§ Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered. I think it will be convenient, as we have found in other cases, that I should make a short statement in order to show how the matter stands generally. I very much hope we shall be able to settle certain matters, but there are difficulties between us, and we shall have to face them. The House of Commons has agreed to all your Lordships' Amendments, with the exception, I think, of four, and of those four, as far as I know, only two questions are going to be raised again in this House because, as regards those two, Amendments have been put down by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to the Commons Amendments.
The first of those, and perhaps the more important, relates to the proviso which was inserted in Clause 12 by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame. Perhaps I had better read the proviso:—
Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is injurious or 1120 dangerous 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 thirty-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.That means that as regards premises which were acquired before 1919 the present basis of compensation, based upon what is called site value, should not be applied. In reference to the words in the proviso "or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business," I notice that Lord Onslow has put down an Amendment to omit those words. I appreciate the Motion for the omission of those words, but they do not go far enough to meet us, and I have to insist upon my objection to the proviso as a whole. The proviso has been again very fully considered, in the light of the Amendment proposed by Lord Onslow, but the Government are satisfied that they are unable to accept the proviso even in its amended form, as it raises a very important question of compensation.This is a Bill which was carefully prepared in consultation with the local authorities in order that it might be worked as effectively and generously as it reasonably could be. The proviso would increase the amount of compensation payable—of course, that is the object of it—and therefore upsets the financial arrangements between the Government and the local authorities provided in the Bill. That is a very serious matter. What we desire is to encourage the use of the provisions of this Bill to the greatest reasonable extent. Moreover, the Government are satisfied that it would work unjustly and unfairly as between owners, and would raise difficulties in operation of an acute kind. I know the matter has been fully considered in every aspect, with the result that I have told your Lordships. This would be a very curious instance of retrospective legislation, which your Lordships always dislike. This very same matter was considered in 1919, the date to which this Amendment refers, when the provision dealing with compensation was passed. I understand that, with regard to the reduction factor, possibly it was an oversight—I think Lord Onslow 1121 suggested that—but we have agreed that point, because we have taken out the reduction factor when the land is proposed to be used for open spaces, and only left it in where it is going to be used for replacement purposes. That, of course, is in accordance with ordinary compensation practice.
Secondly, no house can come within the operation of this compensation clause unless it is dangerous to health. That is a leading factor. It is only when it is dangerous to health that it can come within these slum clearance provisions at all; and if it does come within these provisions the alternative is that the local authority may order the demolition of the house. That stands in the Bill as it is, and is a necessary factor. Therefore if you order the demolition of the house, of course the owner is only left with the site, and is only left, as a matter of compensation, with what is called the site value. That is a very important consideration, and, after all, I cannot see myself why an owner should get better compensation because he has enjoyed the rents of a slum area which is injurious to the health of the inhabitants for a longer period of time. I am quite aware that another argument was used, but after all it was only an incidental argument. Of course, it is true there may have been some building in these houses between 1919 and the present time. That is only an incidental matter—one of the reasons for not altering a compensation clause of this kind.
But when we come down to the real justice of the position, why should you give heavier compensation because the owner has been longer in possession of a property injurious to health, and, therefore, obtaining profits, such as they are, from the ownership of property of that kind? Can that be justified? That is my difficulty, I admit. I do not see that it can. The local authorities think that it cannot be and they object entirely to the greater expense thrown upon them. They also object very much to the differences which would come into operation if you had to consider whether a particular interest they had to compensate did or did not arise before a certain date, with all the questions of mortgages, ownerships, trusteeships and various matters which, in their view at any rate (and I have no 1122 doubt they are right) would very much increase their administrative difficulties. Therefore, I will ask your Lordships not to agree with the proposition of having a higher rate of compensation because property of this kind has been owned for a longer period. On principle we cannot get away from that, and that is the only principle that is really involved.
So far as I know the only other matter upon which anything like serious discussion is likely to arise is the word "disrepair." There is also an Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in regard to that. It seems to me that there ought not to be any difficulty if it is considered. We are only dealing generally with disrepair which leads to a house being unhealthy for occupation. Then we come to the special cases of disrepair with which we are dealing and which are found in Clause 61 (1), which says that no obligation—that is what it comes to—shall be placed upon the owner so far as the disrepair is concerned if he is under no obligation in connection with it. He goes out, if I may use that expression.
What do we mean by "disrepair" as regards painting and matters of that kind? If your Lordships will look at Clause 61 (3), you will see what it means. The general principal is that disrepairs do not come under consideration except so far as they cause the house to be regarded as injurious to health. So far as that is concerned, the words proposed by the noble Earl are mere tautology and mere bad drafting, nothing more than that. Subsection (3) provides that:—
In determining for this purpose of this Act whether a house is fit for human habitation, regard shall be had to the extent, if any, to which by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects the house falls short of the provisions of any by-laws in operation in a district, or the general standard of housing accommodation for the working classes of that district.So far as I know, that is the only case where the word "disrepair" is used apart from the main clauses; in Clause 1 for instance, where, in order to bring a house within the clearance area site principle, the disrepair must be such as to be injurious to its sanitary condition and to the health of the occupier. I think if the noble Earl looks at this there may 1123 be some agreement, because we are all agreed that the owner should not come under any liability by reason of this Bill for this purpose. That is common ground, and we are not suggesting that at the present time. We have the same words in this respect practically as the noble Earl has. But when we come to the definition of "disrepair" in this clause we find that in determining whether the house is fit for occupation or not, the disrepair of which we are now talking is merely an element in the consideration, and it ought to be an element in the consideration. If I might refer to the words in order to show the difference between what the noble Earl thinks right and what we should accept, the noble Earl says that the expression "disrepair" includes such deficiency arising from the default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering, or distempering walls as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupier. The proposal which we make and which ought to meet all the difficulties is the same as regards the owner—including the deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting, papering, or distempering of walls. That is what "disrepair" there refers to. It is not in itself necessarily injurious to health, but it is an element to be taken into consideration. I hope that when the noble Earl looks closely into this matter he will be able to agree with what I am saying about it.There are one or two other Amendments which I see are disagreed with, but I do not think I need deal with them at present because there is no intimation of a desire in your Lordships' House to uphold what is objected to in another place, or any Amendment on the Paper. I sincerely hope, therefore, that on a Bill of this kind, which we are all agreed is of the utmost importance to the provision of better housing in slum areas and in getting rid of those areas, we can agree generally upon the matters I have discussed, and I hope your Lordships will consider that the only desire of the Government is to have an effective Bill. They have considered it very thoroughly with all the local authorities and after constant discussions with them, and I think that ought to dispose your Lordships at any rate to think that, unless 1124 any question of principle is involved, the Government are entitled to have the procedure arranged in the way they have agreed to and which is thought most necessary. I think that is the only way really of getting the most effective use out of what ought to be a very beneficial Bill in connection with social progress and social service.
§ Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.—(Lord Pormoor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, I think your Lordships will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the lucidity and clearness with which he has explained the objections which are entertained by the Government to the various Amendments put into tins Bill by your Lordships and which have been disagreed to in another place. We shall have an opportunity, I imagine, of dealing with each Amendment separately as it comes up for discussion; but I would like to comment upon certain observations which have fallen from the noble and learned Lord and, perhaps, when we come to the various points he will be able to reply. In regard to the first Amendment which I have to move—an Amendment to the Amendment which your Lordships put in the Bill originally—the objections that the noble and learned Lord raised to this particular proviso were I think three. In the first place he said that this was retrospective legislation. It is retrospective in the sense that it repeals in one particular point legislation which was contained in a Bill of 1919 and confirmed in a Consolidation Bill of 1925. It is hardly retrospective legislation to repeal some thing which is bad, otherwise I do not think your Lordships would ever have anything to do, because half the Bills that one sees withdraw from the Statute Book many things which we know are undesirable but which, possibly, may have been all right when the Bills were passed. I do not think this provision ever was desirable. I believe it crept in, possibly by some error.
Then the noble and learned Lord said that this was a matter of very great importance. We all agree it is a matter of great importance. That is why your Lordships have taken so much trouble in considering and moving Amendments, and insisting 1125 upon certain Amendments. We all agree it is an important point. Now I come to the main objections. I notice in the debate in another place the speech of a supporter of the noble and learned Lord's Party, I think Mr. Hoffman, who raised certain objections to the words which I propose to omit. It struck me there was a good deal of force in his argument. It was said a man might go and buy a house now, occupy it himself or put in another person, even the present tenant, to act as his business manager, and, therefore, would be able to get unfair compensation. I think there is a good deal of truth in that statement, and, therefore, I would move that these words should be omitted, and so leave the Amendment in the state in which, as far as I can tell, it was intended to be left by Lord Buckmaster. I wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, were here, because we then should have the advantage of his advice on the matter.
So far as I understood him the point is this. A man has a house. He may have had it for years. He has kept it in perfect repair. There has never been any complaint against him, and, simply because the streets in that town are narrow, his house is to be taken away from him, and he is to be given no compensation. That is a different, case to one in which a man keeps his house in bad repair. He may have built the house, say, in 1880, when possibly it was looked upon as a model dwelling. Narrow streets in those, days were not looked upon with such disfavour as they are now. That man has kept the house in perfect order, and never had any trouble with the local authority, yet it is to be taken away from him because, in modern times, it is supposed to be dangerous to health. The man has never done anything wrong. He has done everything he should do. Why should he be fined simply because our modern ideas require a rather larger and broader streets? It is right and proper that we should have larger and broader streets, but when people want things I think they should compensate those who have never done anything wrong if they want to take anything away from them. That is the point of the Amendment as it would stand, amended by the omission of the words I have suggested.
1126 I come to the last point—the second Amendment which stands in my name. I am replying as far as I can to the noble and learned Lord. I did not quite follow all he said, but I gathered the gist of it was that there was no point in my Amendment, that what I suggested was in the Bill already. I may have made a mistake, and may have introduced an Amendment which is unnecessary, but I am not quite sure that I am right in interpreting the noble and learned Lord in that way. I rather think myself that unless you have these words in a landlord will be responsible for all kinds of painting and papering. I do not think it would be advisable in this Bill to put too great a burden upon anybody. You want to get results. You do not want to overburden the landlord, or tenant, or anybody else, but you want satisfactory results, and it seems to me all that is necessary in this clause is to insist that the landlord shall carry out his obligations to keep the house in sanitary and fit condition. You do not want to put the additional obligation upon him to decorate the house in a certain way, and to do it every three years.
§ LORD PARMOORMay I interrupt the noble Earl? We are both agreed upon that, and I think it is carried out by either form of words, quite apart from the question that I raised in the definition of "disrepair.'
THE EARL OF ONSLOWDoes the noble and learned Lord tell me his proposed Amendment will not require a landlord to do anything more than keep it in sanitary repair and will not make the landlord responsible for extra decorations?
§ LORD PARMOORI think it is more than that. Neither the noble Earl's Amendment nor the words I suggest put any obligation at all upon the landlord. They both are directed to prevent obligations of that kind being put upon landlords that do not exist. What I pointed out was that "disrepair" had already been defined as something injurious to health, but as regards this particular section "disrepair" was dealt with in Clause 3 in clear language of its own.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWYes, but the obligation is not contained in this Bill; it is in the principal Act.
§ LORD PARMOORYou are right there.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWIt puts the obligation upon the landlord notwithstanding the clauses in the lease which relieve a landlord from repairs. I have not got it here, but I think I am right in that, and I believe the noble and learned Lord agrees with me. Am I to understand from the noble and learned Lord that the wording I propose has no effect? That is really the point.
§ LORD PARMOORI do not think it has no effect, but I think as a matter of drafting it is wrong. I do not think it would tell in favour of the landlord, because we do not propose that he should have any obligation of this kind.
§ Loan PARMOORWell, whatever he has, there is no additional obligation. I will put it in that way. There is no addition of any sort or kind. As regards the noble Earl's argument now, the obligation would be left upon him where the conditions that attach to it arise.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWI will not pursue it any further at the present moment, but we shall come to it when we get to the precise Amendment. There are one or two other points in regard to the disagreement of the House of Commons with your Lordships which perhaps I might refer to. One is on page 49, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "or." The Amendment your Lordships propose has been disagreed to in another place. I am very much disappointed that the Government have not thought fit to do what I think the noble and learned Lord was very willing to do when we were discussing this before, and that is to accept the Amendment which was so powerfully advocated by my noble friend Lord Strachie. I am not going to do more than express the earnest hope that if possible, even at this eleventh hour, the noble and learned Lord will reconsider his decision.
This is not a political matter. It was supported in another place by members of the noble and learned Lord's own Party, as well as by members of other Parties, and it was supported in your Lordships' House by members sitting on the Bench below the Gangway. It only, I think, carries out the intentions of the Government—that is to say, to include 1128 all agricultural parishes. Certainly some will be omitted if this Amendment is not introduced. I do not think that is what the Government want. Therefore, although there is no Motion on the Paper, I venture to express the very earnest hope that even now the Government may be able to reconsider the provision of that particular matter. Then there is the other Amendment on page 43. On that I think, if I may say so, the Government have given us every satisfaction by leaving out subsection (2). I do not think I need say more on the general question, although I may perhaps say something on particular points later.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, if I may by leave of the House say another word, I think if the noble Earl will look at the Bill in reference to the point as to disrepair, he will find it is the same as here.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.