§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 3:
§ Offences in relation to overcrowding.
§ (2) The occupier of a dwelling-house which is occupied on the appointed day shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect, of the overcrowding thereof so long as all the persons sleeping in the house are persons who were living there on the 330 appointed day and thereafter continuously live there, or children born after that day of any of those persons, unless—
- (a) suitable alternative accommodation is offered to the occupier after the appointed day and he fails to accept it; or
- (b) suitable alternative accommodation is so offered to some person living in the house who is not a member of the occupier's family and whose removal is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances, and the occupier fails to require his removal.
§
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert in subsection (2):
Provided that if before the appointed day the medical officer of health of a local authority certifies in reference to a dwelling-house the number of persons which in his opinion is the permitted number of persons as defined in the First Schedule to this Act and a copy of his certificate is served upon the occupier of the dwelling-house personally or by post, this section shall have effect in respect of such house as if the date upon which such certificate is so served were substituted for the appointed day.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make an improvement in the administrative machinery. The proposed arrangement would correspond to the arrangement by which decontrol took place under the Rent Restrictions Act. Your Lordships will remember that when the Rent Restrictions Act was in full force, when there was a. change of tenancy, so, automatically, decontrol came about. The object of this Amendment is to simplify the coming into force of the new Bill. Your Lordships know that there is to be an "appointed day," and it seems to the local authorities—this Amendment is supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the London County Council, and I think it commends itself to every local authority which has to administer the Act—that it would make this provision in simple language. If before the appointed day—and it will not be convenient to have the appointed day at once—a house becomes decrowded, then it shall be automatically illegal to overcrowd it again beyond the standard in. the Bill. That should relieve the local authority of having to decrowd the same property more than once. I offer it to your Lordships as a simple improvement in administration, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, the objection to this Amendment is that it proposes, first, that the provisions of the Bill shall come into force before the appointed day; and secondly, apparently, that the medical officer of health shall have power to give his own official ruling as to whether there is overcrowding or not. Instead of being controlled by the local authorities, houses will be controlled by the medical officer of health. An Amendment of this kind has, I venture to think, nothing to recommend it. It would only be productive of very great confusion and different treatment in different districts. I can see nothing that simplifies the Bill in this Amendment.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)My Lords, I rather hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment. He recommended it as an improvement in the administrative machinery, but I think there is some force, though from a slightly different angle from that to which he addressed himself, in what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame. Although the medical officer of health is the servant of the local authority and must be expected to act with their sanction and approval, there would be likely to be some inconvenience in having the operation of the appointed day made in fact to depend upon the certificate of the medical officer given in respect of each individual house. I am advised that it would be likely to cause considerable difficulty by way of the somewhat elaborate machinery that it would necessarily involve, and also the difficult questions of administration that it would be likely to raise. For example, I can well suppose that it would be inconvenient for people who were moving into one district out of another to be placed under the necessity—perhaps the difficult necessity—of ascertaining whether the particular house was subject to this overcrowding standard or not. Of course it must be remembered that in this matter we are imposing penalties. Therefore, without underrating the value of what the noble Lord said upon the other side, there is a great deal to be said for making the provision as plain and as clear as possible. I am satisfied that that will be done rather by having a single appointed day for the whole place than by trying to do it by way of individual houses.
§ LORD STRACHIEMy Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount will not accept this Amendment. One objection seems to me that it would be retrospective, which is also rather objectionable. Another objection, as the noble Viscount said, is that there would be great difficulties in this matter. To put these words in would make it very complicated, and I cannot see any necessity for the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURURLEIGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and in deference to the view that he takes I will not press the Amendment. I am not entirely convinced that it would not be a simplification, but in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 12:
§ Definitions for purposes of provisions relating to overcrowding.
§
12. In this section and in the foregoing, provisions of this Part of this Act, and in the First Schedule to this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively:—
Suitable alternative accommodation" means, in relation to the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house in which the occupier and his family can live without causing it to be overcrowded, being a house which the local authority certify to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects security of tenure and proximity to place of work and to be suitable in relation to his means.
§
VISCOUNT GAGE moved to substitute the following as the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation."
'Suitable alternative accommodation' means, in relation to the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house as to which the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage some Amendments were suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester to the effect that it was not clear under what section of the Bill rehousing by local authorities had to be conducted on the standard of Section 37 of the 1930 Act. We are now putting in the Bill, in a more simple form, a provision to make that quite clear, and in doing so we have redrafted the definition without making any other difference except that particular one. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, leave out lines 1 to 9 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, owing to the change in the Bill which has been made by the Government's Amendment which has been accepted, the words "and otherwise," of which I gave notice to move in at the end of the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation" in the Bill, must be inserted in a different place, and I suggest that the appropriate place will be after the word "means" at the end of paragraph (b) of the Amendment. My object is to widen the discretion of the local authority in dealing with the question of alternative accommodation. The provision as it stands definitely limits the local authority in considering the suitability of alternative accommodation to three definite points. It gives no discretion to the local authority, and I am proposing to add these words in order to give that wider discretion. The paragraph lays it down quite clearly that the local authority must certify the house to be suitable as regards these points—namely, no overcrowding; security of tenure; proximity to place of work, and suitability in relation to means. In the absence of any wider discretion what I fear is that the local authority will consider themselves bound legally not to look beyond those considerations in considering whether the proposed alternative accommodation is suitable.
I do not think it would matter very much if all the suitable accommodation was going to be provided by local authorities because I think we might rely upon their using their discretion in enforcing the strict reading of the law, but. I apprehend that cases will arise in 334 which a private landlord may offer to some tenants accommodation which he holds to be suitable, and if it is suitable in regard to those three points, I think the local authority will deem themselves forced to certify it as suitable, however unsuitable in other ways. That it may be unsuitable in other ways I can show your Lordships. A family may be living in a house which we will call house A. It has three rooms of 210, 100 and 68 square feet, or a total of 378 square feet. It is large enough for a total of four units under the Bill. We will suppose it, has a family of five units living in it and it is therefore overcrowded to the extent of one adult. Now this private landlord, in my hypothesis, may offer as alternative accommodation, a house of three rooms of 112, 112 and 72 square feet or a total of 296 square feet which, under the Bill, would certainly legally hold five people, but would only give 59 square feet per head over all as against 75 square feet per head in house A, and as far as the living room is concerned, would only give 22 square feet per head as against 42 square feet per head in the accommodation in which the family was overcrowded. The local authority would have to certify it as suitable.
Then again there are numerous other conditions which might be inferior in the alternative house as compared with the original house. It may be that a family with children was living in comparatively airy rooms on the first floor, and they may be offered alternative accommodation in the basement, in a noisy street, where the children are in danger if they run straight out into traffic. Numerous other conditions exist which might render the alternative accommodation less suitable than the accommodation which the family is being forced to leave. In those circumstances, I feel that it is necessary to widen the discretion of the local authority, and the words which I have suggested are designed to meet that end.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, strictly speaking, there is some difficulty in moving the Amendment in the form which the noble Lord proposes, because we have already carried the words of the Government. Amendment down to the end of paragraph (c) and this Amendment is intended to affect the limited words in 335 paragraph (b). I think the only way to do it would be to treat the Government Amendment as having been carried down to paragraph (b).
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXBefore you decide to put the question in that way I may say that I am advised that if these words are inserted, they ought to come in after the word "work" in line 4 of paragraph (b).
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORStrictly it is irregular, but I think perhaps it would be for the general convenience if we treated the Government Amendment as carried down to the words "place of work" in line 4 of paragraph (b), and the noble Lord can then move to add his Amendment after those words.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEBefore the House accepts the Amendment I wish to put another point of view to that which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has put. If the addition of these words has any serious meaning, which I rather doubt, it would obviously very much complicate ever finding suitable accommodation for a tenant at all, because it would so widen the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation" that it might be impossible to find it.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I rather agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken that the words do not add a great deal to the clause as it stands, and I do not think that they would really, on the other hand, impose any very much greater obligation on the local authority, but I can imagine cases which might arise, such as the noble Lord quoted, in which the local authority, conceiving somewhat narrowly of its duty, might think itself to be restricted. Therefore I shall be prepared to accept this Amendment in the place in which it has been suggested it should be moved, although I confess I do not think it will either do quite the good which the noble Lord anticipates, nor quite the harm which the noble Viscount behind me anticipates.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI understand that the Government will accept these words, and I therefore move to insert them in the place suggested.
§
Amendment moved—
In paragraph (b) of the Government's Amendment, line 4, after ("work") insert ("and otherwise").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 16:
§ Application of certain provisions of the Acts of 1925 and of 1930 for purposes of redevelopment provisions.
§ (2) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Section eleven of the Act of 1930 (which relate to the validity and date of operation of certain orders) shall have effect in relation to the Minister's approval of a redevelopment plan or a new plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as if references thereto had been substituted in the said subsections for references to the orders therein mentioned, and as if for references therein to the Act of 1930 and to confirmation of the orders therein mentioned there had been substituted references to this Part of this Act and to the Minister's approval of a redevelopment plan and of a new plan and to confirmation by him of a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section.
§
VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert at the beginning of the clause:
(1) The provisions of Section forty-one of the Act of 1925 (which relates to costs incurred in connection with certain orders) shall have effect in relation to a redevelopment plan and to a new plan and to the Minister's approval of any such plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as they have effect in relation to the orders mentioned in the said section.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Section 41 of the Act of 1925 enables the Minister to award costs to objectors who have appeared at public local inquiries in connection with clearance orders, etc., and whose objections have later been sustained by the decision of the Minister on the order. It is obviously desirable that the Minister shall have a similar power to award costs in the case of a person who successfully objects against a local authority's proposals in regard to a redevelopment plan and this Amendment gives the Minister that power.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 7, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
337§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXThese are drafting Amendments.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 26, after ("mentioned") insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under that Act")
line 30, at end insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under this Act")
—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 24:
§ Central Housing Advisory Committee.
§ 24.—(1) The Minister shall appoint a committee, to be called the Central Housing Advisory Committee, for the purpose of—
§
VISCOUNT HALIFAX had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (1):
(d) considering the operation of the enactments relating to housing and making to the Minister such representations with respect to matters of general concern arising in connection with the execution of those enactments as the Committee think desirable.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before moving the next Amendment on the Paper I want, with your Lordships' permission, to make a short statement on a matter that arose while your Lordships' House was in Committee ten days ago on this Bill, and in regard to which it seems appropriate that something should be said, and said now. Your Lordships will remember that on that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, who, I see, is not in his place, but whom I told of my intention to make this observation, quoted a case that seemed to him to contain the elements of some misconduct in Bacup. The suggestion, not made by the noble Earl but that seemed to his informants to emerge from the facts, was that the local authority had used a clearance order to depress the market price of the property, and that at that depressed price it had been bought by some members of the Town Council for their own private advantage and gain. I undertook to ask my right honourable friend to look into the case, and I think it is only right, both to your Lordships' House and also to the Town Council, that the facts should be stated.
