Government method of dealing with the very evil against which he seeks to provide. That is the first difficulty and that is already provided for. The second difficulty is—

LORD STRACHIE

The noble and learned Viscount will pardon me if I interrupt him. What he says about Clause 3 is true, but Clause 3 deals with houses provided by the local authority themselves. It is those provided by trustees or building societies that I am concerned about and I moved my Amendment to cover the whole of them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord ought really to read the Bill a little more carefully. If he will turn to Clause 3, subsection (2) he will find that houses which are in the hands of trustees and public utility bodies and others, which are specified for the purpose, are put under exactly the same restrictions as those, slightly more stringent but in substance just the same. Everything is covered. The point is that under the scheme of the Bill the local authorities build houses for letting. They may sell in certain very restricted cases—to a workman, for instance, who has saved money—but ordinarily they build houses for letting, and the letting is care- fully safeguarded by these special conditions in Clause 3, not only as regards the houses provided by the local authority but in reference to those provided by public utility bodies.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Is not this a play upon words? My noble friend Lord Strachie, in his Amendment, talks of the working classes. How on earth are you going to define them? Is not a clerk with £2 a week a member of the working classes? Is not a doctor a working man? You will have to put other words in.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The term has been denned over and over again in Housing Acts.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I know, but that is a play upon words. I cannot agree to the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved to omit the following from subsection (1): —

"Except that in any case where proposals are submitted to the Minister which, in consequencce of the adoption of new materials or new methods of construction, involve a reduction in the cost of each house substantially greater than the equivalent of four pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years, the Minister may reduce the contribution by such amount as he shall think just arid reasonable, provided that such reduction shall not be so great as to impose any burden upon the local rate or upon the said society, body of trustees, or company, as the case may be:"

The noble and learned Viscount said: There is, I am sorry to say, a clerical error in the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. It should read: —page 2, line 28, leave out from the end of line 28 (and not from "and" in line 28) to the end of line 39. I will ask your Lordships to take it in that form.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is only drafting I take it?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is a slip. The purpose of the Amendment is not to get rid of this provision but to transfer it to another part of the Bill. The Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 28, leave out from the end of line 28 to the end of line 39.— (The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved, after subsection (1), to insert:—

"provided also that in any case where proposals are submitted to the Minister which, in consequence of the adoption of new materials or new methods of construction, involve a reduction in the estimated annual expenses to be incurred in connection with each house substantially greater than the equivalent of four pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years, the Minister may reduce the contribution by such amount as he shall think just and reasonable, but so nevertheless that the contribution shall not be reduced to such an extent as to leave any part of such estimated annual expenses to be borne by the local rate or by the said society, body of trustees, or company, as the case may be."

The noble and learned Viscount said: There is a misprint on the Paper in regard to this Amendment, which comes at the end of line 22 and not line 28. This is pure drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 22, at end insert the said new words. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: Subsection (5) states that the London County Council shall be empowered to contribute to an extent not exceeding £2 5s., payable annually for a period not exceeding forty years, to any expense incurred by a Metropolitan Borough Council under this Act. I do not know whether that means that £2 5s. can be contributed by the London County Council in addition to the £4 10s. which, I understand, can be contributed by the Metropolitan Borough Councils, or whether it means that the London County Council shall pay half of the £4 10s. and that the total contribution shall remain at £4 10s. I am not sure which it is. The Bill is a little difficult to understand. It may mean, possibly, that the London County Council may contribute half the £4 10s. and not that it shall contribute £2 5s. in addition. Presuming, for the sake of argument, that this is correct, and that the contribution of the County Council shall be half that payable by the local authority, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount why the body of general ratepayers in London should contribute large sums of money for houses built by one Metropolitan Borough Council or two Metropolitan Borough Councils.

The result of this subsection would be that the vast mass of ratepayers in London, who are already overburdened with rates, might be called upon to contribute a large sum of money to houses built, say, by Poplar. Poplar is well known as an extravagant locality, and if the Poplar people were to build recklessly and extravagantly, so far as I can make out under this clause the result might be that the general body of ratepayers would have to contribute to Poplar's extravagance. I would be obliged, therefore, if the noble and learned Viscount would first of all answer my question as to whether the £2 5s. is in addition to the £4 10s. or whether it is only that they may contribute half of the £4 10s. 1 Secondly, can he give me a reason why the ratepayers of London should be called upon to contribute to the expenditure of a particular borough council? I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, lines 20 to 38, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will endeavour to answer the two questions which the noble Lord has put to me. The first is as to the meaning of the contribution. It is a supplement to the contribution made by the Minister, and, of course, it is in relief of what the borough may have to pay. This is generally in pursuance of an agreement come to between the London County Council and the Boroughs. The question came up in the House of Commons. Your Lordships will observe that this is a mere power. The clause imposes no obligation, but the County Council and the Borough Councils came to the House of Commons, and asked for authority to enter into the- agreements. The House of Commons thought it right and reasonable that the power should be given, and not the less because there are precedents for it. I would point out again that the clause is merely a power to enter into voluntary bargains.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved to omit all words in subsection (5) after "borough," where that word secondly occurs. The noble and learned Viscount said: Really this is a drafting Amendment. It makes no change in the substance.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, lines 32 to 38, leave out from the first ("borough") in line 32 to the end of line 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Special conditions.

3.—(1) Houses provided by a local authority themselves shall be deemed to be subject to special conditions if the local authority undertake, in accordance with rules made by the Minister and approved by the Treasury, that the following conditions will be complied with in relation to the houses:—

1. (a) that, subject to the following conditions, the houses shall be let by the local authority for occupation to tenants who intend to reside therein;
2. (b) that it shall be a term of every such letting that the tenant shall not assign, sublet, or otherwise part with the possession of the house, or any part thereof, except with the consent in writing of the local authority or some person authorised by them in that behalf;
3. (c) that if the local authority desire to sell or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise dispose of the houses the sale or disposal shall not be effected except upon and subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper, including, if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution payable by the Minister in respect of the house, or for both reduction and curtailment, but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of a period of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced by more than three pounds or, in the case of a house in an agricultural parish, by more than six pounds ten shillings, and the duration thereof shall not be curtailed by more than twenty years:
4. (e) that the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not in the aggregate exceed the total amount of the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses erected prior to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, except where the estimated annual expenses to be incurred in connection with the houses exceed, so far as the same are borne by the local rate, an

amount equivalent to four pounds ten shillings a year payable for a period of forty years for each house and then only to the extent of such excess; and

(2) Houses provided by a society, body of trustees or company within the meaning of section three of the Housing, &c, Act, 1923, and houses, the construction of which is promoted by a local authority in accordance with section two of the said Act, as amended by this Act, shall be deemed to be subject to special conditions if the society, body of trustees or company, in the case of the houses provided by them, and the local authority in the case of the other houses undertake, in accordance with rules made by the Minister and approved by the Treasury, that the following conditions will be complied with in relation to the houses:—

1. (a) that the houses shall be let for occupation to tenants who intend to reside therein;
2. (b) that it shall be a term of every such letting that the tenant shall not assign, sub-let, or otherwise part with the possession of the house, or any part thereof, except with the consent in writing of the society, body of trustees, or company in the case of the houses provided by them, or of the local authority or some person authorised by them in that behalf in the case of the other houses;
3. (c) that no premium, or other payment of any kind whatsoever, direct or indirect, other than rent shall be taken in respect of the letting of any house;
4. (f) that the rent charged in respect of any house shall not exceed the appropriate normal rent together with a sum equivalent to the average excess, if any, above the appropriate normal rent which can be charged by the local authority in accordance with this section in the case of houses provided by the local authority themselves.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the appropriate normal rent shall be deemed to be such rent, exclusive of rates, as the local authority determine, in accordance with rules made by the Minister, to be the rent that is normally charged in the area of the local authority in the case of working-class houses erected prior to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen: Provided that different rents may be so determined to be the appropriate normal rents as respects different classes of houses and as respects different parts of the area.

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

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph, (b), to insert "and that such consent shall not be given unless it is shown that no payment other than rent has been or is to be received by the tenant in consideration of the assignment, subletting, or other transaction." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the first of a series of Amendments which are a little more than drafting. They go to the substance, but they strengthen the substance in a sense which I think your Lordships would desire If the local authority let to tenants, it may be, without the words which I am going to propose, that some sort of fine or consideration might be imposed, and what we wish to endeavour to secure is that the rent should be the full amount, and that there should be no concealed sum of money paid for the lease in addition to the rent. Therefore I propose the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "such" ["such stipulations"] to insert "reasonable."

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 6, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "including, if the Minister thinks fit, stipulations." The noble Earl said: The acceptance by the noble and learned Viscount of the word "reasonable" renders it more easy to interpret the sense of the subsection in a proper manner, but this Amendment goes a little further, because the paragraph reads now, as amended:—

"that if the local authority desire to sell or … otherwise dispose of the houses the sale or disposal shall not be effected except upon and subject to such reasonable stipulations as the Minister thinks proper."

That is to say that a Minister, providing he makes reasonable stipulations, can introduce any element into a bargain to sell the houses. These are the houses which will be dealt with under the special conditions. If the local authority wishes to sell them and these words remain in the Bill, the Minister can make conditions which will go beyond the kind of house which the local authority may build under the Chamberlain Act. Perhaps I have not worded my Amendment so well as it might be worded, but my object is to tie the Minister down. I think that perhaps it may be a little ambiguous, and it may be that the noble and learned Viscount may consider these words:—

"That if the local authority desires to sell or otherwise dispose of the houses, the Minister may make such reasonable stipulations as he thinks proper for the reduction of the amount."

I do not know whether that would be better wording.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 18, leave out line 18.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl sees my difficulty, but really what we have said in the Bill meets his point. These words were put in simply for the purpose of giving a certain freedom to the Minister. I have gone into this, and I can assure the noble Earl that, after going into it with the draftsman, I think it is better to leave the words as we have them in the Bill.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The noble and learned Viscount considers that my point is met.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think it is.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think my noble friend's point is met. As I understand the question it is: What stipulations may the Minister impose? Are they to be only stipulations as to the amount of money, or are they to be other stipulations? It seems to me that the matter is left vague and that the Minister has power to make any stipulations that he pleases.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No, it is definite if you look at the words.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The words are "shall not be effected except upon and subject to such stipulations as the Minister thinks proper." Then if my noble friend's Amendment is carried the words will go on "for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment of the duration of any contribution. "If the words that are in the Bill are allowed to remain it seems to me that the Minister will have the power to make any stipulations that he thinks fit. The words, as they are in the Bill, give him a much wider scope than he would have if my noble friend's Amendment were carried.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite appreciate what the noble Marquess says, but I do not think he is right. I have been into this rather carefully with the draftsman and there is a distinction when you get to the words "reduction of the amount and curtailment of the duration of the contribution. "There is sufficient to indicate that this is a matter in which the discretion of the Minister comes in more particularly than has been indicated formerly. The earlier words are governed by the word "reasonable," but when you get to these then the Minister will have to consider each individual case, and the purpose of framing the paragraph in this way is to draw attention to the fact that the Minister's judgment must come in as to this latter class of stipulations. I do not think it is a great point.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I think it goes much further than that. I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that my point was met, but I think this provision goes much further than the Chamberlain Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, a little more than that is meant. These are the houses which come under this Bill and the special contribution, and it is quite right that there should be stipulations for controlling the sale, for instance, or the disposal of the houses otherwise than by letting. It is right there should be these stipulations. But when you get further it is a question which must be considered in each individual case. It may be that there should be a curtailment in the contribution but it is a matter for the Minister to deal with, and the view of the draftsman was that in dealing with local authorities it was well to make a dis crimination between the two oases and say that as regards curtailment there was a discretion in the hands of the Minister.

LORD EMMOTT

I do not know whether I quite apprehend this point. The noble Earl's Amendment is to leave out line 18, and if that is done the paragraph would read:

"such reasonable stipulations as the Minister thinks proper for the reduction of the amount or the curtailment…"

And so on. That is to say, it would be necessary for the Minister to curtail or lessen the contribution. The one great defect of this Bill, in my opinion, is that it is all in favour of building by local authorities and all against building by private enterprise, and it seems to me that the Amendment will only make matters worse. I hope the noble Earl will not press it.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The noble Lord will pardon me. I saw that point, and I would suggest that I should move my Amendment in this form—

"The Minister may make such reasonable stipulations as he thinks proper."

That would meet that difficulty.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

It would help a great deal if we knew the nature of the stipulations dealing with a curtailment of the contribution.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

They are disposal stipulations. Selling is an analogous case, and there will be regulations controlling the sale of these houses. But there may be cases in which a workman has saved enough money and wants to buy his house, and that case will be provided for much more generously than the special cases of curtailment. I appreciate what Lord Emmott has said. In dealing with local authorities we want all the strength that is necessary in this class of case, and although the Amendment does not make an enormous amount of difference it might lead to some embarrassment in dealing with local authorities.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I will withdraw the Amendment now, but I should like to be free to move it in the form I have suggested on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASKWITH

moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), to leave out "in the aggregate." The noble Lord said: Houses built by a local authority itself are subject to special conditions if the local authority undertakes the duty, and one of these conditions, which applies only to local authorities and not to public utility societies, is that rents charged for houses "shall not in the aggregate exceed the total amount of the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class1 houses." In another place the Minister was continually asked the meaning of the words "in the aggregate," and no answer was given. In fact, the closure was moved without any answer being returned. It was suggested that all it meant was that the houses would be of a different kind: what you lost on the swings you want to win on the roundabouts. But supposing the houses were all of the same kind, it might happen that some would be let at a higher rent than others, and if two houses were left after the aggregate rent had been made up those two houses might be given to somebody for nothing. What is the object of this paragraph at all?

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 39, leave out ("in the aggregate").—(Lord Askwith.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will tell the noble Lord the difficulty. There are large blocks of the very worst slums where, paradoxically enough, the rents are very high. The reason is that no other houses can be got. Therefore the Minister might be limited by the words "in the aggregate" and be compelled to let better houses at as high a rent as is paid for a very bad house. What is hoped is that in many cases there would be better houses, a variation of the types of houses within the limits prescribed. But it may be that better houses will cost rather less than it cost to live "in the aggregate" in the slum which has been superseded, and accordingly what we wish is to be free to provide for giving at least as good a house at a lower rent, or possibly a house of a better type at no larger rent. It is obvious that that depends upon the particular houses with which you are dealing and it does not do to take the average or aggregate. What you want is to compare house with house, and we hope it will be possible to give a better house at the same rent.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I am sure it is my fault, but I do not quite follow the reasoning of the Lord Chancellor. He says, and quite reasonably, that it would not do to charge a rent which might depend on the aggregate value of other houses because you might come upon a block of houses which happened to be let at a very high rent, and, therefore, you would be compelled to charge a very high rent for your houses; you must compare house with house. That is quite right. But that is exactly what this Bill does not do, and that is what puzzles me. I am sure it is my fault, but the whole argument of the Lord Chancellor leads to the adoption of the Amendment and not to the maintenance of the words in the Bill, because he says he does not want the aggregate. I agree; but then the Bill contains the provision for estimating the rents on an aggregate, and not individual house against house. Otherwise, I do not see what is the point of the words "in the aggregate." I agree entirely with that which my noble friend Lord Askwith said, and I do not understand why you want those words. In what respect does the inclusion of the words "in the aggregate" help the scheme which the Government say they have in view?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the answer is that to leave out these words would make the thing worse. The purpose of paragraph (e) is that you should take the area. There may be some good houses in it, and there may be some bad houses in it, but you do not want to take particular house and compare it with particular house in order to measure the rent that ought to obtain. "What you want to do is to take the average of the region, and then you say that the rents are not to exceed

"the total amount of the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses erected prior to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, except where the estimated annual expenses to be incurred in connection with the houses exceed, so far as the same are borne by the local rate, an amount equivalent to four pounds ten shillings a year payable for a period of forty years for each house and then only to the extent of such excess."

Obviously, the purpose of that is that you are not to be tied, in respect of a particular house, to the house that stood on that very spot before. You are to take the average of the district, and work that average as your guide. Surely that is right.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

What the noble and learned Viscount desires is evidently right—that you have to take the average rent for a working-class house in that district, and that you are not to be tied to a particular group of houses or anything of that kind. That is provided for by the words

"were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses."

That is the normal; but the words "in the aggregate" do not help you at all. The danger is that you will erect a group of houses and, under this section, you will be able to charge, not the same rent for each house, but a higher rent for some houses and a lower rent for other houses. In other words, you will really be erecting houses not all of which are designed for the working class, but some of which are designed for richer people, and you will pay yourself for the houses which you let to the real working class by letting a certain number to "weekenders" or other people whom it is not designed to help and who ought not to be helped by this Bill. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Askwith is perfectly right, and that these words ought to come out unless a much better explanation can be afforded of the reason why it is desired to maintain them.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Does it make any difference whether the word "aggregate" is in or out?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think it does. The purpose is really to define what the rent in a particular area chosen should amount to, and the object of putting in the words "in the aggregate" is to secure that you are not to compare house with house, because the houses may vary, but you are to take the aggregate in the district, and the total amount of the rents is the amount which has to be taken into account in fixing the average rent for the whole lot of houses.

LORD SUMNER

To my shame I must confess that, after listening to the three explanations of these words with which the noble and learned Viscount has favoured us, I am absolutely unable to understand what the real meaning of the words is. What may have been the purpose of the draftsman I know not, and I am not in the least prepared to say that the words as they stand may not effect some very excellent object, because I do not understand them. If I might draw attention to the full structure of the clause, I venture to think that the result may be to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Askwith. The clause begins by saying that

"houses provided by a local authority them, selves shall be deemed to be subject to special conditions if the local authority undertake—"

to observe certain conditions. There is nothing about an area, but the words apply to the whole body of houses that the local authority erects.

Then you come to the conditions that the rents charged shall not "in the aggregate "—that is, in the aggregate of the rents, not in the aggregate of the houses—exceed a certain amount. The whole of the rents taken together shall not exceed the total amount of the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at pre-war rents. That is what it comes to. The whole of the houses provided by local authorities must be let at such rents that, when they are all added together, they will not amount to more than if they had all been let at pre-war rents and those rents had been added together. The result of that may, I think, be very reasonable, because the effect might be that, somehow or other, the local authority would have to content itself with such a total amount of rents as would leave it in no better position than it would have been in in 1914.

The object may be to prevent profiteering in rents, but, as the Bill stands, so far as I can see, nothing whatever prevents the local authority from doing this: It builds a row of houses; it lets numbers 1, 2 and 3 at preposterous rents; it then finds that, if it adds up the rents of the whole of twenty houses, let us say, at the pre-war rents, the remaining seventeen houses will have to be let for much less, and it may eventually come to this, that the last house has to let without any rent at all. This may be the object of the draftsman—Heaven forbid that I should suppose that it is not—but, unfortunately, this explanation of mine, which, I think, gives the meaning of the words, does not seem to be in line with any of the three explanations of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Might I suggest that the whole of the clause should be reserved for consideration upon Report? It would be very deplorable that this kind of discussion should have to be renewed on some future occasion, when the Lord Chancellor is sitting a little nearer the Bar and litigation is brought up upon this highly disputable point for decision here.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have no objection to that, and I will only say that the purpose which I will ask your Lordships to consider between now and Report is this. What is wished for is that the local authorities should have power to differentiate the houses according to size, type, and so on, of which they consist, so long as the rents of the area do not in the aggregate exceed the normal rents. You give freedom to the local authorities within these limits, but your restriction is the total of the rents of the district. I am quite agreeable to the suggestion of my noble and learned friend to leave the thing to be considered on Report. I will only tell your Lordships that the Ministry of Health, who, after all, are people who give a good deal of attention to this matter, attach great importance to this, and think that they will be very much hampered if the Amendment to strike out the words "in the aggregate" is accepted. That is their view.

LORD ASKWITH

Would the noble and learned Viscount agree that the words should be taken out now?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think it matters very much whether you take them out or leave them in. If you wish to take them out, we can do that, and reconsider the matter on Report.

LORD ASKWITH

I prefer to take them out. In another place people really did not know what this meant, and1 at least half a dozen noble Lords have asked me the meaning of the words. The words are not used with regard to houses provided by public utility societies under subsection (2), and whether they are wanted at all is very doubtful.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

LORD ASKWITH

The Amendment which follows is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("total amount of the").—(Lord Ashwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE

moved, after "houses," where that word thirdly occurs in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), to insert "of similar size, type and amenity." The noble Lord said: There seems to be no definition in the Bill of working-class houses, and I noticed that in another place the Government were asked to define the expression, and were apparently unable to do so. I do not think that in that particular case they answered by means of the closure. What I am suggesting is that after" normal rents charged in respect of working-class, houses "there should be inserted the words" of similar size, type and amenity. "In that case we should secure that for houses where there was the same accommodation, the same rent would be charged. If this were not done it might happen that the rents charged in one parish would be much less than those charged in another parish, for no particular reason except that you could get people to take houses in the second parish at a higher rent. If you do not accept this Amendment you are likely to have the tenants of Addison houses agitating to have their rents reduced to the same level as these more favoured houses under the present Bill, and I cannot see what objection there can be to say that in letting these houses you should have regard, not only to pre-war rents, but also to houses of similar size, type and amenity.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 43, after ("houses") insert ("of similar size, type and amenity").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

About the last Amendment there was difference of opinion as to how serious it was, but as to this Amendment there is no question. This Amendment was rejected by a majority of the House in the other House, and it is an Amendment as to which the Minister of Health lays the utmost stress as regards his inability to accept it. If it is carried the effect will be that the houses will be stereotyped. The very purpose of the Bill is, by com- bined working and economies, and the financial arrangements which have been made, to give a better house than the workman has had under the oldrégime—houses, it may be, with a bathroom, or it may be with various improvements, and it may be that these things can be given at the same rent. If the words of this Amendment are carried then the houses have got to be of similar size, type and amenity. That stereotypes the houses, and I trust your Lordships will reject the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I thought the Lord Chancellor said just now that the houses must be compared with houses of a similar type.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

For rent purposes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is all that this Amendment proposes to do. Surely after the discussion which we have just had, which I suppose will be cleared up on Report, if it is not already cleared up, the policy of this paragraph is that rents should be the same as prewar rents, and for that purpose a comparison is made, in the terms of the clause, between the houses now to be erected and houses built before the war. But what houses? Are we going to compare these houses with the dirtiest and most insanitary slum houses? Evidently not. The comparison must be with houses of a similar type. Otherwise there is no basis of comparison whatever. If you are going to make the rents of the new houses the same as the rents of pre-war houses you must have some basis of comparison. You are not going to make the rents of these new houses the same as the rents of better-class pre-war houses, nor are you going to make them the same as the rents of slum houses. You must have some standard of comparison, and that standard of comparison my noble friend Lord Strachie has provided What better comparison can you have? Unless the noble and learned Viscount is able to produce some better answer than that which he has given, I trust that my noble friend Lord Strachie will press his Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I can only tell you this, that the Amendment is one of which the Government take a very serious view. The effect of it, in their view, would be to stereotype the houses which you offer to workmen under this Bill.

Several NOBLE LORDS

No, no.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Indeed it is. The subsection reads:— that the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not in the aggregate exceed the total amount of the rents that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses erected prior to the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen. If you put in the words of "similar size, type and amenity" you bring yourselves into confusion.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next four Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 6, line 8, at end, insert ("that no fine, premium or other like sum shall be taken in addition to the rent; and").

Page 6, line 33, at end, insert ("and that such consent shall not be given unless it is shown that no payment other than rent has been or is to be received by the tenant in consideration of the assignment, sub-letting, or other transaction").

lines 34 to 37, leave out paragraph (c).

Page 7, line 27, at end, insert ("and that no fine, premium, or other like sum shall be

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Why?

LORD EMMOTT

I cannot see what is the objection to this Amendment. Surely it must be that the rent is to be the same as, or not greater than, that of pre-war houses. That, I understand, is what the Government is aiming at. They must be houses of a similar type, and with all respect to the Lord Chancellor this is not a question of stereotyping houses but a question of the rents of houses. In order to make the clause intelligible, it must refer to houses of a similar type.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents,42: Not-contents, 9.

CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Midleton, E.	Ampthill, L.
Devonshire, D.	Onslow, E.	Askwith, L.
	Stanhope, E.	Balfour of Burleigh, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, M.	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Banbury of Southam. L.
Salisbury, M.		Cawley, L.
	Bertie of Thame, V.	Clinton, L.
Ancaster, E.	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Crawshaw, L.
Bradford, E.	Chaplin, V.	Dynevor, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Chilston, V.	Emmott, L.
Chichester, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)	Erskine, L.
Clarendon, E.		Faringdon, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Novar, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
	Younger of Leckie, V. [Teller.]	Strabolgi, L.
Eldon, E.		Strachie, L. [Teller.]
Lovelace, E.		Sumner, L.
Lucan, E.	Southwark, L. Bp	Templemore, L.
Malmesbury, E.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)	De La Warr, E. [Teller.]	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)	Arnold, L.	Hemphill, L.
	Denman, L.	Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]
		Shandon, L.

taken in addition to the rent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE

moved to leave out the second paragraph of subsection (3) and to insert:— Every rule made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rule is laid praying that the rule may be annulled, it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new rule. The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment in order that you may have the same control—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 38, leave out from end of line 38 to end of line 3 on page 8, and insert the said words.—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD STRACHIE

It would be very desirable, in order to save the time of the House, to give instructions to the Government draftsman to put the clause in this form, instead of the form in which it is now.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There might be trouble elsewhere if I gave any such instructions.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Termination of Government liability to make contributions.

4.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health may jointly make an order under this section declaring that no contributions shall he made by the Minister or Board in respect of any houses which have not been completed before the date specified in the order.

(2) The Minister and Board may make an order under this section in either of the following cases—

1. (a) if, in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, or in any third succeeding year, the Minister and Board are satisfied that the total number of houses which have been completed in the two years last preceding and in respect of which contributions are payable, is less than two-thirds of the number set opposite to those two years in the First Schedule to this Act, whether the deficiency is due to the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour (including any necessary augmentation of the number of apprentices employed) or for the necessary increase in the supply of materials at reasonable prices, or for the obtaining of funds at reasonable rates of interest to finance the provision of houses, or arises from any other cause whatsoever;
2. (b) if, on a report made after due inquiry by a body of independent persons appointed by them, the Minister and Board are satisfied that the cost of erecting house", in respect of which contributions are payable has become unreasonable, regard being had to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the question 318 whether and how far any increase in the cost or any excessive charges are attributable to causes within the control of persons engaged in the building industry or in the manufacture or supply of building materials.

(3) When any such order has been made the Minister or Board shall not be liable to make or to undertake to make any contributions in respect of houses which have not been completed before the date specified in the order, other than a house which is completed not later than eight months after the specified date in respect of which the Minister or Board is satisfied that the failure to complete the house before the specified date was due to circumstances over which the local authority, person, or body constructing the house had control.

LORD STRACHIE

moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) to substitute" nineteen hundred and twenty-six" for "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to lessen the time from three years to two years in which the Minister may come in and, on the ground that there has not been a proper augmentation of labour, or for other reasons, stop the contributions. That is to say, he may save the country from being put to a large expense if he is not getting an adequate return for it, and if labour is not augmented. I have a further Amendment later on which will enable the Minister, in the interests of the taxpayer, to intervene in every second year instead of being obliged to wait for every third year. The object is to minimise, as far as possible, the undoubted risk which the country is running of spending a very large sum of money and not getting a proper return. A further object is to prevent the holding up of building in other directions for fifteen years.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 21, leave out ("seven") and insert ("six").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The scheme that underlay the Bill was that in every third year there should be an inspection and overhauling to see whether the conditions had been fulfilled. It is necessary to have the period a three-yearly one, because you must give the local authorities time to turn about. It is pretty obvious that in 1926, which is the period that Lord Strachie proposes, they will not be ready. I hope your Lordships will give them the time that has been asked for and which has been negotiated with them. I do not know what the effect would be of overhauling these arrangements in 1926.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope the noble and learned Viscount will accept the Amendment. I have a similar Amendment down and I cannot think that it is a good argument for refusing the Amendment that the local authorities will not have time to turn about in two years. They will have plenty of time in two years to see whether or not they can get the material and the labour, and to see whether or not the scheme is likely to be a success. As this scheme is going to cost a very large sum of money I think it would be better to give power to revise it, if necessary, at the end of two years and every second year afterwards, instead of at the end of three years and every third year afterwards. You may have, perhaps ten years from now, an occasion when it may be necessary to make a revision, and under the Bill as it stands we may not be able to do so. I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

The Lord Chancellor talked as though my Amendment had the effect of doing something mandatory. It does nothing of the kind. It says that the Minister may make the order, which leaves it entirely in his hands and gives him greater power. I am not as a rule anxious to give the Minister any great power but in this particular case my Amendment does that. I cannot see why the Government does not wish to give the Minister that power.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope that the Government will accept my noble friend's Amendment. We are very anxious indeed that the working of this Act shall be very carefully watched, and to give the Minister power to break the term and to investigate it at the end of two years instead of at the end of three seems to us a very reasonable proposal. After all, the Government proposes to put a very heavy burden upon the country, which might be a very serious matter if it lasted for any length of time. It seems only reasonable that we should proceed with the greatest caution and give an opportunity to the Minister at the end of two years to reconsider the situation if he thinks fit.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The scheme of the Bill is a period of fifteen years within which the work is to be done. The local authorities have agreed, upon the basis of the Bill, to undertake the work. If you change the scheme in this way and say that the Minister may come in at the end of every two years and turn down what is going on it is discouraging to the local authorities. It is also confusing the scheme on which they were invited to come in. I am, of course, under your heels in this House but I hope that your Lordships will not insist upon this Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I point out that on page 21 of the Report of the Building Trade to which the noble Viscount has referred as the treaty which is the basis of this Bill, the building trade themselves give the quota for each year? They say that in 1925 they think the maximum output should be 90,000 houses; in 1926, 100,000, and so on. It seems to me that the local authority will be budgeting each year for the number of houses in accordance with the estimate put forward by the building trade, and I do not see the difficulty.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "third" and insert "second." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 21, leave out ("third") and insert ("second").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE

moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "Minister and Board are satisfied that, "to insert" the necessary augmentation of labour has not taken place." The noble Lord said: I cannot see why the Government should refuse to insert the words that I suggest. I dare say the noble and learned Viscount will say that this Amendment is already covered; but I do not think the words as they stand in the Bill are so strong, or that they so fully cover the point as the words I suggest. I think it is desirable, therefore, that they should be inserted.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 22, after ("that") insert ("the necessary augmentation of labour has not taken place").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Here again the noble Lord has anticipated what I was going to point out—namely, that the very thing he asks for is provided for in the clause and in a more satisfactory form. It is provided in paragraph (a) that if the Minister and Board are satisfied that the total number of houses completed in the two years preceding and in respect of which contributions are payable, is less than two-thirds of the number set opposite to those two years in the First Schedule to the Act, then there may be a revision of the contribution. The basis of the Bill is the production of satisfactory houses. That is what we have gone on. We have said that if you go into details and import all sorts of subsidiary standards you will never get the real test—which is the production of houses.

We have said that if the houses are short, then you may deal with the case by intervening and making an order diminishing the contribution, whether the deficiency is due to the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour, including any necessary augmentation of the number of apprentices employed, or for the necessary increase in the supply of materials. The very thing which Lord Strachie is dealing with—the necessary augmentation of labour—is provided for, and provided for in this form. It may be that improvement of bricklaying or other things may have enabled you to produce the houses in a shorter time. If that is so, augmentation of the quantity of labour may not be conclusively required. To that extent a discretion is given to the Minister to look at the whole circumstances. That is the proper way of bringing in the necessary augmentation of labour, and not by making it a hard statutory provision which may not suit the case and which may not be required. It is something which must be taken into account in any event under the clause, but to put it in the Bill would be a mistake, it seems to me.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am inclined to agree with the noble and learned Viscount. I think the words as they stand in the clause are sufficient, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The next two Amendments standing in my name are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 8, line 24, leave out ("two years") and insert ("the year.")

Page 8, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("those two years") and insert ("that year").— (Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD SUMNER

moved, after "engaged," towards the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to insert "whether as employers or workers." The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 5, after ("engaged") insert ("whether as employers or workers").—(Lord Sumner.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is merely drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 16, after ("had") insert ("no").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Revision of contributions.

5. In the year nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, and in any third succeeding year, the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health shall take into consideration the expenses which are likely to be incurred in the next succeeding three years in connection with the provision of houses in respect of which contributions would be payable by the Minister or Board, due regard being had to the expenses actually incurred during the preceding three years for the like purposes, and after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned, and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable, may, if they think it expedient so to do, jointly make an order altering the amount of the contributions payable or the period for which such contributions are to be payable, so far an respects houses which have not been com- pleted before the first day of October in the year in which the order is made or before any subsequent date specified in the order, as the case may be, but so, nevertheless, that the amounts and periods fixed by the order shall be such as may be approved by the Treasury and shall not exceed the respective amounts and periods fixed by the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, or (in the case of houses subject to special conditions) by this Act, unless Parliament otherwise determines.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The next two Amendments which are on the Paper are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 9, line 17, leave out ("seven") and insert ("six")

Page 9, line 18, leave out ("third") and insert ("second").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH

moved, after "shall take into consideration," to insert "a." The noble Lord said: This Amendment will stand or fall by what happens to the subsequent Amendment which stands in my name. The point is that every two years the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health shall take into consideration (a) the expenses, and, if my proposed paragraph (b) is accepted:—

(b) the question whether suitable houses can be erected at a reduced cost by the use of materials other than those usually employed in the building or construction of houses or portions of houses, or by standardising the whole or a portion of the work required for the provision of suitable houses, however made.

It seems to be that the words are wanted here, whether the wording is correct or not, for the consideration of these matters when the Minister of Health and the Scottish Board of Health revise their plans. This gives them time for revision. As worded, it also gives time for the revising of expenses. One has heard often of too much being paid for a certain invention. It might be that an invention would be made of a particular kind of house, the bargain for which would require to be revised after a certain period. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 19, after ("consideration") insert ("a").—(Lord Askwith.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment can only be taken into consideration in connection with the sub- sequent one, to insert a new paragraph (b). So far as the insertion of (a) is concerned, dealing with the expenses, it is unnecessary unless the other Amendment is also going to be accepted. The other Amendment which relates to consultation with the local authorities as to whether better materials can be employed, or whether there shall be a standardisation or new processes, is covered, I think in a better form, by a subsequent Amendment to Clause 10 which is to be proposed by Lord Sumner. I propose to accept Lord Sumner's Amendment, and I think it covers everything that is in Lord Askwith's Amendment. Certainly it comes in at a better place and does less damage to the symmetry of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that Lord Askwith will not press his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not quite certain whether the Amendments of my two noble friends exactly cover the same ground, but, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is willing to accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Sumner, which certainly comes very near the same point, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Askwith would allow me to suggest that we should accept the concession of the Government, and agree to Lord Sumner's Amendment, and consider between now and Report whether it does cover the ground which the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Askwith would cover.

LORD ASKWITH

I am quite willing to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The next Amendments in the name of Lord Banbury of Southam are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 9, line 21, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")

Page 9, line 25, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Laying of orders before Parliament.

6. Before any order is made by the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health under this Act, a draft of the proposed order shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament, and the order shall not be made unless and until a resolution is passed by that House approving of the draft.

LORD STRACHIE

moved to leave out "the Commons House" and insert" both Houses. "The noble Lord said: I think your Lordships' attention ought to be drawn to this new procedure under the Labour Government, which is trying, if possible, to ignore your Lordships' House altogether in not laying matters before this House as well as the House of Commons. I know that in another place an Amendment was moved similar to that which I now move. During the debate it seemed that the whole point turned on the question of whether this was, or was not, a Money Bill, and when the Chairman of Committees was appealed to on the point he said that he should like to see how it developed. Apparently he did not rule out the Amendment, because I find that it was negatived. It was also stated that before it could be decided whether or not it was a Money Bill the Bill would have to pass through the House of Commons, and the Speaker would have to; say whether or not this Bill was a Money Bill.

I do not see any reason why this new form should have been introduced, ignoring your Lordships' House and leaving the matter entirely to the Commons House of Parliament. Lord E. Percy, in the debate on this matter, said:— We agree that as in the case of the Safeguarding of Industries Act it might be possible to make orders reviewable only by the House of Commons, but in the case of a Bill of this kind, on which the whole of a great department of social policy is based—if, indeed, the claim made for the Bill is a sincere one that the housing policy of the nation is based upon it—then to exclude the Second Chamber from any part in future proceedings on the Bill at any time for the next fifteen years would be a violation of the general constitutional procedure under which we are supposed to conduct our relations with the other House. I am sure that I cannot say anything stronger than that in commending this Amendment to your Lordships, and I ask you to insist upon it and not allow the Government to ignore this House. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("the Commons House") and insert ("both Houses").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Naturally, in the case of this Amendment, my heart is much torn in the direction of your Lordships' House, but the view taken in another place was that this was a pure provision for the granting of money, and that it ought to be to that House that the question should come, because they were the only body that could vote the money, and they had voted it. It is for your Lordships to insist or not, as you like, on this. I should feel disposed myself, reluctantly, not to insist upon the Amendment. I have given your Lordships the reason why the Commons acted as they did in this matter, and it is entirely for you to decide.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am afraid that I am not so familiar as the noble Viscount with this Bill. I do not know whether there are any Orders which are not of a financial type in the Bill, but I do know that your Lordships' House has always been very reluctant to consent to special treatment as compared with the House of Commons in cases of this kind. I am afraid it is our duty, generally speaking, to make a modification so as to include both Houses. We should be very reluctant to admit a new form, and if this is a new form I think it would be better that we should put in the words "both Houses."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is not new. It was done in the year 1921 in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, but that has not been insisted on as a precedent.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

One precedent would hardly be sufficient. I do not remember a case. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount is absolutely right if he tells me that there are precedents, but if there are no precedents it would be better to adhere to the general rule.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is for your Lordships to decide.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

May I point out that the Safeguarding of Industries Bill got the Speaker's certificate as a Money Bill, whereas this Bill did not get the Speaker's certificate; therefore it cannot be regarded as a Money Bill under the Parliament Act. He did not so regard it, at any rate.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I ask Lord Strachie if he will accept my Amendment instead of his, which would insert " both Houses " instead of "that House."

LORD STRACHIE

Yes.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 13, leave out ("that House") and insert ("each House").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Conditions as to town planning schemes and density.

7. It shall be the duty of a local authority on submitting proposals for the provision of houses for the purposes of this Act to satisfy the Minister—

1. (a) that they have taken into account the requirements of any town planning scheme likely to be made in respect of or in the neighbourhood of the area in which the houses are to be provided; and
2. (b) that the rate of density of the houses, ascertained in such manner as the Minister may determine, will not, except with the consent of the Minister, exceed eight per acre in an agricultural parish and twelve per acre elsewhere.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

moved, in paragraph (b), to substitute "eighteen per acre" for "twelve per acre" The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is that in urban areas the number of houses built per acre should be "eighteen "instead of "twelve." I am informed that when the Bill was originally introduced this clause was not in it, and that it was introduced upon the Report stage. If my Amendment is carried, as far as I can calculate, the result would be this. If you had eighteen houses to the acre each house would have a frontage of 24 feet and a depth of 105 feet. Perhaps something would have to be taken off for a road, but even supposing you took off 20 feet for a road, it will still have a frontage of 24 feet, and a depth of 85 feet.

In building houses in towns it is necessary, unless you are prepared to spend an unlimited amount of money, to construct a sufficient number of houses to a road so as to ensure that the expenses of the road and sewers are not so great when divided amongst a large number of houses. None of us would desire to put too large a number of houses upon an acre, and that is the reason why I have only put in "eighteen." In many cases there are a much larger number of houses than eighteen to the acre. Eighteen would not only give good frontage and good depth, but it would aid in the provision of houses because it would enable houses to be built more cheaply. There is a clause in the Bill which allows the Minister to increase the number in urban districts, but I think it is better that the alteration should be made in the Bill and that it should not be left to the discretion of the Minister. Too many things in these days are left to the discretion of the Minister. I think there should be a larger number of houses to the acre so as to save expense without in any way diminishing the health and comfort of the people who live in them.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 27. leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eighteen").—(Lord Banbury of Sovtham.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. The number of twelve to the acre in agricultural districts was settled after a. good deal of consideration. In framing this Bill the Minister was aware that there might be cases where more houses might be erected, but he wished to make that exceptional—the standard was to be twelve. Your Lordships will see, if you read the whole of the paragraph, "that the rate of density of the houses, ascertained in such manner as the Minister may determine, will not, except with the consent of the Minister, exceed eight per acre in an agricultural parish and twelve per acre elsewhere." Therefore, there is power to the Minister to allow more houses to the acre than twelve if after inquiry into the circumstances he sees there is no objection. I hope the figure of twelve will not be departed from.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree that twelve is an ideal; that if you have an urban arrangement it should be twelve. That is what is called the garden city figure. What the Bill enacts is that all these new houses should be built under what are called garden city conditions. That is no doubt an ideal; but I am very glad that the paragraph is somewhat elastic. It is sometimes extremely difficult to carry out the full garden city standard. This Bill will apply to great urban communities where land is very expensive indeed, and great difficulties will therefore arise. I do not think it can be said—I am speaking quite candidly—that it is always absolutely necessary to have as much room as you get by limiting the number of houses to twelve to the acre. I have pleaded on many occasions in many speeches in favour of garden city conditions, but there is a danger of exaggerating the importance of it, because you may put local opinion against you if you go too far and if you do not show that there is some elasticity in this provision.

When we were responsible for the Act of last year we did not insist upon garden city conditions. What we said was that there must not be more than twenty houses to the acre—that was the absolute condition laid down in the Conservative Act of Parliament. But we said that we thought twelve was much better than twenty. The present Government have gone rather a different way to work and have said that it must be twelve unless the Minister gives leave for more. I am prepared to be content with the Government plan, but I hope there will be some elasticity in this connection. The Minister will make a great mistake if he insists always on the figure twelve. The real point is that there should be great air space around every group of houses. That is very important to the health of the people, and on the whole, I am not prepared to support my noble friend behind me. I hope, however, that the Lord Chancellor will assure us that the Minister of Health will use, his discretion with considerable liberality.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is intended.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Will the Lord Chancellor accept sixteen instead of eighteen? I believe there are a considerable number of contracts existing which will be affected unless the figure sixteen is put in. I am sure the Lord Chancellor desires to provide houses, but I am afraid, unless sixteen is put in, it may result in the houses not being provided.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord asks me to depart from the text of the gospel of health—the figure twelve—as the noble Marquess has pointed out and which is the normal figure in town planning schemes. It would look very bad to compromise with the evil thing by putting in the figure sixteen. It is better as it stands, and it is intended that a real discretion should be exercised by the Minister.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I understand that if contracts exist the Minister has full power to accept them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Do I understand that if there is a contract in existence for sixteen houses to the acre that the Minister will not interfere with it?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not the Minister of Health, but I will undertake that the Minister of Health will look into it from a reasonable and favourable point of view.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

Materials and methods of construction.

10.—(1) In approving proposals for the construction of houses under this Act the Minister shall not impose any condition which would prevent the materials required being purchased in the cheapest market at home or abroad or which would require the employment of any particular trade.

(2) If at any time it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that a local authority have, without reasonable cause, refused to adopt a new material or method of construction which in his opinion would reduce the cost of the house without unduly affecting its durability, suitability or appearance, the Minister may make such deduction from the amount of the contribution payable by him as in his opinion is reasonable having regard to the amount of the unnecessary expenditure so incurred by the local authority, but for the purpose of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act the expenses of the local authority shall be calculated as if no such deduction had been made.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I accept the two Amendments of my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner to subsection (2).

LORD SUMNER

I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 16, after ("Minister") insert ("shall require the adoption of the said new material or method of construction to be reconsidered for that purpose by the local authority and in the event of their failure without reasonable cause to adopt the same")

Page 11, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Sumner.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11, 12 and 13 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:—

Agreements between London County Council and Metropolitan borough councils. The London County Council and any metropolitan borough council may enter into agreements by which the metropolitan borough council may contribute such amounts as may be agreed, subject to the provisions of this Act, towards the provision of houses, by the county council within or without the county to meet any special needs of any such metropolitan borough council, and for the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act the amount of any such contribution shall be treated as if it were part of the expenses borne by the county rate. The noble and learned Viscount said: I move this in fulfilment of the undertaking I gave. It is a better form of the clause than that which appeared earlier. I propose to accept the new subsection which the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, has on the Amendment Paper. I will, therefore, move my Amendment with the addition of the words of the noble Marquess.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 13 insert the following new clause:—

Agreements between London County Council and metropolitan borough councils. (". The London County Council and any metropolitan borough council may enter into agreements by which the metropolitan borough council may contribute such amounts as may be agreed, subject to the provisions of this Act, towards the provision of houses by the county council within or without the county to meet any special needs of any such metropolitan borough council, and for the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act the amount of any such contribution shall be treated as if it were part of the expenses borne by the county rate. (2) In the case of houses provided by the London County Council within the area of any other local authority or houses the construction of which within such area is promoted by the London County Council the appropriate normal rent shall be determined by the Council instead of by the local authority of the area.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14:

Expenses of London County Council.

14. Any expenses incurred by the London County Council under this Act and under Section two of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, as amended by this Act, shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

moved to leave out Clause 14. The noble Lord said: The object of this clause is to introduce the authority of the London County Council into the area of the City of London. During the seventeen and a half years that I had the honour of representing the City of London in another place the London County Council were continually introducing Amendments of this sort into various Bills, and your Lordships will remember that only last week they introduced an Amendment to the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Bill which would have given them power to interfere with the jurisdiction and in the area of the City of London. On every single occasion on which these Amendments were introduced, whatever Government was in power, whether Conservative, Liberal or Coalition, they always acceded to my Amendments and cut out the attempt of the London County Council to intrude themselves upon the City. Unless this clause is cut out, the effect, as I have stated, will be that the London County Council will have authority in the City. They will gain by a side wind that which they have for many years tried to achieve.

This is not a Government clause at all. It was inserted in the Bill in another place on the Motion of Sir Cyril Cobb, who was acting on behalf of the London County Council. Under the provisions of the Housing Act the expenses of the London County Council are charged upon the special county rate, which is distinct from the general county rate to which the City contributes, and therefore the effect of this clause would be to alter the various Acts of Parliament under which the City manages its own affairs and to introduce the London County Council into that area. The City have not in any way been backward in their duty of providing new houses. In fact, Sir Cyril Cobb, in introducing the clause, gave a strong testimonial to the action of the City. The City have not confined themselves to the needs of the resident population, but have endeavoured to take a large view of the needs of the much larger number of persons earning their living outside that area, and they have always been ready to undertake extended responsibility.

The method of giving effect to the Act of 1919 was the subject of full discussion between the London County Council and the Corporation, and it was ultimately decided that the Corporation should make independent schemes. The Corporation therefore made schemes for nine blocks of dwellings, containing 140 tenements, in the Old Kent-road, two blocks of dwellings containing 48 tenements in Hercules-road, Lambeth, and a housing scheme for 2,000 houses on a site at Ilford, Essex. These schemes, in common with schemes elsewhere, and for the same reason, were subsequently curtailed at the instance, and with the approval, of the Ministry of Health, to rather smaller proportions. I think I have shown that there is no necessity for this clause. It is only introduced as the thin end of the wedge, in order to enable the London. County Council to obtain a footing in the City, and I sincerely trust that the Government will accept my Amendment and agree to the clause being left out.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, lines 14 to 17, leave out Clause 14.—(Lord Banbury of Smitham.)

EARL BUXTON

As regards the essence of this Amendment of my noble friend, I am not sure whether it might not be considered to come within the question of privilege, because it clearly removes the charge placed upon certain persons and places it upon the shoulders of others, but that is a matter which, I suppose, will have to be considered later. It is true, as my noble friend says, that this particular clause was not in the original "Bill, but it was inserted in the Bill by a majority of 273 to 116, so that, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, they clearly gave their emphatic assent to its introduction into the Bill. After all, what is the proposal that is contained in the clause as it stands? It is not really an interference with the City Corporation as a housing authority, nor does it in any way deal with their privileges. It deals only with the question of a general rate for housing purposes. All that is proposed is that the general rate for housing purposes which, without this clause, could be applied only to the rest of the Metropolis, shall be extended to the City of London as well.

What does this mean in figures? I think that a penny rate produces in the whole of the area that is covered about £200,000, of which the City's share is something like £24,000, so that if this clause is deleted the opportunities of housing in London will be curtailed to that extent. Apart from any question of the privileges of the City which, as I say, are not in the least interfered with, any more than the City as a housing authority is interfered with, since the clause only levies the rate for London for general housing purposes, I should have thought that it was almost impossible for the City to refuse to contribute to a general rate for housing purposes, for two reasons.

In the first place, a great deal of the overcrowding in other parts of London, which the housing scheme is intended to remedy and which we hope that this Act will do much to meet, is due to the fact that the City, through nobody's fault, has become a business centre and the population which used to live and sleep there has been displaced and is forced into other parts of London, causing a great deal of overcrowding. In addition, I should have thought that the City, who have practically in other ways admitted their liability, are liable for the welfare of those who, during the day, are earning their livelihood there—I believe they number about 400,000 compared with the 6,000 or 7,000 who are earning a livelihood and also living there. After admitting this two-fold liability for the overcrowding in other-parts of London and for the welfare of those persons who make their livelihood in the City, surely it is only fair and just that the City should pay their share of a housing rate which is raised with the object of mitigating the disadvantages under which these people live.

My noble friend said quite truly—nobody denies it—that the City has in the last year or two done its best to carry out housing schemes, thus admitting its liability. The schemes were naturally outside the City, but in 1919 they were liable for a penny rate, and, in addition, they had the scheme to which my noble friend referred. I think the original amount borrowed was £2,750,000, of which only about £750,000 has been spent. I am not blaming the City because, for some reason or other, this particular scheme was delayed. Under the Act of 1923, however, the City has not been liable to a rate, as it had no new scheme of expenditure, and I do not think it is asking too much of the richest portion of the whole of this United Kingdom that it should come in this way to the assistance of the poorer parts of London, which have not only in every case paid their rate but in very many cases also carried out a scheme in addition. I would ask my noble friend to act for the City as the Good Samaritan; not to pass by on the other side of the road, but to take his fair share of this duty.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The actual amount spent by the City up to the present time is £725,043. The amount they intended to spend was £2,750,000. That was stopped by the Ministry. May I point out to my noble friend that under Section 41 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, provision is made for the London County Council and the Corporation agreeing upon schemes under Part I or Part III of the Act of 1890? That section is operative as regards the present Bill, and therefore without this clause the City Corporation and the County Council can combine together.

EARL BUXTON

But they are not liable.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I agree that the City has done a great deal of work in the past, but I think your Lordships will be convinced by what fell from Lord Buxton that it is hardly a case in which the City can stand out from the general operations of the County of London. After all, the liability, according to their rateable value, is only something like one-eighth, and that one-eighth, although it would form a certain charge upon them, is not an unreasonable charge having regard to the enormous number of persons pressed out of the City who come in to work every day. I think the London County Council has not been grasping in this matter. I had some experience of it when I was serving on the London County Council, and it was always anxious to agree with the City. I think that the noble Lord, if he does not press his Amendment, will be exercising a wise discretion.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In this matter the Government took up a neutral position in the other House. The contention that the City put forward and the contention of the London County Council were left to the House, who decided in favour of the London County Council. It is a question of granting money out of the rates, and it was one which was very proper for the House of Commons to settle. I do not, however, raise any question of privilege now, although that may become material at a later stage. It is enough for me to point out what the nature of the controversy was. The City, of course, claimed to be free, but it was answered: Why should you be in a different position from the existing borough councils, which contribute to the housing expenses of the London County Council in addition to bearing the cost of their own housing schemes? It was said that the analogy applied to the City. It was also said that under the Act of 1923 the City had taken no action, and therefore that the better and more satisfactory thing would be for the London County Council to initiate action.

It was finally pointed out that the City was surrounded by slums largely created through the improvements of its own area. The value of the City had gone up and the burdens of the surrounding Boroughs, owing to exclusions from the City, had been increased. For these reasons the House of Commons took a strong view and decided that the City should contribute to the County Council's expenses. On these grounds I think it is a little difficult to resist the conclusion to which the other House came, after hearing the various arguments on a matter peculiarly for its own consideration.

THE EARL OF ON SLOW

I confess I had no knowledge of the rights and wrongs of the case before I heard it argued—I must say that I think the case has been admirably presented on both sides—but so far as I am concerned it seems to me that the County Council have established their point. What influences me most is that the City is not a residential quarter, but it is used by people who live outside, and it falls upon the rest of London to contribute to the cost of the houses.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I ask whether I am not correct in saying that in another place the Attorney-General asked the House to reject this clause?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know. The Whips were not put on.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

It is true the Whips were not put on, but it is also true, unless my memory plays me false, that the Attorney-General said that the clause ought not to be put in.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Application to Scotland.

15. This Act in its application to Scotland shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(2) References in section two to an agricultural parish shall be construed as references to a rural area; and the following provisions shall be substituted for subsections (2) and (3) of that section, namely,—

"(2) For the purposes of this Act a house shall be deemed to be situated in a rural area if the area at the beginning of the financial year in which the proposal for the provision of the house is approved by the Board, is either—

(a) a landward parish or (in the case of a parish which is partly burghal and partly landward) the landward part of the parish for the purposes of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, with respect to which the two following conditions are fulfilled:—

(i) the value of the agricultural land in the landward parish or the landward part of the parish according to the valuation roll then in force exceeds twenty-five per cent, of the total valuation of all lands and heritages in the landward parish or in the landward part of the parish, as the case may be; and

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 12, line 28, leave out ("section two") and insert ("this Act")

Page 12, line 31, leave out ("that")

Page 12, line 32, after ("section") insert ("two").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

moved, at the end of paragraph (i) of the substituted subsection (2), to insert "provided that for the purposes of this provision railroads, water and electrical works and undertakings, and Institutions of a public nature and which confer no special advantage on the parish concerned shall be computed at their net assessable value in such parish." The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to move the first two Amendments which I have placed on the Paper, to insert the word "net" before "value" and before "valuation" in paragraph (i). I think my object will be better served by the insertion of the words of this present Amendment. The Bill makes a distinction in the definition of a rural area as between England and Scotland; in this respect, that in England the net value is taken in computing whether an agricultural value exists, while in Scotland the gross value is taken. Now there are some parishes which will be cut out of the advantage of gaining the higher grant, because, although in their essence they are absolutely rural areas, this mode of computation will cut them out.

I refer to those which contain, for instance, huge waterworks. Take the parish of Drymen, through which the Glasgow pipes pass. It is absolutely rural, but it has a gross valuation of £39,000, of which £21,000 odd represents the waterworks and £3,000 odd the railway station. There you have £24,000. When you come to assess this, 60 per cent, is taken off the gross valuation of the railway, and 50 per cent, off the pipe valuation. You would, therefore, not be able to show that the agricultural value was over 25 per cent, of the total valuation, if you took it on the gross and not on the net value. I thought at first that the words "net value," as they appear in the Bill in reference to England, would express quite accurately what I wanted, but I do not know that they do. It would not, however, have been appropriate to use those words. When this Amendment, or something like it, was proposed in the other House, the Government gave no sort of explanation of their reasons for making this difference and for not recognising this particular feature of a good many parishes in Scotland, which utterly throws out the calculation. The noble and learned Viscount knows perfectly well that Drymen, at all events, is an absolutely rural parish, and that Glendevon is another, where there are very important waterworks. That parish would, I believe, also be cut off from getting the grant.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 11, after ("be") insert the said words.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The parishes which the noble Viscount refers to are not cut out. I have inquired. Both Drymen and Glendoven come in.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

I do not see how that is possible. Take the Drymen parish. I gave the figures. The gross Valuation is £39,000. The valuation of the Glasgow waterworks, which consist mainly of pipe lines, is £21,000, and of the railway, £3,000. That is a total of £24,000. There are many other things which are not agricultural in any sense of the word, and what remains cannot possibly be more than twenty-five per cent.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The figure we have now is twenty-five per cent. Under the old figure, which was one-third, it might have been otherwise.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

Well, let us suppose that parish is covered already. If there is another parish which it" similarly situated, what are you going to do with that?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It may be that there are other cases, but look what the noble Viscount gets. What he proposes to substitute for the words in the Bill is this: provided that for the purposes of this provision railroads, water and electrical works and undertakings, and institutions of a public nature and which confer no special advantage on the parish concerned shall be computed at their net assessable value in such parish. Under "net" the noble Viscount does not seem to get any advantage, unless there is a set of consequential Amendments which are not on the Paper. If these things are computed at their net value the result is less favourable to you than what you already get under the Agricultural Rates Act of 1923. Under that there is a reduction which covers the whole of the parish, and the outcome is better than the outcome under the words which the noble Viscount wishes to insert. The matter is really a very highly technical one, and I do not like to speak dogmatically about it, but I am informed by those who furnish me with the information that, if the Amendment of the noble Viscount is adopted, it will make matters worse from the point of view for which he is contending, rather than better.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

I am sorry I cannot agree at all.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

It is, I admit, a very technical question, but it seems to me that there is a real grievance. It will not apply in very many parishes. I would ask that the noble and learned Viscount should look into the matter and see if something could be done, and, if an injustice is committed, it could be removed on the Report Stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will inquire further.

VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE

In that case I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: (4) Section 7 shall have effect as if for the words 'twelve per acre elsewhere' there were substituted the words 'elsewhere in the case of (a) cottages twelve per acre, (6) flatted houses sixteen per acre, and (c) tenement houses twenty-four per acre.' The noble Duke said: I have been asked to move this Amendment by several of the larger cities and burghs in Scotland. It is not proposed to alter the number of cottages per acre, which is twelve, but in the case of tenement houses, which is the particular point of this Amendment, they wish to have power to erect twenty-four to the acre. They have found in several cases already the great difficulty of applying the ideal of twelve houses to the acre, owing to the distance that men are from their work, and so on. In some cases these better houses have been erected and people will not take them, but want tenement houses. The general question has already been discussed on an Amendment by Lord Banbury, but this is quite a different point. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment. It only applies to Scotland, and I think we are all aware that Scotland has a much more salutary and bracing climate than you are accustomed to in the southern part of the island.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 44, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No doubt Scotland is entitled to be looked on as a privileged place, but still, that is no reason for departing from what the noble Marquess defined as the standard in town planning. That standard is one which the noble Duke proposes to repeal for the purposes of the agricultural districts. As was pointed out in the previous discussion, which raised exactly the same point as this, although there may be cases in which twelve houses per acre are not as many as the ground would take, and although it may be right to increase the number, the power to do that is given. Clause 7 (b) says that it shall be the duty of the local authority when submitting proposals for the provision of houses to satisfy the Minister that the rate of density of the houses, ascertained in such manner as the Minister may determine, will not, except with the consent of the Minister, exceed eight per acre in an agricultural parish and twelve per acre elsewhere. On a previous Amendment we agreed that it was desirable to keep to the general standard, and leave it to the local authority to get the consent of the Minister if it is desired to exceed that standard. The Minister will have ample jurisdiction to inquire into the matter and deal with it, and we feel that it is better not to break into the standard which has already been laid down by the House.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I am afraid that if this Amendment is not accepted the cities and burghs will not think that the Bill is satisfactory, and there will then be great difficulty in providing these houses. However, if the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment, I do not desire to divide the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Years.	Number of Houses.
1925–1926	190,000
1928–1929	255,000
1931–1932	360,000
1934–1935	450,000

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper is consequential upon certain alterations that your Lordships have made in the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, line 4 to line 7, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 7, and insert:—

("1925	90,000
1927	110,000
1929	135,000
1931	170,000
1933	210,000
1935	225,000
1937	225,000")

—(Lord Banbury of Sowtham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Minor Amendments of Housing, etc., Act, 1923.
Enactments to be Amended. Section 1 (2)	Nature of Amendment. After the words "fixed bath" there shall be inserted the words "in a bath-room."

LORD STRACHIE

moved to leave out "Section 1 (2): After the words 'fixed bath' there shall be inserted the words 'in a bath-room.'" The noble Lord said: The provision in the Second Schedule is an addition to the Act of 1923, which says that:— 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. That, no doubt, is very right and proper, but it seems to me that it is too large an order to insist that the contribution shall not be given unless these arrangements are made, and there is a bathroom in every one of these houses, even the small flats. It is well known that it is very much easier to have a bath near the boiler in the scullery or in one of the outhouses. Under the schedule it may be necessary for another room to be built at an extra cost, and in the case of the small houses room will be taken up and space diminished. That is unnecessary, and I cannot see why it should be made compulsory to provide a bathroom. It is right to say that there must be a bath. A well-known medical officer of health has said that it is entirely unnecessary, from the point of view of health, to have bathrooms and that from that point of view the arrangements are just as satisfactory if a bathroom were not provided. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, lines 12 and 13, leave out lines 12 and 13.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope the noble Lord will not insist on this Amendment. If there is anything about which people feel very keen it is that in every cottage there should be something, however humble, in the nature of a bathroom—a- place to which people can go and cleanse themselves and which is all the difference from the mere provision of a fixed bath, which may be in some very inconvenient part of the house. The provision of a bathroom makes a difference to the standard of civilisation of the cottage, and that is why the working-classes are pressing for it very much at the present time. With the necessary modifications to suit the different classes of houses this bathroom will be provided within the space and within the cost. In the view of my right hon. friend the Minister of Health it is a great attraction to the people living in these humble houses, as well as a great advantage to them, to possess something which may be called a bathroom. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will not make an Amendment which will enable those who are of a grudging disposition to put off the humble tenants of these houses with something a good deal worse than a bathroom.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I confess that my sympathies incline a little towards the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. It seems rather hard on a man that he should be compelled to have a bathroom in his house if he does not want one. But as the noble and learned Viscount says that every one wants it and that this provision in the Bill will assist them to get what they want, I think the noble Lord would be well advised not to press his Amendment, because it seems to interfere with the liberty of these people to have a bath when they like.

LORD STRACHIE

In response to what has been said by the noble Earl, I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Second Schedule agreed to.