Lords Sitting of 21 July 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Local authority may declare unhealthy area to be clearance area]:
LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, after ("as") insert ("suitable").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): We know the noble Lord's interest in this matter. We are willing to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power to local authority to purchase cleared land which owners have failed to re-develop]:
LORD PARMOOR: This is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 34 and 35, leave out ("Section five of this Act") and insert ("the last preceding section").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Local authority may declare unhealthy area to be improvement area.
7.—(1) Where a local authority upon consideration of an official representation or other information in their possession, are satisfied as respects any area in their district that the housing conditions in that area are dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants by reason of the disrepair or sanitary defects of dwelling-houses therein, and also by reason either of overcrowding in the area or of the bad arrangement of the houses or of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, and that those conditions can be effectively remedied, without the demolition of all the buildings in the area, by—

(i) the demolition or repair, as the circumstances may require, of those dwelling-houses which are unfit for human habitation;

(ii) the purchase by the authority of any land in the area which it is expedient for them to acquire for opening out the area and, if any buildings on that land have not previously been demolished, the demolition of those buildings, so far as it is necessary to demolish them for that purpose; and

(iii) the abatement of overcrowding in the area,

the authority may cause that area to be defined on a map, and may pass a resolution declaring the area so defined to be an improvement area:
Provided that, before passing any such resolution, the authority shall satisfy the Minister that the size of the area is such that the housing conditions therein can be remedied effectively within a reasonable period and that in so far as accommodation available for the persons of the working classes who will be displaced by the steps
576
which the authority propose to take for the improvement of the area does not already exist, the authority will provide, or secure the provision of, such accommodation in advance of the displacements which will from time to time become necessary as those steps are taken.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and also" ["and also by reason either of overcrowding"], and to insert "or." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one of rather considerable importance, in spite of the very small alteration which is suggested in the words. Under Clause 7 an area can only be declared an improvement area subject to two sets of conditions: first, that the housing conditions in the area are "dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants by reason of the disrepair or sanitary defects of dwelling-houses therein"; secondly, "by reason either of overcrowding in the area or of the bad arrangement of the houses or of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." So that you must have a combination of a condition of danger and injury to the health of the inhabitants, for one thing, and then one or other of the conditions in the latter part of the clause; that is, overcrowding, or bad arrangement of the houses, or narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.
I have very considerable experience in Kensington, and Kensington is typical of a great many different parts of London. There we simply shall not be able to get on unless the local authority has power to declare an improvement area on account of overcrowding. It is going to be quite impossible to go or, if we have to prove that the conditions are dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants, and at the same time that they constitute overcrowding or come under one of these other descriptions. I believe this Amendment was moved n another place, and it was refused by the Minister for reasons which, on reading his speech, I find extraordinarily difficult to follow. He gave as his forecast of what would happen under the operation of this Bill, that a local authority would take an undesirable area and proceed by stages, that the improvement areas would be kept of small and reasonable size and the local authority would take, so to speak, a bite out of a bad area, not declare the whole of it, and declare

577
that to be an improvement area, clean that up, get the good conditions going there, and then proceed to the next area, and so on throughout until the whole place was cleaned up.
In North Kensington we cannot get on under the Wheatley Act. I think there is a lingering hope in the mind of the Minister—and I have no doubt he is right—that the bulk of the work, or a great deal of it, will be still done under the Wheatley Act, and that this Greenwood Act, with the higher subsidy, will be reserved for cases where, owing to inability to pay, you have to have recourse to this higher subsidy. There is a feeling that the whole thing would tend to be done under the Greenwood Act and the Wheatley Act would fall into disuse and that would be an unnecessary extravagance. I am very far from wanting to clean up all the overcrowded areas by means of this Greenwood Act. I quite agree it would be extravagant, but we must have the power to do it in order to meet the special case of a place like Kensington and other places in London, and also the special needs of the public utility societies. The Kensington Housing Trust, which has been referred to, is a public utility society working in Kensington in close touch with the Borough Council, and what I should hope to see is that the Borough Council will take a section, declare it an improvement area, and then enable the public utility society to qualify for the subsidy when providing new accommodation for the people displaced out of the overcrowded area.
As the clause stands it says "and also" and, as I have explained, you have to prove conditions which notoriously do not exist in these overcrowded areas if the structure, as I suggest, is fairly good. You have to remember that in London the number of people living in houses which are dangerous or injurious to health is very much smaller than the number living in grossly overcrowded houses. The crux of the whole problem in Kensington and other such areas is gross overcrowding. The number of clearance areas in Kensington is few, and once those have been cleared up we shall be absolutely at a standstill unless we can get to serious grips with moderate sized and small improvements areas. That is the reason why I
578
placed this Amendment on the Paper, and I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will see his way to accept it, because without it the Bill will be very nearly a dead letter in those overcrowded areas with which we have to deal.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("and also") and insert ("or")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PARMOOR: We are only dealing here with one portion of the B and that a new portion. The principle of the improvement area is new. It is not in force at present. In bringing this new principle into operation it was thought right, after consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations, not to press it too far in the first instance. It is rather important, of course, when you come to the general scheme of the Bill. The general scheme, so far as the improvement areas are concerned—they are not, of course, the clearance areas—is that for an area to be made into an improvement area you must no only have conditions which are dangerous and injurious to the health of the inhabitants by reason of the disrepair or sanitary defects of the dwelling-houses therein, but there must also be one or other of two conditions. The noble Lord is perfectly right in the description he has given of the Bill. In the clause these words occur:—
"by reason either of overcrowding in the area or of the bad arrangement of the houses or of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, and that those conditions can be effectively remedied, without the demolition of all the buildings in the area …."
As far as I followed the noble Lord's argument, it had to do with the clearance area rather than the improvement area. I hope he will not press this suggestion. We have carried this new doctrine of improvement areas as far as we can with the good will and help of the local authorities, and we certainly do not want to make it more stringent.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I really cannot accept the noble and learned Lord's statement that my remarks had to deal with the clearance area and not the improvement area. The whole point is that the clearance area can be satisfactorily dealt with under the clearance area principle. Having dealt with such small areas as are clear-

579
ance areas, we are left with the whole of the existing slum conditions and overcrowding due to slum conditions, and we shall be helpless. I very much regret that I shall have to press this Amendment, because to my mind it is a vital one.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press the Amendment. It is, no doubt, a question of how best to deal with a difficult matter. I am willing to meet him between now and the Report stage to discuss it, but I am told that, having regard to the undertakings we have given to local authorities and to the general scheme of the Bill, we cannot press this particular feature of it, the improvement area, further than it is at present. I should be quite willing to consider it, as I have said.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will meet me to consider the matter and to ask him now whether he has any alternative in view which might possibly meet my point. He must realise, I think, that once we have dealt with the clearance areas we shall be left with the others, as I have already said. If he will give me an undertaking that he will make provision in the Bill for making the county borough council the authority for an improvement area of not exceeding ten houses, I shall be willing to withdraw my Amendment. But I must ask that he will give me some equivalent.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will, at any rate, give some encouragement to the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. I cannot help thinking that this is one of the cases, of which there are a good many in the Bill, in which the Government are really hanging back from the most forward principles. That a nominally Socialist Government should be unwilling to accept an Amendment moved by a Conservative is not surprising, though I should have thought they would have been sympathetic to this one if they were prepared to carry out the pledges they made at the last General Election. Therefore, though I cannot call this refusal on the part of His Majesty's Government entirely reactionary, at any rate I would venture to
580
think that it is not going as far forward as most of their best friends would wish. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord who moved will see his way to press this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope the noble Lord who leads the Government will adhere to what he has already said. The noble Earl who has just spoken says the Amendment has been moved by a Conservative. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is qualified to be called a Conservative. But supposing he is, the result of the Amendment would be to extend the Bill to an enormous degree. It would enable a local authority, if the street were narrow, to do away with all the houses, which might be in a very good condition, merely because the street was narrow or its arrangement bad. I sincerely hope that when the noble and learned Lord is right which is not very often, he will adhere to his decision, and I shall have mu pleasure in voting with him.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I think that the speech of the noble Lord must have made the noble and learned Lord hesitate a little. I hope very much that the Government, if they cannot give a promise at this moment, will consider the matter most carefully before the Report stage. The housing problem is a very real one and undoubtedly the value of the Bill will be lessened unless some such provision is inserted in it as the noble Lord opposite has suggested. I hope that even now, if a definite promise cannot be given, the Government will consider the matter further.
LORD PARMOOR: I cannot go further than I have already stated.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot help congratulating those concerned upon their alliance. It is one of the most interesting combinations that I have seen. But having recovered from the effect of this partnership I should like to know what is the reason of the refusal. The avowed purpose of this Bill is to redeem the disgrace of our slum property. As the Bill stands, it provides that you cannot act under this section unless two things are established and yet one of these things alone is that the housing conditions are dangerous or injurious to

581
the health of the inhabitants by reason of the disrepair or sanitary defects of the property. The noble and learned Lord who leads this House and speaks for a Government which purports to have the care of the poor under its charge, insists that that is not enough but that you must say also "by reason of overcrowding." But you can get an insanitary place that is not necessarily overcrowded. Why you are going to condemn people to live under conditions that are dangerous or injurious to their health simply because you say they are not overcrowded is one of the mysteries I am utterly unable to solve.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I join the unholy alliance to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and suggest that your Lordships will do equally well to leave the matter as it is proposed by the noble and learned Lord who leads the House? He, I think, has offered to reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage in conjunction with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. I think it is unusual—it was when I had the honour of sitting where noble Lords opposite now sit—to make any promise as to how the reconsideration on Report will work out. I think your Lordships might accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord opposite, supported as it is by my noble friend Lord Banbury.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am profoundly disappointed that the noble and learned Lord will not give me the smallest encouragement, will not now do anything to meet my view. He has asked me to withdraw the Amendment, and promised to reconsider it. I can only read into that promise the fact that he really does intend to try to meet me. If that is so, I have pleasure in not pressing the Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Before the Question is put, we should like to have some assurance from the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, that he does hope to meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and that it is not merely a wish to escape a Division at this moment.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to resent anything, but I think I might resent the suggestions made by the noble Earl that I am suggesting something I
582
do not intend to do my best to carry out. I think I should be justified in resenting that suggestion. I do not want to create any trouble of that sort. With regard to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, the matters he referred to have been fully considered and dealt with. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for the attitude he has taken. I know he has at heart the production of as good a Bill as possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), before the first "accommodation," to insert "suitable." The noble Lord said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, after ("as") insert ("suitable").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provisions as to purchase of land]:
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendment in my name to this clause is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, at end insert ("under Section six of this Act ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Valdity and date of operation of clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders.
(3) If any person aggrieved by an order desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act has not been complied with, he may, within six weeks after the publication of the notice of confirmation, make an application for the purpose to the High Court, and if any such application is duly made—

(i) the order shall not come into operation before the final determination of the proceedings; and

(ii) the court, if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act not having been complied with, may quash the order either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.

LORD PARMOOR: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("if") and insert ("where").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (i) and "(ii) the court, if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of the Act or," and to insert—
"the court—

(i) may by interim order suspend the operation of the order either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant until the final determination of the proceedings; and

(ii) if satisfied upon the hearing of the application."

The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment by the Association of Municipal Corporations. It is one that I think will commend itself to your Lordships. The object of the Amendment is to give rather greater elasticity, and to prevent unnecessary-delay in the procedure. It is really only a matter of local procedure, but as the Bill stands, an application however frivolous would automatically suspend the operation of the order. In paragraph (i) of subsection (3) it says that the order shall not come into operation before the final determination of the proceedings. This application will frequently go to the Court of Appeal, and may go to the House of Lords, and it does seem rather absurd to hold up the whole operation of the order until the final determination.
LORD PARMOOR: If I might intervene, this is one of the Amendments which we can accept.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Oh, thank you very much.
LORD PARMOOR: It is a matter of procedure.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, leave out from ("made") to ("that") in line 34 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended; agreed to.
Clause 12:
Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily.
12.—(1) Where land is purchased compulsorily by a local authority under this Part of this Act, the compensation payable in respect thereof shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) In the case of land comprised in a clearance area, the compensation to he paid for the land, including any buildings thereon, shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section forty-six of the principal Act subject, as regards the first mentioned of those subsections, to the modifications contained in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act.
(3) In the case of any other land, the compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "shall" and to insert "subject to the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919."The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Onslow has a somewhat similar Amendment down, as also has my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame. I would suggest it might be convenient, as the Amendments are the same, if we took the discussion upon this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Onslow will agree to that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Certainly.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that would be convenient.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The object of this Amendment is to do away with a hardship which has been found to exist since the original Act was passed in 1919. As the matter stands at the present moment a person owning a house which is quite suitable for the purpose for which that house was built—a house which is in good order and in good repair—but which happens to be included in an area which has been scheduled for rehousing, would receive as compensation only the site value. The house is taken away, and its value is put at nothing, so that a person who may have bought a proper house, kept it in good repair, and against which there is nothing, and may have spent £500 or £600 upon it, merely receives perhaps 50 or £50 or £60 as the site value.

585
There was a Committee on this matter which sat in 1920. A Departmental Committee on unhealthy areas was appointed by the Minister of Health, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, to consider and advise on the principles to be followed in dealing with unhealthy areas and in their Report they say:—
"Difficulties relating to compensation under, the Act of 1919:—We have received evidence, however, that, favourable as the clause appears on the face of it, the practice is going to be extremely difficult. Owing to the inequity of paying nothing for buildings, which in themselves might be unexceptionable, but which happen to be within an unhealthy area, it is suggested that the local authority will be deterred from representing areas as unhealthy, and that the tendency on the part of inspectors considering schemes will be to try to get over the difficulty by cutting such buildings and the land upon which they stand, out of the area altogether."
The Report also states:—
"The impression left upon our minds after conversation with witnesses in the various towns is that none of them like the procedure under Section 9. Its drastic provisions are considered likely to lead to such inequality and injustice as between individuals as to encounter violent opposition, followed by possible failure to sustain a case when brought before the Courts."
Then they quote cases which show how unjust this particular section has been. I think that the general principle in this House has always been that a man has no right to be deprived of his property without due and fair compensation unless, of course, he has done something which he ought not to have done, and has neglected his duty. But where a man is the owner of property, and that property is taken for public purposes, that man ought to be given a proper and sufficient compensation for that property; and it is with the hope that your Lordships will insist upon a provision embodying that principle being put into this Part of the Bill that I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the clause and insert ("subject to the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I support my noble friend in this Amendment. He referred to site value, but he
586
did not refer to the reduction factor. Now the reduction factor is one of the most iniquitous things in this Bill. Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, is re-enacted. The reduction factor comes into operation because the land is to be compulsorily acquired and it is sought to be acquired either for rehousing the working classes or for open spaces. Then the owner is further penalised, not only by not getting compensation for the houses, but by getting less than the site value. Sometimes that amounts to as much as 50 per cent. less. I know the Government say that good houses will be marked blue on the map and the owners will receive fair compensation. That might be true, were it not for the wording of Clause 1. The words in Clause 1 are "by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." If it is alleged that because of this the houses are "dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area," those houses will not be marked blue and the owners will not get any compensation. Surely, if they are in a good state of repair, the owner is justly entitled to better terms than the man who has let his property go to rack and ruin.
The Amendment merely asks that owners of property in a clearance area should receive market value, and market value is very clearly set out in Rule 2 in Schedule 3. It is there stated that the worse the condition of the house, the less compensation will be paid. I will not weary your Lordships with hard cases, because they have been fully gone into in the House of Commons, and no doubt your Lordships have read them, but in passing I would say that the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in regard to the Speeding Gardens case seems to be inaccurate. The owner of the property traced his old tenants, and I have a letter here written by them which was addressed to the Committee of the House of Commons to rectify what Miss Lawrence had said. The letter of the tenants is as follows:—
"33, Upper North Street,
Poplar, E.14.
June 25, 1930.
"Dear Sirs,
I am writing this statement to you on behalf of all the tenants of Speeding, Gardens, Lower North Street, Poplar.
As regards to the habitation of the same we lived there between the years 1909 to 1925 under the most comfortable and happy circumstances; the houses being quite all right as regards to sanitation, comfort and cleanliness.
If we may tell you, Sirs, we were more than sorry to leave our most comfortable homes.
Our relations with our landlord, Mr. Meckiff, being most cordial we should be more than pleased if we had the opportunity to return to the same."
The letter is signed, "Yours respectfully, William Skeets, Joe Skeets, 16 years," and then follow other signatures.
I understand the case of the Government for the retention of the injustice I have outlined to be based on two things: first, the cost; secondly, that there are few or no genuine hard cases. The first defence—that of cost—is surely a piece of contemptible expediency; and the second defence—few or no hard cases—contradicts the first defence of expense. There is a third line of defence, and that is that the Association of Municipal Corporations are in favour of continuing the present state of things. I will just read to your Lordships a passage from a speech made by Mr. Armitage, one of the leading citizens of Leeds, who knows what he is talking about in this matter. He said:—
"What was this Association of Municipal Corporations? It was formed in the first place to give laymen who took part in corporation affairs opportunity of meeting from time to time, to discuss subjects in which they were interested. It was understood to be largely composed of aldermen and councillors. But, like everything else, it had drifted into the hands of officials. Aldermen and councillors had their own businesses on their hands, and going to London was not always convenient to them. So they had drifted into the habit of sending, very largely, officials to those meetings. He had been analysing the attendance at the meetings of the Association of Municipal Corporations. A typical instance was that out of an attendance of 120 there were 74 town clerics and only 46 aldermen and councillors. Such towns as Bath, Bradford, Chester, Harrogate, Hull, Norwich, Rochdale and Sunderland were represented only by a town clerk."
On the other side, amongst the bodies who are in favour of this Amendment are the Auctioneers Institute, the Surveyors Institute, and such a, representative body as the Standing Committee of Metropolitan Borough Councils, who are united in their condemnation of this clause. I hope very much that my noble friend
588
Lord Banbury will go to a Divisison on his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW, who had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out all words in the clause after "provisions" in subsection (1), except the last line, "contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act," said: As it has been suggested that we should take the discussion on the general question on the Amendment moved by my noble friend behind me, I will venture to put before your Lordships why I suggest that the Amendment which I have on the Paper should be accepted. I agree very largely, if not entirely, with what has fallen from my noble friend behind me, but I prefer the Amendment which I have ventured to put down. I do not offer any apology for raising the question again, although I did refer to it at considerable length when I addressed your Lordships on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill, because, although I put a great number of questions to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, the hour was very late and there was not time for him to address your Lordships again before the adjournment. Perhaps, therefore, he will be so kind as to give me any information in his power in reply to those questions this afternoon.
One of the questions I ventured to ask was why it should be thought necessary to have two separate methods of compensation—one for property in clearance areas and the other for property not in clearance areas. It seems to me that it would be very much fairer and more just to pay compensation for any property of the same class on the same basis. Nobody, of course, would want to pay compensation for buildings which were injurious to health and not fit for human habitation, but I do not see why when perfectly good property is situated in a clearance area the owner of it should not be treated with justice. I have another point—an entirely new point—to raise. It was not raised when this Bill was going through another place, and I propose to raise it this afternoon and to ask the noble and learned Lord specifically if he can tell me why it is thought necessary to treat similar property in Scotland in a manner quite different from the manner in which this property is to be treated in England.
Your Lordships will have before you to-morrow for Second Reading the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and Clause 12 of that Bill deals with the assessment of compensation. The matter is so important that I will venture to read to your Lordships a portion at any rate of Clause 12 of the Scottish Bill. The clause reads as follows:—
"(1) Where land or buildings are purchased compulsorily by a local authority under this Part of this Act, the compensation payable in respect thereof shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section."
Then comes a subsection (2) Which says:—
"The compensation to be paid for land, including dwelling-houses or other premises thereon which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as unfit for human habitation or injurious or dangerous to health shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section thirty-seven of the principal Act subject, as regards the first mentioned of those subsections, to the modifications contained in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act:"
I would draw attention to the fact that the dwelling-houses or other premises have to be specified in Scotland as injurious or dangerous to health.
Then comes this proviso:—
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of dwelling-houses or other premises erected after the passing of this Act which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets."
Again the premises have to be specified. Then subsection (3) says:—
"In the case of any other land included in a compulsory purchase order, the compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act."
That is the corresponding Schedule in the Scottish Bill to the one in this Bill. There are other differences but I only read these particular subsections in order to be as brief as possible.
The chief differences between the two Bills—they are very important differences indeed—are, in the first place that, to reduce compensation to the bare site value of the premises, houses must be specified as unfit for human habitation or dangerous to health. In the second place, the reduction factor is to be applied only to premises so specified. The third point is that, in the English and Scottish Acts of 1925, the reduction
590
factors are two: (1), the use of land for the rehousing of the working classes; and (2), the use of land as open spaces. In the English Bills these two remain, but in the new Scottish Bill it is proposed to amend the law and the use of land as open spaces will no longer be subject to the reduction factor.
All these are very important matters. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has had time to consider the differences between the English and Scottish Bills. I would not press him this afternoon, but I should like to ask him if he can tell me the reason for this very grave difference, and to suggest, though I do not consider the terms of the Scottish Bill entirely satisfactory, that something analogous to the Scottish provisions should be introduced here in order to make the compensation paid, both in England and Scotland, at any rate fair. I do not say that we accept the Scottish proposals, but they are better than the English ones. I should like some explanation why this differentiation should have been put forward.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not accept this Amendment. I would ask your Lordships to reject it on these grounds. I understand that, if this Amendment is carried, it will raise very serious difficulties in the way of speedy slum clearance. There are many who feel that, if this Amendment is carried, it will stand in the way of what may he done by local authorities under this Bill. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind certain facts. The present compensation clauses have been in operation since 1919. If those clauses really inflicted hardship on a large scale, surely the last Government, with its Minister of Health who has such unrivalled knowledge of housing, would have taken steps, with a great majority behind it, to bring to an end clauses which were causing real hardship.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: We had no time to bring in a Slum Clearance Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: But some Bill might have been brought in to deal with this matter without going into the whole question of slums, if it was indeed a matter of urgent, difficult and grievous injustice.

591
I would ask the House to remember another point. Those who have to administer Slum Clearance Acts are against the proposed change. The noble Viscount who spoke a few minutes ago was evidently afraid that something might be quoted from the Association of Municipal Corporations on housing, and he therefore repeated a criticism that had been made of this particular Association. I think the main criticism was that it consisted very largely of town clerks.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Who are interested parties.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I should rely on the judgment of town clerks in this matter more than on that of anyone else. They are not directly or personally interested in any kind of way, and they have an unrivalled knowledge of the methods of dealing with this kind of problem in their own localities. The Association must also be a body of considerable importance, for at the conference at which they passed the resolution from which I am going to quote the then Minister of Health, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, took the chair. It is only fair to add that I imagine, from what he has said elsewhere, that Mr. Chamberlain would not agree with this resolution. I am not quoting the fact that he took the chair as evidence that he is in favour of the compensation clauses as they stand, but only to show that this conference was one of considerable importance.
The resolution that was passed was as follows:—
"We have considered the question "— that is, the question of compensation—
"further, particularly in the light of the criticism that the section works harshly towards the owners of the property concerned. On this point we cannot hut recall that the property has been condemned because the conditions existing in the area, and being due to the state of the property itself, are injurious to health. It must also be noted that since the present terms of compensation were embodied in the Statute the reduced value thereby placed on insanitary areas has become well-known, and transfers of property have taken place on that basis of value. To alter that basis now would add a very large sum—a gift from the public—to the now recognised value of slum property. We think it not unimportant to add that we know of no modification that can be devised in the terms of Section 46 in
592
favour of the property owner that would not add a considerable and unfair burden upon the community."
If you altered the teems of compensation as suggested, it would follow that the value of slum property would instantly be increased.
I would ask noble Lords to remember how it is, very often, that this slum property comes into the possession of those who now own it. It is possible to buy this property at a low price because it is slum property. The men who purchase this property know that they are buying risky property. I have known case after case in slums where property has been bought simply as a speculation. It is slum property and the purchasers know that there is a risk that sooner or later a scheme may be brought forward. Nevertheless, the property has been bought. The country is going to make a present to those who have bought this property, if we go back to these old compensation clauses, and I venture to think that this would be a very serious matter indeed. It will make it extremely hard to carry out the clauses of this Bill and, instead of being a Bill for clearing slum areas, it will in effect become a Bill for compensating slum owners.
I quite recognise that there are hard cases. I should not be frank with your Lordships if I pretended that there are no hard cases, but surely those hard cases may be met in a less drastic manner than is suggested by this Amendment. Surely they can be met by extending the powers that will be entrusted to local authorities under this Bill and by giving them even wider discretion in dealing with individual cases which are proved to be hard cases. We are told that occasionally a slum clearance has not proceeded quickly because the local authorities are afraid of committing injustices. If that be the case, if you give a certain amount of discretion to local authorities they will be able to deal with any specially hard cases. I doubt very much if there are many such cases, and I am afraid that, if you pass the Amendment in this form, it will very seriously hinder the work of clearing the slums.
LORD JESSEL: I cannot agree with the arguments that have just fallen from the right rev. Prelate. I should like to refer to his remarks regarding Mr. Neville Chamberlain's opinion on this

593
very thorny subject. It is perfectly true that the late Government did not remedy what we think is an injustice as regards the compensation given to owners, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said just now, they had no time. I believe it is common knowledge that, if they had still been in power, they would have brought in an amending clause. We all know that it was the intention of the then Government to introduce a Bill dealing with slum clearance. The right rev. Prelate referred to Mr. Chamberlain, when Minister of Health, presiding at a meeting of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Because he was in the chair it by no means follows, I think, that he was in agreement with the resolution that was passed at that meeting. I am glad to think that the right rev. Prelate agrees with my contention.
Let us see what the late Minister of Health said in Committee in another place when dealing with a similar Amendment. These are rather weighty words, I submit to your Lordships, coming from a man who perhaps knows better than anybody else the condition of housing in this country. He said, speaking of this very Bill:—
"I say that the present system of compensation under the Act of 1919, which is continued by the Bill, is unjust and inequitable and stands in urgent need of amendment. It is unfair to owners as a whole because of the reduction factor; it is unfair to individual owners because no distinction is made between the degrees of badness in different properties; and I say, finally, it is unfair to shopkeepers who are given no statutory right to compensation for disturbance."
I think that is a very emphatic opinion.
I will deal now with another body, the Standing Joint Committee of the Boroughs of London, who, in their "observations and recommendations" with regard to this particular Bill, say:—
"We regret that the Bill proposes to continue the existing provisions relating to the compensation payable to the Owners and lessees of property in an insanitary area which have been found in practice to cause grave hardship by reason of (i) an owner of good property in an insanitary area merely receiving site value for his property; (ii) an owner or lessee of property in an insanitary area being entitled to no compensation for good will or disturbance … and (iii) an owner receiving less than site valise for his land when it is to be used for rehousing or as an open space. We consider
594
that the Committee should draw the attention of the Minister of Health to these matters."
It is common knowledge that a great many local authorities, because they are unable to give fair compensation, are deterred from carrying out the provisions as regards slum areas.
I do not know whether it is possible for the Government, if they do not care for the Amendment which has been moved by Lord Banbury, to adopt the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate. It is undoubtedly a hardship, and it does not make for a good state of things, nor does it induce the local authorities, who have some sense of justice in this matter, to carry out these schemes, if they are compelled to treat owners in this most unsatisfactory manner. Therefore, as nobody is more keen than I am that the Bill should go through and that slums, which are a disgrace to our civilisation, should be cleared, I hope that for the sake of easing the position and snaking it less difficult for local authorities His Majesty's Government will make some concession in this, matter. It is really a matter of great importance. It is no argument to say that the principle is a right and just one merely because it has been in existence since 1919, because in the last. Parliament a remedy was promised over and over again, but unfortunately the Government did not have he time. I hope, therefore, that if Lord Banbury's Amendment cannot be accepted the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the matter.
LORD MONK BRETTON: I do not know why the noble Lord said I was on the same side as him, but I do know that the local authorities are anxious about the effect of this possibly diminished compensation for slum clearance. As the right rev. Prelate suggested the effect may possibly be to slow down the work. The Association of Municipal Corporations are anxious about it, and although Lord Bertie of Thame says that they are an association of town clerks, yet some distinguished members of this House, and I might even hope the Leader of the Opposition, are connected with it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I did not say it was an association of town clerks, but I said that the majority attending the meetings were town clerks.
LORD MONK BRETTON: The Association of Municipal Corporations represent and stand for something, and they are anxious about the question. So also are the London County Council. We are very anxious as to what would be the effect of mixing up what Lord Bettie of Thame called the red and blue areas for the purpose of compensation. Lord Onslow, in his speech on the Second Reading, quoted a very hard case in regard to compensation in the City of Hull in support of his argument, but be also said that hard cases made bad law, and I am rather anxious lest—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: What I said was that I knew I should be told that hard cases made bad law.
LORD MONK BRETTON: Well, I am fulfilling what the noble Earl anticipated, and I am anxious lest we should have bad law as the effect of it. I cannot but feel that we should have a little more time to consider the excellent suggestion which he adumbrated, because his Amendment, which I prefer to Lord Banbury's, has been on the Paper only a short time. It is a matter of great importance. The London County Council and the municipal corporations are very anxious about it, and therefore I hope the question may be decided at a later stage on Lord Onslow's Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There are two evils which the Bill has got to face. The first is the evil to which the right rev. Prelate referred, which is the more grave evil, and which, I think, you would feel is the more reprehensible. It the evil of compensating a man who has deliberately speculated in rank property with the object of selling it at a profit. I cannot believe that even the most conservative supporter of the rights of property would desire to help that man, and if he did I am equally certain that if he would spend a little time going to see the places out of which that man hopes to extract a profit, he would change his mind. That being so I believe, and earnestly hope, that the whole of your Lordships' opinion is behind the right rev. Prelate, when he said that to accept this Amendment as it stands would he to encourage and reward people who, if they had their deserts, would be punished and not rewarded.
596
That is the first evil and it is the graver evil, but the other is an evil to my mind too, and it is that if your Act is too comprehensively drawn, without regard to individual instances, you may here and there do wrong to honest men. That evil is to my mind a grave one, and should be avoided if possible. As between those two facts is it not possible that we may attain something which will enable the county councils, in definite, individual, proved cases, to avoid including in the general words which this section incorporates such provision as would compel them to do what they do not think fair? If that were possible I would gladly support it. If it were not, I do not think anything would ever persuade me to assist people who have trafficked and traded in the misery of their fellow creatures, in the hope that when a slum is cleared they may derive a profit.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it would be convenient if I stated at this time what is the opinion of the Government. Of course I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has laid down as the general principle in compensation cases, the principle of what he called due and fair compensation. But the question here is not on wide lines of that kind. The question here is whether, under the conditions, the Bill does give due arid fair compensation. Your Lordships have more than once been told that the provisions in the Bill are merely a repetition of those in the 1919 Act. The two things which the 1919 Act produced were what was called the cleared site value and the reduction factor. I will deal with the reduction factor separately, because the importance of it is clearly recognised in the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
Let us come to the first point. We are dealing with a clearance area. In one case you may order the houses to be demolished. That clearly leaves the owner only with the site value. He has to remove the houses at his own expense and he is left with the site value, and that, I think, is why, quite properly, site value is the first consideration in cases of this kind. I take what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has said: you do not want to compensate men at the expense of the community for what is in itself an evil