§ The objectors to the purchase make quite clear, I understand, their view that in this particular case there was no question of making the clearance order with a view to the subsequent purchase on 338 behalf of the Corporation of the property at a figure less than market value. No attempt was made to compel any person to sell under the threat of a, clearance order. So far as the purchasers were aware, the vendors were well satisfied with the transaction, and, so far as the purchasers are concerned, on the completion of the transaction they made it clear in a letter addressed to the town clerk that it was their intention to vest the property in the Corporation at a suitable and convenient time. My information is that the bank which advanced the money for the purchase required them to undertake not to make any private profit, and this undertaking was given. They have subsequently made a declaration that the properties acquired by them were bought in the interests of the town as a whole, with a view to central improvement and development, and are held by them at the disposal of the Corporation at the net cost for which they were acquired. I think that is all that it is on this point relevant for me to say, but I thought it just to say so much to remove what might have been a continuing unjust imputation.
§ The Amendment which I now move is put down to meet a promise given to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, the Committee stage. The object is to extend the powers of the Central Housing Advisory Committee by specifically providing that they could on their own initiative consider questions in regard to housing matters and make representations thereon to the Minister.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 22, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ THE EARL OF DUDLEYMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for adding this subsection, and I am sure it will go far to strengthen the status and usefulness of the Housing Advisory Committee.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 26:
§ Definition of housing association.
§ 26. For the purposes of the three next following sections of this Act the expression "housing association" means any society, body of trustees or company established for the purpose of, or amongst whose objects or powers are included those of, constructing, improving or managing, or facilitating or encouraging the construction or improve 339 ment of, houses for the working classes, being a society, company or body of trustees who do not trade for profit or whose constitution or rules prohibit the issue of any capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury, whether with or without differentiation as between share and loan capital.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to leave out" For the purposes of the three next following sections of this Act the expression 'housing association' means" and insert: "For references in the Act of 1925 and in the Act of 1930 to a public utility society there shall be substituted references to a 'housing association,' that is to say." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the first of a good many Amendments which have the effect of changing the title of public utility society throughout the Bill to that of housing association. Altogether I think they may be taken as drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 9, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("any") in line 11 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 27 [Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations]:
§
VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert:
(5) If a housing association represent to the Minister that they have submitted to the local authority proposals for arrangements under this section and that the local authority have unreasonably refused to make arrangements in accordance with the proposals, the Minister may require the authority to furnish him with a report as to the matter stating the reasons for their refusal.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment also is to meet a promise that was given to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I think the Amendment is self-explanatory, and I hope the noble Lord will think that it carries out the promise.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Halifax.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, as the noble Viscount has said, this is, if I may say so, the authorised version of an Amendment which he was good enough to say he would accept. There is only one point on which I should like an assurance. In my Amendment as originally drafted, provision was made for the 340 Minister to hold a local inquiry in the event of a local authority unreasonably refusing to make arrangements. This subsection permits the housing association to make representations and the Minister to require the authority to furnish him with a report on the matter stating the reasons for their refusal. I assume that the Minister automatically thereafter, if dissatisfied with the reasons furnished, would hold a local inquiry, or at all events is empowered to hold a local inquiry by some other part of the Bill. I would like an assurance on that point.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I cannot of course give an assurance that every Minister would automatically hold an inquiry, but there is nothing in this to prevent him holding an inquiry, and no doubt if he thought it necessary on the facts as emerging from the report, he certainly would.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 29 [Amendments of the Act of 1925 as to public utility societies, etc.]:
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, of the next three Amendments the first two are consequential and the third is drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 27, line 18, leave out from the first ("association") to the end of the subsection
§ Page 27, line 32, leave out subsection (3)
§ Page 27, line 37, leave out ("the said Section ninety") and insert ("Section ninety of the Act of 1925").—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 31:
§ Exchequer contributions towards provision, of flats on sites of high value.
§ (2) A contribution under this section shall be the appropriate sum as defined in the Third Schedule to this Act, payable annually for a period of forty years, in respect of each flat which is with the approval of the Minister provided for the purposes of such accommodation as aforesaid in such a block as aforesaid.
§
THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
Provided that the approval of the Minister be not given unless he is satisfied that each flat in a block exceeding three storeys in height is provided with a balcony.
341
The noble Earl said My Lords, you may remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I moved this Amendment with a view to making the provision of balconies in flats statutory. I pointed out that medical evidence showed very strongly that the health of young children suffered considerably where the parents lived on the top storeys of these flats, because the mothers were unable to take them out into the air and the sunshine; and that the architectural and technical research for the provision of suitable balconies cost very little—only about £1 a balcony. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill kindly told me that he would consult with the Minister on this subject, and your Lordships showed considerable sympathy with the principle of the Amendment.
§ Since then I have had an opportunity of consulting with the Minister, in company with the medical experts and technical and architectural experts, and I am satisfied that the Ministry recognise very sincerely the desirability of these balconies. There are, however, certain difficulties in making their provision statutory on account of the difficulty of defining the word "balcony"—I do not quite know why it should be more difficult to define than a bathroom, but apparently it is—and also because a certain amount of experimental work would be necessary, which I readily understand. The Minister, however, was willing to give an assurance—which I hope he has passed on to the noble Viscount—that he would embody his sense of the desirability of providing these balconies in a circular memorandum to local authorities. Recognising as I do the genuine sympathy of the Minister, that would meet our case perfectly well, and if the noble Viscount would give me that assurance that the Minister will embody it in some future circular to local authorities, that would meet the case.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I am glad to be able to assure my noble friend that the liaison between my right honourable friend and myself is so good that I find myself in complete agreement on my right honourable friend's behalf with the version that the noble Earl has given of his conversation with my right honourable friend. I am able formally to give the 342 assurance that the noble Earl desires, that my right honourable friend will see to it that this matter is mentioned in the circular he proposes to send to local authorities. I am sure he will share the gratification your Lordships will share with me that that seems to be the appropriate course to the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF DUDLEYMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 34 [Local authorities' contributions towards expenses of accommodation provided for the purposes of Part 1]:
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the foregoing section").—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 36 [Review of Exchequer contributions in case of new houses provided at future times]:
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 14, leave out ("alterations") and insert ("alteration").—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 47 [Temporary application of moneys in housing accounts]:
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, these two Amendments are drafting.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 19, leave out ("the general rate, or")
line 30, leave out ("the general rate, or").—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 61 [Application of certain provisions of Act of 1930 to demolition orders under this Part]:
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, the Amendments to this clause, are, I think, almost drafting. The purpose of all these Amendments is to apply the provisions of the principal Act of 1925 to the new procedure in this Bill for the demolition of obstructive buildings. These provisions did apply to the procedure of 1925, for which the new 343 procedure in this Bill is now being substituted.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 9, leave out ("in the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 13, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 17, leave out ("that is to say") and insert ("and the references therein to Part I of the Act of 1925 or to Part II of the Act of 1930 included references to the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, that is to say,—
Page 52, line 18, after ("twenty-two") insert ("of the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 21, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("of the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 24, after ("forty") insert ("of the Act of 1930").
Page 52, line 28, after ("fifty-nine") insert ("of the Act of 1930").—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 62:
§ Amendment as to buildings in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, &c., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.
§ 62.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of the Act of 1930, there shall be excluded from a clearance order made there-under any dwelling-houses or other buildings properly included in the clearance area only on the ground that by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, they are dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area, and, if a compulsory purchase order is confirmed with respect to the site of any such dwelling-house or other building as being land comprised in a clearance area, the compensation to be paid for the land including the buildings thereon shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule of the Act of 1930:
§ Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a building constructed or adapted as or for the purposes of a dwelling-house, or partly for those purposes and partly for other purposes, if any part (not being a part used for other purposes) is by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects unfit for human habitation.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after the first "arrangement," to insert "in relation to other buildings." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this 344 Amendment has also emerged from the discussion which took place on the Committee stage. The discussion turned on whether or not some words in the clause in the Bill were intended to refer to internal bad arrangement or only to external bad arrangement. I have had some discussion with the Ministry on this subject since the last stage of the Bill, and I hope to find that the liaison between the noble Viscount and the Minister is also sufficient to secure that he will find himself able to accept this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 36, after the first ("arrangement") insert ("in relation to other buildings'').—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I opposed this Amendment in Committee, and I propose to oppose it again. This is an attempt to whittle down the compensation given by the Minister of Health, which is really very long overdue, because great scandals were caused by not giving proper compensation hitherto. My noble friend proposes that this particular provision for the reduction of compensation shall only apply to buildings Which have bad arrangement in relation to other buildings. This would very much narrow the effect of the Government's proposal, and I suggest, therefore, that it is far better to leave the broad interpretation of what "bad arrangement" really means rather than to limit it as this particular Amendment does. But, having heard what my noble friend has said, I fear that the Government mean to give way.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, I very much hope that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will be able to accept this Amendment in spite of the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount opposite, because they do make perfectly plain a meaning which was, I think, extremely obscure previously. If I recollect rightly, during the discussion in Committee there did not seem to be any two interpretations of these words "bad arrangement'' which were precisely the same. Therefore I very much hope the Government will accept this Amendment, and accept in in the form in which it has been put down by the noble Lord, which makes it perfectly 345 plain that "bad arrangement" refers to the relation in which a house stands to its immediate environment.
VISCOUNT GAGEMy Lords, the noble Lord is so well informed as to the intentions of the Government that my task is considerably lightened. In accepting this Amendment, I may perhaps say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, that I am informed it was always the intention of the Government that this exception should be limited only to the fact of bad external arrangement. We, in fact, never believed that the possibility envisaged by my noble friend Lord Balfour could arise, but as the House did not seem to be satisfied that this was so, with the usual reasonableness of the Ministry of Health we propose to accept this Amendment, which we believe makes quite clear our original intention.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 63:
§ Obligation of the Minister to state reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation.
§ 63. Any person who objects to a clearance order on the ground that a building included therein, being a building in which he is interested, is not unfit for human habitation, or who objects on the like ground to a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930, or under Part I of this Act, and who appears at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, shall, if the building is included in the order as confirmed as being unfit for human habitation, be entitled on making a request in writing to be furnished by the Minister with a statement in writing of his reasons for deciding that the building is so unfit.
§
VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert at the beginning of the clause:
(1) Where a person upon whom notice of a clearance order or of a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930 or under Part I of this Act is required to be served has duly made objection thereto on the ground that a building included therein is not unfit for human habitation, and the objection has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall not cause the public local inquiry with respect thereto to be held earlier than the expiration of fourteen days after it has been shown to his satisfaction that the local authority have served upon the objector a notice in writing stating what facts they allege as their principal grounds for being satisfied that the building is so unfit.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment Which I move in fulfilment of an undertaking given to my noble friend Lord Mount Temple on the 346 Committee stage. It is not exactly in the form in which he moved it. Your Lordships will observe that the period of time mentioned in my Amendment is fourteen days, whereas he had moved it in relation to a period of twenty-eight days. We prefer fourteen days because, while we have no objection to the general principle of the right given by this Amendment, we do not wish to involve the operation of the Bill in any unnecessary procedure, and we think fourteen days are enough. Otherwise, I think it is substantially in fulfilment of the undertaking I gave to the noble Lord.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 27, at the beginning insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 64:
§ Payments in respect of well-maintained houses.
§ (2) A payment under this section shall be of an amount equal either—
- (a) to the amount by which the aggregate expenditure which is shown to the satisfaction of the local authority to have been incurred in maintaining the house during the five years immediately before the date on which it is inspected exceeds an amount equal to one and one-quarter times the rateable value of the house; or
- (b) to one and a half times, or, if at that date the house is occupied by an owner thereof and has been owned and occupied by him or by a member of his family continuously during the three years immediately before that date, three times the rateable value of the house;
§
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "it is inspected" and insert "the order was made". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a clause which has to do with compensation in respect of a well-maintained house. The clause provides in the subsection to which the Amendment refers that payment under this section shall be of an amount equal
to the amount by which the aggregate expenditure which is shown to the satisfaction of the local authority to have been incurred in maintaining the house during the five years immediately before the date on which it is inspected exceeds an amount equal to one and one-quarter times the rateable value of the house.
