HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 22 July 1935)

HL Deb 22 July 1935 vol 98 cc649-93 649

§ House again in Committee (according to Order)

§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

§ Clause 13

§ Duty of local authority to secure redevelopment of areas in certain cases.

§ 13.—(1) If a local authority are satisfied, as a result of an inspection carried out under Section one of this Act or otherwise, that their district comprises any area in which the following conditions exist, that is to say,—

(a) that the area contains fifty or more working-class houses;
(b) that at least one-third of the working-class houses in the area fall within any one or more of the following categories, that is to say—
1. (i) overcrowded and with less accommodation than three apartments;
2. (ii) unfit for human habitation, and not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit; and
3. (iii) so arranged as to be congested;

§ THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (i). The noble Duke said: The effect of this Amendment would be that a working-class area could be scheduled for redevelopment on account of one-third or more of the houses in-eluded in it being unfit for human habitation, and being so arranged as to be congested, but not merely because one-third of the houses are one- or two-roomed houses which are overcrowded according to the standards of the Bill. That would seem to be unreasonable. They may contain every up-to-date convenience, they 650 may be in the best of repair, but if at the time that they are inspected the persons living in them exceed by the smallest number those permitted under the Bill, the whole of an area of not less than 50 working-class houses must be scheduled for redevelopment, and the local authority are to be compelled to do this however uncrowded and however up-to-date and admirable in all other respects the other houses in the area may be. I think the Government, in an. Amendment to Clause 14, desire to make it possible that some of the houses in an area proclaimed for redevelopment should be retained for their existing purpose instead of all of them having to be pulled down as appeared formerly to be the purpose of the clause. Even so, Clause 13 will surely provide an inducement to an extravagant authority to embark upon schemes that are not really necessary, and are extremely costly to the Exchequer, to the ratepayers and to the owners concerned.

§ If one-third of the houses in an area are overcrowded surely the most sensible thing to do is to move the occupants at the earliest possible moment into bigger houses and then to offer the one-roomed or two-roomed houses to single persons or old couples. Our main problem is a shortage of houses, and although the chief demand may be for three-roomed or four-roomed houses, we cannot afford to give local authorities the temptation to pull down one-roomed or two-roomed houses that may be in excellent condition and quite up-to-date. The Government, I know, made a concession on this subsection in another place so that it only refers now to one-roomed and two-roomed houses, but if there were good reasons for making that alteration in another place I think there are equally good reasons for doing the thing handsomely. Even now the Government can oblige local authorities to embark on numerous schemes of redevelopment. I hold that all house property in good condition is so valuable to the community that no inducement—still less an obligation—should be placed on anyone to destroy it.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 4, leave out ("sub-paragraph (i)").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The noble Duke referred to the Amendment made in another place 651 which secured that the houses we are now concerned with should not only be overcrowded but should have not fewer than three rooms. I cannot help feeling that that—as he has admitted to a certain extent—should remove his fears. As the paragraph now stands it must be shown by the local authority that redevelopment is necessary for the reason that the houses are too small to accommodate on an uncrowded basis the families who because of the social and industrial conditions of the locality must continue to live there. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because to eliminate overcrowding as a factor in the determination of a redevelopment area would to a very large extent wreck the purpose of the whole redevelopment provisions of the Bill. It would reduce the basis for determining a redevelopment area to one containing only unfit and congested houses. But the aim is not merely to clear away unfit and congested houses. If it were, local authorities have already sufficient powers under the clearance area provisions of the 1930 Act for that purpose. The aim is to secure redevelopment of an area on lines which will adequately meet the industrial and social requirements of the district.
That is made clear by the following paragraphs in the clause, paragraphs (c) and (d), under which a, local authority is required to show, before redevelopment can proceed: (c)that the industrial and social conditions of their district are such that the area should be used to a substantial extent for housing the working classes; and (d)that it is expedient in connection with the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes that the area should be redeveloped as a whole.

652

§ For this reason overcrowded houses must be included in the redevelopment operations. If overcrowded, they are manifestly too small to provide accommodation according to the standard for the families who on account of the industrial needs of the district roust continue to live in that area. The only solution, therefore, is to replace them by larger houses more suited to the needs of the families in question. Our object is to get rid of the small, badly arranged, insanitary houses, and if we accepted this Amendment our object would be put back.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I am not at all satisfied with the reply given by the noble Lord. It does seem absurd to pull down small houses which can house small families properly. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that every family in a rural area is a large one. As I have said, I am quite certain that the proper thing to do is to put the bigger families in the bigger houses and the smaller families into smaller houses which are quite big enough for them. There are quite a lot of rules and regulations to ensure that they are good and sanitary houses. It is only waste of public money to pull down these houses, and it is bad luck for small families, when the household consists perhaps of only husband and wife and no children, that houses which would suit them are to be pulled down. I must ask your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment.

§ On Question, Whether sub-paragraph (i) shall stand part of the clause?

§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 12.

651

CONTENTS.
Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Plymouth, E.	Denman, L.
	Stanhope, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)	Strafford, E.	Greville, L.
		Hutchison of Montrose, L.
	Mersey, V.	Newton, L.
Northumberland, D.		Playfair, L.
	Alness, L.	Polwarth, L.
Bath, M.	Alvingham, L.	Rennell, L.
	Bayford, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Breadalbane and Holland, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Munster, E. [Teller.]		Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Mar and Kellie, E.	Kinnaird, L.
Linlithgow, M.	Morton, E.	Lamington, L.[Teller.]
	Onslow, E.	Sandys, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Rothes, E.
Lindsay, E.	Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) [Teller.]

653

§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amend-merit disagreed to accordingly.

§ Clause 13 agreed to.

§ Clause 14 [Redevelopment plan]

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
All the Amendments to this clause are purely drafting and consequential.

§ Amendments moved— Page 9, line 38, leave out from ("indicating") to the end of the subsection and insert ("the manner in which it is intended that the defined area should be laid out and the land therein used, whether for existing purposes or for purposes requiring the carrying out of redevelopment thereon and in particular the land intended to be used for the provision of houses for the working classes, for the erection of shops, for streets, and for open spaces") Page 10, line 18, leave out ("to the redevelopment indicated by the plan") Page 11, line 10, after ("redeveloped") insert ("or used") Page 11, line 20, after the first ("redevelopment") insert ("or use") Page 11, line 21, after ("redevelopment") insert ("or use").—(Lord. Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 15:

§ Purchase of land for the purposes of redevelopment.

§ (2) It, shall be the duty of the local authority within the appropriate period specified in this subsection either to enter into agreements with the approval of the Department for the purchase, or to make and submit to the Department orders for the compulsory purchase, of all land in the redevelopment area other than land in respect of which the local authority have within that period made arrangements with other persons for the carrying out of redevelopment in accordance with the redevelopment plan.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "redevelopment," to insert "or for securing the use of the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is practically consequential. The subsection as drafted enables the local authority, instead of acquiring a piece of land in a redevelopment area, to arrange with other persons to carry out the proper redevelopment. The Amendment extends this provision to cover the case where redevelopment is not required and all 654 that is necessary is to secure that the existing use of the land continues unchanged.

§ Amendment moved— Page 12, line 9, after ("redevelopment") insert ("or for securing the use of the land").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The next Amendment is consequential.

§ Amendment moved— Page 12, line 42, after ("redeveloped") insert ("or used").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after subsection (5), to insert: (6) When the Department's approval of a redevelopment plan has become operative and the plan comprises any land of the local authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to that land as if it had been land in the redevelopment area purchased by the authority under this section.

§ The noble Lord said: The powers of a local authority to deal with property in a redevelopment; area are expressly related to land in the area purchased by the authority, by Clause 15 (4) and Clause 16 (3). There will often be cases where a redevelopment area contains property already belonging to a local authority, and, unless the authority have the same powers—for instance, of closing streets and removing pipes, cables and so on—in relation to the land already belonging to them as they have in relation to the land they purchase, they would be hampered in carrying out the redevelopment. This Amendment therefore puts all the land in the redevelopment area belonging to the local authority, whether by purchase under the Act or by previous acquisition, on the same footing.

§ Amendment moved— Page 12, line 43, at end insert the said s bsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 16 [Application of certain provisions of the Acts of 1925 and 1930 for purposes of redevelopment provisions]

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to insert at the beginning of the clause: 655 (1) The provisions of Section thirty-two of the Act of 1925 (which relates to expenses incurred in connection with certain orders) shall have effect in relation to a redevelopment plan and to a new plan and to the Department'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 Lord said: Section 32 of the Act of 1925 enables the Department to award expenses to objectors who have appeared at public local inquiries in connection with clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders and whose objections have later been sustained by the decision of the Department on the order. It is desirable that the Department shall have a similar power to award expenses in the case of a person who successfully objects against a local authority's proposals in regard to redevelopment, and this Amendment gives the Department that power.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 1, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
These are two drafting Amendments.:

§ Amendments moved— Page 13, line 23, after ("mentioned") insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under that Act") line 27, at end insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under this Act").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.

§ Clause 22:

§ Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.

§ 22.—(1) The Department shall appoint a Committee, to be called the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, for the purpose of—

§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): (d) considering the operation of the enactments relating to housing and making to the Department such representations with respect to matters of general concern arising in connection with the execution of those enactments as the Committee think desirable.

656

§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is designed to give the Advisory Committee some initiative. As the Bill is drawn, I am advised that the Committee can only deal with matters referred to them and cannot exert any initiative in enquiring into conditions other than those referred to them. Therefore, if the Committee are to have any real use in looking into questions of housing in Scotland and also advising the Department on the various points that come along in relation to this Bill, it is necessary to have this Amendment included.

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, lima 11, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The appointment of advisory committees is a familiar feature of modern legislation, and in fact much use has been made of these committees by the Government in Scotland. The functions of the Advisory Committee have hitherto been limited to the giving of advice on matters Which are specifically referred to them for consideration. The Amendment, which seeks to give the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to be set up under the Bill the power to initiate recommendations, therefore raises an entirely new principle. After careful consideration, however, the Government are prepared to accept the principle, but they would like to have an opportunity of considering the exact wording of the Amendment. If, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw it, the Government will undertake to put down another Amendment for consideration at the Report stage which will embody the proposal that he has in mind in a more convenient form.

§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE
I thank the noble Lord for his consideration, and under the conditions which he has mentioned, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MERSEY
I beg to move the next Amendment on behalf of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. I think his object is explained by the words in print.

657

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, line 11, at end insert: ("(d) reporting to the Department as to the effect of this Act on the housing of rural workers who occupy houses as part of their remuneration").—(Viscount Mersey.)

LORD POLWARTH
I hope the Govern-merit may see their way to treat this Amendment in the same way as the preceding one. If so, it will be quite unnecessary to say anything in support of it. It is pretty well admitted that the position of the rural workers occupying their houses as part of their wages is exceptional and that it is not provided for in the Bill.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The Government appreciate the object of this Amendment and the anxiety of those noble Lords who support it to secure that the very difficult problem of dealing with the tied houses under this Bill will be adequately provided for. This matter was raised on a similar Amendment moved in another place. The Government could not accept that Amendment having in view that it was already covered by the general terms of paragraph (c) of the subsection which enables the Department of Health to refer to the Advisory Committee any question whatsoever arising in connection with the administration of the Housing Acts. What the Government did do, however, was to go even farther than is now proposed, and amend the Bill to provide for the appointment of a special Sub-Committee which would deal with the rural housing problem in all its aspects. This provision is to be found in subsection (2) of the clause. With this explanation, and with the assurance that it is definitely the Government's intention to seek the advice of the Committee at an early date with regard to the further steps which should be taken in connection with rural housing, including the housing of farm servants and others living in tied houses, the noble Marquess will probably see his way not to press his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 22 agreed to.

§ Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

§ Clause 25 [Definition of housing association]:

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out "For the 658 purposes of the three next succeeding 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 shall be substituted references to 'housing association,' that is to say."

§ The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, line 21, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("any") in line 23, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 26 [Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations]:

§ LORD HUTCHI SON OF MONTROSE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: (5) If a housing association represent to the Department 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 Department may require the authority to furnish them with a report as to the matter stating the reasons for their refusal.

§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is a simple Amendment. It deals with the question of a housing association which has been unfairly met by the local authority when it asks to make certain arrangements. The Amendment allows the association to appeal to the Department for adjudication on the matter.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 43, at end, insert the said subsection (5).—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The Government accept this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 26, to insert the following new clause:

§ "Unification of conditions affecting housing associations' houses.

§ 27. Where the Department have undertaken to make in respect of any houses under the management of a housing association contributions under more than one enactment and the association are required 659 to observe in the management of the houses varying special conditions or terms imposed by those enactments, the Department may, on the application of the association and after consultation with any local authority who are under obligation to make grants or contributions in respect of any of the houses, make a scheme specifying, as conditions to be observed in the management of all the houses in substitution for the conditions or terms imposed as aforesaid, such conditions as they think fit, and in specifying the conditions to be so observed the Department shall have regard to the provisions of Part IV of this Act with respect to the conditions which a local authority are required to observe in relation to their houses."

§ The noble Lord said: This new clause will enable housing associations to obtain the advantages of consolidation of subsidies and unification of rent conditions, which the Bill confers on local authorities. The consolidation and unification are not compulsory, as in the case of local authorities, but are to be effected by a scheme made by the Department on the application of the association, and after consultation with any local authority making contributions to the association. In framing the scheme, the conditions which attach to the unification of local authorities accounts will be applied to the association as far as feasible. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 27 [Amendments of the Act of 1925, as to public utility societies, etc.]

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The first Amendment to this clause is a consequential Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 5, leave out from ("association") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The next Amendment is also consequential.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 23, leave out from ("persons") to the end of line 26, and insert: ("the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2): ('(2A) An advance for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be secured with interest thereon by a heritable security over the land 660 and dwelling-houses in respect of which that purpose is to be carried out and of such other land and dwelling-houses (being houses which have been constructed or made suitable for the working classes by the company, society, association or person receiving the advance) if any as may be offered as security for the advance.') (5) In the said Section seventy-three the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5):—")—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
My other Amendment is also consequential.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 42, leave out ("a heritable security over any land or dwelling-houses") and insert ("such a heritable security as is mentioned in subsection (2A) of this section").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.

§ Clause 32 [Review of Exchequer contributions in case of new houses provided at future times]

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
This is a drafting Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 26, line 35, leave out ("alterations") and insert ("alteration").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 33:

§ Amendments of 16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 56. 21 & 22 Geo. 5c. 22.

§ 33.—(1) Subsection (2) of Section two of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926 (which relates to the power of local authorities to make grants or loans under the said Act), as amended by the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Act, 1931, shall have effect as if the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, were therein substituted for the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and Section four of the said Act (which relates to Government contributions to expenses of local authorities under the said Act) shall have effect accordingly.

§ THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight" and insert "the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty."

§ The noble Marquess said: I propose by 661 this Amendment that the duration of the Act of 1926, the Rural Workers Act, shall be extended from June 24, 1938, to October 1, 1940. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill told us last week that the appointed day is a very long way off and he also told us that the grants are being continued for an extended period up to June, 1938. It does not sound a very long extension, especially if the appointed day is not going to be for a long time, and it seems to me a great pity that the advantages of the 1926 Act should not be continued during the whole time before the appointed day arrives. I rather gather also that June 24, 1938, is not quite consistent with the statement of the noble Lord that the appointed day is a very long way off. I therefore suggest that we should get the advantages of the Rural Workers Act of 1926 up to October 1, 1940, which practically gives us five years from what will be the passing of this measure.

§ I do not like the suggested date, Jane 24, 1938, which has no sense at all in Scotland in relation to building operations in Scotland. Obviously October 1 is a far more satisfactory date for completing buildings in the course of construction, in time for the term day. My main point is that the period during which the 1926 Act enables authorities to help the improvement of existing houses shall be extended at any rate as late as the appointed day, and as the appointed day cannot be very soon I suggest 1940 instead of 1938. I am aware that this involves more expenditure by the Government, but. I venture to think that if the principle is accepted in this House the Government would have no difficulty in moving consequential Amendments in another place.

§ Amendment moved— Page 28, line 20, leave out ("the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight" and insert ("the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. As the noble Marquess has just stated, the grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act were instituted in 1926, their operation was continued in 1931, and the Bill as it stands proposes a further extension till June, 1938. Undoubtedly, as noble Lords would all agree, the grants have been of the utmost 662 benefit for the improvement of rural housing, but the Government could not at this stage undertake to continue their operation until a date so far ahead as October 1, 1940. Perhaps I may remind the noble Marquess that the whole question of the revision of subsidies under this Bill is to come up for review in any case in 1938, and in that year the position will be reviewed in respect of subsidies payable for slum clearance and decrowding as well also as for the improvement of rural housing. The noble Marquess will, I hope, agree that, having regard to the proposals for the consolidation of subsidies under the Bill, any review should extend to the whole field of housing finance, which should be dealt with as a whole at the same time. The Government have made no financial provision for this proposal, and a new Financial Resolution would be necessary for this purpose. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR
I thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection: (In paragraph (e) of Section eight of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, there shall be substituted for sub-paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) the following:—

(ii) If at any time within the period during which conditions apply by virtue of this Act in relation to the dwelling, compensation becomes payable by the landlord to the landholder under the said Small Landholders Acts in respect of permanent improvements including the dwelling, such compensation shall on the application either of the landholder or of the landlord or of the local authority be assessed by the Land Court;
(iii) In assessing such compensation the Land Court shall fix the proportion thereof, if any, which is in their opinion attributable to the grant, and the proportion so fixed shall not be payable to the landholder, but shall (a) if the holding is let to a new landholder be treated as a grant to such new landholder, or (b) if the holding is to be held otherwise than by a new landholder be treated as a grant to the landlord.

§ Provided that—

(a) If the holding is let to a new landholder who has not paid the compensation payable by the landlord to the outgoing landholder the new landholder shall be 663 entitled notwithstanding the rent agreed between the landlord and him, and notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of Section six of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, and subsection (6) of Section seven of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, as amended by the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, to apply to the Land Court to fix the rent payable for the holding and the Land Court in fixing such rent shall not during the period during which conditions apply by virtue of this Act in relation to the dwelling allow any rent in respect of such proportion of the compensation as is attributable to the grant; or
(b) If, and so long as, the holding shall be held otherwise than by a new landholder, the dwelling shall be subject to the conditions prescribed by Section three of this Act."

§ The noble Marquess said: I think this is an important Amendment. Clause 33 seeks to amend in certain regards the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, as amended by the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1931. That Act relates, among other matters, to the power of local authorities to make grants or loans to owners of a certain class of dwelling houses in order to permit the improvement of the house on account of which grants are made. Under paragraph (d) of Section 8 of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, when the occupier of the dwelling is a statutory landholder it is for such landholder, and not the landlord, to apply for a grant from the local authority, and for all other purposes in question the landholder or his statutory successor, and not the landlord, is deemed to be the holder of the dwelling. "Statutory successor" means any person who has succeeded, or may succeed, to a holding as heir-at-law or legatee to the landholder.

§ The matter to which this Amendment is directed arises only when the person to whom a grant is made by the local authority is a landholder. Even then, so long as the original landholder to whom the grant was made or his statutory successor remains in occupation of the holding, no difficulty arises, but when the landholder or his statutory successor renounces the holding, then the question may arise of compensation by the landlord to the landholder on account of permanent improvements effected during his occupation. But, a part of such improvement having been paid for by the grant made by the local authority to the outgoing landholder, plainly such outgoing 664 landholder is not entitled to claim compensation from the landlord for that part of the improvement for which he, the landholder, has paid nothing.

§ As the matter now stands, and as it will remain if this Bill as at present drafted becomes law, the position is governed by Section 8 (e) of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. That Act provides that where a landholder or his statutory successor renounces his holding, and compensation to the landholder falls to be paid by the landlord, the amount of such compensation shall be fixed by the Land Court, which has also to determine the proportion of the compensation attributable to the grant. The Act further provides that the landlord is not to pay such proportion to the landholder, but then, surprisingly enough, the Act goes on to say that where the local authority demands it, that grant shall be paid forthwith by the landlord to the local authority. Those of your Lordships who may be unfamiliar with the matter will now see what may occur, and is in fact already occurring, and will understand the grave injustice that is being done and will continue to be done in increasing degree unless Clause 33 of this Bill is amended.

§ Without reference to the landlord, and often enough without even his knowledge, the landholder in occupation goes to the local authority, submits his proposal, obtains a grant and carries out the improvement. In course of time the landholder renounces his holding and the landlord finds himself mulcted in the extent of the grant, given not to him but to the landholder, which the landlord is forced to pay back to the local authority. That kind of thing is going on to-day, and, having regard to the large number of grants made to landholders, it will be realised that landlords find themselves confronted by very heavy contingent liabilities which, if they mature, may inflict severe financial straits upon those who have done nothing to deserve them. By this Amendment I am not seeking to make a present to the landlord of the values represented by the work paid for by the grant. What I propose is, in effect, that the grant, or rather the improvement by which the grant is represented, shall continue to be enjoyed by the person for whose benefit Parliament and the local authority 665 authorise the making of it—namely, the occupier of the dwelling. In other words, it is almost true to say that I am suggesting that the grant should be given, not to any landholder or other person, but as it were to the house itself—that it should be attached to the house.

§ Let me summarise quite briefly the contingencies which may arise if this Amendment is accepted, and the manner in which they would be met. First of all, if a new landholder can be found to take over and pay for the outgoing landholder's improvement, he will pay for the loan a proportion attributable to the grant, that is to say he will get the benefit of the grant in the same way as if the grant had been made to him. Or again, if the landlord is unable to find a new tenant to take over and pay for the improvement and has, as a consequence, to let the holding as an equipped holding, then the landlord will pay for the improvement, under deduction of the proportion attributable to the grant, and the new tenant can immediately demand to have the rent fixed by the Land Court who, in fixing the rent, are to disregard any improvement attributable to the grant. In this way again, the new tenant will get the full benefit of the grant. Again, if the landlord cannot let the holding under the Small Landholders Acts then the position is this. He will have to pay the outgoing tenant for his improvement, under deduction of the proportion applicable to the grant, and the grant will be regarded as having been given to the landlord, and the house, if let, will be a controlled house under the previous Housing (Rural Workers) Act.

§ There remains one further contingency which, although I do not think it likely in practice to arise, is one with which I think I ought to deal. What will be the position if the landlord himself takes over the holding? Under such circumstances it will appear there are but two ways in which the croft could be farmed. Either the landlord will live in the dwelling-house himself and farm the croft, or he will put into the dwelling-house a, servant who will farm the croft for him. If the landlord occupies the croft, and if he is not in the financial position of an agricultural worker, then under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act he would require to repay the loan, so the position there is secure. If, on the other hand, the landlord puts in a servant to farm the 666 croft, such servant would certainly be, one would imagine, of the agricultural class, and therefore a perfectly suitable occupant for a house in respect of which a grant has been made.

§ If the Bill, as drafted, becomes law, two things will, I submit, happen, neither of which ought to happen. The first is that in certain cases grants that have been properly and lawfully given will, for no sufficient reason, be withdrawn, and to that extent the declared policy of Parliament will be stultified. The second is that a real and substantial injustice will be done. I have in this Amendment suggested what I consider is a reasonable and practicable manner of removing that injustice. I hope very much that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to say he can meet me by accepting this Amendment, or by making some suggestion perhaps at a later stage of the Bill to deal with a situation which I am perfectly certain is not at this moment in this Bill in a condition at all satisfactory. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 23, insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)

THE EARL OF BREADALBANE AND HOLLAND
I should like to support what the noble Marquess has so ably said. This is a very important Amendment, particularly to the North of Scotland, and unfortunately certain noble Lords who intended to speak in support of it have not been able to get here. As the noble Marquess said, the gist of the Amendment is that the grant should be attached to the holding and not to the man who happens to be there for the moment. If this Amendment is not accepted it will throw a very heavy and very illogical liability on the proprietor, because at any moment the landholder may give up his holding after statutory notice and, as things stand at present, the Land Court may call on the proprietor to refund to the local authority the grant that has been made, but in the genesis of which he had no say and in the details of which he was not necessarily consulted. I hope very much that noble Lords will support this Amendment.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE
I should like to add my support to this Amendment.

667

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The speech delivered by the noble Marquess in moving this Amendment will have revealed to your Lordships the extraordinarily complicated state of affairs which exists regarding this question in Scotland. I cannot, I am afraid, accept the Amendment as it stands, for various reasons into which I need not enter because I want straight away to assure my noble friend, first of all, that the Government are grateful to him for moving this Amendment and for drawing attention to this anomaly. As he stated at the end of his speech, it is quite obvious that something has got to be done to remedy this state of affairs. The Government recognise that the application of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in relation to the cases of small-holders requires revision, but they feel that the Amendment of the noble Marquess would leave the position still unsatisfactory in that the conditions imposed under Section 3 of the Act of 1926 cannot possibly be applied in these cases. This is equally true in the case of all cottages where no rent is paid by the occupier, as, for example, farm servants' cottages.
The Government, however, intend to take the earliest opportunity of making the necessary Amendments in the law for the purpose of clearing up the whole position and putting the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, so far as these matters are concerned, on a proper footing. In the meantime they do not anticipate that very real hardship will result to landowners, since the cases involving the return of grants under the Acts to local authorities and the Exchequer are few in number and the sums at issue are small. With this assurance that the Government realise the urgency of this problem, I very much hope that the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW
I am most grateful to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for his reply. I should like to say this in parentheses, that I am not attracted by the excuse that the injustice is likely to be confined to a few cases and the sum involved is small. I greatly hope that the Government will see their way to expedite the legislation required to correct this matter, and I hope they will carefully consider the practicability of making 668 such provision retrospective in order to ensure that the injustice already done, or which may be done between now and the time the legislation becomes effective, will be remedied. With these words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection: () Where assistance has been given by a local authority under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, and the local authority are satisfied that the dwelling-house is maintained in an adequate state of repair no further works shall be required to be executed by the owner during the remainder of the period during which the conditions laid down in Section three of the said Act of 1926 apply to that dwelling-house.

§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is very similar to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Polwarth on Clause 1, but it is considerably wider in scope. That Amendment affected only tied farm cottages. This Amendment applies to everyone who has taken advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. These Acts have been, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, of immense benefit to Scotland, more especially in the Lowlands and the Central Highlands. Under these Acts, owners and owner-occupiers can receive from the local authority grants or loans or grants and loans in order that they should recondition their cottages if the cottage does not exceed a value of £400. For these privileges these houses are "thirl," as we say in Scotland, to the local authority for twenty years. The local authority can fix the rent, if rent is payable, and they can decide the class of occupant, who must be a rural worker or a worker in similar circumstances; and it has been held that that definition, which is a very wide one, includes miners. It will surprise some of your Lordships to know that under these two Acts miners are held to be rural workers.

§ In any case for twenty years the houses belong practically to the local authority. The local authority have to see that they are kept in good repair. The loans are repayable generally in twenty years by instalments of interest and capital. Surely it is not fair to ask the owners of these cottages, who have spent considerably more on reconditioning their houses than they have received by way of grants and 669 loans, to undertake additional expenditure in providing extra accommodation until the twenty years have elapsed and the houses are coming back to the owner. That, simply stated, is the object of my Amendment, which I hope my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)

THE EARL OF LINDSAY
I should like to add my support to what my noble friend the Earl of Mar and Kellie has said. The Rural Workers Act has been of great benefit in Scotland and has been largely made use of by many of your Lordships, including myself. When we undertook to spend money on our cottages we had no idea that they might at some future date, within twenty years, be interfered with, and that we might be called upon again to spend more money. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, sought to extend it for a very short period, namely, to 1940. I think that is all too short; indeed twenty years is quite short enough for the owners of these houses to be free from interference. The whole trouble seems to arise upon the question of the appointed day, which is like the clay of judgment, a very unknown quantity. If only we could get some statement or assurance from the Government as to when that day is likely to come about, it would be of great assistance.
All the criticism that has been made against this measure, your Lordships will have noticed, really hinges on the question of farm labourers' houses and estate cottages. It seems to me it would have been much better—and I make this suggestion—if they could have been excluded from this Bill altogether and have been left to be dealt with under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926. The work of improvement is going on in Scotland as fast as it can. In my own County of Fife some cottages cannot be repaired and reconditioned because the work has been going on so fast that there is a shortage of labour, and the owners of the houses cannot get on as fast as they would like with the work. One must also remember nowadays that proprietors in Scotland—I dare say it is the same in England—are living in very difficult times. These are very difficult days indeed for farming. With all the 670 expenditure that landowners are called upon to bear and with concurrently reduced rentals, it is very difficult for them to find the money for improvements. I very much hope that the Government will give every consideration to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend.

LORD POLWARTH
I should also like to support the Amendment which is now under consideration. It has been rightly said that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act has been a very great help in improving the conditions of housing in Scotland, but this is a Bill dealing with overcrowding. I think your Lordships must remember that the grants which have been given were grants from national funds as well as from local rates, and that in almost all cases they have been grants for house; of either two rooms or three rooms. In my own county we began very early, and we have improved some 1,400 houses under the Act and only some 200 remain to be done. We made a stipulation that in the case of a farm to which several houses were attached one half were to be of three rooms and the remaining half might be of two rooms; but, if you consider the standard laid down in this Bill, you will see that many of these houses on which public money has recently been spent with the approval of the Department will inevitably be overcrowded under the standards of the present Bill. I do not say that a larger proportion will be overcrowded than in the urban areas, but a considerable proportion will, under the standard of this Bill, be overcrowded, and somehow or other some of thorn will have to be enlarged.
If the owner has already received a grant under the Rural Workers Act he cannot, as the law now stands, receive another grant, while the counties and the owners who have not yet acted may possibly receive grants enabling them to increase the number of rooms in a house. The cost bas been so heavy that in most cases the owners have not been able to provide additional rooms beyond three or, in some cases, four. But immense improvements have been made, for in most cases not only have additional rooms been provided and the condition of the rooms improved, but a bathroom and water closet have generally been added 671 and water introduced into the house, so that in all respects these houses are up to the level of or even better than many that can be obtained in the cities. The rural workers, and their wives particularly, have abundantly testified to the improvements which they now enjoy.
I support this Amendment because I do not think that as it stands it would preclude assistance from being given for further improvements to the houses that have already been improved. It says that the owner is not to be called upon to execute further works, but no doubt if, by future legislation, additional grants can be given for the provision of additional rooms, I do not think this Amendment would bar that from being done. If it did I should like words to be added to prevent it being a bar. Unless an additional grant is forthcoming for the purpose, I do not see any way in which this problem of increasing the accommodation in these rural houses can be solved. It can only be solved, in my opinion, by giving some additional grant enabling the owners to make the additions. Owners have spent in almost every case much more than they have received by way of assistance, and to ask them to spend another £100 or so in adding to these houses would, I think, be unreasonable. I hope sympathetic consideration will be given to this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I should like to add one word to what we have heard on this question. I can perhaps better than anyone give your Lordships the origin of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I know a village, a relic of the time of Charles II, in Scotland, which was very beautiful but perfectly impossible from a sanitary and habitable point of view. A lady Member of another House spent every penny she got of her payment as a Member of Parliament in trying to improve the houses in that village, especially in bringing sanitation to houses which had no sanitation at all. She was so successful in what she had done that a very prominent member of the Government some years ago—and he is still in the Government—came to look at the village and, as a result, I believe what eventually became the Rural Workers Act was born.
This village had had no sanitation. The rooms were of all shapes and sizes, without sculleries or sanitary arrange 672 ments of any sort. By degrees, not only were they made habitable, but the people living in them were delighted with their rooms. It surely is wrong for the Government to encourage people to do things of that kind and then let them down immediately afterwards, an excuse for which my noble friend in charge of the Bill will have to find in a moment. It does seem rather hard when we have done this, and have been told how wonderfully good it is, that we should then be told a little later that there is overcrowding and that the people are living in pigsties when we have made really nice houses for them. They are houses which are not really overcrowded. We may perhaps be told that there is no need to fuss about it because it does not really mean anything, and that it will not be brought into force; but if that is the case why bother to put it in?

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
I can say with complete honesty that like those noble Lords who have supported this Amendment I fully appreciate the value of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and I have also some conception of the difficulties under which landlords in Scotland are carrying on. I wish, however, to assure the noble Earl that it is impracticable to give the degree of immunity suggested by the Amendment, without regard to the standard of habitability to be achieved by the reconstruction, the extent of the repairs effected, and the period during which they are likely to remain effective. A grant may be obtained under the Act if the total cost of the works, shared by the State, the local authority and the owner, is not less than £50. But an expenditure of this small amount might well not be sufficient to put a house into such a condition as to warrant immunity from further works for so long a period as twenty years. Preferential treatment of rural areas in this matter is the less justifiable for the reason that rural owners have already the advantage of being able to obtain grants for reconditioning which is not open to owners in urban areas. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE
I am sorry that the noble Lord's answer is so unsatisfactory. He has not even offered to make a concession. If he had offered a concession of some period less than 673 twenty years we might have felt inclined to accept it, but as it is I think we had better go to a Division.

§ THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved to insert after subsection (4) the following new subsection: (Assistance may be given under and subject to the conditions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, for the erection of houses or buildings to replace those which in the opinion of the local authority are injurious or dangerous to health by reason of their situation or unsuitable for reconditioning.

§ The noble Marquess said: In the absence of the two noble Earls who put down this Amendment I beg leave to move it. Under the Amendment it is proposed that grants should be made available for the replacement of existing houses by new houses where the former are so situated as to be injurious or dangerous to health or unsuitable for reconditioning. Representations have been made by many people for a sounder policy where houses are badly situated or badly constructed. The policy, they say, should be to build new houses rather than tinker with old ones. These old cottages are often very badly placed, in a damp hollow or too close to a byre. In the old days they were erected as a shelter from the weather near other houses, which would not be considered desirable to-day.

§ It does seem right, however, that in order to enable good houses to be put in good positions when existing houses are

674

§ On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be there inserted

§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 28.

673

CONTENTS.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Linlithgow, M.	Morton, E.	Kinnaird, L.
	Rothes, E.	Lamington, L.
Breadalbane and Holland, E.	Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Polwarth, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)		Rankeillour, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Bertie of Thame, V.	St. Levan, L.
Lindsay, E. [Teller.]	Exmouth, V.	Stonehaven, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Bayford, L.
	Lytton, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwillilam.
Vane, E. (M Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)	Munster, E.
	Peel, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
	Plymouth, E.	Greville, L.
Northumberland, D.	Stanhope, E.	Hutchison of Montrose, L.
		Newton, L.
Bath, M.	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Playfair, L.
Salisbury, M.	Halifax, V.	Rennell, L.
		Seaton, L.
Feversham, E.	Alness, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal. L
Iddesleigh, E.	Alvingham, L.
		Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

674

§ declared to be unfit or in an undesirable position, there should be an opportunity for the owner, with the help of the local authority and the Exchequer, to replace them by houses in a desirable position and, of course, up-to-date in other respects. That is all that this Amendment asks for, and I suggest that if under the Act you require unfit houses which are necessary for the rural workers to be demolished or rendered uninhabitable by being closed or cleared, then it is only reasonable to give opportunity for those rural workers to be put into houses in places where their work is. In other words, their bad houses should be replaced by new houses with the same assistance as that which is given when you improve a house which is in a satisfactory position and surroundings and which by its position can be made better still. When you have a house which is not able to be made fit, then surely, in order to keep your rural workers on the land, you should encourage the building of new houses in place of those which are declared unfit under this Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 23, insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)

LORD POLWARTH
I should like to support this Amendment in a few words. 675 Until the Act of 1930, or 1931, it was competent for local authorities to give a grant for the construction of new houses below a certain rent, and it was our practice to give grants of £100 towards a new house. That proved a very useful feature indeed in providing houses rather than reconditioning where they were too bad to make it worth while. It was really better sometimes for an owner of a house which was condemned by the sanitary authority to build a new house altogether at a cost of perhaps £300, of which he got £100 from the public funds, rather than to recondition the house at a total cost of perhaps £320 of which he had to spend over £200. Even if it was less, it was better economy for him to spend £200 on a new or good house rather than spend £150 on his own behalf and get the other £100 from the local authority. That power was taken away, and was a very great loss. I saw a case in the country where an owner was given a grant of £100 under the Rural Workers Act to recondition a house, but when he set to work on the repairs the walls turned out to be so rotten that they fell down completely, and he got this grant practically towards a new house, as only the foundations of the old one remained. That is not what the Act contemplates, and I think it would be a very real power if this grant could be given towards a new house instead of a grant, as under the Act, for reconditioning.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The conditions which this Amendment seeks to remedy are known to us all, and the Government are quite aware of those difficulties, but I am afraid, for reasons which I will state, that I cannot accept this Amendment. First of all, the Government have made no financial provisions for the proposal contained in this Amendment, and a new Financial Resolution would be necessary for the purpose. This course was taken deliberately in view of the policy adopted by the Government so recently as in 1933, when an Act was passed to terminate the payment of grants to private owners for the erection of new houses for the working classes. The Government are, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment, which would involve a reversal of that policy. They quite recognise, however, that in asking county councils to erect houses for farm 676 workers who, under existing agricultural arrangements, live on the farms and are given the occupancy of houses as part of their remuneration, raises a difficult question. Admittedly to build such houses off the farms may frequently not be very practicable, and it remains to be seen whether, when these special circumstances arise, the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in their present form will meet the need.
In view of the difficulties which are involved the Government propose, immediately after the passing of the Bill, to refer the whole question of rural housing to the new Rural Sub-Commitee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, who will be asked to consider the matter and make recommendations for the solution of these difficulties, though the solution may not necessarily involve a reversal of the policy which has been so salutary in the development of private building through the cessation of grants to private enterprise. In view of this assurance I hope that the movers will not press the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I do not think that is at all a satisfactory answer. Under the existing Rural Workers Act you can get up to £100 if you put down £100. Surely you are only allowed to use that in renovating the house. The noble Lord said that it would cost a lot more money to the country. Why should that be? If a proprietor is prepared to put down £200 or £300, why should he not get up to £100? It means exactly the same to the country, and I cannot see where the excuse comes in. It is rather a pity that the noble Lord was not able to accept the Amendment. As he talked about workers who sometimes did not live on their farms, I should like to point out that, unlike the position in England, there are no villages where the ploughmen live; the men have to live near their horses. That is the great difficulty that comes in here. But I do not Appreciate why, if a proprietor is stupid enough in the financial sense, or goodhearted enough, to wish to rebuild the whole house at his own expense, he should not receive the whole sum which he would have got under the new Housing Bill—though it is pretty inadequate—for reconditioning it.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR
I am rather disappointed with 677 the noble Lord's reply, but I understand that he is prepared to give an assurance that this matter will be referred to the Rural Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee which is going to be set up. If he could assure us that this Committee will be set up before the end of this year, and if he will also say that the Government will give very serious attention to basing legislation on the advice of the said Advisory Committee, we should feel rather more happy; but we should like to be a little more certain before we definitely give up all rights to contesting this Amendment. I admit of course that it is a privileged Amendment, and if the Government were sympathetic I should have no hesitation in asking leave to withdraw it.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
Perhaps I may repeat the assurance that I gave just now, that the Government propose immediately after the passing of this Bill to refer this matter to the Scottish Rural Housing Advisory Committee, and as soon as the Bill is through the work will be taken up.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 33 agreed to.

§ Clauses 34 to 38 agreed to.

§ Clause 39:

§ Credits and debits in Housing Revenue Account.

§ 39.—(1) In the financial year beginning on the sixteenth clay of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and in each subsequent financial year a local authority who are required by virtue of the last foregoing section to keep a Housing Revenue Account shall carry to the credit of the account amounts equal to—

§ and shall debit to the account amounts equal to— (i) the loan charges for that year in respect of monies borrowed by the authority for the purpose of the provision by them after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and nineteen, of having accommodation for the working classes under Part III of the Act of 1925, or under any enactment relating to the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes repealed by that Act, or for the purpose of the execution of works in respect of which the Department have undertaken to make a contribution under Section thirty-four of this Act;

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, at the beginning of para- 678 graph (i) in subsection (1), after "the loan charges," to insert "which the local authority are liable to pay." The noble Lord aid: This Amendment should be read together with those which follow. Their object is to cover the case where there has been a transfer of houses from one local authority to another, consequent, for example, on an alteration of boundaries. The local authority now owning the houses may not be the authority which originally borrowed the money, but the liability to pay the loan charges will have been transferred with the houses.

§ Amendment moved— Page 32, line 10, after ("charges") insert ("which the local authority are liable to pay").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The next two Amendments are consequential.

§ Amendments moved— Page 32, line 11, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a local") Page 33, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("borrowed moneys in respect of which the authority are required to debit loan charges to the Housing Revenue Account").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The next Amendment is drafting.

§ Amendment moved— Page 33, line 30, leave out ("the Housing Revenue") and insert ("that").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 40 agreed to.

§ Clause 41 [Housing Repairs Account]:

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.

§ Amendment moved— Page 35, line 30, leave out ("Except as in this section provided") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act"). (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.

679

§ Clause 48 [Conditions an sale of local authorities' houses]

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
This Amendment is purely drafting.

§ Amendment moved— Page 40, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

§ LORD POLWARTH moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause: . For the purposes of any enactment relating to valuation or rating the gross annual value of any dwelling house in respect of which a contribution out of monies provided by Parliament is payable under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1935, shall not exceed the rent (exclusive of occupier's rates) under deduction of rebates charged in respect of that house.

§ The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is perhaps a little complicated. It is to clear up any doubts which may arise as to entry in the valuation roll of houses provided under this Bill. This Amendment refers to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 46. Subsection (5) states that in fixing the rents the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality, but may grant to any tenant rebates from rent, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a view to ensuring that rebates are granted only in such cases and of such amounts as may be necessary having regard to the financial circumstances of the tenant; and subsection (6) provides that the authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.

§ At first sight it may seem that this is a matter of comparatively little importance or interest, but I am assured, after making careful inquiry, by those in my county who are responsible for the financial working of the Housing Acts, that it is really a matter of very considerable importance. We have to consider with regard to new houses the rent ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality. I have had that examined, and I found that the rents ordinarily payable may be taken as, say, £16 for a three-room house and £20 for a four-room house. We have 680 found already under the 1930 Act, when moving people out of slum dwellings, that while many of the dwellers are comparatively well off, others are so poor that we have had to let houses at a very great reduction in rent. Quite a number have been let at £8 to £10 per annum, whereas the rent which we have to fix under this Bill would be £16 for a three-room house and we are required in future to give rebates according to the means of the people.

§ Under the 1930 Act, we fix our rents by imposing a means test, reckoning the number of persons in the family, and we have reduced rents down to about £8 and £10. The occupier's rates vary from 4s. 6d. to 7s. in the pound, including water rate. For the purpose of calculation, let us say 5s. in the pound, and I think I shall best make my point if I endeavour to give a concrete case. I thought myself at first that the rent to be entered in the valuation roll would have to be the standard fixed rent. In Scotland the valuation roll is made up every year at the end of May, and therefore there is no difficulty in changing the entry in that roll according to the actual letting of the house. I would further remind your Lordships that the Act of 1930 provided that the actual rental is to be the rental entered and I would like to see that precedent kept up now.

§ The Government will perhaps say that the rent to be entered shall be the standard rent and that the tenant is to be given a large rebate to enable him to meet the rent. I would point out this. Supposing the rent is £16, and a man can only pay £10, and the rates are 5s. in the pound, you will find that the rent will have to be brought down to about £6, because 5s. in the pound on £16 makes £4. Therefore you will have to make the rent £6, because the tenant can only pay £10 in all, and I am sure you would never in Scotland be able to collect rates based on what for the tenant is a fictitious rent. If, by reason of the size of his family, we have to give him a four-room house, to prevent overcrowding, the absurdity of the thing became even more apparent, because on a similar calculation if you give a four-roomed house and you have to take off 5s. in the pound on £20, you would have to let him a four-room house at £5 a year. I think it will be far better to enter the actual rent at which we let the house, after reduction by rebate.

681

§ I fancy that in practice we do not change the rent more than once a year. Circumstances may vary a little, and even if we had to give a little smaller or a little larger rebate there would be no great hardship. The man or even the local authority may get a small benefit, but it is not practicable to be always changing the rent according to circumstances. For instance, a man may come and say that his daughter, a servant girl, has come home and is living with him, that she is another person in the house, and that his rent must be reduced. He does not tell them when the daughter goes away again and say, "I ought to pay more rent again." It is impossible to work changes on such a footing as that and we must base a really workable system upon an annual rent fixed in accordance with the means of the person concerned. Otherwise it will be impossible to work your budget in a county like mine. Your valuation will be largely fictitious; you will have hundreds of houses entered in a valuation roll at £20 or £15 and you will be getting a much smaller rent. It will put a burden on the Housing Act which will make it altogether bankrupt.

§ I regret to have to move an Amendment on a somewhat complicated matter like this, but I hope the Government will give it serious consideration. I can assure your Lordships that it has been considered very carefully by the officials who have to deal With this matter, and that they strongly feel that the entry in our valuation rolls should be the actual rent paid, not the nominal rent from which a large rebate has been taken off. I do not know what the attitude of the Government is, because it is not explained in the Bill one way or the other.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 48 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Polwarth.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
I think my noble friend has apparently overlooked the provisions already in the Bill on this subject. On page 78, at line 6, it is proposed to amend Section 43 of the Act of 1930 to make it read as follows: For the purposes of any enactment relating to valuation or rating the gross annual value of any dwelling-house to which the requirements of Section 46 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, apply, shall not exceed the rent (exclusive of occupier's rates) charged in respect of that house. 682 That is to say, the Bill proposes that the rent to be shown in the valuation roll for rating purposes will be the market rent and not the rent as reduced by rebates—contrary to what is proposed by the noble Lord. I think it would be an unworkable arrangement to take the rent as reduced by rebates in individual cases as the basis of rating.
Take, for example, a case where the market rent of a house is fixed by the local authority at £15 and where it is decided to give the tenant a rebate of £5. Under the noble Lord's clause the figure to be entered in the valuation roll for rating purposes would be £10 and this would be the rent upon which the occupier would pry rates for the year to which the valuation roll applies. But in the course of that year the circumstances of the tenant might so change as to induce the local authority either to increase or reduce the rebate or to withdraw it altogether. In these circumstances the figure in the valuation roll would cease to have any relation to the precise amount of the rates which the occupier should pay. Alternatively, the house might be let in the course of the year to another tenant or even to a succession of tenants. If these tenants were able to pay the market rent of £15 it would be the duty of the local authority to charge that rent but, nevertheless, rates would be payable in respect of only the reduced rent of £10 shown in the valuation roll—an anomalous result which, incidentally, would be unfair to the general body of ratepayers who would require to make good the deficit in rates.
The Government feel that it is better to show the market rent in the valuation roll, that is, that the rateable value of the house should be fixed in relation to the house itself, and not in relation to the circumstances of the tenant for the time being. On this basis, taking the same example, the figure which would be entered in the valuation roll would be the market rent of £15, and if the local authority felt that the payment of rates on this figure would impose too heavy a burden on the tenant it would be open to them to increase his rebate by whatever amount might be necessary. Instead of giving him a rebate of £5 as before, they might, for example, give him a rebate of £6 which would provide an additional £1 to meet the extra rates 683 payable on the £15 level, leaving the tenant's net position the same. I think the great merit of this method is that it attaches a definite rateable value to the house which is not disturbed by the accident of changes in tenancy or in the financial circumstances of a particular tenant, while at the same time it provides a flexible means through the rebate system of dealing with these changes as they arise. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD POLWARTH
I quite recognise that it is a very difficult matter, and there are points on both sides.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 49 agreed to.

§ Clause 50:

§ Exclusion from Part V of premises in clearance or redevelopment area.

§ 50.—(1) The provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall not have effect in the case of premises comprised in a clearance order or compulsory purchase order confirmed by the Department under Part I of the Act of 1930 or in the case of premises comprised in a redevelopment plan approved by them.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (1), after "1930", to insert "or in the case of premises comprised in a demolition order thereunder which has become operative." The noble Lord said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. Clause 50 (1) is intended to provide that where the future of property has been definitely settled by action already taken under the Housing Acts, the owner cannot claim to reopen the matter under Clause 49. In enumerating the various forms of action which settle the fate of property, the case of the demolition order was omitted.

§ Amendment moved— Page 41, line 20, after ("1930") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The next Amendment is consequential.

§ Amendment moved— Page 41, line 26, leave out ("such an order or plan") and insert ("a clearance or compulsory purchase order or redevelopment plan").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

684

§ Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.

§ Clause 54:

§ Application of certain provisions of Acts of 1925 and 1930 to resolutions for demolition under this Part.

§ 54. The following enactments in the Acts of 1925 and 1930 shall, subject to any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to a resolution passed under this Part of this Act and to a building or part of a building to which such a resolution applies, as they have effect in relation to a demolition order under Part II of the Act of 1930 and to a house, building or premises to which such an order applies, as if the references therein to a demolition order included references to a resolution passed under this Part of this Act, that is to say—

(a) Section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1925 (which excludes the appliation of the Acts relating to rent restriction);
(b) Section twenty of the Act of 1930 (which relates to appeals against orders and the date of coming into operation of orders); and
(c)Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1930 (which relates to the recovery of possession of buildings), except subsection (2) thereof.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out "in the Acts of 1925 and 1930." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the other two Government Amendments on Clause 54 are to be read together. The Act of 1925 contained provisions with regard to obstructive buildings which were repealed in 1930 and are now being reenacted in a modified form in Clauses 51 to 54 of the Bill. Their re-enactment necessitates the application of certain provisions in Sections 23 and 25 of the 1925 Act on the subject of notices, appeals, etc., which were applicable under the previous code relating to obstructive buildings and also of provisions in Section 29 of the Act of 1930 dealing with the power of the Sheriff to determine leases in certain cases. The application of these provisions is effected by the three Amendments on the paper.

§ Amendment moved— Page 44, line 3, leave out ("in the Acts of 1925 and 1930").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The other Amendments to this clause are consequential.

§ Amendments moved— Page 44, line 12, leave out ("that is to say") and insert ("and the references 685 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 the Act, that is to say,—

"(a) Section twenty-three of the Act of 1925 (which relates to notices and to applications to the Sheriff in relation to demolitions);
"(b) Section twenty-five of the Act of 1925 (which relates to remedies of owners for breach of contract);")

Page 44, line 21, at end insert ("and (f) Section twenty-nine of the Act of 1930 which relates to the power of the Sheriff to determine leases in certain cases).").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 55:

§ Amendment as to premises in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, &c., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.

§ 55.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of the Act of 1930, there shall be excluded from a clearance order made thereunder any dwelling-houses or other premises 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 injurious or dangerous to the health of the inhabitants of the area, and, if a compulsory purchase order is confirmed with respect to any such dwelling-house or other premises the compensation to be paid there for shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act of 1930.

§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved, in subsection (1), after the first "arrangement," to insert "in relation to other buildings." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, affects urban property only. Under the 1930 Housing Act it was possible for a property in itself perfectly sound to be condemned and paid for at site value merely, only because it was unfit for human habitation on account of other obstructive buildings. As a matter of fact, in practice it has always been arranged by administrative effort to pay compensation a market value, and not merely at site value, for these particular properties, and I am informed that the Government, in drawing up this Bill, wanted to bring the law into line with practice in these particular circumstances. It is the old question which is known in Scotland as the "bad neighbour grievance." I think this clause goes 686 too far. "Bad arrangement" in subsection (1) will mostly certainly be interpreted as referring to internal bad arrangement, and not to external bad arrangement. The reason for this Amendment is to avoid making an unnecessary payment to the owner of a really bad slum property and giving him compensation which he does not deserve to get. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 44, line 28, after the first ("arrangement") insert ("in relation to other buildings").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I should just like to make it clear that "bad arrangement" in Clause 55 refers only to bad arrangement of the whole house in relation to other buildings on the site. That was the intention of the Government, and there is therefore no objection at all to these words being inserted which make the original intention clear.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 55, to insert the following new clause:

§ "Obligation of the Department to state reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation.

§ 56. 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 Department with a statement in writing of their reasons for deciding that the building is so unfit."

§ The noble Lord said: This new clause has been put down to implement an undertaking given by the Secretary of State in another place during the Report stage. The new clause gives to any owner whose property is to be compulsorily demolished, or is to be compulsorily purchased at site value, the right to know the reasons of the condemnation of his property, provided that he appears at the public local inquiry.

687

§ Amendement moved— After Clause 55, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 56:

§ 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 the order was made exceeds an amount equal to the rateable value of the house, or
(b) to one and one-fifth times (or, if 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 the date on which the order is confirmed, two and two-fifth times) the rateable value of the house, whichever is the greater.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The first Amendment is drafting.

§ Amendment moved— Page 45, line 12, after ("order") insert ("whether").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "if," to insert" at that date." The noble Lord said: Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) determines the amount of the allowance to be made to an owner-occupier in respect of the good maintenance of his house. It is necessary, however, to fix a date by reference to which the fact, or otherwise, of owner-occupier-ship is to be determined. The Amendment has the effect of determining the matter in relation to the date on which the order affecting the house is made, which seems an appropriate date for the purpose.

§ Amendment moved— Page 45, line 33, after ("if") insert ("at that date").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The next Amendment is consequential.

688

§ Amendment moved— Page 45, line 37, leave out ("the date on which the order is confirmed") and insert ("that date").—(Lord,Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE 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 any question as to such value shall be determined, in default of agreement, as if it had been a question of disputed compensation arising on such a purchase.

§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to prevent the owner of a property which has been condemned getting more than the market value. Under subsection (2) of Clause 56 an owner may recover the moneys expended on the property by way of maintenance for the last five years. That may be, in some of the bad areas, largely in excess of the real market value of the house. For that reason we move this Amendment. I do not press the Amendment very strongly, but I think there is a chance here of the undeserving getting out of the public authority what they ought not to get.

§ Amendment moved— Page 45, line 40, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
I am informed that this Amendment is really unnecessary. The object is already achieved by the terms of the clause itself, since clearly no owner or owner-occupier would spend more in the maintenance of a house than he would expect to get out of it in its use either by himself or by the sale of it to some other person. Accordingly the sum spent on repairs in excess of the rateable value of the house can in no case be more than what the noble Lord proposes by his Amendment to limit the payment to. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

689

§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE
I thank the noble Lord for his observations, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 57:

§ Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary.

§ (2) Where an agreement has been entered into with the local authority for the purposes of this section, the authority shall have the like power to enforce it as they would have had by virtue of Section ninety-one of the Act of 1925 if they had sold the land to the other party thereto.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is introductory to the Government Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 66. The two Amendments are little more than matters of drafting. The subsection which the present Amendment proposes to leave out secures that where an agreement has been entered into with a local authority for the purposes of the section the authority shall be in a position to enforce it against the persons deriving title from the person who has entered into the obligation. This is achieved by applying Section 91 of the Act of 1925. It has since been noted that there are two other clauses in the Bill—namely, Clauses 58 and 15 (2)—for which a similar provision is required, and consequently the subsection should be given a wider application. In order to avoid legislation by reference this is effected by omitting the subsection and inserting a new clause which will cover all the various cases and will repeal and replace Section 91 of the Act of 1925.

§ Amendment moved— Page 47, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 58 [Power to exchange clearance area land in lieu of sale under s. 4 of Act of 1930]:

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
This is a drafting Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 47, line 19, leave out ("exchange") and insert ("excamb").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

690

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 59 to 61 agreed to.

§ Clause 62 [Amendment of Act of 1925, s. 51, with respect to statutory undertakers]:

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
This is a consequential Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 49, line 17, leave out ("statutory") and insert ("public").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 63 to 66 agreed to.

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 66, to insert the following new clause:

§ Power of local authorities to enforce obligation against owner for time being of land.

§ "(1) Where—

(a) a local authority have sold or excambed land acquired by them under the Act of 1925, or any enactment repealed by that Act, or under the Act of 1930, or this Act, and the purchaser of the land or the person taking the land in exchange has entered into an agreement with the local authority concerning the land; or
(b) an owner of any land has entered into an agreement with the local authority concerning the land for the purposes of any of the provisions of the said Acts;

then if the agreement has been recorded in the appropriate register of sasines, it shall be enforceable at the instance of the authority against persons deriving title from the person who entered into the agreement: Provided that no such agreement shall at any time be enforceable against any party who has in bona fide onerously acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the recording of the agreement as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such party.

§ (2) Section ninety-one of the Act of 1925 shall cease to have effect."

§ The noble Lord said: This is the new clause which was referred to in connection with the Amendment to delete subsection (2) from Clause 57 of the Bill. The clause is really consequential on that Amendment. It repeals and substantially re-enacts Section 91 of the Act of 1925, dealing with the enforcement of agreements entered into between local authorities and owners in connection with the sale and exchange of land. The clause avoids legislation by reference which would otherwise be necessary.

691

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 66, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 67:

§ By-laws.

§ 67.—(1) A local authority may, and if required by the Department shall, make, with respect to houses used or intended to be used for human habitation, by-laws regarding any of the following matters and applying as follows, that is to say—

§ (iii) by-laws applying to new houses and, so far as is reasonably practicable, to existing houses, regarding—

§ THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved at the end of paragraph (iii) of subsection (1), to insert "(n) the height of ceilings." The noble Earl said: This is a clause which deals with the power given to local authorities to make bylaws in connection with the erection of houses, to ensure that they are properly erected, sanitary, well ventilated, and satisfactory in every way for human habitation. It deals with a large number of points to effect this, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that one of the most important points in the planning and construction of a house is to ensure that the ceilings are of a proper height. There is no mention of this. That is the purpose of my Amendment—namely, to give power to local authorities in making these by-laws to put in a limit which would be considered satisfactory for the height of a ceiling. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 51, line 21, at end insert ("(n) the height of ceilings").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment because, if it were inserted at the place proposed, it would enable local authorities to make by-laws regarding the height of ceilings for application to new houses and, so far as is reasonably practicable, to existing houses. The Government take the view that this would not be a suitable provision to apply to existing houses. They are, however, prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment so far as concerns new houses and, if the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment, the Government will undertake to move an 692 Amendment on the Report stage for this purpose.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE
I thank the noble Lord, but I am sorry the Government cannot agree to the principle that, where practicable, it should be applicable to existing houses. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 67 agreed to.

§ Clause 68:

§ Provisions as to caravans and other movable forms of shelter.

§ 68. The provisions of Part I of the Act of 1930 relating to buildings included in an area. to which a clearance order relates, and of Part II of that Act relating to dwelling-houses, shall have effect in relation to any hut, tent, caravan or other temporary or movable form of shelter which is used for human habitation and has been on the same site or a site in the immediate vicinity for a period of two years next before action is taken under those provisions, in like manner as if it had been a building or dwelling-house.

§ THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved to leave out "or a site in the immediate vicinity" and insert "and continuously lived in." The noble Duke said: By leave of the Lord Chairman, I have extended the Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper. My object in doing so was to draw attention to the fact that this clause seeks to give compensation in respect of dwellings or forms of dwellings which are of a purely temporary and movable nature like tents, caravans, and huts. I feel that unless we can attach some idea of a proper habitation to them it is really an extravagance. The words "or a site in the immediate vicinity" indicate mobility. A hut or caravan may be here to-day and gone to-morrow. That is mobility. If it can be moved, it is very little more trouble to move a hut a mile than to move it 500 yards, and it seems to me an extravagance. Unless you can give the shelter some form of fixture I think we ought to alter this clause. I think also we ought to indicate that these huts or tents or shelters must be properly inhabited. A few weeks of the simple life in summer time ought not to qualify them for compensation. Therefore, if my Amendment is accepted, it will mean that the temporary shelter or hut must be actually occupied on the 693 same site for a period of two years. The effect of my Amendment will be that a movable shelter which has been on the same site for two years should be eligible for compensation.

§ Amendment moved— Page 52, line 5, leave out ("or a site in the immediate vicinity") and insert ("and continuously lived in").—(The Duke of Montrose.)

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
I had not seen the noble Duke's Amendment in its new form, but I take it that its purpose is still the same—namely, that the period during which all these huts and so forth should stand should be still further reduced to one of six months. The Government's view is that this is too short a period for the purposes of the clause. The fundamental basis of the clause is that the structures with which it is desired to deal have become permanently rooted to their sites. It would be too soon, and in many cases we think unreasonable, at the end of so short a time as six months take action for the demolition of a structure on this basis. Having in view the fact that the period has already been reduced as far as in the Government's opinion it would be equitable to do so, I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 68 agreed to.

§ Clauses 69 to 82 agreed to.

§ Clause 83 [Interpretation]:

§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL
The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 62, line 41, at end insert: ("'Housing Association' has the meaning assigned to it by Section twenty-five of this Act").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

§ On Question Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.

§ Remaining clauses agreed to.

§ First Schedule: