HL Deb 28 July 1930 vol 78 cc924-43

Read 3ª (according to Order).

Clause 4 [Provisions with respect to property belonging to a local authority within or adjacent to a clearance area]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, after ("the") insert ("Housing Act, 1925, (in this Act referred to as the").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Treatment of improvement area]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("Housing Act, 1925, (in this Act referred to as the").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily.

(2) In the case of land comprised in a clearance area, the compensation to be 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:

Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act.

LORD PARMOOR moved to omit the proviso in subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter of substance. The proviso and the Amendments which follows in the name of Viscount Bertie of Thame really go together, and I think we can discuss them together. The effect of his Amendment and the proviso is to give a higher rate of compensation for houses which have not changed hands since 1919, although they are injurious to health through narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets. The Government cannot regard a building which is dangerous to health because it shuts out light and air as any more meritorious, as regards compensation, than a house which is dangerous for other reasons. In a sense it is in the direction of limiting the general proposal. The owner himself may be responsible for the danger to health, although he owned the house long before July, 1919. It would work unfairly as we think, as the owner may have held a mortgage before 1919, and taken possession afterwards. No similar provision is found in tile Scottish Bill. It would put serious difficulties in the way of local authorities administratively, and in the case of closing orders no such distinction would be possible.

I rather hope that this distinction between houses owned before 1919 and after may not be persevered with. I said on a former occasion—I know the discussion went against me—that really the fact that property of this kind had been owned for a large number of years made no difference, and this is to a certain extent repealing the provision of the 1919 Act, because so far as that Act is concerned no such distinction is made. I hope your Lordships will agree with the suggestion which I now make, and will not introduce a distinction which we think is not fair or equitable, and which will seriously interfere with the operation of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 27, leave out lines 27 to 34. —(Lord Parmoor.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am rather surprised that the noble and learned Lord has invoked the laws of the Medes and Persians, because to say that this is not in the Act of 1919 seems to me an extremely bad argument. This particular clause was put in on the Report stage. I do not think it would quite work as it stands, nor do I think it carries out entirely the wishes of its proposers. I think, however, and indeed I hope, it will meet the views of Lord Buckmaster. What he said was this—I do not see him in his place but I hope I interpret him correctly—that he did not wish, and he did not think anybody wished, to compensate people whose houses were unfit for human habitation, and he went on to say that a person who has a house which is in perfect order, but, through no fault on his part, is in a situation inconvenient or injurious to health from the narrowness of the street, should not be penalised simply because of the situation of the house.

