§ 2.32 p.m.
§ [The question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government, what is the effect on the householder of the "Control of Buildings Operations (No. 8) Order" of 15th January last (S.R. & O. 1947 No. 74).]
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, I apologize for the fact that this answer is a little longer than is normally the case. This Order lays down for the period from February to July, 1947, inclusive the financial limits below which building work may be carried out on any one property without a licence from the Ministry of Works under Defence Regulation 56A. The limit prescribed is the same as in the previous three periods of six months—namely, an overall limit of £10 for the period together with separate limits of £2 in any one month of the period. In the previous three periods, work on a dwelling house required no licence if the work was to be carried out by the householder himself or by unpaid labour, even though materials in excess of the licensable limits were to be 925 used. The only change made by the present Order is that work above the financial limits mentioned on dwelling houses now requires a licence, even if it is to be carried out by the householder himself or by unpaid labour.
The work on private dwelling houses is licensed by local authorities acting as agents for the Minister of Works. The local authorities have been instructed that, in granting licences for work to be carried out by a householder himself or by members of his family or friends, they should have regard only to the cost of the materials to be used. The arrangement by which work carried out by the householder or by unpaid labour was not licensable was originally made at the time of the flying bomb attacks on this country, when the building labour force was at its lowest and it was desired to give every possible encouragement to householders to carry out minor repair work with their own resources. Experience has shown, however, that it has been possible for quite considerable quantities of scarce materials, such as timber and paint, to be diverted to work carried out in this way, and it is for this reason that the change is essential. It will be appreciated that it is still vitally necessary to conserve supplies of these materials which are so badly needed for the housing programme, and the sole purpose of the change in the order is to curb abuses which are known to have developed.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI should like to thank the Minister for the efforts he has made to meet representations which have been made to him on this particular point, but I do not suppose that any noble Lord on this side of the House will be entirely satisfied with the answer. I would like to ask the Minister whether further instructions could not be issued to the regional officers, or whoever they are, to exclude altogether the householder himself or his family from the scope of this Regulation. In our view, a householder ought not to be subject to a £10 limit. That seems to us to be an infringement of the elementary right of the ordinary citizen that he should be able to make his own house fit for habitation without a licence from the State. I do not think a very large number will wish to take advantage of it, or that the amount of paint they will use will, in the nature of things, be very large. We feel that this is a matter of principle and that this is an unnecessary and deplorable 926 Regulation as applied to the householder and his family. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord who has replied whether he will make further representations to the Minister of Works to see whether the interpretation of the Regulation may not be modified in the sense I have suggested.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, I will certainly see that the suggestion of the noble Viscount is conveyed to my right honourable friend. I would merely add that this Regulation is not directed to restricting the freedom of the individual but to safeguarding the public interest in the use of materials which are essential to house building and which, from experience, we know to have been diverted to a wrong purpose.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEIt is entirely a question of how great that diversion is. If the diversion is really not very large, then the limitation of die liberty of the individual would not be justified. I would make this further point. I understand the House has not much time to consider whether it wishes to take any further action in this matter, and I would be most grateful if the noble Lord would let me know the result of his inquiries of the responsible Minister by to-morrow.
§ LORD HENDERSONI will certainly see that that is done.