§ The point is to ascertain what has been spent on repairs during time five years 347 preceding the date which has to be specified in the Bill.
§ This refers to property in a clearance area, and there are three possible dates which can be specified. You can take the date when the area was represented for clearance, or the date on which the order was made, or the date on which the final inspection took place by the inspector of the Ministry at the time of the inquiry. In the Bill as it stood when it came to your Lordships' House the phrase was "the date when the order was made." I had an Amendment to substitute the date on which the representation was made. The Government altered the Bill to read as it now stands "the date on which it is inspected." Local authorities are rather concerned about this, because it has been the practice of certain owners, not of the highest class, to rush through repairs, some of which I might call of a show kind to impress the inspector rather than materially to improve the house. Local authorities, generally speaking, are satisfied that from an administrative point of view they would rather have "the date on which the order was made" than "the date on which it was inspected." This Amendment is an attempt to restore the Bill to the state in which it was when it came to your Lordships' House, and I hope that the noble Viscount may feel able, on the representations of the local authorities concerned, to restore the words. It is a mere matter of administration and we think this is the best way to do it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 15, leave out ("it is inspected") and insert ("the order was made").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, this Amendment, which is obviously intended to whittle down compensation, suggests that no payment shall be made between the difference of the market value of the house and the site value—an expression which is used here as including the value of the house in a clearance order. The latter is of course nil, so, presumably, my noble friend Lord Balfour means that compensation shall not exceed the value of the house sold by a willing seller to a willing purchaser in the open market. Under the Government Bill, there is not the least likelihood of this taking place—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI think the noble Viscount is talking about the next Amendment and not this one.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI apologise.
VISCOUNT GAGEIt is true that the Government are not unsympathetic to the point of view put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. At the same time I think we must bear in mind that it would be very unfortunate if we unnecessarily discouraged the ordinary process of straightforward repair being carried out. Obviously, if one says that after a certain date no amounts expended on repairs of any sort are likely to be taken into consideration the result will be to discourage any repairs. But that is inevitable, and all we can do to meet the objections to the making of spurious repairs with the object of getting compensation is to select a date for the purposes of making the calculation for compensation which has the fewest disadvantages. I must confess that this is very largely a matter of experience, and if, as I understand is the case, the Association of Municipal Corporations support this Amendment, that would move the Government very largely in favour of it.
VISCOUNT GAGEUnless the House has any strong objections to it, I think the Government will accept the Amendment.
§ LORD JESSELAre we certain the Municipal Corporations are in favour of it?
§
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
Provided that a payment under this section shall not in any case exceed the difference between the full value of the house (that is to say the amount which would have been payable as compensation if it had been purchased compulsorily but not as being unfit for human habitation) and the site value thereof (that is to say the amount which is payable as compensation by virtue of its being purchased compulsorily as being unfit for human habitation, or which would have been so payable if it had been so purchased), and
349
any question as to such value shall be determined, in default of agreement, as it it had been a question of disputed compensation arising on such a purchase.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have had the advantage of hearing some of the objections of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, to this Amendment before I had to move it. I think I can reassure him, because the object of this Amendment is merely to see that the owner does not get more than market value. I do not think the noble Viscount would wish the owner to get more than market value. All that this Amendment does is to provide that the maximum shall be the market value. I was apprehensive of the clause as it stood, as it provides that the owner may get the amount spent on repairs in the previous five years. Certain property with which I am familiar would certainly tend to provide this result, that if an owner got all he had spent on repairs in the previous five years he might easily get more, in the case of old and dilapidated property, than it was worth. I want to secure that the owner shall not get more than market value, and that is what he will get under this clause if the amount of repairs amounts to that sum.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for having mixed up my notes, although I think I share that failing with some members of the Front Bench on occasions. I should rather like to look into what my noble friend Lord Balfour has said and reserve my right to move an Amendment if I should think one necessary on the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT GAGEMy Lords, I think this represents the undertaking that the Government gave in regard to this question aid we propose to accept the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 65 [Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary]:
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, the Amendment down in my name on this clause is drafting, and was put down to 350 meet the wishes of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, leave out ("agrees") and insert ("agree").—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 68:
§ Amendment of Act of 1925, s. 6, as to by-laws.
§ 68.—(1) The following amendments shall be made in Section six of the Act of 1925 (which relates to the making of by-laws respecting houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes).
§
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert the following new subsection:
(7) By-laws under the said Section six may be made applicable to—
notwithstanding that such building or part of a building may not be a house intended or used for occupation by the working classes.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, again, is a different version of an Amendment which was under discussion on Committee stage, and which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill was kind enough to say would be taken into consideration, although without any undertaking that it was going to be accepted. The position is this. The subject with which the Amendment deals is one now rapidly becoming a source of trouble, particularly in certain parts in the West of London, for instance, Kensington, Paddington and Chelsea, where certain large houses are being subdivided and let off to a large number of different tenants. I know of one particular house of nineteen rooms in a very good residential area which has been divided up into nineteen separate flatlets, as they are called. The process is to put a bath into a corner of a room, sometimes a gas cooking stove, sometimes a washhand basin, but, as a rule, not a water closet, and then these separate rooms are let off as separate dwellings 351 to people of the class of young professional men and people who are definitely not within the definition of working classes.
§ It is quite certain that this kind of case is not covered by Section 94 of the Public Health Act, 1891. It was thought we might at one time have power to make by-laws under that Act, but it is now definitely agreed that we have not such power, nor can the local authority make by-laws under Section 6 of the 1925 Act, because the property is being let at rents of 25s. to 30s. a week for a single room and is not suitable for occupation by the working classes. But it does not alter the fact that during the last two or three years, when this class of conversion has been under our observation, we have seen a very swift and progressive deterioration of property, and I think I shall not be contradicted when I say that every authority—the Ministry and the local authorities in London, including the London County Council—is anxious to see this matter dealt with. In fact, I think I could almost say that undertakings were given in another place during the course of the debate that sufficient provision would be put into the Bill to enable this property to be dealt with. Such provision has not appeared up to the present time and this Amendment is an attempt to extend the Bill in order to allow local authorities to make suitable by-laws for this class of property which, it is agreed, will rapidly become a menace to public health. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to accept the Amendment, which is the only way I can suggest of carrying out the intention of the Government.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRMy Lords, I am interested in the object which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has in view in moving this Amendment. It may interest him to know that so far as Kensington is concerned, some three or four years ago a great many houses were being converted into flats. Fortunately a town-planning scheme was in operation in quite a large portion of Kensington and whenever these applications came forward I put into the consent under the Town Planning Act conditions which resulted in everything desired being obtained. I understand from what the noble Lord said 352 that he has in view chiefly three boroughs in London. Now that the whole of London is under town-planning control the object he has in view can be obtained by the town-planning authority, that is, by the London County Council. I have reason to believe that my successor in the office of Chairman of the Town Planning Committee is very much alive to this particular aspect of the problem and that as opportunity offers, whenever applications come along, the conditions which I drafted originally will be put into any future consent for the conversion of houses. I must say that I agree that something is necessary to prevent these small flats being created without specific conditions or control, but as far as London is concerned I think that with town-planning powers covering the whole county there is sufficient power to do what the noble Lord desires.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I can only speak again by the leave of your Lordships, but I should like to be permitted to deal with the point raised by the noble Marquess. We did make an attempt in Kensington to get these places dealt with under town-planning powers and I have here a letter from the Town Clerk to myself in which he says:
Our second line of approach was to get the County Council to prevent the conversion into undesirable flatlets by imposing restrictions under their town-planning powers, but after they had imposed such restriction in a number of cases they wrote a letter on 13th July, 1934, of which I enclose a copy.One paragraph in the letter from the Clerk of the London County Council to the Town Clerk of Kensington was as follows:The Council have been advised that the matters referred to in the conditions clearly relate and have reference to the contractual relation between the landlord and tenant as to the interior of domestic management of the room, and to sanitary and other matters which are subject to the inspection and control of the borough council and that the conditions should not be legally enforced by the Council under its town-planning schemes.I did not trouble your Lordships with that when I was speaking because I did not know that the noble Marquess was going to raise this point, but I think it is quite conclusive.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, I should like to bear out what the noble 353 Lord has just said with reference to the present powers of borough councils. I do not think the noble Marquess is quite sufficiently informed, because it is the explicit desire of the London County Council to support this Amendment and I cannot imagine that they would wish to do that if they were satisfied that the borough councils with their present powers were able to control conditions in these particular dwellings. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment because it does seem to make more explicit provisions they have laid down themselves, carrying them a. little further in a logical direction. Clause 68 governs the by-laws under the Housing Act, 1925, which are to be applied to all categories of houses that may be inhabited by working-class families. Surely there is no logical reason why a house, because it is not occupied by a working-class family but is occupied by a small middle-class family, should be exempt from inspection and be outside the control of the local authorities.
I cannot think that the Government would not deem it desirable to carry their own reasoning to a legitimate conclusion, and I therefore hope that they will enable local authorities to deal with these small flats, or flatlets as they are sometimes referred to, in order to provide a minimum of hygienic and sanitary conditions whether they are in fact occupied by the working classes or by what are sometimes called the lower middle classes.
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, I was very glad to hear the speech from the noble Earl opposite because it shows there is no class feeling about this matter. As regards the suggestion that the London County Council has asked for this power I think it should be borne in mind that town-planning is an enormous task for the London County Council to undertake and with so many big problems to be settled I do not think the Council should be loaded up with details of this kind. This is a matter entirely for the local authorities. They are on the spot and know what is happening. These flatlets last only for a short time and, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, they soon deteriorate. The one object of this Bill is to prevent slums, but the creation of slums is what is going to happen unless there is some control. The places some 354 people of the better classes have to go into are painful, but they have to do it because they cannot get other accommodation. Something should be done to safeguard their health as well as the health of the working classes.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I can assure those noble Lords who have spoken from both sides of the House that my right honourable friend is quite alive to the reality of this problem, and I am quite sure also that he would entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Jessel that in this matter of housing there should be no class distinction of the kind that would lead us to say that the accommodation for one class is all-important but the accommodation for another class matters little if at all. Therefore on fundamental things I do not think there is much difference between us. The difficulty I feel in accepting the Amendment is of a rather different kind.
It is, as the noble Lord said, a problem that is one rather particularly concerning three or four boroughs in London. Although they are all conscious of the problem they are not at all in agreement, I am advised, as to the best method of dealing with it. I understand that discussions are proceeding between the boroughs involved and the London County Council. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships, as it has been suggested to me, that the proper course is to allow these discussions to continue between the boroughs and the London County Council and if, and when, they reach a conclusion it would then be quite possible if that conclusion entailed legislation for it to be incorporated in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. It is really a London problem and I suggest to your Lordships that that is the most appropriate way of dealing with it, because apart from the difficulty of reaching a definition I think that it would at this stage of the Bill involve too much delay.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, the noble Viscount has been so very kind in regard to various Amendments that I do not think it would be proper to put your Lordship to the trouble of a Division on this Amendment, particularly as the remedy he has suggested is not altogether an unreasonable one. I would only like to say to your Lordships that the boroughs in question 355 have been trying now for two or three years to find a remedy, and it is a little hard when the fruit which we were almost tasting to-day is wrested from our mouths. But in view of the noble Viscount's kindness I will withdraw my Amendment, only asking to be allowed to express the hope that the Minister will not lose sight of the matter and that if and when a proposal for a clause in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill comes forward it will receive the Ministry's approval and support.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 70:
§ Power to purchase compulsorily land not immediately required.
§ 70. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of Section fifty-eight of the Act of 1925, a local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of Part III of that Act although that land is not immediately required for those purposes, and accordingly the words "by agreement (but not otherwise)" in the said subsection shall cease to have effect.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of an Amendment, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the words "For the period of five years from the date of the passing of this Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I perceive my noble friend has an Amendment to meet to some extent the point which my Amendment raises, I think that his Amendment will act as some brake, and therefore I will hastily devour the crumb which falls from my rich friend's table.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, after "those purposes," to insert "if it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be so required within five years." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to impose a movable time limit upon the operations of local authorities in this matter of purchase of land in advance of their requirements. I most gladly pass it as a full meal to my noble friend Viscount Bertie of Thame.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 58, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXThe next Amendment is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 41, at end insert ("and at the end of the said subsection the following proviso shall be inserted—
'Provided that a local authority shall not be authorised to purchase any land compulsorily for those purposes unless it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be required for those purposes within five years from the date on which he confirms the compulsory purchase order.'")—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 79 [Service of notices, &c.]:
§
VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert:
(2) Subsection (3) of Section nineteen of the Act of 1930 shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if for the reference therein to service of a demolition order made thereunder there had been substituted a reference to service of a copy of the order.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is only a small point, but it is introduced to meet a point raised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Bill provides in the Sixth Schedule that a copy of a demolition order instead of the original order may be served on the persons concerned. That is, of course, necessary, since there is only one original order and there may be more than one person to be served. The Association pointed out that in some cases local authorities have usually served copies in the past, and unless this procedure is regularised by making this Amendment—as noble Lords will see—retrospective, it is feared that there might be litigation, which would be unnecessary. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 62, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 82:
§ Power of local authority to cleanse from vermin building to be demolished under clearance or demolition order.
§ 82.—(1) If it appears to the local authority that a building, to which a clearance order or a demolition order under Section nineteen of the Act of 1930 applies, requires to be cleansed from vermin, the authority may, at any time after the order has become operative, serve notice in writing on the owner or owners of the building that the authority intend to cleanse it before it is demolished.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "after the order 357 has become operative" and insert "between the date on which the order is (in the case of a clearance order) confirmed or (in the case of a demolition order) made and the date on which it becomes operative in relation to the building." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this also is a small point. As the Bill stands, a local authority may not give an owner notice that they intend to cleanse the buildings until after an order in relation to that building has become operative. That may have the effect of placing both the owner and the local authority in a. position of some awkwardness, because an owner must have received a formal notice to demolish his house by a certain specified day before the local authority can send in another notice saying that he may not demolish it, and he may already have entered into a contract for its demolition before he receives a second notice. In those circumstances it seems desirable that the notice of the local authority that they propose to cleanse a building before demolition should be served on the owner before the order for demolition actually becomes operative.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 24, leave out ("after the order has become operative") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, after Clause 82, to insert the following new clause:
§ Limitation of time for offer to repair insanitary house.
§
"83.—(1) In Section nineteen of the Act of 1930 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1):
'(1a) A person upon whom notice is served under the foregoing subsection shall, if he intends to submit an offer with respect to the carrying out of works, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice upon him, serve upon the authority notice in writing of his intention to make such an offer, and shall, within such reasonable period as the authority may allow, submit to them a list of the works which he offers to carry out.'
§
(2) The following proviso shall be inserted at the end of subsection (2) of Section twenty-two of the Act of 1930:
'Provided that the Judge shall not accept from an appellant upon whom such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (1) of Section nineteen of this Act was served an undertaking to carry out any works, unless the appellant complied with the
358
requirements of subsection (1a) of the said Section nineteen.'
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a slight re-draft, but without altering the sense, of a clause that was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I am advised that this is a better form of words for carrying out an intention that is common to us both. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ After Clause 82, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 83 [Extension of power to make a closing order as to part of a building]:
§
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, to insert after subsection (1):
(2) Subsection (i) of Section eighteen of the Act of 1925 shall have effect as if the words 'habitually used as a sleeping place' had been omitted.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which concerns a matter of local administration. Clause 83 enables a basement to be closed which is not actually occupied, and that is a very useful amendment of the existing law. Clause 18(1), however, which is referred to, only refers to a room habitually used as a sleeping place. The object of this Amendment is to omit those words "habitually used as a sleeping place." This, again, is a matter which has been under considerable discussion during the various stages of the Bill. The history of the matter is that Kensington, through a London County Council General Powers Bill, obtained powers to close these basements in the way for which I am now seeking by this Amendment; but the passage of this Bill has taken away those powers. If this clause stands as it is at present in the Bill, we shall be deprived to a certain extent of powers which we already have and which, I think it is admitted, we have administered properly. The object of the Amendment is simple: it is to carry out an undertaking which was given in another place that this Kensington Clause shall be made a general one, and I hope the noble Viscount will accept it. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 64, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, in the view of those who have 359 advised me, this is an attempt to make a room used for any purpose to be scheduled "as so dangerous or injurious to health" as to be unfit for human habitation, if the surface of the floor is more than three feet below the surface of the part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room, and also if it is not "on an average at least seven feet in height from floor to ceiling." In the law as it stands at present, when such rooms are habitually used as sleeping places they are to be closed by the local authority. My noble friend really wants them to be closed even when they are not used for sleeping places and are perfectly good for ordinary accommodation even in the daytime. I do not think that that can really be his intention, but now that I have pointed it out to him, perhaps he will be ready to withdraw his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I do not suppose that is precisely the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I do not think that will be the effect of the Amendment, and of the clause if the Amendment were inserted. I would ask your Lordships to look at Clause 83. In the proposed substituted Section 20 these words appear:
they shall make a closing order prohibiting the use of the part of the building or of the room, as the case may be, for any purpose other than a purpose approved by the local authority, but—Then, if your Lordships will turn to the top of page 65 of the Bill, you will see that it is proposed to insert a paragraph allowing the right of appeal to the County Court against an unreasonable restriction by the local authority on the use of any such premises.
- (a)the approval of the authority shall not be unreasonably withheld; and
- (b)the authority shall determine the closing order on being satisfied that the part of the building or the room to which it relates has been rendered fit for human habitation."
In these circumstances I think your Lordships will agree with me that, provided that the right of appeal is maintained, as it is maintained in the latter half of the clause, there is nothing objectionable in giving the power to the local authority to be able to enforce such a standard as they, being reasonable—as I think most authorities are—may consider desirable; and also supposing that 360 there is reasonable protection for the subject by appeal to the County Courts.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 86 [Exclusion on certain appeals of questions not raised on consideration by local authority]
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXThis Amendment is consequential.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Leave out Clause 86.—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.—
§ Clause 88:
§ Amendments as to allowances in respect of demolitions, &c.
§
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted at the end of the said Section forty one—
(2) Where as a result of action taken by a local authority under Part I of this Act the population of the locality is materially decreased, they may pay to any person carrying on a retail shop in the locality such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards any loss which in their opinion he will thereby sustain, but in estimating any such loss they shall have regard to the probaable future development of the locality.
§
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (2), before the second "locality," to insert "immediate." The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to limit the operation of this clause, which again was the subject of some discussion in the Committee stage. This is the clause which gives permission to the local authorities:
Where, as a result of action taken by a local authority under Part I of this Act"—
that is clearance—
the population of the locality is materially decreased, they may pay to any person carrying on a retail shop in the locality such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards any loss which in their opinion he will thereby sustain.
§ I think on the Committee stage all your Lordships felt that this was a very wide power, and we felt that if seine limiting words could be found, it would be desirable. Obvious analogies spring to mind which may be very dangerous and very wide. I cannot say that I think my contribution is a very important one here, but I am trying to limit the word "locality," and I think the word "immediate" may have some limiting effect.
361§ My object is to limit the area of this compensation, which I consider is too dangerously wide.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 28, after ("the") insert ("immediate").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXI am in considerable sympathy with the nobly Lord in his desire to limit this clause, so far as may reasonably be done, and I have myself an Amendment, the next on the Paper, which is designed to that end. I venture to think, though one must always be on one's guard against the pride of paternity, that it is a better Amendment. I do not think the word "immediate" in this place would greatly help us. The word "locality" occurs in two places, and I would have supposed that the occurrence of the word "locality" in the third line of the proposed new subsection (2) does put a rather useful limiting effect upon the implication of "locality" where it occurs two lines later. I am advised that it would not be possible to insert the word "immediate" without defining what the locality was immediate to, and that we should get into considerable drafting difficulties. Therefore, while I sympathise with the noble Lord's purpose I do not think I am able to be enamoured of his methods, and I prefer my own.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I recognise that we are working in the same direction, but I had hoped that the noble Viscount would think that my Amendment was not contradictory to, but indeed complementary of, his Amendment. I cannot see why we cannot have both.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I do not want to leave my noble friend without an answer. If he looks at the clause he will see that, with his Amendment, it would read as follows:
Where as a result of action taken by a local authority under Part I of this Act the population of the locality is materially decreased, they may pay to any person carrying on a retail shop in the immediate locality such reasonable allowance as they think fit.What is the locality which is eligible, so to speak? What is it immediate to? What is the locality in which the population has been decreased? It really does 362 not get you forward, and I think you must trust the common sense of the responsible authority.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI naturally was interested to hear the noble Viscount's criticisms of his own clause, but in view of the opinion to which he has given expression I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, in subsection (2), after the first "loss," to insert "involving personal hardship." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has the same purpose of limiting the compensation clause, and as your Lordships will see it attempts to do that by imposing the condition that the payment must be in respect of loss involving personal hardship. Therefore, it is designed to rule out the branch of a multiple shop, which might otherwise be a beneficiary.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 29, after ("loss") insert ("involving personal hardship").—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
Provided that a person carrying oh a retail shop does not mean a branch establishment of a multiple shop or a public house.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment again by arrangement with the noble Viscount, because in Committee we had some discussion as to whether a public-house or a branch of a multiple shop would be a retail shop within the meaning of this clause, and so qualify for compensation. I under stand that a public-house is not a shop, but I would be very glad to have an authoritative statement from the noble Viscount. I suppose the words we have just put in, "involving personal hardship," may be held to rule out the branch of a multiple shop, and I should like to have an authoritative statement that a public-house is not a shop, and therefore not a retail shop for the purpose of this clause.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 32, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ LORD JESSELMight I ask whether that would apply to the tenant of a public-house?
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment is quite right in thinking that the Amendment you have just inserted, on my Motion, would have the effect of meeting the case of the multiple shop. He is also right in understanding that the Government's view is that this clause would not enable an allowance to be given in respect of a public-house. The question which Lord Jessel has just asked me, as to whether it would apply to a tenant of a public-house, therefore, in the parlance of another place, does not arise—I mean the paragraph does not apply to a public-house at all.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 97 [Interpretation,]
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 24, at end insert:
("Housing association ' has the meaning assigned to it by Section twenty-six of this Act.")—(Viscount Halifax.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ First Schedule: