LORDS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 31 July 1930)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
My Lords, this is a series of Amendments moved by myself and Lord Bertie of Thame, which the House of Commons have disagreed with, but they have proposed an Amendment in lieu thereof. As the noble and learned Lord has said, the alternative Amendment is the same wording except up to the word "walls," and the only difference between us is whether or not the words "is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupant" should be put in after the word "walls." The noble and learned Lord says that the Amendment which he has proposed means 1138 exactly the same thing, when read with other parts of the Bill, as my Amendment. If that is the case, then why not put my Amendment in and clarify the meaning of the Government and of the Bill? If it makes no difference, then I think the words should be put in. Therefore on both grounds it seems to me that these words are useful and should be inserted.

§ LORD PARMOOR
My Lords, what I suggested was this, that in certain clauses of the Bill—take Clause 1 as a very good illustration—"disrepair" is used in the sense of disrepair such as would make the house unsuitable or injurious to health. I think we are agreed upon that. It is twice used in that way in the earlier part of the Bill. I invite the noble Earl to look at subsection (3) of this very clause. The clause says "the expression 'disrepair' includes 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."
Subsection (3) says this: In determining for the purposes 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 bylaws in operation in the district, or of the general standard of housing accommodation for the working classes in the district. There, your Lordships will see, 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 any by-laws in operation in the district, or of the general standard of housing accommodation for the working classes in the district. That is the way in which "disrepair" is used in this case. What I said before was quite accurate. What I may call the general word "disrepair" in the former clauses does refer to disrepair which makes the house unfit for human habitation. Therefore what we are dealing with now is another class of disrepair. Both of us think the owner should not be responsible in this case, but then the disrepair we are dealing 1139 with is not the fault of the owner but arises from being out of accord with the by-laws or the general standard of housing in the district. That is a different matter, and I am sure the noble Earl appreciates that it is of importance to keep those two matters distinct. Therefore I hope he will be satisfied that our Amendment is sufficient. It is not the same test of "disrepair" as the others.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
It exonerates the landlord from doing repairs, but supposing the tenant does not do them, the houses will still be liable to be demolished.

§ LORD PARMOOR
If it comes within the terms of Clause 1, yes.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am afraid we are wholly unconvinced by the noble and learned Lords argument. So far as subsection (3) is concerned it