The man who owned a house before 1919 cannot be blamed because it was situated in a certain street. When the street was built that house was probably considered to be perfectly sanitary and up-to-date. This is quite a different thing from the case of a man who keeps his house in bad repair. It is not the fault of the man who owns the house because another house excludes the light from its windows. That is the fault of his neighbour. Therefore, it seems to me that very serious injustice is being perpetrated on such a man who has a house which is a perfectly good house though it is in a narrow street. It is not his fault that the street is narrow. I would like to refer to the Scottish Bill. In that Bill this injustice need not be perpetrated; in fact, there is a provision there to prevent it. It seems to me that this proviso is a very fair one. I quite agree it does not only apply to the freeholder, it applies in certain cases to the leaseholder; but I do not see why the leaseholder should not be treated fairly, equally with anybody else. It is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord desires to remove the proviso altogether, and personally, if the Amendment which is going to be moved by my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame is accepted, it seems to me it would be an improvement to the Bill.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move after the first "building" in the proviso in subsection (2)," to insert "which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets," and to substitute "thirty- first" for "first" day of July, 1919. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I cannot quite understand the rather unusual course that the noble and learned Lord has taken in proposing to delete words which were put in so lately as Friday. Further, he did not give very much notice, because I put down my Amendment on Friday night, and it was circulated on Saturday morning, and his Amendment, which he must have known was coming, was not circulated until this morning. The matter was very fully discussed on Report. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who I am sorry to say is not present, for having pointed out the weak point in the Amendment then made. I am sure he realises that was not by intention, and I hope I have met his point by proposing to insert the words "which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." The noble and learned Lord said this was not in the 1919 Act. That is quite true. It is deliberately meant to amend that Act. Because a person is unfortunate enough to live in a house in a narrow street, the owner, if he keeps it in a sanitary condition, is not responsible. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say it was the owner's fault, but if the owner has kept his house in a good state of repair it is not his fault. I hope your Lordships will not accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, and will accept mine.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, the object of the Amendment which we carried by a considerable majority as lately as last Friday, was to meet the wishes of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster. During the Committee stage he said he had no objection to the man who had honestly acquired property and kept it in good repair being paid a just and fair compensation, leaving out the additional 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase. Bat he said that there were certain people who, knowing that the Act of 1919 was in force, bought bad houses in order to speculate on the chance of getting something out of them, and he did not think those people ought to be compensated. I do not know that anybody on this side of the House thinks they ought. What we do think is that where a man has honestly acquired a property and kept it in good repair, it ought not to be taken away from him and the only comsation given to him be the site value. That, as I understood, Lord Buckmaster agreed with, and it was in order to meet this point about people who bought property for speculation under the 1919 Act that this Amendment was put in. With regard to the narrowness of the street and the like, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the owner of one house in a street did not lay out the street. The street was laid out by the local authority, and he took the house as it was. If the street is too narrow that is no fault of his, and he should receive fair compensation if the house is taken away from him.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I hope that the Amendment carried on Friday will be adhered to. It does seem to me very unjust that because a house is in a very narrow street the owner cannot get fair compensation. In the whole of these discussions it is always presumed that the owner is either a speculator or an extremely wealthy person. On the contrary there are a great many small investors who purchase and own house property and look upon it as a means of investing their savings. Those people ought not to be discouraged. I hope my noble friend behind me, who represents a very powerful society in this matter, will agree with me when I say that there are thousands of very small owners who belong to that society and are not at all well off.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Hear, hear.

LORD JESSEL

I assure the noble and learned Lord that there is a great deal of difficulty over this matter, and that some local authorities will not put the Act into force because they know the injustices that have been done to poorer owners. I hope that, even if the Government do not like this form of Amendment, they will do something to meet the wishes on this side of the House.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, one matter has been overlooked. This method of compensation only affects a house which is dangerous or injurious to health. I understood that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that if the house was so constructed that it shut out the light and air in a manner which constituted danger or injury to health it ought to come into the same category as the other house.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

No, I said quite the contrary. I said a house which is injurious to health because the owner does not keep it in repair is not worth anything, and should be compensated at site value only. But, in the case of a house in perfect repair, because somebody has built a wall against it, which he could not prevent, and which, therefore, affects the light and is injurious to health, it is very unfair that he should be made to pay for his neighbour's delinquencies.

LORD PARMOOR

I think that is a point we make. The assumption here is that the building—not another building affecting this building, but the building about which we are talking—from its proximity to other houses and the narrowness of the street, is in itself injurious to health. I quite understand the distinction which the noble Earl makes, but I do not think it is applicable to what we are dealing with here. I certainly thought that he took the other view. I agree, if the circumstances are correctly stated, that there is a great deal to be said for his view, but I think the circumstances are not correctly stated. A great deal has been said about compensation and I thought we dealt very fairly with it. It is only a question of before and after 1919, and we took out the reduction arising from the site being used as an open space, which we thought was quite right. What I cannot appreciate is why you are to have a

different form of compensation whether a house has been enjoyed or owned before or after a certain date. The evils are just as great.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

It was to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster's point that there were speculators who bought after 1919.

