HL Deb 31 July 1930 vol 78 cc1128-34

[The references are to Bill No. 180.]

Page 11, line 23, at end insert: ("Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is injurious or 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.")

The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:

Because by increasing the amount of compensation payable by local authorities it would increase the burden of local rates, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that the above may be deemed sufficient.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice.

Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in page 11, line 23, and propose to amend it by leaving out the words ("or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, as I was the original mover of this proviso it might be convenient if I said a few words now. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has talked about this legislation being retrospective. Retrospective legislation is all right when it rights a wrong. He also talked about generosity. I think he has rather peculiar ideas about generosity if he thinks the Bill as introduced in another place was generous. He also said it encouraged economy; but what it encouraged was theft and, not economy at all. You can be economical and steal a person's things. If Privilege is to be pleaded, property can be confiscated for nothing at all. The noble and learned Lord said it would only apply in cases of property dangerous to health, but if he will look at the wording of the clause he will see, if he reads on further, the words "by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects unfit for human habitation, or are by reason of their bad arrangement or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." That is the point which the noble and learned Lord evaded by not going on.

LORD PARMOOR

I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, but if he reads it he will see that that is the point he made a mistake about. The words of the clause are:— .… by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

But that is not the fault of the person who owns the house. Then he pleaded ad misericordiam because we had given way about the reduction factor. I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Banbury did give way—or half give way—about the reduction factor.

I frankly admit that the proviso as it was proposed by me on Report did have a defect, and I am very glad that in another place that defect was detected in time because my last intention was to give compensation to people who were not entitled to it. All the Amendment will do now if the noble Earl's Amendment to my Amendment is accepted, is to require a local authority to pay compensation to be determined by an arbitrator to persons who acquired property before the passing of the Act of 1919 and who have kept the property in decent repair structurally and in proper sanitary condition. I am surprised that the Govern- ment—especially a Government which pretends to have the interests of the poor and needy at heart—should stoop quite so low as to plead Privilege in the case of an Amendment which only gives fair compensation to a section of the community who find difficulty in getting their case presented, who have been self-respecting citizens, keeping their property in decent condition, and whose only crime is to live in a narrow street. I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment of the noble Earl.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

My Lords, it, may be unnecessary and often undesirable that all English and Scottish Bills should be exactly the same. It is often impossible that they should be identical. Yet I submit that when possible it is desirable that the law throughout these Islands should be the same. On the Scottish Bill I moved a somewhat similar Amendment to that of the noble Earl and I understand the Government is likely to object to that, but I would make a slight Amendment similar to that which he has already moved by omitting the words "occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business." I support the Amendment of the noble Earl most heartily, and I trust that he intends to insist on it because a similar Amendment will be peculiarly applicable to the more ancient of the Scottish burghs. As far as I can understand from the discussion the Government has no defence to offer save the suggestion that greedy speculators have bought up slum property in order to extract slum clearance compensation. Evidence as to that there is none, and I do not credit it. I should say it is an assumption without foundation. A number of owners will be deprived of fair compensation if the provisions of the Bill stand as desired by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, before the question is put I should like to reply to one or two points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. In the first place I think he forgets that for a house to come within what is called a clearance area at all it must, to use the words of the Bill, be "dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area." Therefore there can be no doubt whatever that as regards—

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

"By reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." The noble and learned Lord always leaves that out.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes, I say that is all that we are dealing with. No house can come within the clearance area unless it is dangerous or injurious to health either from its position or from its own inherent sanitary deficiencies. There is no doubt about that. No one doubts further that if the house does not come within that definition of being dangerous or injurious to health it would be excluded. It used to be excluded on the old "pink and blue" basis. It ought be excluded, and under the administration of this Bill would be in fact excluded. He forgets also, if I may say so, that the right to demolish exists. Anyone can claim that a house should be demolished. If you demolish a house all that you leave to the owner is the site value. That is all he has left to him, and therefore we are not doing a hardship here. We are dealing with conditions as they arise.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Do I understand that a house which is in perfect structural and sanitary condition can be demolished by order?

LORD PARMOOR

The noble Viscount, if I may say so, always begs the question. The order can only be made by the competent authority if the house is found to be dangerous to health. That is the test in each case. Of course, if he is going to say that people are not going to comply with that test, the whole Bill may be grossly unfair. At any rate we proceed on the basis that powers of this kind are reasonably exercised. If they are, the conditions that I have described will arise. I do not want to insist upon the point, but I want to try to make the noble Viscount understand what the conditions will be to which he is applying his arguments. I agree that, so far as the noble Earl's Amendment is concerned, it is a great advantage in itself. There is no doubt about that. I do not think I need reinforce the position that I have already taken up. The Government, after careful consideration, cannot accept the proviso, and therefore it is my duty to make the point quite clear to your Lordships. They cannot accept it because, in their view, it would lead to difficulty in administering the clause and to expense on the part of the local authorities, and because the suggested hardships will not arise if the Bill is fairly administered.

EARL PEEL

My Lords, I dare say it is my fault, but I have not yet really understood what answer the noble and learned Lord made to the point raised by my noble friend behind me. Perhaps may say that I have had a great deal to do with this question of compensation in some areas in the past, and I have been very forcibly struck with the fact that, if there is an idea in the neighbourhood that owners are unfairly dealt with in point of compensation, this really does slacken the hand of the local authority in dealing with some of these areas. Although there may be only one or two such houses—and I have known this in certain cases—yet if those particular owners are unfairly dealt with, the fact has a prejudicial effect upon the action of the local authority. Accordingly, though it may seem only a small matter, as applied to only one or two houses, I think it is a little more important than the noble and learned Lord is perhaps disposed to think.

I thought that there was an ambiguity in the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord. He talked about houses that were injurious to health. I want to take a case that often happens, especially in the older towns—it happened in a town that I used to represent—the case of a house built some years ago, which is perfectly good as a house, has been well kept up and there is no reason to object to it in itself, but, after that house has been built, other houses are built round it and streets are laid out. You are now going to say to the owner of such a house that the house is injurious to health, not on its own account, or because of anything he has done or any neglect to repair it, but simply because other people have, if you like, created a nuisance round it. It seems to me contrary to common sense and justice that in that case the owner should suffer, though perfectly innocent, merely on account of the action of other people.

It is admitted that the injury to health in such cases is not due to the condition of the house itself. In the case that we are considering it may possibly become, in a sense, injurious to health because of the buildings that have grown up round it, but surely, in that case, it is not too much for us to ask that a higher rate of compensation should be paid to the owner of such a house than to the owners of the other houses which have caused the injury for which the owner of this particular house is not responsible. I really think that the noble and learned Lord might reconsider his judgment on this point. Possibly the conditions may not apply to many houses, but a feeling of injustice is set up which, I believe, will to some extent prevent this measure from being usefully carried out and local authorities from doing their duty.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I am afraid I have spoken rather often—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Order, order!

LORD PARMOOR

—but one of the reasons why we think that the Amendment should not be accepted and why we disagree with what was done here was that it does make an unfair relationship between the different owners. I agree with what the noble Earl has said. I have had—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I rise to order. I really think that there must be some limit to the number of speeches which the Leader of the House makes on one question. I have not interfered or asked your Lordships to interfere for a moment up to a certain point, for I know quite well the difficulties of being Leader of the House and that very often certain observations have to be made, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not make more speeches than he has made already in respect of one question put from the Woolsack.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I do not think that I am open to that objection in answering the questions that are asked me on a point of this kind, but I need not go further. If, when questions of this kind are asked me from the Oppotion Benches, and very properly asked, I am not to be allowed to answer them on an occasion of this kind—questions such as that put by the noble Earl, Lord Peel—I think it would be impossible to have the matter properly discussed. I think I have said all that I need say, but I certainly should claim the right of answering questions put to me if I consider that they are questions of great importance and should be answered.

On Question, Motion agreed to.