§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 12:
§ Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily and of sanitary premises required to be demolished.
§
(2) 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 habita-
980
tion 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:
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.
§
VISCOUNT NOVAR had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the proviso in subsection (2) and to insert:—
Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is dangerous or injurious to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the nineteenth day of August, 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.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have to ask leave to make a small alteration at the beginning of my Amendment. It should read "Provided further that in any case" and so on, as printed. This Amendment is limited, as in the English Bill, to property acquired before the Scottish Housing Act of 1919 was passed, or to property actually occupied by the owner for his residence or business. It is designed to bring the Bill into line with the English Bill as amended in your Lordships' House. We are agreed as to compensation for badly kept insanitary property being limited to the site value. On the other hand, the evils that would follow from inadequate compensation when the house itself is not insanitary are, first, that the local authority might not put the Act in force. A town council representing a great number of small property owners, if they were going to be unjustly treated, would simply not put the Act in force. I can vouch for that by experience. Again, the owner would not seek to improve his property; and, thirdly, the owner might suffer by the fault of the regulations or the omissions of the local authority itself.
§ It has been justly observed by my noble friend Lord Jessel that the Government speakers seem to assume that every owner is either very rich and incom- 981 petent or else that he is a greedy speculator. That is really the reverse of the fact. It is not entirely the reverse of the fact, but it is substantially the reverse of the fact. These poor properties as often as not belong to poor men who have saved something and invested it in house property as a security which remains under their own eye. Therefore, I commend this Amendment to your favourable consideration as a needed provision to guard against injustice and hardship.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 20 and insert:
("Provided further that in any case where it is proved that a building which is dangerous or injurious to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the nineteenth day of August, 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.")—(Viscount Novar.)
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY)My Lords, I think the attitude of the Government on this matter was very fully explained yesterday and I do not know that there is a great deal to add. We feel that if a house is internally dangerous to health it should be treated in a certain way and we do not see why a house which is externally dangerous to health, by reason of its position or by reason of having light and air kept from it, should not be treated in the same way. Why then should it be treated in this special way? The passing of this Amendment will mean that local authorities will have greater expense in their efforts at slum clearance. We feel that passing this Amendment would mean an obstacle in the way of slum clearance. The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment said some local authorities would not put the Act into force if they thought it was unjust, but I think they are very much more likely to be affected by the added expense. That is what we fear, and that is why the Government resist the Amendment. I want to say that we do not consider that all owners of houses which are considered slum houses are either rich or greedy speculators. We know some are, and we know some are not. We do not 982 come to the rescue of investors who have invested money in speculative companies and lost their money, and I do not see why we should come to the rescue of people who invest, in the highly risky investment of slum property; and particularly I do not see why we should do so at the expense of the effort that the Government are attempting to make to help to clear away these bad slum areas. In these circumstances, while I would like to hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn, if it is not I must resist it on behalf of the Government.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, there is an Amendment down in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, who has asked me to move it, he being unable to be present, but I think Lord Novar's Amendment very nearly meets the point, except that my noble friend the Duke of Atholl wishes to delete the words "erected after the passing of this Act." His reason is this. The houses are being condemned on account of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets. The landlord or owner is in no way responsible for this. Most of the houses in villages in Scotland, and especially those in narrow streets, have been built over a hundred years, and often very well built, and well kept up with perfect sanitation. It is rather ridiculous that the owners of these houses should not be compensated in the same way as is the owner who has built a house after the passing of this Rift The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that one reason was additional expense, but why should the additional expense fall upon the small owners probably? Surely, they are the least likely to be able to afford the loss which would be caused by the property being taken away from them in that way, and they only given its site value? The superior landlord is protected because he receives his feus, but the owner is in a very different position, and it seems to me grossly unfair that he should not be compensated in the manner which is suggested, at any rate by Lord Novar's Amendment, which does not go quite so far as the Amendment which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has upon the Paper, though I am prepared to accept Lord Novar's Amendment.
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, I hope that the Government will give way upon this 983 Amendment. As the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Government said, this point was rather fully discussed yesterday. He knows as well as I do that in every case in the blue area compensation is allowed. As far as I can make out from the first clause of this Bill, narrowness of the streets is one of the reasons why you cannot give any compensation. I fail to see why, under those circumstances, something cannot be done by way of compensation for the man who, through no fault of his own, has a good house in a street that is narrow, and which it is thought a part of the duty of the local authorities to get rid of. I quite agree that it costs more money to the local authorities, but I think the House was of opinion the other day, when Lord Buckmaster was eloquently arguing on this question, that it is no argument for getting a thing cheaply that you are committing an injustice. I am glad to think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has admitted that a great many landlords are neither rich nor scoundrels, and it is a well known fact that many of the working class in this country invest their money in small property. It is one of the things they regard as safe, and I think you will perpetrate a very grave hardship on a deserving class of the community if you do not accept this Amendment. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, will persist, and, if he goes to a Division, I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 26 [Adjustment of rents]:
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, the Amendment down in my name upon this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 42, leave out ("thy last preceding subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Lord Marley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed, to.
§ Clause 28:
§ Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, &c.
§ 28. 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 natural amenities of the locality and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and 984 shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the Department.
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("natural") and insert ("beauty of the landscape or countryside and the other").—(Lord Marley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 29 [Power of sheriff to determine lease where premises demolished]:
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, the Amendment upon the Paper in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 38, after ("lease") insert ("and the action taken under the order has not had the effect of determining the lease").—(Lord Marley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 35:
§ Amendment of s. 51 of principal Act.
§ (2) The proviso to Section fifty-one of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words "forms part of any park garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house" there were substituted the words "forms part of any park garden or pleasure ground occupied together with and required for the amenity or convenience of any house."
§ LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "occupied together with and" and insert "and is." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is not quite drafting, but is almost so. It secures that land cannot be taken for housing purposes if it forms part of a park, garden or pleasure ground and is required for the amenity or convenience of the house. It is really interpretative. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 32, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("occupied together with and") and insert ("and is").—(Lord Marley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 49:
§ Interpretation.
§ 49.—(i) For the purposes of this Act and of the principal Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
985§ the expression "disrepair" includes such deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls as is likely to injure or endanger the health of the occupants of the house, except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the default or neglect of the said occupants; and
§ LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in the definition of "disrepair," after "deficiency," to insert "arising from default on the part of the landlord." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment brings this clause in the Scottish Bill into line with the Housing (No. 2) Bill for England, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will insert this addition to the definition—"arising from default on the part of the landlord."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 19, after ("deficiency") insert ("arising from default on the part of the landlord ").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, the definition in the Bill contains an exception where the deficiency is due to default or neglect of the tenant, and this exception is virtually the same as the exception proposed by the noble Lord. It has the same effect whether the deficiency is due to the default or neglect of the tenant or arises from default on the part of the landlord. It seems to me there is very little difference, and I hope the noble Lord will see that and not press his Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONMy Lords, we did not think this altered the meaning, but we were advised that the drafting would be a little better if we had these words in. I do not suppose it makes a very great difference.
§ LORD MARLEYMy Lords, I do not object particularly to this Amendment, provided that the House would then leave out the other words, because you cannot have them both in. We would then have to leave out the words after "house," but it seems to me that it is virtually the same thing, and I thought perhaps the noble Lord would see that.
§ LORD PARMOORWe are taking the Bill right through to-day.
§ LORD MARLEYWe should have to take the other words out. We could not leave both in.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOWIf the noble Lord will give an assurance that the wording of the Bill has substantially the same effect as that proposed by my noble friend, I am inclined to think that he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD MARLEYI can quite definitely give your Lordships' House an assurance that it is merely another way of putting it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD MARLEYThe next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 34, leave out ("Part I of").—(Lord Marley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.