597
thing. Not only so, but in a considerable number of these cases these properties may have changed hands since 1919: therefore properties with the 1919 conditions attached to them would now be more valuable because they would have a higher rate of compensation than they would be allowed under the 1919 Act. Does the noble Lord think that under those conditions people ought to make a profit? Surely site value should be the basis. It has been the accepted principle ever since 1919, and it has worked fairly in compensation cases, subject to one or two exceptions. I have looked into these cases, and I could only lied two—one in Hull and one referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame. The amount of injustice is extremely slight. In the Hull case it merely depended on the portion of the clearance area which you replaced in the first instance; in the other case I have not been able to ascertain the exact facts. Why should you in these circumstances place what the right rev. Prelate has very rightly told us is an extremely heavy burden on the local authority in pressing forward with a reform that is desired universally in this House, and, I think, by all persons in the country—the clearance of these slum areas?
I do not think that Lord Banbury quite appreciates how this is done. The clearance area is intended to include a site which is all but cleared and on which all the particular houses are demolished. That proposition goes to be reconsidered by the Minister of the appropriate Department, and the complaint of local authorities has rather been that he has gone too far in cutting out particular properties on the ground that they ought not to have been included. The noble Earl opposite knows quite well what are known as island areas. The local authority suggests that the houses on a whole area should be demolished, or, if they like, that the area should be cleared on the compensation terms. The Minister considers whether any particular property is in good repair, or properly situated, or, at any rate, not subject to the objection which belongs to the other houses in the clearance area, and he cuts it out. That is sometimes called the island system. I do not believe that, after hunting up and down the country, as I know has been done, mote than one or two isolated cases have been found
598
where you can possibly suggest an injustice. Every possible protection is given, and rightly given.
I am bound to say quite clearly that the Government in this great question of the progressive health of our towns and other districts cannot consider any alteration which would make the carrying out of these projects more costly to the local authorities. That is quite impossible. We are governed in that by what was said at a conference held by the Association of Municipal Corporations:—
"We think it not unimportant to add that we know of no modification that can be devised in the terms of Section 46 in favour of the property owner that would not add a considerable and unfair burden upon the community."
I am sure there is no one here who desires that. I think the conditions entirely fulfil what was desired by Lord Banbury, that there should be due and fair compensation. There is no system of compensation which may not produce some hardship. Of all cases, perhaps the hardest were cases against which Lord Cairns and Lord Shelburne both protested years ago, where railway companies almost destroyed the value of certain residential properties, but no compensation was given because no land was taken. I do not care whether you look into the Public Health Acts, the Lighting Acts or any Acts, you cannot fail to find what are regarded as individual hardships.
May I, in conclusion, refer to the noble Earl's suggestion? I have not all the conditions of the Scottish case before me. I do not know whether the Bill has been read a second time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It has been read a first time in your Lordships' House.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged. I am told that the basis of compensation is in this respect the same in Scotland as in England, that is, they are carrying out the existing system, and they are not seeking to alter the system which on the whole has operated well under proper conditions.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They are altering the system.
LORD PARMOOR: I am told that under the Scottish Bill they are carrying out

599
present arrangements in Scotland for compensation under these conditions, just as our Bill is carrying out the present conditions of compensation under the 1919 Act. The noble Earl referred to what he called the question of reductions, but in his Amendment he sanctions the question of reductions. I think it is quite right that he should. The principle is that the compensation arrived at shall be reduced by such percentage, not being less than 10 per cent. where such density exceeds 40 per acre, nor more than 50 per cent. in any case, as may seem to the arbitrator to be proper. Therefore, in his own Amendment he includes what is called the reduction factor. I think that is perfectly right. In all compensation cases you cannot put out of sight the uses to which the particular person compensated might apply the property. You have it in the other case under what is called the doctrine of special adaptability enhancing the value of property. If you were to exclude this factor altogether, you would have an outcry from everyone who has been engaged in compensation cases and knows how the factors operate in particular instances.
On the whole it is extraordinarily favourable very often to the owner, but in this case and as regards this class of property no doubt it tells the other way, and rightly tells the other way. I thought we agreed on the Second Reading that no one was entitled to a larger share of compensation for this class of property than fairly met the case, and was not entitled to put forward a claim which would give him enhanced benefits as the owner of slum property. I urge your Lordships, after the very full discussion which this question undoubtedly had in another place, that it would be wise—I say nothing more because you have power to do as you like—in a case of this kind and having regard to the history of compensation of this character, not to insist on an Amendment which would, undoubtedly, put a higher charge on the community and the local authority, and to that extent must necessarily interfere with the pushing forward of the clearance area schemes. Therefore, I am bound to oppose the Amendment if it is taken to a Division. We cannot assent to it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I must say one word in correction of what fell from the
600
noble and learned Lord. In the first place, he said that the Scottish Bill did not alter the principle. But I would like to call attention to the fact that the Scottish Bill repeals the words "or the laying out of open spaces." The open space is taken out of the Scottish Bill. Again, I draw your Lordships' attention to the question of the houses to be compensated being specified and the reduction factor. The reduction factor is in the Third Schedule. I do not suggest that it should be altogether eliminated but the reduction factor in Scotland is only to be applied to premises specified.
LORD PARMOOR: The same as here.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The reduction factors in both the Consolidation Acts of 1925 are these—the use of land for the housing of the working classes and the use of land for open spaces. The use of land for open spaces in Scotland will no longer be a reduction factor. That is the repeal of a very important provision of the original Act. What I suggest is that the noble and learned Lord might leave this over for consideration until we have discussed the Scottish Bill so that we may, at any rate, have the same terms for England as for Scotland. Clearly, the noble and learned Lord does not know very much about the Scottish Bill. He did not know that it had been brought from another place and was before your Lordships' House, and that we shall discuss the Second Reading tomorrow. I think we ought to leave this decision until, at any rate, we have an opportunity of studying the Bill for Scotland.
LORD PARMOOR: I should be sorry to get into any question of difference. I do not want to get off the main point. The main point here is that since 1919 we have had this system.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Why do you repeal it in Scotland?
LORD PARMOOR: I may have made a mistake about Scotland, though I was instructed in regard to it; but I want to keep to England because I think the English case is complete in itself.
LORD DYNEVOR: I think the noble and learned Lord has overlooked the fact that property may be valued at one moment for the purpose of Death Duties at its full market value and may

601
shortly afterwards be acquired by the local authority under this Bill and very little compensation paid for it. It hardly seems to be right or fair that there should be two valuations of the same property on two different occasions. As I read this Amendment, it seems to me that it will give fair compensation for the property. I am not in the least concerned for bad property or property unfit for habitation. In the area I have hi mind it is good property that is concerned and is so very hardly treated under the Bill. I shall certainly support my noble friend's amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: As I understand the Amendment, the effect will be as my noble friend has just said —that where a man has good property he will receive proper compensation. If this Amendment is not carried a person with good property may have it taken away from him and receive only very inadequate compensation.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think so.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble and learned Lord, who, I am sorry to say, has gone back from the good position he took up about half an hour ago, gives as a reason for not accepting this Amendment that it may cost the local authority and the community more. That is a most extraordinary reason. I am not at all sure that the right rev. Prelate did not say something of the same sort, and surely, that is a still more extraordinary reason from the Church. What ought we to do? We ought to do the just thing and not bother about what the cost is. A thing that is unjust cannot be made just merely because it saves somebody a little money; and that seems to me to be the argument nut forward by the noble and learned Loral opposite. I am also sorry that it has been put forward by the Church—the last people that I should have thought would have put forward such an argument—though I hope I am wrong. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Salisbury thinks, but I should be inclined to go to a Division. At any rate, we ought not to be worse off than Scotland. We are not as clever as the Scottish people and we do not look after our interests as they do; but having ascertained that Scotland is in a better position, we ought to be put in the same position.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not agree with my noble friend that we are not as clever as the Scottish people. I differ from him there. But upon the broad contention that this House ought not to do injustice in order to save money I should have thought that almost every honest man—and every one of your Lordships is an honest man—would agree with my noble friend. Upon that issue, of course, there cannot be a doubt. If justice demands it we must not shrink, though it may cost a local authority a little more money. I do not imagine that the right rev. Prelate wished for a moment to commit himself to any other doctrine than that.
I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been present at the commencement of the debate, but I was unavoidably detained. As I understand, there is general agreement upon the main principle that you ought not to compensate a man for buying bad property in order to qualify for compensation, but that you ought to compensate a man if he loses good property in order to make a public improvement. Upon those broad questions there is no difference of opinion in any part of the (louse. But it is said, with what justice I would not like to say, that if my noble friend's Amendment is carried it may have the effect of helping a rascal who speculates in bad property. I do not know whether he admits that at all.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should not have thought that was so, though I would not like to say for certain. I have no acquaintance with rascals who speculate in bad property.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said that every man in your Lordships' House was an honest man! My noble friend says that he is not sure whether it would or would not, and other great authorities seem to be also in doubt. The right rev. Prelate, who is a great authority on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, who is a great authority because he is a past Chairman of the London County Council—all these eminent authorities see great difficulty, and I should have thought it was evident that we ought to have a little more time to think this point over before we come to a decision. We are really all agreed upon

603
all sides of the House as to the objects we have in view, and it would be a pity to rush to a decision without a little time. I do not like to say much more, because of the disability under which I stand, owing to not having heard the whole of the debate. I should be sorry to have, to record a vote in the dark. I imagine, until we have had a little more time to consider it, we can hardly arrive at a safe conclusion, but of one thing I am quite certain, and that is, we are not going to be treated worse than Scotland.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask the noble and learned Lord when he proposes to take the Report stage? If we do not have much time it will be difficult to frame a suitable Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I cannot answer that at the moment. As the noble Viscount knows, we are very near the end of the Session. I will give as much time as possible. In consultation with the noble Marquess I hope we always try, within the limits of the possible, to give ample time, and to consult the convenience of the House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understand that my noble friend who leads the Opposition is not averse from the principle which I have stated, that people should be justly compensated if their property is taken away from them for the benefit of other people. I understand he would like to have a little more time to consider all the details, and in those circumstances I will not press the Amendment, it being understood that I reserve the right, on a later sage, to bring up the Amendment again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Under the same conditions as my noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam) I do not move my Amendent.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Application to London.
16.—(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply to the County of London subject to the modifications contained in this section.
(3) The London County Council shall, outside the City of London be the authority to declare any area to be an improvement
604
area, to determine what steps shall be taken for the improvement of that area, to purchase any land which they deem it expedient to acquire for opening out the area, to carry out such demolition of buildings and such street works on that land as they deem necessary, to make any by-laws with respect to the area, and to enforce such of those by-laws as are by-laws for securing the stability of buildings or the prevention of or safety from fire, but the council of the metropolitan borough in which the area is situate, on being informed by the county council as to the steps which the county council have determined to he necessary for the improvement of the area, shall, subject as aforesaid, take those steps and shall thereafter serve and enforce any necessary notices requiring the execution of works on dwelling-houses in the area or the demolition of dwelling-houses or the closing of parts of buildings therein, and observe and enforce compliance with any by-laws made by the county council with respect to the area, not being by-laws for securing the stability of buildings or the prevention of or safety from fire:
Provided that, if it is represented to the Minister by the county council that a borough council have made default in exercising or performing any powers or duties under this subsection, the Minister may by order transfer those powers and duties to the county council, and any expenses incurred by the county council in exercising or performing any powers or duties so transferred shall be a debt due from the borough council to the county council.
(4) It shall be the duty of the council of every metropolitan borough to furnish any information in their power which may reasonably he required by the London County Council for the purpose of enabling them to carry out their duties under this Part of this Act.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1), before "County of London," to insert "administrative." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 2, after the first ("the") insert ("administrative").—(Lord Par-moor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (3), immediately before the proviso, to insert:—
"Provided that in the case of an area containing ten or less than ten houses a Metropolitan Borough Council may declare that area to be an improvement area and shall be empowered to determine what steps shall be taken for the improvement of that area, to purchase any land which they deem it expedient to acquire for opening out the area, to carry out such demolition of buildings and such street works on that land as

605
they deem necessary, and to enforce any by-laws made by the London County Council with respect to that area, except those bylaws for securing stability of buildings or the prevention of or safety from fire which shall lie enforced by the London County Council."
The noble Lord said: This is analogous to the question which we have already debated, and I do not want unnecessarily to take up your Lordships' time, but, if the noble and learned Lord will say whether he is prepared to accept this it might save the time of the Committee. It is to allow Metropolitan Borough Councils to declare an improvement area for ten houses or less.
LORD PARMOOR: I am unable to accept it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I say a word? It is possible that the Amendment may not be framed in the proper way, and it may involve consequential Amendments. All I want to say is that the Metropolitan Borough Councils do not want to impinge upon the duties or powers of the London County Council. If the representatives of the London County Council want any safeguards to the effect that it was necessary to give warning in advance to them that a Metropolitan Borough Council was to declare such an area an improvement area, I would he happy to accept a suggestion of that kind. I do not want to bother your Lordships again about improvement areas. I can only say that unless we get this, or something under the first Amendment that I withdrew, then this Bill will really be almost useless in the areas where it is very urgently needed.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PARMOOR: I have indicated that we could not supersede the London County Council by the Borough Councils; therefore we could not accept, this Amendment. It is opposed to the principles of local administration.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I cannot possibly accept that. There is no question of asking your Lordships to supersede the London County Council by Borough Councils. A Metropolitan Borough Council is the authority for ten houses or less, and I am asking for the same thing in an improvement area. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment
606
if the noble and learned Lord will give me more hope, that he will attempt to meet me, and put it down at another stage.
LORD PARMOOR: I think I should be wrong if I held out any promise that this Amendment is likely to be favourably considered, and I should not like to hold out a promise if I thought it was not a substantial promise, for reconsideration of the matter. I must leave it at that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In that case I must ask your Lordships' indulgence to look at the clearance area clause, which does permit both a Metropolitan Borough Council and the London County Council to be the authority, but for this improvement area clause it is merely the London County Council. There is really no reason whatever why a suitable clause should not be drafted to make a Metropolitan Borough Council the authority for these small improvement areas of ten houses or less. It is the fact that unless we get the power to declare an improvement area we shall not get on in our efforts to reduce overcrowding. We can only cope with the overcrowding by rehousing people with this new Greenwood subsidy. Unless we get the Greenwood subsidy we cannot do it in these areas where site value is so high. Therefore a Borough like Kensington will really not benefit at all from this Bill, although there is terrible overcrowding there, unless we get this or some concession of the kind. In view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill is not prepared to give me an undertaking, I feel inclined to press the Amendment to a Division.
LORD JESSEL: I should like to support my noble friend in his appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. This question, as I understand it, has not been brought before the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. It is a new point that the noble Lord has raised. I do not know whether the Leader of the House has the views of the London County Council upon the matter, but I doubt if they would be averse from the Amendment. I think if it could be reconsidered on Report it would meet the circumstances of the case.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Lord opposite may be under a misappre-

607
hension. We are dealing here with the improvement area, and it is clear that the improvement area may be dealt with outside the borough. In a particular borough you may not find any place for re-erecting the houses in connection with the improvement area. Of course we will look into it, because we have great regard to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but I am only honest in saying that I do not think it is likely that we shall accept an alteration. I hope he will not consider it necessary to divide upon it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Your Lordships have heard the Loble Lord, Lord Jessel, who speaks with great authority on behalf of the London County Council, say that there would be no objection, and it does seem to me to be unaccommodating, if I may use the expression without any disrespect, not to promise to reconsider the matter. Does the noble and learned Lord absolutely rule out any possibility of accommodation? If he gave me the faintest hope that he would look into it in conjunction with the representatives of the London County Council I would withdraw the Amendment, but he does not hold out any hope whatever.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot see why this is refused. What is the reason Why cannot it be done? It seems a perfectly simple thing. It is going to assist the boroughs, and everybody interested in housing must be anxious to improve their areas.
LORD PARMOOR: It is an administrative point. When you are dealing with an improvement area you have to deal with a larger area than a borough area. You are bound to do it if you want to carry out an improvement. Therefore, you put the powers in the hands of the authority which has the larger area under its jurisdiction or authority. I do not think there is any frictional trouble about it in that sense. It simply is a matter of administrative procedure. After full consideration this is regarded as the best method of procedure. I cannot say more than that 1 am extremely anxious a Bill of this kind should be kept accurate on a question of administrative procedure.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Why cannot it be done? What is there about the im-
608
provement area that makes it impossible that the Borough Councils should do it? The noble and learned Lord says there are larger areas. Of course there may be. Everyone knows how boroughs enlarge. I simply fail to understand why the Borough of Kensington in which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour (and I may add myself), feels special interest should not be able to do this work and why it must be done through the County Council. The noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying he has not given the faintest reply.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: All we ask for is ten houses or less. We know the London County Council is the authority for improvement areas, but I want an arrangement with the London County Council for Metropolitan Borough Councils to be responsible for small areas of ten houses or less. There is no reason why they should not.
LORD JESSEL: Might I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he might put off the Amendment to a later stage and take an opportunity of further consideration, because we have not heard at all whether the London County Council object to the proposal or not? If they are agreeable it must be to the benefit of London as a whole that there should be combination in small schemes. I have yet to learn whether the London County Council object. If they do, that is another question, but I do not know that they do. All I ask is that the matter should be considered before Report stage.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I add my appeal to the noble and learned Lord? This is a very important Bill, which in a large degree is non-controversial because it is one which every member of your Lordships' House would wish to see carried through, and carried through as quickly as possible, but we have not had much time to consider it. The Committee stage is being taken very soon after the Second Reading—I do not think that could be helped—and this particular Amendment was only in our hands this morning. We have not had much time to consider it, and I think it would be a desirable thing to postpone it until the Report stage. I hope the noble and learned Lord, who, of course, has not had

609
more time than any one else to consider the matter, will take more time and give us a considered reply.
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I have not explained the position very clearly, but I am not at all adverse to letting the matter stand over to a future occasion. The position is that in these improvement areas there are no sites where you can have replacement and therefore you must have a power of replacement over a larger area than the borough area. It is not like a clearance case. I do not know the exact views of the London County Council on this matter, but all these local authorities have been most carefully consulted and this Bill to a very large extent is the result of agreement between the Departments concerned and the various local authorities. If the noble Lord wishes to bring the matter up again on Report stage, of course we will further consider it, but I do not think it would be right of me with the information I have to hold out hope that it is likely to be accepted.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I cannot help feeling, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive my saying so, that really he let the cat out and explained the position in his last words. He said that this Bill was the result of agreements come to between the Departments concerned and the local authorities. We are not bound by any agreement come to in that way. When the noble and learned Lord insists upon the necessity for a larger area, may I ask why it is necessary to have a larger area when you are only dealing with ten or fewer than ten houses? I should have thought that for a small area a Metro-
politan borough was quite large enough to deal with a scheme such as that suggested by the noble Lord below the gangway.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble and learned Lord said an improvement area was going to be bigger than a Metropolitan borough but in another place the Minister, speaking on another Amendment, said it, was to ensure that local authorities should keep an improvement area to a manageable size, and that in fact what would be done in a town of any size was that there would be a series of improvement areas. The local authority would take one piece at a time, clear it up and then take another. In face of that, the noble and learned Lord sage the improvement is going to he bigger than a whole borough. What I want to do is to take small areas and clear them up in the way the Minister suggested in another place.
LORD PARMOOR: As a number of your Lordships think that the matter ought to be further considered, we will certainly consider it further and see whether anything can be done. At the present time I have indicated my opinion, but if it left over—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In view of the opinions expressed on his side of the House, I should like to put the proviso in now and see whether it can be amended at the next stage.
LORD PARMOOR: Then we must vote on it.
On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Linlithgow, M.

Westmeath, E.

Clinton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cushendun, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Danesfort, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Hailsham, V.

Darling, L.

Bradford, E.

Hood, V.

Ernle, L.

Effingham, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Grey, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Lauderdale, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Hayter, L.

Lucan, E.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Addington, L.

Lamington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Alvingham, L.

Phillimore, L.

Midleton, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Sempill, L.

Morton, E.

Strachie, L.

Onslow, E.

Biddulph, L.

Templemore, L.

Peel, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Marks, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Sanderson, L.

Ancaster, E.

Dickinson, L.

Thomson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR: My three remaining Amendments to this clause are consequential adjustments.
Amendments moved—
Page 13,line 43, leave out subsection (4).
Page 15, line 6, at end insert:
("(7) Both the London County Council and the council of a metropolitan borough shall within that borough be local authorities for the purposes of Section fifty-three of the principal Act.")
Page 15, line 25, at end insert:
("(9) It shall be the duty of the council of every metropolitan borough to furnish any information in their power which may reasonably be required by the London County Council for the purpose of enabling them to carry out their duties under this Part of this Act.")—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Power of local authority to require repair of insanitary house]:
LORD PARMOOR: I have two consequential Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("occupied or") and insert ("which is occupied or is of a type")
Page 15, line 35, after ("at") insert ("a").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Enforcement of notice requiring execution of repairs.
(2) Any expenses incurred by the local authority under this section, together with interest, at such rate as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury from time to time by order fix, from the date when a demand for the expenses is served until payment, may, subject as hereinafter provided, be recovered by them, by action or summarily as a civil debt, from the person having control of the dwelling-house or, if he receives the rent of the house as agent or trustee for some other person, then either from him or from that other person, or in part from him and as to the remainder from that other person:
Provided that if the person having control of the dwelling-house proves that he—

(i) is receiving the rent merely as agent or trustee for some other person; and

(ii) has not, and since the date of the service on him of the demand has not had, in his hands on behalf of that other person sufficient money to discharge the whole demand of the authority,

his liability shall be limited to the total amount of the money which he has, or has had, in his hands as aforesaid.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after the first "dwelling-house." The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment upon the Paper only to put myself in order in asking the noble and learned Lord to give us a definite statement on a point which arises out of the new proviso. I refer to the proviso that the agent can be proceeded against only for the amount of money in his hands. This is a change, as the noble and learned Lord knows. Ever since the Public Health Act, 1875, the local authority has been able to proceed against the owner, who was defined as the agent who collected the rents. This new provision, by allowing proceedings against two persons, is on the face of it a great deal more difficult, but there is a provision later, in subsection (5), to the effect that—
"The amount of any expenses and interest thereon clue to a local authority under this section shall be a charge on the premises"—and this can easily be enforced.
I want to know if the new proviso enforcing the procedure against two persons to recover the money impinges in any way upon that charge. If a local authority will get its charge on the property without having to proceed against two people, the agent and the owner, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but the noble and learned Lord will understand that, if the local authority has to proceed not only against the agent, whom they can get hold of, who collects the rents and is known, but also against the owner, who may be in India or elsewhere, this will

613
put enormous difficulty in the way of the local authority. I think it is clear that subsection (5) gives the local authority the charge without having to proceed against both people. If the noble and learned Lord will say that this is the case, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, leave out from ("dwelling-house") to the end of line 13 on page 17.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PARMOOR: I believe that is the intention, and I think the clause carries it out.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If the noble and learned Lord will be so good as to look into the matter between now and a later stage, and provided that the intention is carried out and no change is required, I am satisfied. If the noble and learned Lord finds that a change is required, no doubt he will make it.
LORD PARMOOR: We will look into it from that point of view.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am very much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert the following new subsection—
"(7) If any person on whom a notice has been served under Clause 17 (1) fails to execute the works specified in that notice within the time specified therein and the local authority after the expiry of such specified time have informed such person that they intend to execute the works, it shall constitute an obstruction under Section 123 of the principal Act if such person subsequently carries nut the works required by the notice without the permission of the local authority, and a court of summary jurisdiction on proof of the facts may make an order requiring the person to discontinue the carrying out of the works specified in the notice, and to permit to be done on the premises by or on behalf of the local authority all things required for the purpose of executing the repairs specified in the notice served under Section 17 (1) which have not been satisfactorily completed at the date of the order of the court of summary jurisdiction.
If any such person fails to comply with any such order of a court of summary jurisdiction, he shall for each day during which the failure continues be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to meet a difficulty that has arisen in proceedings with local authorities under Section 3 of the Act of 1925, which now becomes subsection (1) of Clause 17 in this Bill. It sometimes happens that a local authority, seeking to repair a house, serves notice on the owner under Section 3 of the Act of 1925. The owner pays no attention to the notice, and in due course the local authority invites tenders for the performance of the work. The contractor whose tender is accepted goes to the house to do the work. The mere arrival of the contractor on the premises is often sufficient to stimulate the owner to start the work, and great complications arise. It has happened in numerous cases within my knowledge that a kind of see-saw has taken place between the contractor working for the owner and the contractor working for the local authority, and this does not constitute an obstruction under the Act. The local authority is in a hopeless position. They go to all the trouble of obtaining tenders, the contractor put, in his tender and has it accepted, and the owner thereupon suddenly begins to do the work. I am referring only to owners who are not concerned to do their duty by their tenants. The effect of this Amendment would be to constitute that kind of behaviour an obstruction under Section 123 of the principal Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am told that the difficulty suggested is either not found or is exceedingly rare. I understand that the difficulty suggested is that, where the owner does not repair and the local authority goes in to repair, the latter find that the repair has already been begun under contract, or something of that kind. I am told that it is an exceedingly rare case, and we do not think that this provision is necessary, but here again, after what the noble Lord has said, we will consider the matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble and learned Lord said he has never heard of such cases. I can only say that we have recently brought at least three cases from the Borough of Kensington to the notice of the Minister,

615
and we have sent a deputation to the Minister on the subject and have been sympathetically received.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not mean to say that I had never heard of it. I said it was rare.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It may be rare, but it causes very great inconvenience to the local authority when it happens. I shall be quite prepared to accept an assurance from the noble Lord that he is willing to put something into the Bill to meet the point. In that case I should withdraw the Amendment, but I am quite convinced that an Amendment on these lines, or some method of meeting the difficulty, is necessary. If the noble and learned Lord says he will find a better way of doing it, I will withdraw my Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: We shall have to look into it. It must be looked into. I do not know if we can find a better way or not, but the matter will be fully considered.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In those circumstances, will the noble and learned Lord agree to put this subsection in and, if it does not meet the case, amend it later?
LORD PARMOOR: I could not do that. If the noble Lord wants the Bill to go through, and I am sure he does, I hope he will have some consideration. These matters have been very carefully considered, but they will be reconsidered in the light of what the noble Lord has said, and if the difficulties appear to be such as the noble Lord has suggested we will meet him.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord puts me in a position of considerable difficulty. He does not attempt to meet the point which I have made, but simply makes a kind of ad misericordiam appeal to me not to go to a Division. There is a difficulty here, although I admit it is not of the first importance, and I reserve my right to put the matter down on the Report stage, and I rely on the noble and learned Lord's courtesy to meet me in the interval.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power of local authority to order demolition of insanitary house]:
LORD PARMOOR: This is a consequential and drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 6, leave out ("occupied or") and insert ("which is occupied or is of a type").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord how, under Clause 19, subsection (2), it will be possible for the owner to get the tenant out. In my experience, which is not inconsiderable, of these housing difficulties, the main difficulty has always been to get the tenant out, and I can see no provision which will enable the owner, who in the case I am supposing is being sympathetically treated by the local authority, to get the unwilling tenant out of the house. Can the noble and learned Lord give us any information on this point?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): It is purely a question of alternative accommodation, and here we have an inducement to the local authority, by the increased grant which is payable under this Bill, to provide alternative accommodation, into which the tenant can be moved. The closing order can be issued as soon as there is alternative accommodation, and the tenant can then be forcibly ejected.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I point out that the noble Lord will also find a very potent instrument in Clause 39?
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Special conditions.
27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the special conditions for compliance with which a local authority are required by the last preceding section to give an undertaking are as follows:—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:—
"(f) that the management of the houses shall be carried on in accordance with rules from time to time approved by the Minister in regard to the selection of tenants, the

617
allotment of suitable accommodation, the settlement of rebates and the termination of tenancies."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one in explanation of which I am afraid I may have to occupy a few minutes. 'The real object of the Amendment is to get a standard of housing accommodation into the Bill. I believe it will serve a double object. It will serve the object of getting a suitable standard of accommodation, and also serve the object of avoiding abuses which have taken place under former Housing Acts. I think may say that under previous Housing Acts people have benefited by subsidies who really ought not to have had them. People comparatively well-to-do are occupying houses under the Addison and Wheatley Acts, to the exclusion of the poorer people for whom these houses were really intended, and for whose benefit the subsidies really ought to have been expended. An enormous amount of public money has been wasted on subsidies in that respect, and I believe that this Amendment or an Amendment on these lines will serve both those objects.
The Bill provides, in paragraph (iii) of subsection (1) of Clause 8, for by-laws which are to be made by the local authority, but those by-laws only refer to an improvement area, and unless some other provision is made there will undoubtedly be a temptation to the local authorities who are rehousing to permit lower standards—standards of excessive overcrowding. They might have two objects in doing so. In the first place their object might be to provide for the large families common in the slums, and, secondly, they might be tempted to lower the standard in order to get a higher subsidy, because the amount of the Greenwood subsidy is based on then umber of people accommodated. In order to meet that, at a very late stage in the House of Commons Clause 37 was put in. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for traversing so much ground affecting other clauses, but they all hang together.
Clause 37 was put in in order to provide a standard. Clause 37 says:—
"For the purposes of the provisions of this Act which relate to the obligations of a local authority with respect to re-housing, or which relate to Government contributions to the expenses of local authorities in providing accommodation available for displaced persons, the Minister shall, unless he is
618
satisfied that owing to special circumstances some other standard of accommodation should be adopted, treat a house containing two bedrooms as providing accommodation for four persons, a house containing three bedrooms as providing accommodation for five persons, and a house containing four bedrooms as providing accommodation for seven persons."
As that clause stands in the Bill there is no provision in regard to the size of the rooms, nor as to the age of the persons to be accommodated. Therefore it is an extraordinarily rigid standard, which could not, in fact, be complied with. There is no provision for a family of more than seven persons, and everybody knows that one of the greatest difficulties in remedying overcrowding is to provide for families of more than seven persons. Therefore you have no provision for families of more than seven, and you have a standard which could not be lived up to financially.
I am presuming a three-roomed house with two bedrooms to accommodate four persons, a four-roomed house with three bedrooms for five persons, and a five-roomed house with four bedrooms for seven persons. The whole crux of the problem in London is overcrowding, and, as your Lordships know, the problem which we have to deal with is families living in one-, two- and three-roomed tenements, occupied by six, seven, eight and more persons. If that standard in Clause 37 is adhered to it will stultify proceedings under this Bill. It is obvious that the London County Council by-laws set too low a standard, but what we want is to get something in between the two. The standard in the Bill under Clause 37 is far too high, and our existing standard of by-laws under the London County Council is much too low. There is, of course, another London County Council standard which has regard to cubic capacity—as does the existing one—in addition to superficial area; and there is a London County Council by-law on this subject, which is suspended until after the repeal of the Rent Restrictions Acts, which provides that there shall be 400 cubic feet for each person. The existing by-law under which we are working in London to-day provides 300 cubic feet for each adult for sleeping, and 150 cubic feet for each child, and 400 cubic feet for sleeping and living, and 200 for each

619
child. When the Rent Restrictions Acts are cancelled the standard will be 400 cubic feet for each person.
What we want to do is to get something in between the standard in the Bill and the existing standard, which can be managed under the London County Council by-laws if you put all the females in one room and the males in another. You can then squeeze in an extraordinarily high number of people. The important thing is to have regard to cubic capacity and also to have some kind of flexible arrangement, and to that extent I notice that the Government have evidently become aware that their Clause 37 does not fill the bill, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Par-moor, has put down an Amendment, but his Amendment is not really any use, because it deals with superficial area and not cubic capacity. It seems to me that what we have to do is to get some kind of flexible arangement, and, therefore, my Amendment provides that the management of the houses shall be carried on "in accordance with rules from time to time approved by the Minister" in regard to four things—the selection of tenants, the allotment of suitable accommodation, the settlement of rebates, and the termination of tenancies.
The selection of tenants will enable the local authority to reject the people who are too well off to justify getting a subsidy. You rule out the people who have abused the old Housing Act, and you get rid of them and limit this subsidy to the people who financially really do require it. Secondly, the allotment of suitable accommodation enables you to have regard to the size of the families and the sexes of the families in relation to the number of rooms you have to give them. Thirdly, there is the settlement of rebate. There is a provision in Clause 37 for certain rebates. These rebates would have to be varied. It is no use putting a family in on a certain rebate with children of eight, nine and ten, and then a. few years later, when these children are all earning, you want to get rid of that family. Therefore under the rules you should have some provision by which you can get rid of them. Under the provision for the termination of tenancies you would get rid of a family altogether once they no longer needed the whole subsidy. What one would hope to see would
620
be local authorities with houses under the Wheatley Act and houses under the Greenwood Act. Certain families would go first into a Greenwood Act house, and, as their circumstances improved, they would be moved into a Wheatley Act house, where they would pay a slightly higher rent.
The experience we have had in the work of the public utility societies has led my society to lay down certain rules which I think might be the sort of thing which would act as a model. The rules we go on are these. Each family has to have a living room not used as a bedroom. That agrees with Clause 37. We try not to have beds in the living room. Secondly, the parents have to have a bed to themselves, or, in exceptional cases, shared only by a child under eight, no other bedroom to be shared by persons of opposite sex over ten. Then we have also a rule about cubic capacity. It enables you to take the utmost advantage of every available cubic foot of space.
Just to show how inflexible and impossible is the standard under Clause 37, I have worked out the number of people we could put in one of our new blocks of flats. We have a block of flats called Crosfield House, Kensington, which consists of thirty-six flats. There are twenty-six flats of four rooms, that is, living room and three bedrooms, six flats of three rooms, living room and two bedrooms, and four flats of two rooms, living room and one bedroom. For purposes of comparison I leave out the two-room flats, because they are not mentioned in the clause. That gives me twenty-six flats of four rooms, and six of three rooms. The maximum number we can accommodate under our rules in these flats is 248 persons—ten families of nine each, four families of eight each and eighteen of seven each. That makes thirty-two families, consisting of 248 people. In order to allow for expansion, because all families tend to grow, we did in fact only put in thirty-two families, comprising 222 people. Were we working under the Greenwood Act we should only be able to have twenty-six families of five persons, making 130, and six families of four, making twenty-four; so that we should have rehoused only 154 people, instead of 248. And our standard of 248 is one which does provide for no beds in the

621
living room, and the other conditions which I have read out to your Lordships.
It really is important not to have an inflexible standard like that, because if you make it as high as that it simply means that nothing will be done under the Bill. It makes it impossible financially to carry the thing out. Another thing is that you want to avoid having one standard for an improvement area and another for an area outside, but all in the region of the same local authority. There is, I think, a case made out for some more flexible arrangement. Clause 37 was only put in as an afterthought right at the end of things in the other House, and I am convinced that the arrangement I suggest will be very much better for the two reasons I have given—that it will enable much more work to be done, and that it will really result in a very great economy of public money in connection with the work which is carried out.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 16, at end insert:
"((f) that the management of the houses shall be carried on in accordance with rules from time to time approved by the Minister in regard to the selection of tenants, the allotment of suitable accommodation, the settlement of rebates and the termination of tenancies.")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
LORD MARLEY: I am sure your Lordships will welcome the very interesting statistics which have been given by the noble Lord with regard to the work of the Kensington Housing Trust. Perhaps when he takes into account the whole of the pertinent points in this Bill he will agree with me that his Amendment is not necessary. In the first place, so far as the question of standard accommodation is concerned, the noble Lord did remind us that the Government are inserting an Amendment to Clause 37, which is designed to give a little greater flexibility. We are putting in this matter of the size of the rooms as one of the factors to be considered by the Minister. He is quite right that we have only put in the superficial area and that there is a good deal to be said for the cubic capacity instead. But the cubic capacity will come later when, I think, the Rent Restrictions Act is removed. In any case there is an additional factor of
622
safeguarding as regards flexibility. The Minister has an obligation which is qualified by the words—
"unless he is satisfied that owing to special circumstances some other standard of size or accommodation shall be adopted."
Of course there is not the slightest doubt that in the particular case to which the noble Lord referred some other standard will be adopted for his special case.
As to management, the noble Lord knows that the Government feel there is a great deal to be said for the management to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, referred. So much is that the case that we are leaving local authorities complete freedom to use such management if they so desire. In point of fact many important local authorities, including some of the large provincial towns, have actually appointed and are using women as house property managers.
LORD BALFOUR OF BUBLEIGH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I was not referring to women house property managers in the least.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord was referring, if I may say so, to the management of property, and I merely added the fact that some important municipal authorities who are engaged in that work are using women managers for the purpose. Many of them, I have no doubt, are using men managers. But one does not want to introduce the sex business here. As far as new houses provided under the Bill are concerned, the management will be in the hands of the local authority and they can use what system they like, or it will be in the hands of an approved society such as that for which the noble Lord speaks. There is no doubt that such management will be efficient and will be carried on in the best interests of the property and of the tenants. But as Parliament places the responsibility for the administration of these schemes on the local authorities, we feel that it is wrong to fetter them by laying down the conditions under which such management shall be carried on, because under the Amendment of the noble Lord it is laid down that the management of the houses shall be carried out in accordance with certain rules.
With regard to the question of rebates, the termination of tenancies and the

623
allotment of suitable accommodation, frankly, the Government feel that it is impossible in the case of slum clearance areas to select your tenants. You have to take the tenants that you are going to displace and you cannot guarantee that you are always going to displace perfect tenants. We are none of us perfect. We are a group of imperfect people, and you cannot be certain that in your slum areas all the tenants are perfect tenants. It is a fact that some families in slum areas who will be displaced are very well off and can well afford a much higher rent. Under the terms of the Bill the local authority will be enabled to charge a higher rent for some of its houses to suit those families, whereas, on the other side, to maintain the average, they will be able to charge a lower rent in respect of the poorer families. I think, therefore, that the Bill is sufficiently flexible, and I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment in the circumstances.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry but I am bound to say, with great respect to the noble Lord, that he has not met even one of my arguments. He talks about fettering the local authority. There is no question of fettering the local authority in my Amendment. The rules are left to be made; they are not laid down in the Bill. It is simply that rules are going to be made and that they can be made to suit different circumstances. The noble Lord says that in the case I quote there would, of course, be special circumstances. I assure the noble Lord that there are no special circumstances. They are the ordinary circumstances that we have to meet in dealing with overcrowded areas. I should not feel the smallest confidence in going to the Minister and saying that I wanted special rents for special circumstances. They are not special circumstances at all. They are the circumstances that exist all over the overcrowded residential areas of London.
The noble Lord dealt with the size of the room and said that the cubic capacity would come later when the Rent Restriction Act is removed. It will come later in London when the Rent Restriction Act is removed because the London County Council have passed bylaws. It will not come anywhere else
624
unless by-laws have been passed. Those by-laws have to be passed under Clause 8. I will not take up your Lordships' time further but, as I said before, the noble Lord has not answered one argument that I put forward.
LORD BUCKMASTER: As far as I can understand, the noble Lord who replied for the Government definitely rejected Clause 37 and it will have to go. He said that it was impossible that there should he fixed rules for dealing with these houses. Clause 37 lays them down as fixed as cast iron. The Amendment to be proposed modifies the rigidity of the clause but still leaves the clause there. It seems to me to be reasonably plain that if that clause stands you will never be able to provide for the housing of all the people who need accommodation when the slums are cleared. That is the essential part of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is a proposal that these rules shall be approved by the Minister. Now it seems that Clause 37 must go. There ought to be some equivalent provision, and this does not seem an unreasonable one to take its place. As far as I can understand from the noble Lord who spoke for the Government Clause 37 must go. The only question is what is to take its place.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Does the noble Lord who replied for the Government foreshadow the annulment of the Rent Restriction Act by his own Party?
LORD MARLEY: May I suggest that that is not before their Lordships at the moment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I point out that Clause 37 says that—
"the Minister shall, unless he is satisfied that owing to special circumstances some other standard of accommodation should be adopted, treat a house"
and so on. It seems to me that the clause is fluid and that it is open to the Minister not to adhere to this rigid definition in Clause 37, but to adopt another standard and any other standard. I do not know whether I am right in saying that.
LORD MARLEY: Yes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: With regard to the Amendment under discussion at

625
the moment, it seems to me it would be rather a dangerous precedent to put it in the hands of the Minister to make all these rules and regulations and so forth. The Amendment does not seem to me to apply to what the noble Lord opposite thought it did—to management. I said in my speech on Second Reading that I wished there had been more about management in the Bill, and the noble Lord referred just now to women managers and so forth. But this seems to be simply the allocation of houses to various tenants, and I rather hope that

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

Westmeath, E.

Strachie, L.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Addington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Brentford, V.

Dickinson, L.

Burnham, V.

Dynevor, L.

Wellington, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Hood, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Bradford, E.

Hutchinson, V. {E. Donoughmore.)

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

De La Warr, E.

Effingham, E.

Jessel, L.

Grey, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Lamington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Luke, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alvingham, L.

Marks, L.

Lucan, E.

Amulree, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Midleton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Morton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sanderson, L.

Peel, E.

Sempill, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L.

Cushendun, L.

Thomson, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Danesfort, L.

Wharton, L.

Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Power of local authority to make arrangements for provision of houses by public utility societies, &c.
29.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority and any such society, body of trustees or company as is mentioned in subsection (2) of Section three of the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, may, with the approval of the Minister, enter into arrangements under which the society, trustees or company will, in consideration of an annual grant to be made to them by the authority, provide new houses available for the accommodation of persons of the working classes displaced by any action taken by the authority under this Act for dealing
the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Earl must recognise that Clause 37 is cast iron unless there are special circumstances. You have your rules and you have to establish special circumstances. But it would be almost impossible. The rules would be things that would apply.
On Question, Whether the said new subsection (f) shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 8; Non-Contents, 49.
with clearance or improvement areas, or for the demolition of insanitary houses, or for the closing of parts of buildings.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (1), after "Act," to insert "or by any such society, body of trustees, or company, with the approval of the local authority." The noble Lord said: I am not quite certain whether this Amendment is really necessary. I rather think it may be included in the clause in the words "by any action taken by the authority." If the noble and learned Lord will tell me that is so I will not go on with the Amendment; otherwise, in order to make it quite clear, I would like to put in line 40 the words I propose. I am not quite sure, as it stands, that the public utility

627
society will be able to get the subsidy for rehousing people resulting from the improvement area action taken by the authority. I want the public utility society to be able to get the subsidy for clearance for rehousing people resulting from its own clearances. It is a reasonable point and I am sure the noble and learned Lord will want to meet it.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 40, after ("Act") insert ("or by any such society, body of trustees or company with the approval of the local authority").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD MARLEY: It is within the power of the local authority. It is included without the addition of any words.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: understand the noble Lord to say that it is clear the public utility society will qualify for the subsidy, subject to the approval of the local authority, for rehousing persons resulting from its own operations?
LORD MARLEY: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Application to London]:
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendment in my name upon this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 27, after the first ("the") insert ("administrative").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
Supplementary contributions by county council towards housing expenses in rural districts.
(2) If the council of the rural district claim that any of the houses which they propose to provide are required for the accommodation of the agricultural population of the district, the county council, or, in the event of any dispute between the county council and the district council, the Minister shall determine for the purposes of this subsection how many of the houses are so required, and thereupon the county council shall undertake to make to the district council in respect of each of the forty years next following the completion of the
628
houses a contribution at the rate of one pound per house payable, subject as hereinafter provided, in respect of so many of the houses provided with the approval of the Minister as are in that year occupied for a period or periods exceeding nine months by members of the agricultural population:
Provided that no such contribution shall be payable in respect of a number of houses greater than the number of houses so determined as aforesaid to be required for the accommodation of the agricultural population of the district.
For the purposes of this subsection, the expression "agricultural population" means persons Whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture, and includes also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid; the expression "agriculture" includes dairy-farming and the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard or osier land, or woodland, or for market gardens or nursery grounds, and the expression "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly; the expression "year" means a period of twelve months commencing on the first day of April; and, in the event of any dispute, such date as the Minister may determine shall be taken to be the date of the completion of the houses.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning "For the purposes of," to leave out "or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down more in a spirit of curiosity than of anger. The difficulty I have is that I do not understand what the subsection means as it at present stands. We are dealing, according to the marginal note, with "supplementary contributions by county councils towards housing expenses in rural districts." When we get to subsection (2) we are introduced to something called "the agricultural population," and on page 33 we get a proviso:—
"Provided that no such contribution shall be payable in respect of a number of houses greater than the number of houses so determined as aforesaid to be required for the accommodation of the agricultural population of the district."
Then we come to some sort of definition of what an agricultural population means:—
"For the purposes of this subsection, the expression 'agricultural population' means persons whose employment or latest employment is or was"—
that seems rather vague—
"employment in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture."

629
What does that mean? I want to know what the words are intended to mean.
Let me give some examples, and I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord who is in charge of the Bill whether they come within that definition. What about a very large factory for the purpose of making tractors? Does that come within the definition of an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture? because if it does not depend upon agriculture I do not know what it does depend upon. What about a large factory for the purpose of making ploughshares? Is that mainly dependent upon agriculture or not? What about a factory for making artificial manures? Does that come within the definition or not? If it is not intended to include these industries, then surely the words of the clause are extremely inapt and ought to he altered. It is not made any clearer if one turns to Clause 60. That, I agree, deals with agricultural land, but that includes a wood, and subsection (2) of that clause does not include a wood. One really would like to have some clearer definition as to what is intended. I do not desire in the least to obstruct anything that the Government desire to legislate for in this proviso, but I do ask them at least to put it into language about which there can be no doubt.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD STRACHIE: I have been asked on behalf of the County Councils Association to oppose the noble Earl's Amendment, for reasons which I will very briefly state. The words in the clause as originally introduced were very vague and of very doubtful interpretation. When the matter came before the Standing Committee in the House of Commons a compromise was introduced. I understood that it was generally accepted by all parties in the Standing Committee and the clause was altered to its present form. If at the instance of the noble Earl we strike out these words which were put in in Standing Committee of the House of Commons, we are going away from what I think was a vëry reasonable compromise. The noble Earl has asked "What about factories such as those making tractors?" I suggest that if the noble Earl looked at the Bill a little more carefully he would see that
630
this clause only applies to rural districts. Of course there might be exceptional cases, but I am sire those who live in the country know that as a rule these great factories do not exist in rural districts. They may exist in urban districts or in boroughs. Therefore, if the noble Earl will forgive me for saying so, I do not think that argument holds water.
The County Councils Association, I am told, approached the Ministry of Health on this matter and got them to accept the present clause, which meets the views of all parties, and therefore I ask your Lordships to say that this is a good compromise. If we include people such as woodmen, market gardeners, or nurserymen, there is good reason at the same time for bringing in people such as carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, wheelwrights or roadmen—men who have the same kind of interests, do the same kind of work and receive the same kind of wages. It seems only reasonable that this particular definition should stand, and I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I think there is hardly anything I need add to what has been said by the noble Lord. As he said, the words were inserted in another place, at the request, I may say, of the County Councils Association. They are not intended to cover the cases suggested by the noble Earl, but the purpose is as has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. They are intended to include people who are not actually agricultural labourers, but who are employed in rural areas in anything connected with agriculture. They will include small industries in agricultural villages, carried on by such people as blacksmiths, haulage contractors and so on. I hope after what has been said the noble Earl will be satisfied.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot say I am in the least satisfied with the replies given by either of the last two speakers. I do not intend to press the Amendment, but in withdrawing it I should like to point out that the language in the Bill to which I object is not at all the language employed by the noble and learned Lord. If the words he employed had been in the Bill I should not have objected. The words in the Bill are "an industry mainly dependent upon agri-

631
culture." What that means I am content that the Courts should eventually determine.
LORD DYNEVOR: I think the matter is not quite so clear as the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, have suggested. Lord Strachie said it is not usual to find big factories in a rural district. If he will come with me I can show him a big factory making artificial manure situated in a rural district.
LORD STRACHIE: I said there were exceptions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2), after "dairy-farming" in the paragraph beginning "For the purposes", to insert "and poultry farming." The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to include poultry farming as an agricultural pursuit. I think there can be no objection to that.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 17, after ("dairy-farming") insert ("and poultry-farming").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Standard of rehousing accommodation.
37. For the purposes of the provisions of this Act which relate to the obligations of a local authority with respect to rehousing, or which relate to Government contributions to the expenses of local authorities in providing accommodation available for displaced persons, the Minister shall, unless he is satisfied that owing to special circumstances some other standard of accommodation should be adopted, treat a house containing two bedrooms as providing accommodation for four persons, a house containing three bedrooms as providing accommodation for five persons, and a house containing four bedrooms as providing accommodation for seven persons.
LORD PARMOOR: The first two Amendments on this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, line 3, leave out ("shall")
Page 36, line 4, after ("of") insert ("size or").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after "adopted," to insert: —

632

"(i) shall not approve the provision of any house which is not such a house as is specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section one of the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, and

(ii) shall"

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is to meet the point raised by the right rev. Prelate.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 5, after ("adopted") insert the said words.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had given Notice that he would move to leave out Clause 37. The noble Lord said: As the result of the Amendment which has just been made to this clause I will not move to leave out the whole clause, because I recognise that the noble and learned Lord has done something to meet one of my points. I do, however, want to get rid of this standard, which really is an impossible one, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will move to leave out all words after "Housing Act, 1923." The effect of that would be to get rid of this standard by which a house containing two rooms is to be treated as providing accommodation for four persons. That is to say in order to get the subsidy you have to provide three rooms for four people, four rooms for five people, and a five-roomed house for seven people. That is absolutely impossible, even with the financial help of the Bill, because that limits your subsidy. The subsidy you get is per person, and you cannot provide a three-roomed house with only four of these subsidies. Financially that will defeat its own object and nothing will be done.
I would remind your Lordships that the expense of providing five-roomed houses is very great—so great that there are very few London County Council houses with five rooms. The Peabody Trust have a few five-roomed houses, but it is a great exception to find five-roomed houses built in London since the War, and these five-roomed houses are provided for seven people. I would have your Lordships note that there is no provision here for larger families. They would have to rely on the "special circumstances" provision, and they might get short shrift from the Minister. Under the clause as it stands there is no pro-

633
vision for rehousing families from the slums with more than seven people, and, as your Lordships know, the crux of the matter is the large family in the slums.
The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord meets the point that was put in another place, that the local authorities would put up what are called rabbit-hutches in order to qualify for the subsidy. It meets to some extent the rabbit-hutch argument by laying down the superficial area, but it does not provide for cubic capacity and it does nothing to provide for a proper standard of accommodation, The standard of accommodation laid down is so high as to be impracticable, and therefore I beg to move to omit all words after "Housing, &c., Act., 1923."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the noble Lord that the words "and (ii) shall" have already been inserted, and the noble Lord did not challenge that. If he had given Notice, I could have dealt with it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If that is the case, I very much regret it, but I thought it was perfectly safe—
LORD PARMOOR: Order, order! We have passed it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Shall I be at liberty to put down the Amendment on the next stage?
LORD PARMOOR: That is for you to consider.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would the noble and learned Lord not allow us to consider it now?
LORD PARMOOR: No, it cannot be considered now.
LORD BUCKMASTER: May I ask the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, to explain this to me? The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, had an Amendment to leave out the whole clause, but he no longer desires to insist upon that. He does, however, desire to insist on leaving out so much of the clause as provides direct regulation for the occupation of these houses. Perhaps I have not quite followed the matter, but I do not quite understand why that cannot be done.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the difficulty is that the last words of the
634
Lord President's Amendment, "and (ii) shall," have been accepted, and, since those have been inserted, you must have sonic words to go after them.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I would suggest respectfully to the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, that it is no real objection to the proposed Amendment to say that it leaves the clause in the air. That has happened again and again. If the proposed Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, mutilates the clause as it stands, that is not his fault. It is a totally different subject.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out that the Amendment is not even on the Paper?
LORD PARMOOR: Had not the noble Lord better wait until the Report stage?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Of course we can discuss this again on Report. The whole thing has not really been discussed or decided upon. This raises the question, which has not been covered by Lord Parmoor's Amendment, whether there is to be a rigid regulation as to the occupation of these houses. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, desires to raise now. I find it difficult to see why he is excluded from raising it.
LORD PARMOOR: I entirely agree with the ruling of the Lord Chairman—
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: It is no ruling.
LORD PARMOOR: —with what the Lord Chairman has said. Of course it can be raised on a subsequent stage.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does the Lord Chairman say that he has given no ruling? Is it open to the Committee to say that they wish to discuss the matter now?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord has been long enough here to know that it is your Lordships who decide these matters.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can he tell me how to take the sense of the Committee as to whether we should discuss the matter or not?
LORD PARMOOR: I propose that we should be content with the ruling of the Lord Chairman, and accept it, as we always do.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not want to impose on your Lordships and, if you think it better that I should move the Amendment on Report, I will do so. It is a very important matter, and it is a little unfortunate that it should be precluded.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the unfortunate thing is that, if the noble Lord had given me Notice, I could have kept it quite in order.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to light heat and power.
".Where contributions are or shall become payable to any local authority under this Act or under the Housing Act, 1923, or under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, such local authority shall not after the commencement of this Act make or impose any term, condition, or restriction with respect to the form of light, heat, power or energy to be used in any house provided by them under any of the said Acts or with respect to the taking from any particular local authority, company, body or person of any form of light, heat, power or energy for use in any such house."
The noble Earl said: This new clause is intended to remove the possibility of what I think is a new principle in administration by local authorities—namely, that local authorities should stipulate that their tenants must use only the light and heat which the authority themselves supply. I wonder what would be said by noble Lords opposite, or even by noble Lords behind me, if private owners were to do the same and say: "You occupy my house and you must use no power or heat except that which I propose to sell you, and if you do so I will turn you out of the house"? That seems to me to be a very drastic and unjust provision. To show that this has been done, I should like to read to your Lordships a letter that has been addressed to tenants in Barnsley by the town clerk, by order of the Borough Council.
It is as follows:—
"Dear Sir or Madam,
It has been brought to the notice of the Corporation that the gas company have
636
been canvassing tenants of the Corporation's houses with a view to having gas installed. I am therefore instructed to inform you that by the terms of your tenancy you are not entitled to agree to the gas company installing gas in your premises without the previous consent in writing of your landlord, the Corporation. In no circumstances therefore"—
this is the important point—
"must you permit gas to be installed in your premises. If this is done, it will be regarded as a breach of the conditions of your tenancy and the Council will be compelled to serve notice to quit and take steps to obtain possession of your house."
So the unfortunate people of Barnsley, if they want to have gas, are threatened with eviction. That is one instance. Here is another from Woolwich, where the Socialist Borough Council told their unfortunate tenants that they could not have any light, heat or power except the electricity which the Council supply. They could not have a gas or coal fire if they wanted it. That seems to me a very harsh provision, and I do not see why something should not be done to prevent such things happening.
It seems to me that, if you do not insert some such provision as this, the principle of the Truck Acts will be reintroduced. The Truck Acts were introduced to prevent employees from being obliged to buy their supplies from their employers. If you do not insert some such clause as this, it would appear that the Government desire to allow local authorities to oblige their tenants to obtain their heat and light at the prices which the suppliers choose to charge. Further they will not be allowed to get heat or light of any other kind. If only electricity is supplied by the landlord, they will have to have electricity. This seems to me very unjust, because electricity may be very much more expensive than gas. Why should the poor man in one of these houses, which are meant for the poorest people, be obliged to use the more expensive means of heating his house and cooking his dinner, merely because it is sold by the local authority, instead of the less expensive means sold by a gas company or some other body? I do not want to bring forward the point that was dealt with in another place regarding the trade union of those who supply gas. I want to put the matter on the grounds of our sense of justice, and to suggest that nobody should be obliged

637
to pay more for heat and light than is absolutely necessary, merely to serve the interests of his landlord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(The Burl of Onslow.)
LORD PARMOOR: This clause, which is, no doubt, promoted by the gas industry, was, as the noble Earl knows, very fully discussed in another place.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I put it forward simply as a matter of justice.
LORD PARMOOR: But it comes from the gas industry. It was moved and fully discussed in Committee and on Report in the other House, and the question really is whether you cannot trust the local authorities in a case of this kind, where they have to deal with these properties and have the disposal of them in the sense of looking after and managing them. Of course it does not, I understand, affect fires, but is only a question of using gas or electricity.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I gather that in Woolwich they have to use electricity, and are not allowed to have coal fires.
LORD PARMOOR: It is really a question of whether the local authorities are to be trusted. The local authorities feel strongly that no provision of this kind should be inserted, and we cannot agree to the insertion of this clause.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I appreciate what the noble Earl has said, that this is an interference with the liberty of the subject. Has he reflected upon the interference with the liberty of the subject which occurs every day where brewers restrict their licensees in every single thing? Nobody ever objected to that, nor could you object to it if a gas company which had a house imposed upon the tenant a condition that he should only take gas from them. I do not see why you should permit all these people to impose restrictions, and then not permit it in the case of a local authority.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: In the one case the community have paid, and not in the other.
LORD SEMPILL: It strikes me that if the mover of the Amendment was a landlord, and he had fitted a house with electricity, he might object if the tenant
638
came in and said he was going to put gas in the house. The flues might not be suitable, and the house might be burnt down.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Power of County Court to determine lease where premises demolished]:
LORD PARMOOR: This is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 38, at end, insert ("and as including also a person deriving title under a lessor, lessee or sub-lessee.")—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47:
Power of local authorities to make advances in respect of repairs to houses.
47. Subsection (1) of Section ninety-two of the principal Act, which empowers a local authority or county council to advance money to persons or bodies of persons constructing or altering, or undertaking to construct or alter, houses, shall extend to empower a local authority or county council to advance money, subject to the provisions of the said section, to persons or bodies of persons carrying out, or undertaking to carry out, repairs to any house in any case where the authority or council consider that having regard to the east of those repairs, or to the financial position of the applicant, it is reasonable to give to him suds assistance; and, as regards any house in respect of which an advance is so made, any reference in subsections (2) and (3) of the said section to the alteration of a house shall be construed as including a reference also to the repair of a house.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after "persons," ["persons constructing or altering"] to insert "acquiring and." The noble Lord said: I am afraid that with respect to this and subsequent Amendments to this clause, I have to throw myself on the mercy of the noble and learned Lord opposite, because owing to the haste with which they have been drafted I realise that they do not meet my object. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain what that object is. Under the principal Act, the Housing Act of 1925, there are two clauses which allow local authorities to lend money to public utility societies. One is Clause 70, which provides the

639
power to assist and promote public utility societies, and the other is Clause 92, which empowers local authorities to make advances for the purpose of increasing housing accommodation. Now the relative authorities in London are the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the London County Council, but it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain which is the authority. Nothing has been done by the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and the purposes for which they may advance money are really difficult to be sure of.
I want to get power for the Metropolitan Borough Councils to advance money to public utility societies for acquiring and re-conditioning existing houses as well as for building new houses. It is not at all clear that the Metropolitan Borough Councils can advance money for that purpose. I know that these Amendments of mine do not meet the case. The Bill has only been in our hands a few days, and it was greatly changed in its later stages in the House of Commons. I want to ask whether the noble and learned Lord is sympathetic to my object. It is simply that the Metropolitan Borough Councils should be allowed and empowered to lend money to public utility societies in their areas for the purpose of acquiring existing houses for re-conditioning and improving and getting rid of overcrowding. That is the object which I seek to achieve, and I should appreciate the noble Lord's help between now and the Report stage. In order to keep myself in order I will move the first Amendment. I may say that I do not want to impinge upon the London County Council, but to act in collaboration with them.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, after ("persons") insert ("acquiring and.")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD MONK BRETTON: I would like to say at once that the London County Council will not be desirous of co-operating. We have had some experience of this under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. The Borough Councils attach varying conditions to the arrangements that they wish to make with us, and we, the central authority, find it difficult to secure uniformity in administration. I do not think there is any strong case
640
being made for this Amendment. Therefore I hope that this general objection will be taken into consideration, and will induce the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I desire to say that in the view of the Government it would be very undesirable for local authorities to have power to lend money to private persons to purchase old houses, which is clearly the function of building and similar societies. I agree with Lord Monk Bretton, and that is the view which we take with regard to this proposal.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If that is so there is no prospect of this Amendment being favourably considered at any stage of the Bill. The Government are going to set themselves against some of the most excellent work done by public utility societies. There cannot be any doubt that if any utility society sets itself to reform the housing in its district it must acquire and re-condition existing houses. You cannot build enough new houses. That being so, these utility societies, which are charitable societies, raising money perhaps at 2 per cent., frequently out of gifts, exercise their powers in taking houses and re-conditioning them and making them fit for habitation. We are told now that if that is done there is going to be no help given. It is a grievous disappointment to me. I had hoped that these societies would be encouraged and not discouraged, and I hope that Lord Balfour of Burleigh, if he does not press the matter now, will put down on Report an Amendment on which a definite issue can be taken.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret the rather extravagant speech which the noble and learned Lord has just made, such as he has made more than once to-night. The Amendment has nothing to do with repairing and re-conditioning, but it proposes that public authorities should advance money for acquiring this sort of property. That we think undesirable and inconsistent with the ordinary duties of local authorities. If a voluntary society acquires property and wants assistance in repairing and re-conditioning it, that they can obtain.
LORD BUCKMASTER: As the noble and learned Lord said I am extravagant,

641
will he explain how one of these public utility societies is going to re-condition without acquiring? You are going to stop them beginning their work by refusing to help them to start it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Is the noble and learned Lord right, because under the clause the county council has power to advance money to persons? That may mean anybody. They might advance money to me or to the noble and learned Lord. Why should the local authority advance the ratepayers' money either to the noble and learned Lord or myself, who might be one of those people he talked about, who are going to buy up property for the purpose of making money out of it?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 40 agreed to.
Clause 50:
Amendment of s. 64 of principal Act.
50.—(1) Section sixty-four of the principal Act which provides that a local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of Part III of that Act by means of an order submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him in accordance with the Third Schedule to that Act shall have effect as if for the reference therein to the Third Schedule to the principal Act there were substituted a reference to the Second Schedule to this Act.
(2) The proviso to Section sixty-four of the principal Act shall have effect as if the words "forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or" and the word "otherwise" were omitted therefrom.
(3) The provisions of this Act with respect to the validity and date of operation of compulsory purchase orders made under Part of this Act shall apply in relation to compulsory purchase orders made under Section sixty-four of the principal Act as amended by subsection (1) of this section.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (2), after "if", to insert "for." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is rather important if the subsection has the effect I think it has. The principal Act contains a section, Section 64, with regard to the power to acquire land compulsorily which reads as follows:—
"A local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of this Part of this Act, by means of an order submitted to the Minister and confirmed by him in accordance with the Third Schedule to this Act:
642
Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of this Part of this Act of any land which is the property of any local authority or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking—"
So far that is quite clear. But it goes on—and this is the important part of it, dealing with private property—
"or which at the date of the order forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house."
I do not know why it was thought necessary to alter that, but I assume it was because there might well be a piece of land in a park or pleasure ground or garden which was not merely an amenity or convenience to the house. But if this stood, it would be impossible to acquire anything compulsorily. If that is what was intended, I should have no objection to it and I should vote for it, but the difficulty I have is a legal one, and the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill might be able to say whether I am right in my fear, because, if I am not, I certainly should not press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 17, after ("if") insert ("for").—(The Earl of Halsbary.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think we could meet the noble Lord on this point. If the object of the noble Lord is to retain the words "park, garden, or pleasure ground," it would be possible to meet him so long as the clause makes it possible that the land in question not only forms part of a park, garden, or pleasure ground but must also be required for the amenity or convenience of a house.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: That would meet me exactly. My one difficulty was that if these words were left out a Court might say that an amenity or convenience could not be construed with any of these as a factor. I am prepared to accept any Amendment the noble Lord may put down at a later stage.
LORD PARMOOR: We will put that down before Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PARMOOR: I have a drafting Amendment to move here.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 25, leave out ("subsection (1) of").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:—
"Provided that no compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of this Act shall be authorised if such purposes might destroy or seriously injure the beauty of the landscape or countryside."
The noble Lord said: I want to preserve the beauty of the landscape and the countryside. This has been already endangered day after day by such things as the standards carrying electric cables. That, of course, is inevitable so long as we have electricity carried across country. But I want to stop local authorities cutting down avenues or rows of trees in order to put up houses, if by so doing they would seriously injure the beauty of the countryside. I should not be at all surprised if I had on my side the Ministry of Health, because I notice that in a recent manual issued by the Ministry of Health a short time ago, there appeared these words:—
"The beauty of the English countryside is a heritage which has been handed down from the past. The present generation must recognise a responsibility to pass on this heritage unspoiled for their successors."
I may be told that my point is partly dealt with in Clause 38, but I do not think that really quite meets the case, because Clause 38 orders the local authority to "have regard to the natural amenities of the locality" and to comply with directions, if any, given by the Minister. I am not quite certain what is meant by the words "natural amenities of the locality." I can quite understand that they might refer to such a place as a Cotswold village. If anybody attempted to put an ugly building in the middle of a beautiful Cotswold village, with a slate roof, I suppose that would affect the amenities of the locality. But I could understand it better if applied to a house. Whatever is meant, however, the question is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister. A future Minister might not care in the least for such things. But my Amendment is really quite a separate question altogether. I want the local authority to be prohibited from destroying the landscape.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 25, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Dynevor.)
LORD PARMOOR: Every one must sympathise with the noble Lord's desire. Clause 38 goes a long way in his direction. He takes some objection to the words "natural amenities." I should have thought them words of the widest meaning. Really, Clause 38 and his proposal would to a certain extent overlap. We could not accept his proposal, because it would mean that in every case of a compulsory acquisition of land this question could be raised, and that would make the position of the local authority very difficult. Under Clause 38 we have a provision against interfering with these amenities; beyond that we could not go.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I wonder whether it would be possible on the Report stage to put into Clause 38, where it states that the local authority shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality, the words "and the beauty of the landscape or countryside."
LORD PARMOOR: I think that might be done.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If so, I think that my noble friend would feel that that is the right place to put the words in. I think that his Amendment would come rather at the wrong place. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would consider that.
LORD PARMOOR: We will certainly consider that. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his suggestion.
LORD DYNEVOR: Having regard to what bas been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, although I must say that I think the whole question is left too much to the discretion of the Minister. The Minister need not do anything at all unless he likes. I beg to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I may raise it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Power of Minister to enforce exercise of powers by local authorities other than rural district councils.
52.—(1) In any case where—

(i) a complaint has been made to the Minister—

(a) as respects the council of any urban district, by the council of the

645
county in which the district is situate, or by any justice of the peace acting for, or by any four or more local government electors of, the district; or

(b) as respects any local authority, not being the council of an urban or rural district, by any justice of the peace acting for, or by any four or more local government electors of, the area of the authority;

that the local authority have failed to exercise their powers under the principal Act in any case where these powers ought to have been exercised; or

(ii) the Minister is of opinion that an investigation should be made as to whether any local authority (not being the council of a rural district) have failed as aforesaid;

the Minister may cause a public local inquiry to be held and, if after the inquiry has been held he is satisfied that there has been such a failure on the part of the local authority, ho may make an order declaring the authority to be in default and directing the authority to exercise for the purpose of remedying the default such of their powers, and in such manner and within such time or times, as may be specified in the order.
(2) If a local authority with respect to whom an order has been made under the preceding subsection fail to comply with any requirement thereof within the time limited thereby for compliance with that requirement, the Minister, in lieu of enforcing the order, may, if he thinks fit, adopt one of the following courses:—

(i) if the local authority concerned is the council of an urban district, he may make an order directing the council of the county within which that district is situate, to perform such of the obligations of the district council under the original order within such times as may be specified in his order addressed to the county council; or

(ii) in any case, he may make an order rendering exerciseable by himself such of the powers of the local authority under the principal Act as may be specified in his order.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (1) (i) (b), after "Act," to insert "or under this Act." The noble Lord said: I cannot help thinking that the omission of the words I am moving to insert must have been an oversight. This clause has to do with a recalcitrant local authority—
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to raise a mere drafting point. I do not think that as a matter of construction the words make any difference, but we will insert them.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 38, after ("Act") insert ("or under this Act").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection 2 (ii), after "himself," to insert "or by an approved society, body of trustees or company within the meaning of subsection (2) of Section (3) of the Housing Act, 1923, operating, or to be registered for the purpose of operating, within the area of the defaulting local authority." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that we are dealing here with a recalcitrant local authority, one which is neglecting its duty in the matter of housing. That is the hypothesis with which we start. Then we have what happens in that case. If the Minister is satisfied that they ought to have done more than they have done and is going to make an order,
"he may make an order rendering exerciseable by himself such of the powers of the local authority under the principal Act as may be specified in his order."
My suggestion is made simply to help the public utility society, because in an area where you have a recalcitrant local authority you may have a keen public utility society, which is only too ready to carry out the work.
I am proposing these words so that the Minister may take advantage of, and use, a public utility society which is in the area and only too ready and anxious to do the work. It seems to me you would get the work done then by this philanthropic private enterprise, instead of it being done in a bureaucratic way by order of the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 23, after ("himself") insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PARMOOR: We could not assent to this Amendment, which would really put a private society in the same position as a local authority. A power that is right for a local authority could not be put into the hands of a private association.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Am I to understand that if the local authority is recalcitrant and a perfectly effective and

647
energetic public utility society is ready to undertake the work, all that is going to happen is that steps will be taken to compel the unwilling authority to do what the willing society is ready to do? It seems to me to be an extraordinary way of carrying out the Bill if that is what is meant. I really do not see why these societies, which are animated by the very finest spirit of charity and have done an enormous amount of work which the local authorities have in many cases wholly neglected, should be treated in such a scandalous way in this Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I really must protest against the language of the noble and learned Lord. The object of this Bill is to give every encouragement to these societies and we met them at the time about it. But no one will say that a private body can intervene here. This is to be done as a public matter by the local authority or, in their default, by the Minister. That is the only way in which the machinery of a Bill of this kind could possibly be carried out.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Definition of "agricultural parish" for purposes of housing subsidies.
60.—(1) For the purposes of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, so far as regards any house for the provision of which a proposal is approved by the Minister after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and for the purposes of Part III of this Act, a house shall be deemed to be situated in an agricultural parish if—

(a) the net annual value of the agricultural land in the parish in which the house is situated as appearing in the valuation list in force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, exceeded twenty-five per cent. of the total net annual value of that parish as appearing in the said list; and

(b) the population of the parish, according to the latest census return of the Registrar-General published before the beginning of the financial year in which the proposal for the provision of the house is approved by the Minister or, as the case may be, in which persons are displaced from the house, is less than fifty persons per hundred acres.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression "agricultural land" does not include land used for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood, but save as aforesaid has the same meaning as in the Rating and Valuation
648
(Apportionment) Act, 1928, and, in the case of any hereditament occupied by or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes, the value entered in the valuation list as representing the rateable value of that hereditament shall be taken as being the net annual value thereof.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "October" and insert "April." The noble Lord said: I wish to omit the word "October" in line 6 of the clause and to insert in its place the word "April."
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 6, leave out ("October") and insert ("April").—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD PARMOOR: We accept that.
LORD CLINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON had given Notice to move, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "and" and insert "or." The noble Lord said: Will the noble and learned Lord accept this Amendment also? It makes an alternative.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that stands on the same footing as the Amendment we have already discussed—namely, the conditions required for putting one of these schemes into force. If the noble Lord will allow it to stand over I will reconsider the matter in his case, but I do not think we can accept this Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I shall hear more about this from the noble and learned Lord on the Report stage—is that so? It really is an alternative.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord must not reproach me subsequently if we find that this is an Amendment which we cannot accept. That it can be reconsidered I agree.
LORD CLINTON: Then I think my next Amendment is consequential upon the one you have been good enough to accept.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, it is.
LORD CLINTON: Perhaps the noble Lord would be able to inform me why it is considered necessary to leave out a plantation as one of the agricultural subjects which would qualify an agri-

649
cultural parish to receive the increased grant. I have not thought of placing an Amendment on the Paper in regard to this matter, but if the noble and learned Lord has not got it in his mind at the moment perhaps he will be good enough to look it up before the next stage is reached.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, we should certainly pay great attention to anything the noble Lord said on a point of that kind. I do not see any reference to it at present, but we will consider it.
LORD CLINTON: Then I beg to move the consequential Amendment to which I have just referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 19, leave out from the first ("land") to the end of line 22 and insert ("has the same meaning as in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925").—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2), after "the value," to insert "directed by subsection (3) of Section sixty-four of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to be." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 24, at end insert ("directed by subsection (3) of Section sixty-four of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to be").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD PARMOOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 26, after ("being") insert ("in the case of agricultural land fifty per cent. of the net annual value of the hereditament and in any other case").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:—
Temporary provisions.
The temporary rules set out in the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall, until superseded by rules made by the appropriate rule-making authority, have effect for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act which fall to be regulated by rules of court.
The noble Lord said: I think this is only a drafting Amendment and I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 60 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 61:
Interpretation.
61.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "disrepair" includes deciency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house and is not likely to injure or endanger their health; and
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in the definition of "disrepair", to leave out "includes" and insert "may include". The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment, but it seems that one ought not to say that the expression "disrepair" must in all cases include
"deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house and is not likely to injure or endanger their health."
To begin with, it is a curious way of wording it because when you look at "disrepair" at the beginning of the Rill you will find it does not refer to the question of injury or danger to health but to a house being unfit for habitation. Surely mine is a very small alteration—that the expression does not necessarily include, but that it may include, those things. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 43, leave out ("includes") and insert ("may include").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think that "includes" is right as a matter of drafting and having regard to the other portions of the Bill. I thick that "may" would only introduce ambiguity. I do not say that it is a matter of principle or anything of that kind, but I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I think it would create difficulty and it is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I think it is such a small matter that I shall certainly not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the definition of "disrepair", after "walls", to insert "which renders the house unfit for human habitation or injurious to health." The noble Viscount said: As the clause stands at present it is slightly enigmatical. A similar Amendment was moved in another place to the Scottish Bill on the Report stage, and two learned gentlemen seem to have disagreed, which is always dangerous. Mr. Adamson said:—
"I cannot accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment.… but I am quite willing to examine that part of the Bill again in order to see whether it requires any further amendment in the direction which has been indicated."
Mr. MacRobert asked:—
"Is it intended to include in the expression 'disrepair' internal painting and papering?"
Then these Observations were made:—
"MR. ADAMSON: I do not think I could have made thyself plainer if I had tried. I promised to look into the matter and examine it. I do not know what other assurance the right hon. and learned gentleman wants beyond that.
MR. MACROBERT: I think that the right hon. gentleman might say whether the intention of his Amendment is to include decorative painting or not. If he says it is not so intended, no difficulty will arise, and the clause can easily be adjusted.
THE LORD ADVOCATE: I confess that I do not understand what the difficulty of my right hon. and learned friend is."
Further on in the debate, Mr. MacRobert said:—
"On the assurance that the Secretary of State will consider the matter and give effect to what is in the minds of all of us, I do not desire to press the Amendment."
All I want to be clear about is that the Bill does not make the owner liable for decorations in cases where it is customary for the tenant to be liable for them.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 1, after ("walls") insert ("which renders the house unfit for human habitation or injurious or dangerous to health").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD MARLEY: The point that the noble Lord raises is perfectly right, but we must make the fitness of the house for human habitation the first point in this Bill. Therefore we say that if the house is unfit for human habitation it must be either repaired or demolished, irrespective of the question of how it
652
came about that it was unfit for human habitation. I hope the noble Viscount will not press this. If he refers to subsection (3) he will see that regard is to be had to the extent to which by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects the house falls short of the provisions of the by-laws. You cannot qualify the definition "disrepair" by making fitness for habitation a test.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: All I want is a clear answer to this question: Does the Bill, or does it not, make the owner liable for decorations in cases where it is customary for the tenant to be liable for them?
LORD MARLEY: Only where the disrepair is such that the house is unfit for human habitation, and the human factor must come first.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If I can reserve my rights for the Report stage, I will withdraw this Amendment now and consult my legal advisers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"The expression 'suitable accommodation' means accommodation which complies fully with all the requirements of the bylaws made or to be made under paragraph (iii) of subsection (1) of Section eight."
The noble Lord said: I have reason to hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept this, as he has already accepted the insertion of the word "suitable" in Clause 1 of the Bill. As the Bill stands in the case of the improvement areas (Clause 8) the local authority shall, as soon as may be, make by-laws. That only applies to improvement areas. In regard to the provisions for rehousing out of clearance areas, that does not seem to apply. The effect of this Amendment is to bring these by-laws into operation for the accommodation provided in respect of the rehousing of people from clearance areas in the same way as is done in the case of improvement areas.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 10, after ("passages") insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PARMOOR: This proposal, which of course is a definition, makes the position too hard and fast. There is a power of variation to the local authori-

653
ties in matters of this kind. They must be allowed to have some discretion in dealing with the variety of eases which will come before them. We have already accepted the word "suitable" which I think goes far enough.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Unless the word "suitable" is defined you will not know what it means. This does not make it hard and fast. It simply requires that by-laws are to be made under Clause 8. At present there are the London County Council by-laws about cubic capacity. At the present moment the London County Council by-laws are 300 cubic feet per adult and 150 cubic feet per child for sleeping purposes. When the Rent Restrictions Act is repealed it will be 400 cubic feet and under the improvement area it is going to be 400 cubic feet. It is only right, in order that this subsidy may be obtained by local authorities who are doing work in the clearance areas, that they also should be subject to these by-laws. Far from being rigid I think it is entirely flexible. I think it is a reasonable Amendment, and I should like to press it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot see why it cannot be accepted. The noble and learned Lord seems to complain of me. The only thing I have attempted to do is to support the Amendments of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who has given more time to, and has more knowledge upon this subject, than probably any member of this House. The thing that surprises me is that the Government, while professing to be anxious about housing, should have failed to consider in a more conciliatory manner the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has taken the trouble to bring forward, every one of which has been designed in the interests of persons the Government are supposed to favour. I cannot see why, "suitable" having been put in, there should not be this definition, which, far from being rigid, appears to be perfectly flexible.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble and learned Lord says he cannot understand our attitude. Our attitude is this—after great consideration to give sufficient elasticity on one side with sufficient certainty on the other. We think this does not give sufficient elasticity, and that is
654
the view of the local authorities. I should have thought the noble Lord would have accepted that view. He knows that we are not in opposition to his ideas on clearance areas, The only difference between us is the question of procedure. I am obliged to say that in this case I think the procedure would be too limited if we adopted this definition. That is the only point between us. There is nothing to be angry about.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid that far from being angry I am only sorry the noble and learned Lord does not accept this Amendment. He has put in Clause 37, which is the most rigid in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord knows that I am going to try on Report stage to get rid of it. I was prevented by my own fault from doing it this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord in that case has put in a rigid standard which you cannot possibly comply with; he has put in a standard by which you have to supply a three-roomed house for four people. It is the most rigid thing in the world. And now he says that this Amendment, which I think is entirely flexible, is too rigid. The thing is so contradictory that I cannot help thinking there is something behind, which the noble and learned Lord has not told us. I cannot understand why he does not accept the Amendment. He says that we all want the same thing. I believe we do. This Amendment is one way of doing it, and I shall press it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If this is to be pressed on the Committee stage, I would point out that the word "suitable" is only a variant of the word "reasonable" which we find in many Acts of Parliament. I think it is better to leave it to the Court to decide whether a thing is reasonable or suitable, instead of fettering people with all these restrictions. The noble Lord is complaining on the. one hand of the rigidity of the restrictions in Clause 37—I think he is probably quite right in regard to that clause—on the other hand he is trying to impose further rigidity in this clause. I hope your Lordships will agree that the word "suitable" is the best one to use here.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have some knowledge of what is meant by the word

655
"reasonable." But in regard to the word "suitable" you have nothing to go upon; you have nothing to help you. It is a word which may be applicable to innumerable circumstances. I am quite sure that those who have to administer this Bill would welcome some expression of opinion in the Bill itself as to what is meant by the word "suitable." I cannot imagine a word more difficult to define, and this definition seems to be in exact accordance with what is required.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Rather than have a Division now I will reserve my right to put it down again on Report. The matter may arise again in connection with Clause 37.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Repeals]:
LORD PARMOOR: The two Amendments down in my name on this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 41, leave out ("Fifth") and insert ("Sixth").
Page 51, line 6, after the second ("or") insert ("any order").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Short title, construction and extent]:
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendments down in my name upon this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 33, leave out ("The sections of this Act which") and insert ("Sections forty-three and forty-four of this Act which respectively")
Page 51, line 38, at end insert:
("(4) This Art shall come into operation at the expiration of fourteen days from the date of its passing.")—(Lord Parmoor.)
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule [Clearance Orders]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph 4, to insert the following new paragraph: —
"5. Where the Minister after considering the report of the person who held the inquiry confirms the order with any modification not specified and advised in the re-
656
port, the Minister shall forthwith lay the report before Parliament together with a statement of his reasons for making any such modification."
The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships know, the Minister appoints the person to hold a public local inquiry. That person hears evidence and probably inspects the property. That person has no power to confirm or refuse the order. He merely has to report to the Minister, which means reporting to somebody in the Minister's Department, and not to the Minister personally. That official acts upon the report only, and has power to vary or modify the order, whether in compliance with advice in the report or against it. In the circumstances I merely ask that when the order is varied or modified it shall be placed before Parliament with the reasons therefor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 41, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PARMOOR: It is a rule which has been long maintained that these reports by officers to the administrative Department should not be disclosed in this way. Some very strong words about the suggestion were used, I recollect, by the late Lord Moulton and Lord Shaw. It would be a reversal of all practice dealing with these confidential reports to accept this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph 5, to insert as a new paragraph: —
"6. Before confirming the order the Minister shall send to the local authority and to every person who having given notice to the Minister of his objection to the order, appeared at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, a copy of the order as proposed to he confirmed, with an intimation that any representations in writing with respect thereto may be made to the Minister within fourteen clays after the date on which a copy has been sent, and before confirming the order the Minister shall consider any representations received."
The noble Viscount said: In another place Mr. Adamson moved a similar Amendment on the Scottish Bill. Surely what is good for Scotland should be good also for England. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 8, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).
LORD PARMOOR: I am told that this would be a very difficult matter. All these questions as regards notices and so on are done in ordinary form by Departmental regulation. There is no reason why this Bill should have a special provision.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In the Scottish Bill there is a special provision put in at the instance of Mr. Adamson himself.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Is this actually in the Scottish Bill?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Yes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Then, as we propose to raise all these questions of the evenness of the two Bills when the Scottish Bill comes up for Second Reading, and when this Bill comes up on the next stage, I. would suggest that the matter should be left open until Report. We shall, in that case, have the opportunity of considering it on the Second Reading of the Scottish Bill and we shall see how it is proposed to work there.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Then I will withdraw the Amendment now and bring it up later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Compulsory purchase orders]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, after paragraph 5, to insert the following new paragraph:—
"5. Where the Minister after considering the report of the person who held the inquiry confirms the order with any modification not specified and advised in the report, the Minister shall forthwith lay the report before Parliament together with a statement of his reasons for making any such modification."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the same point as my last Amendment and therefore I will not move it at this stage.
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendments standing in my name are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 56, line 29, leave out ("sub-paragraph (iii)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii)")
Page 56, line 31, leave out ("proviso (ii) (b), proviso (ii) (c), and proviso (iii)") and
658
insert ("provisos (ii) (b), (ii) (c), and (iii)").—(Lord Parmoor.)
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will not move the Amendments of which I have given Notice, but I reserve the right to move on Report stage.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments of the Principal Act]:
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendments standing in my name on this Schedule are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 58, line 31, leave out ("repairs") and insert ("works")
Page 59, line 13, leave out ("repairs") and insert ("works")
Page 59, line 23, leave out ("repairs") and insert ("works")
Page 59, line 32, after ("order") insert ("made under this Part of this Act")
Page 59, line 37, leave out ("any clearance order or compulsory purchase order") and insert ("any such order as aforesaid")
Page 62, line 43, leave out ("repairs") and insert ("works").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: Would the noble Lord tell us why these are drafting Amendments? He proposes to leave out the word "repairs" and to insert "works." The latter word covers much more than "repairs." I am not suggesting that he is doing anything wrong in saying they are drafting Amendments, but I should like a little explanation as to why it is proposed to substitute "works" for "repairs."
LORD PARMOOR: It is intended to bring the Schedule into complete agreement with Clauses 17 and 19 of the Bill. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that if he looks at the Bill.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after the Fourth Schedule, to insert the following new Schedule: —

FIFTH SCHEDULE.
  TEMPORARY RULES OF PROCEDURE.

    Part I.
    Applications to the High Court.
    1. An application under Section eleven of this Act shall be made by an originating notice of motion to a Judge of the High Court selected for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor.
    2. The evidence upon the hearing of the application shall be by affidavit except in so far as the Court at the hearing may direct oral evidence to be given.
    3. The notice of motion shall state the grounds for the application, and the date mentioned in the notice for the hearing of the application shall be not less than fourteen days after the service of the notice.
    4. The notice of motion shall be served before the expiration of six weeks after the publication of the notice of confirmation of the order to which the application relates on the local authority by whom the order was made and on the Minister, and shall be entered at the Crown Office within the same period.
    5. The ordinary practice and rules of the King's Bench Division shall apply so far as they are applicable, and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or of these temporary rules.

    Part II.
    Appeals to a County Court.
    1.—(1) An appeal to a County Court under Section twenty-two of this Act shall be commenced by the entry of a plaint and shall be called an action.
    (2) The appellant shall be the plaintiff and the local authority shall be the defendant.
    2.—(1) The Judge may inspect the premises to which the action relates in any case in which he thinks that such inspection is desirable.
    (2) The expenses of the inspection shall be paid in the first instance by the party on whose application it is made, or if inspection is made without an application, by the plaintiff.
    (3) The Court shall have power to direct by whom the expenses shall be ultimately borne and in default of any such direction they shall be costs in the action.
    3. In default of any particular direction, the costs of the action shall be taxed upon the scale prescribed for claims between £20 and £50.
    4. The County Court Rules for the time being in force shall apply so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or of these temporary rules.

    Part III.
    Applications to a Country Court for Determination of a Lease.
    1. — (1) An application to a Country Court for the determination of a lease under
    660
    Section forty of this Act shall be commenced by the entry of a plaint and shall be called an action.
    (2) The applicant shall be the plaintiff and the other party to the lease shall be the defendant.
    2. Where the applicant is the lessee of any premises he shall join as plaintiff any person to whom he sublets, or has mortgaged, the premises and who consents in writing to be so joined, and as defendant any person to whom he sublets, or has mortgaged, the premises and who does not so consent.
    3. It shall be the duty of the Judge to be satisfied that all persons interested whose presence is necessary to enable him effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the action are before the Court, and if necessary to adjourn the hearing to enable any such persons who are not already parties to the action to be joined as defendants.
    4. In default of any particular direction the costs of the action shall be taxed upon the scale prescribed for claims between £20 and £50.
    5. The County Court Rules for the time being in force shall apply so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or of these temporary rules.
    The noble and learned Lord said: These rules are rules of temporary procedure before the rules are drawn up in the Lord Chancellor's Department. I understand they are proper temporary regulations and they are needed to make the Bill effective. They will be superseded when the regular procedure is adopted.
    Amendment moved—
    After the Fourth Schedule insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Parmoor.)
    Fifth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
    LORD PARMOOR: The Amendments standing in my name are all drafting Amendments.
    Amendments moved—
    Page 63, line 1, leave out ("Fifth") and insert ("Sixth")
    Page 63, line 17, in third column after ("forty") insert ("and")
    Page 63, line 18, in the third column after ("forty-five") insert ("subsection (3) of Section forty-six; sections")
    Page 63, line 21, at end insert ("and")
    Page 63, line 22, leave out the second ("and") and insert ("subsection (1) of Section one hundred and twenty-two; section").—(Lord Parmoor.)
    Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord decided when the Report stage of this Bill shall be taken?
    LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have been inquiring about this matter and I do not think we can postpone the Report stage beyond Thursday, because on Friday we shall have to deal with the Road Traffic Bill and, as your Lordships know, that will take up a long time. I think Thursday would give time. If all those interested communicate with me, I will see that their points are considered. We are obliged at this stage of the Session to utilise our time to the uttermost. I think we can take the Bill on Thursday.
    VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: On Thursday there is a function in another place—not in the House of Commons—as the noble and learned Lord knows, and probably many noble Lords would like to attend that function. Do I understand the noble and learned Lord to say that he intends to take the Commons Amendments to the Road Traffic Bill on Friday? They have not arrived here yet, I understand. There is a mass of Amendments.
    LORD PARMOOR: If they arrive. We shall perhaps have to re-consider this matter. There is really great difficulty just now in trying to utilise our time to
    662
    the best advantage to get through all the work. For the moment we will say Thursday for the Report stage.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say before the House adjourns that I hope all noble Lords who want to raise points on the Report stage of the Housing (No. 2) Bill will put down their Amendments as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: We cannot do it until after to-morrow, because to-morrow we take the Second Reading of the Scottish Bill, and it is largely by what we hear concerning the Scottish Bill that we shall be guided in considering Amendments to this Bill. Therefore I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider postponing the next stage of the English Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I will certainly consider the matter, but the noble Earl knows the difficulties at this stage of the Session.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.