§ Returned from the Commons with certain Amendments in lieu of Amendments made by the Lords not insisted upon, but an Amendment to the Bill proposed in lieu thereof, and an Amendment made by the Lords in lieu of one of their former Amendments disagreed to, for which disagreement they assigned a Reason.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)My Lords. 1203 I beg to move that the Commons Amendment and Reason be now considered. We have had some little trouble over these matters, but the foundation consideration in this House, I am sure, has always been to do what could be done so that a Bill of tins kind should become operative. The differences have really been on questions of procedure; there is no substantial difference, and I think that the common desire of every one here and also in another place is to assist in helping forward what everyone knows to be a matter of great importance—a Bill dealing with the slum clearance question. At the present stage of the Bill, so far as I am aware, we have only one outstanding difference. The disrepair point has been put aside; it has been dropped; and the only outstanding question is on the compensation clause. We have never been able to agree with your Lordships' proposal in the proviso. I am not going into the matter again, as we have discussed it so often; but I hope that now at this stage we may be able to come to terms, leaving the Bill without that proviso Amendment so that the matter may go forward and these great questions of slum clearance may be pushed on as quickly as possible.
§ Moved, That the Commons Amendment and Reason be now considered.— (Lord Parmoor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, I take it that the real issue is this, that the Government in another place have disagreed with the Amendment to the Commons Amendment which your Lordships put into the Bill yesterday, and they have proposed to omit the whole of the disrepair clause from the Bill. This produces a very peculiar position. We have here a Bill which has occupied a very considerable amount of Parliamentary time both in your Lordships' House and in another place. It is a Bill which has passed through the House of Commons and through your Lordships' House without a Division on Second Reading. There is no difference of opinion in the principle. It is a Bill which, although it contains certain things with which we do not agree, has many things which I think we should he glad to see on the Statute Book and in operation to assist in the great problem of housing.
1204 Your Lordships are aware that this is a matter in which the Party that I belong to has been for many years, I think it is nearly a century, a pioneer and has taken the very deepest interest. All the Conservative Prime Ministers for the last century nearly, and the whole Party, have had this matter of housing very deeply at heart and have accomplished a very great deal in the matter. And it is a very curious thing that we should be told by the Socialist Party that they would be willing to lose the Bill, the Housing Bill, the slum clearance Bill, rather than agree to what seems to me to be a matter simply of elementary justice, and not to very many people but only to a few. Only a few people would be affected.
Then I was rather surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord say that our differences were merely on questions of procedure, because yesterday he said that this matter of compensation was of the very greatest importance, and I think your Lordships agreed with him. I do. I think it is a matter of principle of very great importance whether you are going to treat a man justly or unjustly. It does not matter whether there are a large number of people to be treated justly or unjustly or only a few. As I have said, the Party to which I belong has been very deeply interested in the matter of being sure that this Bill or parts of it at any rate will accomplish a useful purpose. We would not wish on this particular point to wreck the Bill and, therefore, I should venture to advise your Lordships to agree with the proposals which have come to us from another place. I think the omission of the "disrepair" definition altogether is perhaps the best solution that could be made. I think it is better than the Amendment proposed by the Government or the Amendment which I ventured to put before your Lordships. In those circumstances, I should suggest we should accept the proposals which have reached us from the House of Commons.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I am sorry to hear the advice given by the noble Earl, because I believe it is bluff on the part of the Government saying it would wreck the Bill. In every possible way we have tried to meet the Government, and it seems we have tried 1205 to placate the implacable. It is evident they mean to get as much as they can for nothing. It is merely a part of the attempt to socialise everything.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I am sorry to hear what the noble Viscount has just said, for I had hoped no dispute would have arisen at this stage. I gladly welcome the non-political outlook which the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) has indicated. His Party and in fact all Parties are deeply interested in the end that we are seeking to attain. I need not say more. I hope everything controversial has now come to an end.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.