LORD PARMOOR

That, my Lords, is an additional point. I am sure the noble Viscount need not think that we have not understood his points; he has put them to us in great detail. I do not want to criticise in the least, but that is another point. The question is this—supposing you have a house which is injurious to health owing to its effect on other houses in the clearance sale area and do not proceed by way of purchase, they may make, of course, for this particular house a demolition order. It is only a question as to whether you make a demolition order or whether you proceed to clear the site. I do not think I need say more on the point. I am bound to say that the Government, and the advisers of the Government, are determined to preserve this principle if they can; so I can make no concession.

THE LORD SPEAKER (LORD STANMORE)

My Lords, in order to save the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, I will put the Amendment as leaving out line 27.

On Question, Whether the words "Provided that in any case where it is proved that" shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M. Plymouth, E. Clinton, L.
Zetland, M. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.] Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Grey, E. Jessel, L.
Halsbury, E. Burnham, V. Stanmore, L.
Lauderdale, E. Falkland, V. Strachie, L.
Lindsay, E. Hailsham, V. Wharton, L.
Lucan, E. Novar, V. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Onslow, E. Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] Wraxall, L.
Peel, E.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) Amulree, L Marley, L. [Teller.]
Arnold, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.) Balfour of Burleigh, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]
Russell, E. Thomson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after the first "building" in the proviso, to insert "which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment—

LORD PARMOOR

We accept this Amendment of the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. There are two Amendments in my name to this clause. Does the noble and learned Lord accept them both?

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 28, after ("building") insert ("which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 29, leave out ("first") and insert ("thirty-first").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18:

Enforcement of notice requiring execution of repairs.

(2) Where the local authority are about to enter upon a dwelling-house under the provisions of the last preceding subsection for the purpose of doing any work, they may give to the person having control of the house and, if they think fit, to any other person being an owner of the house, notice in writing of their intention so to do, and if at any time after the expiration of seven days from the service upon him of such notice and whilst any workman or contractor employed by the local authority is carrying out works in the house, any person upon whom the notice was served or any workman employed by him, or by any contractor employed by him, is in the house for the purpose of carrying out any works, the person upon whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be obstructing the local authority in the execution of this Act and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is charged that there was urgent necessity to carry out the said works in order to obviate danger to occupants of the house.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (2), after "expiration of," to leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that when we were discussing this clause on Report my noble friend Lord Lamington raised the question as to whether "seven" should not be taken out and "fourteen" put in. It was suggested that it might be left over for consideration—I think the noble and learned Lord was aware of my noble friend's point—to see whether it would not be fair to give a little longer notice than seven days. I do not think I need say more, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 2, after ("expiration of") leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the noble Earl is right. The clause we are now discussing is a clause which the Government accepted by agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I think, however, he is under a misapprehension on one point. Under Clause 17 (1) a landlord must already have had 21 days to execute works, and, therefore, the authority can only enter and exclude him after 28 days. I think that is clearly sufficient. The noble Earl knows what the difficulty is of obstruction in matters of this kind, and I would ask him not to press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, after the explanation which the noble and learned Lord has given I think my noble friend Lord Lamington will be satisfied and I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 [Special conditions]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 34, after ("of") insert ("subsection (2) of").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30 [Adjustment of rents]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 36, leave out ("the last preceding subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34 [Supplementary contributions by county council towards housing expenses in rural districts]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the Amendment down in my name is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("and the expression 'agricultural' shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38:

Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, &c.

38. A local authority in preparing any proposals for the provision of houses or in taking any action under this or the principal Act shall have regard to the amenities of the locality, the beauty of the landscape or countryside and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic or artistic interest, and shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the Minister.

LORD PARMOOR moved, before "amenities of the locality," to insert "beauty of the landscape or countryside and the other." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think this Amendment meets the point raised by Lord Dynevor and at the same time clarifies the clause. It is intended to meet the point he raised in order to make the clause more clear, and it does not touch the subsequent matter which Lord Halsbury will deal with when the time comes.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 9, at end insert ("beauty of the landscape or countryside and the other").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PARMOOR

The next Amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pare 38, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("the beauty of the landscape or countryside.")—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39:

Recovery of possession of buildings subject to a, clearance or demolition order.

(2) Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this section in obtaining possession of any building or of any part of a building may be recovered by them from the owner, or from any of the owners, of that building summarily as a civil debt.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (2):— but a local authority shall not be entitled to recover any expenses under this subsection unless the owner has failed to make, within a reasonable time a summary application for removal and ejection to the court, or having made such an application has failed to take all steps necessary to have the application disposed of within a reasonable time.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I understand the clause in the Bill the expenses, even if the court has refused an application for ejectment, can still be recovered. It is not fair that the local authority should recover the expenses unless there has been an omission by the owner to take the necessary legal steps for ejection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the clause as it stands is a, re-enactment verbatim of the existing law. We put it in originally merely as an Amendment by reference, but I think, and I believe noble Lords will agree with me, that it is much better that it should be done in this way. I do not think there is any necessity for the change suggested by the noble Viscount. It has always worked well. Lord Bertie, I think, will find that the clause which he wants to be inserted appears in the Scottish Bill, but it really is unnecessary for our procedure in this country. You would be introducing what we consider would be an unnecessary difficulty into the mere re-enactment of a clause which has always operated fairly and properly. I hope, therefore, he will not press his Amendment. No doubt he desires that the Bill should be operated as smoothly as possible.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, in the circumstances I will not press it, but I think it would have been better to have had it all the same.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50:

Amendment of s. 64 of principal 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 I of this Act shall apply in relation to compulsory purchase orders made under Section sixty-four of the principal Act as amended by this section.

LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "effect" and insert "as if the words 'or is otherwise' were omitted therefrom." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a, matter which affects the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I had an opportunity of talking with him over this point which was raised on Clause 50, and I think he is ready to propose a form of words which he regards as satisfactory.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 17, leave out from ("effect") to the end of the subsection and insert ("as if the words 'or is otherwise' were omitted therefrom"). — (Lord Parmoor.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after "if," to insert "for," to leave out "and the word 'otherwise' were omitted therefrom," and to insert "'is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house' there were substituted the words 'is required for the amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or otherwise.'" The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is quite true that I have raised this point on three occasions. From the very start the noble and learned Lord gave me to understand that he was in agreement with me in principle, and that it was purely a question of wording. Having had an opportunity of talking with him, I propose to move, with your Lordships' leave, not exactly the words that are on the Paper, but an Amendment to them, which, I understand, the noble and learned Lord is willing to accept. The suggested Amendment to the printed words is that before the word "amenity" there should be inserted the word "easement." I am prepared to leave out the last two words "or otherwise." Therefore, with the Amendment I propose it would read:— is required for the easement, amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden, or pleasure ground. That satisfies the principle that I have contended for, and if your Lordships will grant me leave I will move that Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

I raise no objection to that, and I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments moved—

Page 45, line 17, after ("if") insert ("for")

Page 45, line 18, leave out from the second ("or") to the end of the subsection and insert ("'is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house' there were substituted the words is required for the easement, amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden or pleasure ground.")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I should like to make it clear that the words "or otherwise" come out. We desire that they should be deleted, but in the phrase "required for the amenity or convenience" the words would be "required for the easement, amenity or convenience." The word "easement" is put in before the word "amenity" and the words "or otherwise" are left out.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD PARMOOR

The next Amendment in my name is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 22, leave out ("Part I of"). —(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment 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—

  1. (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 April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, exceeded twenty-five per cent. of the total net value of that parish as appearing in the said list; or
    2. 937
  2. (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.

LORD PARMOOR moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "or" and insert "and." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we want an Amendment here upon a matter which was discussed the other day. It is the question of two conditions or a single condition for the application of the provisions of the. Bill. The Bill is now amended. If that Amendment is adhered to there is no deviation from it and that would be averse from the existing law which has worked well. The conditions of value and population have been lowered since the first definition of "agricultural parish" in the Act of 1924. Under the Local Government Act, 1929, there is no rateable value of agricultural land after October, 1929. The present clause, as amended, would benefit wrong areas, that is to say, with small populations and little agricultural land. The existing law was only re-enacted to avoid legislation by reference. For those reasons I hope "or" may be left out and "and" re-inserted.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 9, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Parmoor.)

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, the reason we amended the Bill to this extent was to get at what we believed to be the agricultural parish. The definitions placed in this Bill are of a statutory character and provide, first, that the percentage this Bill are of a statutory character and provide, first, that the percentage of agricultural land generally shall be more than 25 per cent. of the whole, and, secondly, that the population shall be less than 50 persons per hundred acres. My wish in the Amendment was to make those alternatives instead of both of them being final, for this reason, that while the 25 per cent. of agricultural land might be perfectly fair—and it is fair in most parishes—it does exclude certain small parishes which are undoubtedly agricultural. Some of our parishes are so small that their percentage of agricultural land is over-weighted easily by something of a very small industrial nature which may be in those parishes. One line of railway running through a parish so raises the total value of that parish that the percentage of agricultural land falls below the percentage laid down in this Bill.

It is those smaller parishes that I desire to safeguard. In most of those cases there is no question that they are rural parishes. They are undoubtedly rural and, but for the fact that you have a larger total assessment on account of the existence of the railway line, no question could possibly arise. If you admit that these two definitions should be alternative, then it still remains under subsection (3) of this clause in the power of the Minister to decide whether both the definitions or one only shall be required. The noble and learned Lord will agree that we do not want to do anything except to get all the really rural and country parishes included for the purpose of getting the additional grant which is required for agricultural labourers' houses. I believe we do get it in the Amendment I proposed to the Bill and that we will not get it if we are persuaded by the noble Lord to re-insert "and." I hope your Lordships will agree not to accept the Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, I support my noble friend in all that he has said about retaining "or." I have been in consultation with the Rural District Councils Association and they tell me that the effect of the Amendment, if we take away the alternative which was put in the other day, would be that 25 to 30 per cent. of the rural parishes would fail to come within this clause. The effect that would have on housing in those rural districts would be very bad indeed. It would not only affect the rural labourer, but would affect those employed in collieries as well in many districts. I understand the Government are anxious to improve the housing of the people in the country as well as in the towns. The effect of this Amendment would be that the Government are doing the opposite of what they are always saying that they want to do—namely, to look after the housing of the people in the rural districts. All we are asking is that there should be this alternative and that, if they do not come under paragraph (a), they should come under paragraph (b). There are a large number of rural parishes which will be excluded if the Amendment proposed by the Lord President is accepted. I hope your Lordships will prevail on the Government and make them understand that this is very unfair to those rural parishes. One noble Lord is very amused at that.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY)

No, not at all.

LORD STRACHIE

The noble Lord is only laughing at some joke of his own. If the Government do not give us this alternative, it will have a very bad effect upon housing in rural parishes.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I really cannot understand why the Government wish to put in this Amendment. It seems to me that the Bill really carries out the intentions of the Government, carries out what they have insisted upon in speeches in your Lordships' House in the country and other places as necessary to benefit the rural workers. We have been told by Lord Strachie, who speaks with great authority, that, if we do not have this alternative, it will strike out from the benefits of this Bill 30 per cent. of the rural parishes of the country, and purely for a fortuitous reason, simply because a railway or something of the kind touches the parish. I cannot understand why the Government should wish this "or" struck out and "and" put in as that will strike out from the benefit of the Act a third of the rural parishes of the country.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, there is no difference between us on this matter. Lord Strachie, I know, is fond of making satirical remarks about the Government. I was struck by what the noble Lord has said and by what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, has said, and I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division; but, if anything further is said on this matter in another place, that must not be taken as an obstacle. We shall not press the Amendment at this stage.

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:

Crown rights.

".Nothing in this Act shall affect prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown, or authorise the use of or interference with any land (including tidal lands below high-water mark of ordinary spring tides) belonging to His Majesty in right of his Crown or to any Government Department, without the consent of His Majesty or the Government Department as the case may be."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is another clause which appears in the Scottish Bill and it seems to me that the Crown rights, unless already protected, should be protected here.

Amendment moved— After Clause 60 insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I think I might appeal to Lord Bertie here. It is a legal point. It has always been the practice in our drafting here, and was the practice in the years when I had to do with the drafting of these Bills, to leave the question of the Crown to the Crown and the Department concerned to settle between themselves. To introduce the Scottish procedure, which is different —I do not know why or wherefore—into this Bill, would only be upsetting all the precedents and cause difficulties. I do not believe there has ever been any difficulty under this head. Of course, the Crown interests are in the hands of a Department and the two Departments have always amicably settled all these questions.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, after the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord, that it is not necessary to have this in England although it is in Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Does that apply also to my next Amendment with reference to "Works below high water mark"?

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Then I will not move the suggested new clause.

Clause 61 [Temporary Provisions]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the Amendment which I have on the Paper to this clause is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 34, leave out ("Fifth") and insert ("Fourth").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62:

Interpretation.

62.—(1) For the purposes of this or the principal Act, unless the context otherwise requires— The expression "disrepair" includes deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord 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

THE EARL OF ONSLOW had given Notice of two Amendments to the definition of "disrepair"—namely, after "includes," to insert "such," and to leave out "except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house" and insert "as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments deal with a point which was discussed at some length on the Report stage.

LORD PARMOOR

We have put an Amendment on the Paper to try to meet you on that.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The noble and learned Lord has an Amendment on the Paper somewhat on the same lines as mine, but I do not think it goes so far or is quite so explicit. This part of the clause simply defines "disrepair" as it applies to painting and papering. It does not define "disrepair" as a whole, but simply as it affects internal papering and painting or distempering. What I suggest is that "disrepair" should only include such deficiency as is the landlord's fault. The obligations of the landlord in regard to repairs are set out at very considerable length and in very great detail in the principal Act, and I suggest that "disrepair" in regard to internal painting and papering or distempering should only be included when it is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants. That is to say, that if a landlord allows his house to get into disrepair and does not do the repairs and painting, papering or distempering which he ought to do, and when that is dangerous to the health of the occupants, it should be included in the definition. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 52, line 6, after ("includes") insert ("such")

Page 52, line 9, leave out from ("walls") to ("and") in line 11, and insert ("as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I think the Amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, make clear the intention I had when I moved an Amendment at the last stage of the Bill. My intention was that the cost of repairs and redecoration should not be put on the landlord where it was customary for the work to be done by the tenant. I think the Amendments moved by the noble Earl are better than mine and I beg to support him.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, this is an important matter, I admit, but I had hoped that the Amendment I have put on the Paper would have been thought adequate. I have made further inquiries and I am told it ought to be considered adequate. The Amendment which I had proposed to move was to leave out, in the definition of "disrepair," the words "except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house." The clause would then run: arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls"— and so on. It seems to me that would be a fair adjustment and I am told it would work well in practice. I think the noble Earl on this point should allow the Departments chiefly concerned to decide what is the most convenient way of working the Bill.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to make one explanation. If the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is accepted, as far as I understand it, it includes any kind of painting or papering. All we want to do is to protect the health of the people. You do not want to insist upon a landlord going in for expensive wall decorations. It should be limited to reasonable and proper purpose, and I do not see why my Amendment is objected to.

LORD PARMOOR

It is one of those points where the Department or the local authority desire to have power to exercise judgment. I should think probably that judgment would be exercised in the direction which the noble Earl desires and I think it would be wiser to leave it to them.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 63 [Amendments of principal Act]:

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 44, leave out ("Fourth") and insert ("Fifth").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule: