HL Deb 06 July 1949 vol 163 cc957-76

4.34 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Quashing of certain demolition orders]:

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD METHUEN

Before we come to deal with the Amendments on the Order Paper, I should like to give notice of an Amendment to Clause 2 to be brought forward on Report stage. Through an oversight this Amendment was not inserted on the Order Paper to-clay. The object of the Amendment, which will be to Clause 2 (a), is to enable a reprieve to be given to a house in respect of which a demolition order has been made in the past but which has since been effectively reconditioned to the satisfaction of the local authorities. This Amendment may be considered redundant, but we think it is an opportunity, though perhaps an afterthought, to insert a provision in that clause whereby a house which has been condemned in the past will still be eligible for reprieve if the owner is prepared to put it in order, and if the plans and specifications have been passed to the satisfaction of the local authority.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Preservation of certain houses unfit for human habitation

3.—(1) Where, apart from this section, a local authority would be under a duty to make a demolition order under Part II of the principal Act with respect to—

  1. (a) a house with respect to which a building preservation order under section twenty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is in force; or
  2. (b) a house included in a list compiled or approved under section thirty of that Act by the Minister of Town and Country Planning;
they shall, instead, make a closing order prohibiting the use of the house for any purpose other than a purpose approved by them.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)

This first Amendment prepares the way for the following Amendment I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 25, leave out ("or").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I think it will be convenient if, on the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord, I mention that we on this side of the House have no objection to any of the Amendments which stand in his name on the Order Paper this afternoon.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (1) at the end of paragraph (b) to insert: or (c) a house, other than as aforesaid, in respect of which there is for the time being in force a notice given by that Minister to the local authority stating that the architectural or historic interest of the house is sufficient to render it inexpedient that the house should be demolished pending determination of the question whether or not it should be made the subject of such a building preservation order as aforesaid or included in such a list as aforesaid;

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is more or less a procedural Amendment. Its effect is to close a gap which might otherwise exist in the safeguards provided by the clause against the demolition of houses of special architectural or historic interest. The compilation of the lists under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, must take a considerable time. In the meantime, some of these houses might be the subject of condemnation. This Amendment is to enable them to be kept standing until a decision is reached as to whether or not they ought to be included in the list. This and the other Amendments to Clause 3 on the Marshalled List have been agreed with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Action will be taken administratively to ensure that there is the necessary co-operation between the local housing and planning authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to add to subsection (1): and shall serve a copy of the order upon every person upon whom they would be required by subsection (1) of section eleven of the principal Act to serve a notice issued by them under that subsection.

The noble Lord said: This again is a matter of procedure. The Amendment applies to the procedure for making closing orders under this clause the provisions relating to the service of notices by the local authority of action taken in the exercise of their power to order the demolition of an insanitary house. These provisions apply to the making of closing orders under Section 12 of the Housing Act, 1936, in respect of parts of buildings. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert— (2) Where, in the case of a house with respect to which a demolition order made under Part II of the principal Act by a local authority applies (whether or not that order has become operative), either—

  1. (a) a building preservation order under the said section twenty-nine takes effect with respect to the house; or
  2. (b) the house is included in such a list as aforesaid; or
  3. (c) the Minister of Town and Country Planning gives to the local authority such a notice as aforesaid;
the local authority shall determine the demolition order and make a closing order prohibiting the use of the house for any purpose other than a purpose approved by them, and shall serve notice that the demolition order has been determined and a copy of the closing order upon every such person as aforesaid.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment simply substitutes a new procedure for the one laid down in the Bill as it is drawn to-day. It is thought that this revised procedure is fairer, in that it allows opportunity for appeal against the action taken by the local authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This Amendment and several others which follow are consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, leave out ("or deemed to have been made").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This Amendment I have already referred to. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 22, leave out ("or deemed to have been made").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The effect of this Amendment is to enable any person who feels aggrieved by the withholding by the local authority of approval to the use for some purpose other than human habitation of a house to which a closing order applies to appeal to the county court. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, after the first ("order") insert ("to a withholding of approval in relation to the use for any purpose of a house to which such an order applies").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which has just been carried. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 26, after ("order") insert ("to a withholding of approval in relation to the use for any purpose of a house to which such an order applies").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This and the two following Amendments are consequential on the Amendment at page 3, line 32. I beg to move.

Page 4, line 28, leave out ("or deemed to have been made").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, leave out ("or deemed to have been made").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 39, leave nut ("or deemed to have been made").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Power of local authorities to provide board and laundry facilities

(2) A local authority may make such reasonable charges for meals and refreshments provided by the authority by virtue of this section and to persons availing themselves of facilities for doing laundry or laundry services so provided as the authority may determine.

4.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that the charges so made for meals and refreshments and in respect of laundry services shall be such as will ensure that the income derived therefrom is sufficient to defray the expenditure of the local authority in respect thereof.

The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, I move the first Amendment in his name on the Marshalled List. Clause 7 of the Bill empowers local authorities to provide such facilities for obtaining meals and refreshments, and such facilities for doing laundry and such laundry services as accord with the needs of those persons"— for whom accommodation has been provided. My noble friend seeks to ensure that these special facilities shall not be run at a loss or be subsidised by additional rates which will fall on other members of the community who happen to live in the same rateable area. As I understand it, in no circumstances will there be any grant from public funds for these provisions. Nevertheless, he does feel that we should make it quite clear that a rate cannot in fact be levied to subsidise or to defray the expenses of the local authority in regard to the services which are mentioned in the Amendment. Accordingly, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 47, at end insert the said proviso. —(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

During the debates on Second Reading and in statements made by the Minister during the Committee stage in another place, it was emphasised and underlined that it is not intended that these facilities shall be a charge on the public funds. It is intended that the whole cost shall be borne by those who participate in the use of them. It is felt that the method suggested by the Amendment is not the best way to deal with it. There are certain matters in regard to laundering and also in regard to refreshments about which it would be difficult to decide during a specified period. In the first place, the local authority has to decide whether they will have a laundry or refreshment room for the housing estate. They consider all the local circumstances and, having reviewed everything, decide, and they know then that the new services must be self-supporting. We feel that if some local authority were to venture forward with deficit after deficit, year after year, there would be trouble from the local ratepayers themselves. In addition, the Minister of Health, in any circular he may issue to local authorities, will certainly emphasise that these services must be self-supporting; and if any local authority runs these services at a loss the Minister will take the necessary action administratively to end those facilities. The local ratepayers will, I am sure, be watching to see that preferential treatment is not given to persons inside the housing estate as against those outside, and I hope, therefore, this Amendment will not be pressed.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think my noble friend will accept the explanation the noble Lord has given. In view of his remarks I shall certainly not press the Amendment. If we can be assured that the Minister, in the circular which he sends to local authorities, will make it abundantly clear that they must meet this expenditure and not expect the ratepayers to subsidise the noble Lord's and other people's washing, I can withdraw this Amendment.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I know that the Minister will see that the circular is issued, thus meeting the point raised by the noble Earl.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection: ( ) A local authority shall keep an account of their income derived from providing meals and refreshments and laundry services and also of their expenditure in respect thereof in a form to be prescribed by the Minister and if the account shows a deficit in respect of each of three consecutive years the powers to provide meals and refreshments and laundry services under this section shall cease to be exerciseable by that authority at the expiration of six months from the end of the last of those years.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment has some bearing on what we have just discussed, except that here we are seeking to provide that a local authority shall keep an account of their income derived from providing refreshments and laundry services, and also keep an account of their expenditure in a form prescribed by the Minister. Then we go on to say that if at the end of three consecutive years, by reason of their powers to provide meals, refreshments and laundry services they are making a loss, those services shall in fact come to an end. The Committee may recollect that my noble friend inserted an Amendment of this character in the Civic Restaurants Act which was passed through your Lordships' House last year, and we thought it worth while to put down an Amendment at this stage to ascertain whether the noble Lord will include words to this effect in the Bill now before the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 47, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I would repeat very much what I said of the previous Amendment, just adding that the principle of this Amendment is derived from Section 3 (2) of the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947, but with the omission of the provisos giving the Minister discretion to postpone or exclude the operation of the provision and to restore the power. The powers conferred by Clause 7 are strictly limited and are in no wise comparable with the powers conferred by the Civic Restaurants Act to establish a public restaurant service in direct competition with local traders. This is solely for the people living on the estate. We know that a small deficit in one housing area may be a different thing from a similar deficit in another. We think the point is covered by what I said about the other Amendment, and I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

In those circumstances, subject to what my noble friend may say on the next stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

It was only at short notice that my noble friend asked me to move these Amendments. I am not quite certain of the purpose of the next Amendment, although I think I know what is at the back of his mind. In those circumstances, unless the noble Lord is going to accept the Amendment, I will leave it to the next stage of the Bill so that Lord Llewellin can move it himself.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Revival of power to make byelaws as to number of persons permitted to occupy working-class houses]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This is a drafting Amendment, its purpose being to make the language of the clause accord with that used in Section 6 of the Housing Act, 1936. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 9, leave out ("as") and insert ("in").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Liability to maintain certain streets and roads in rural districts

12.—(1) Subsection (2) of section eighty-one of the principal Act (which provides that where housing operations under Part V of that Act have been carried out by a local authority outside their own area, and for the purposes of the operations public streets or roads have been constructed and completed by that local authority, the liability to maintain the streets or roads shall vest in the council of the borough or district in which the operations were carried out unless that council are, or on appeal the Minister is, satisfied that the streets or roads have not been properly constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Minister) shall not apply to the liability to maintain a public street or road in a rural district constructed, by a local authority other than the council of the district, for the purposes of housing operations under the said Part V, and completed by them after the commencement of this Act, but that liability shall, unless the council of the county are, or on appeal the Minister is, satisfied that the street or road has not been properly constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Minister, vest in the council of the county which comprises the rural district.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1) after "Minister" (where that word occurs a third time) to insert "of Transport." The noble Viscount said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils' Association, and I think their purpose can be best understood by reference to the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the original print of this Bill. That Explanatory Memorandum pointed out that the county councils, as highway authorities, were now being saddled with a new liability— namely, to maintain roads constructed by the rural district councils as housing authorities. But according to the Explanatory Memorandum, that liability was to be subject to appropriate safeguards as to the construction and condition of the roads or streets. The County Councils' Association are not very happy about these safeguards. The Minister is not only the authority who lays down what the standards are to be but is also the appellate authority. The County Councils' Association feel that too much power is being invested in the Minister of Health and that there ought to be an appeal to the Minister of Transport. They also point out that the Minister of Health may not be technically equipped to say whether or not the con- struction of roads has been properly carried out. As I have said, the object is to transfer the appeal to the Minister of Transport. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 39, after ("Minister") insert ("of Transport").—(Viscount Gage.)

4.50 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

In resisting this Amendment, I must say that I was rather amazed to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, suggest that he was moving it on behalf of the County Councils' Association, because I am advised that the wording of this clause was agreed after long consultation with that body. It, therefore, amazes me that the Association should now raise this issue. In any case, the object, of the clause is merely to correct an anomaly in Section 81 (2) of the Housing Act, 1936, whereby the liability for maintaining roads constructed in connection with housing operations in a rural district by another local authority vests in the rural district council, although under the Local Government Act, 1929, rural district councils ceased to be highway authorities as from April 1, 1930. Subsection (1) of Section 81 of the Housing Act, 1936, provides that where any housing operations under this Act are being carried out by a local authority outside their own area, that authority shall, subject to the approval of the Minister of Health, have power to execute any works which are necessary for the purposes, or are incidental to the carrying out, of the operations. Subsections (3) and (4) of Section 81 also refer to approval by the Minister of Health. It would be inconsistent with that subsection and with subsections (3) and (4), to substitute in this subsection (2) the Minister of Transport for the Minister of Health. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The noble Lord was good enough to tell me that the point might be raised that the County Councils' Association had agreed the wording of this clause. Though I cannot pretend to have any personal knowledge of this, I have been in touch with the County Councils' Association and they do not accept the argument that they have agreed the whole wording of this clause. But, whatever the understanding or misunderstanding, it seems to me that this is a somewhat small and technical point which might well be considered on its merits. At least the noble Lord has convinced me that the wording of the proposed Amendments, simple as they are, do not seem to cover the point which the County Councils' Association have in mind. I therefore propose to withdraw the Amendment and not to move the Amendments immediately following, though I may return to the matter on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Grants to persons other than local authorities for improvement of housing accommodation]:

On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD METHUEN

Owing to the absence of Lord Esher, I beg to give notice that an Amendment to Clause 20 will be brought forward on Report stage. It was not included in the present Marshalled List for the reason which I gave the Committee just now. The object of this Amendment will be to put it beyond doubt that a condemned house will not be automatically excluded from a grant. The Amendment will be to add the following words: When the local authority approve an application under this Section 20 in respect of a house to which a demolition order under Part II of the principal Act applies, such approval shall be made conditional upon the quashing of the demolition order under the provisions of Section 2 of this Act.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Conditions to be observed with respect to dwellings

23.—(1) In the case of a dwelling in respect of the provision or improvement of which assistance has been given under section twenty of this Act, the following conditions shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be observed with respect to the dwelling for a period of twenty years beginning with the day on which it first becomes fit for occupation after the completion of the improvement works, and shall, so long as they are required to be so observed, be deemed to be part of the terms of any lease, agreement for a lease or tenancy of the dwelling, and shall be enforceable accordingly:—

  1. (a) those of a private dwelling-house except with the consent in writing of the local authority and then only for such further purposes and to such extent as may be;
  2. (b) the dwelling shall, at all times at which it is not occupied by the applicant for the improvement grant or a member of his family or a person to whom the interest of the applicant in the dwelling has been devised by him, be let or be kept available for letting at a rent not exceeding the maximum rent that, by virtue of the next following paragraph, may be paid by an occupier of the dwelling;

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out the first "be" and insert "or" The noble Viscount said: This Amendment with the two which follow, is designed to bring the tied cottage within the scope of the Bill. I have put it down partly because I thought the noble Lord in charge of the Bill here was expecting someone to put it down but also, and principally, in the hope that he will be willing to explain how far and in what way he thinks this Bill will assist the improvement of agricultural cottages, including cottages which are at present tied. I feel that any scheme seriously put forward by His Majesty's Government as a contribution towards the solution of this very old problem, ought to be seriously treated, however likely or unlikely to succeed it may at first glance appear.

I confess that I am a little sceptical about the prospects of success of the scheme, or indeed about the prospects of success of almost any scheme put forward for the improvement of agricultural cottages, because it seems almost impossible to treat this question simply as an administrative matter. It appears to be almost inevitable that whenever this matter is discussed we should have involved political dialectics, with great interchange of debating points, and the display of a great deal of emotion. Thereafter everything goes on exactly as before. I must say, both as an owner of agricultural property and as a member of local authorities, that I am always impressed by the entirely different approach which is apparent when it comes to dealing with the improvement of the accommodation of animals. When we deal with cows, for instance, there do not seem to be all these political complications. As a result, for years now successive Ministers of Agriculture have been able to carry out a continuous policy based on the simple proposition that he who has a good cow-stall or a good cow-house shall be rewarded, and he who has a bad one shall be penalised. That, I believe, has worked greatly to the advantage of the cows.

When we come to human habitations these principles do not seem to apply. At present there seems to be remarkably little incentive or reward for improving agricultural cottages beyond the rather low minimum standard. It is true that a farm equipped with good cottages will in the long run be of greater value than a farm equipped with bad cottages. It would be a more "lettable" proposition, but it is remarkably difficult to measure increased value arising in this way in pounds, shillings and pence. I understand that the noble Lord claims that this Bill will provide a new incentive. I think that anyone who listened to him, might have deduced two things from the quotations he gave from speeches made by the Minister of Health—first, that it was a comparatively simple matter for an owner to untie and improve his cottage, and, secondly, that it would be generally to the advantage of the agricultural community if he did so. I would like to examine both those propositions.

I agree that, as regards the owner-occupier, there is no technical reason why he should not say simply that he proposes to untie his cottage and improve it under this Bill. But if this is to be an option exercisable by an owner surely you cannot expect him to exercise it unless, at least, after the cottage has been improved and untied, it can thereafter be maintained without loss to the owner. It does not seem reasonable to expect the owner to exercise an option so that he will inevitably incur a permanent loss. I do not know whether there have been any calculations on this point, but if one allows for improvements to the value of, say, £300, I cannot see that the eventual rent, if it is to be at all economic, can be less than about 12s. a week. To that rent, I suppose, will have to be added the rates, so the eventual weekly bill that the cottage tenant will have to pay will be somewhere between 15s. and £1.

I grant that that is less than the rent of a council house, but I do not believe we can assume that even a majority of workers will necessarily wish to make that exchange. I believe flat if any did wish to do so, they would be guided almost entirely by the value of the improvements promised and hardly at all by the question of whether the cottage was untied. I do not believe they would be willing to pay much for the privilege of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts. But if the attitude of the workers is open to question, I do not think there can be much doubt of the attitude of farm tenants. I feel sure that if I suggested to my own tenants that cottages should be untied and improved under the Bill I should be told that though they would very much appreciate improved cottages, they could not possibly agree to such a radical modification in the terms of their leases unless I could guarantee that they would secure sufficient accommodation in all circumstances to house their workers, which of course I could not do. They might perhaps, as an alternative, ask me to accept a big reduction in rent. That may leave the Government cold, but I do not think they can expect an owner to regard this with great enthusiasm. In view of the protection given to tenancy agreements and leases by the Agriculture Act, 1947, I cannot see how these cottages can possibly be untied without the consent of the farm tenant. My own belief is that this Bill will be used to improve cottages at present tied only in a very few instances.

I may be wrong, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to point out if I am. But if he cannot prove that this Bill will be used on a more extensive scale, I think it is fair to ask what is the Government's policy for the improvement of agricultural housing. I have not national figures by me, but I have some fairly complete figures from one or two rural districts with which I happen to be familiar, and I think they may be typical of others. They at least show the nature of the problem. The figures I have in mind relate to a survey of about 2,600 cottages. Of these, 828 were found to be tied or service cottages. Of the 828, no fewer than 502, in the opinion of the medical officer of health, required either repairs, structural alterations or fairly substantial improvements; and a further 109 were altogether beyond repair.

Up to the present the Government's contribution to rural housing has been in part to maintain some of the provisions of the Coalition Government—such as the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1945, both of which are very useful in certain cases—but their main contribution, they would claim, would be the encouragement of new council houses, of which a small proportion has been now allocated to rural workers. The rural district council to which I have already referred has allocated 65 out of 473 houses to agricultural workers. They are very good cottages, but the rents are between £1 and 22s. and there is always the fear that these rents will go higher. This lack of security about the rents of council houses is having a very disturbing effect on tenants. I would suggest that if the figures I have given are in any way representative of what is happening in other parts of the country, the number of new agricultural cottages hardly makes up for the rate of deterioration of the old cottages. In other words, the general standard of agricultural housing is likely not to improve but to get worse. As I have said before, we can indulge in political dialectics, and talk about Tory misrule, or about the high costs, centralisation and the red tape which is having such an injurious effect on the present Government's housing policy; but if we are to consider this problem in a dispassionate and objective way I feel that we are entitled to ask whether this Bill is the last word the Government have to say about agricultural cottages or whether they have something else to offer in the foreseeable future. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 20, leave out the first ("be") and insert ("or").—(Viscount Gage.)

5.5 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

When this matter was before another place the Deputy Speaker said this, and I am sorry that the Lord Chairman is not entrusted with similar powers: The general question of tied cottages is not before the House. The question is the conditions under which an improvement grant will be made. I therefore hope that for that reason and others honourable Members will be good enough to be brief and to the point. There is only the question raised here: Should a tied cottage enjoy the facilities of this Bill? As I said on the Second Reading, the present Government are not in favour of tied cottages and therefore they are opposed to doing anything which may in any way encourage the continuance of tied cottages. One way to do that is to withhold from the tied cottage the benefits which other cottages will secure from this Bill. I would like to help the noble Viscount when he asks me the way to untie a tied cottage. He seems to suggest that the untying of a cottage might mean placing a financial burden on the cottager. I should say that that would be wrong. If the cottager is receiving £4 a week as a farm labourer, and the farmer is anxious to untie his cottage, all he has to do is to settle the rent to be paid, and to pay that money to the labourer in addition to his £4.

A NOBLE LORD

£4 14s.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I am using a round figure. The farmer could not put a financial burden on a tenant he proposes to untie. I do not think he would want to do that. He would give the cottager the amount of rent agreed upon, in addition to the wages he receives now, and it would be paid back in rent. The transaction is over; but the tenant will enjoy all the privileges of the Rent Restrictions Acts. We could go on at great length on this question, but I do not think it necessary. The Minister of Health, on behalf of the Government, has laid down as a major policy of this Government, rightly or wrongly, that they are prepared to do nothing to encourage the continuance of tied cottages. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill do not apply to tied cottages. The landlord farmer and land owner can take the action necessary to derive benefit from the Bill. Until they do this, its benefits are denied to the cottager. I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am very disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. I tried to deal with this matter in no factious way, and I asked the noble Lord to explain how he hoped that these cottages would be untied. He has said nothing about the protection given to tenancy agreements and leases by the Agriculture Act, 1947. From what he said it seems to me that this Bill is not put forward in any way as a serious contribution to the improvement of agricultural cottages. I find the greatest difficulty in marrying the moving way in which he spoke on Second Reading about the desirability of improving cottages with what seems to me very cavalier treatment of an Amendment which I had hoped would provide some guidance to the Committee on how the Government intend to work. I am not going to press the Amendment to a Division—I never suggested I would. I feel that I have received a very disappointing reply, and I do not think that agricultural workers can derive any hope at all from the provisions of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Power to increase rent fixed under Part II in certain cases]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The next seven Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 42, after ("that") insert (". for the purposes of this Part of this Act,"). —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 46, leave out ("such").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 46, after ("given") insert ("under this section in relation to a dwelling on any occasion").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 4, leave out from ("before") to ("the") in line 6 and insert ("a subsequent direction is given under this section in relation to the dwelling or the direction is superseded by reason of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 8, after ("twenty") insert ("(whichever event first occurs)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 13, leave out ("under this section") and insert ("in accordance with the direction given on that occasion and with any direction given under this section in relation to the dwelling on a previous occasion which has not been superseded as aforesaid ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 16, leave out ("the").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 [Amendment and extension of s. 7 of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The next five Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 36, after ("that") insert ("for the purposes of the said section seven,").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 39, leave out ("such").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 39, after ("given") insert ("under this subsection in relation to a house on any occasion").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 44, after ("direction") insert ("and before a subsequent direction is given under this subsection in relation to the house"). —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 46, after ("direction") insert ("given on that occasion and with any direction given under this subsection in relation to the house on a previous occasion").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 [Power to increase rent fixed under Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in certain cases]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The next five Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 3, after ("that") insert (", for the purposes of those Acts,").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 8, leave out ("such").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 8, after ("given") insert ("under this section in relation to a dwelling on any occasion").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 17, leave out from ("before") to ("be") in line 18, and insert ("a subsequent direction is given under this section in relation to the dwelling.").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 20, leave out ("under this section") and insert ("in accordance with the direction given on that occasion and with any direction given under this section in relation to the dwelling on a previous occasion").— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule [Amendments of the Housing Act, 1936, for Purposes of Removal of References to the Working Classes]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 32, after ("In") insert ("subsection (1), in").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Adaptations of the Housing Act, 1936, and the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

In moving this Amendment I would mention that Part I of the Bill (which amends the Housing Act, 1936) now contains three provisions referring to a house being fit for human habitation—namely, Clause 2 (b), Clause 3 (3) and Clause 4 (2). It is therefore desirable to apply the provision mentioned in the Amendment so that the same tests as to fitness are applicable in all cases.

Amendment moved—

Page 45, line 4, at end insert— ("11. Subsection (4) of section one hundred and eighty-eight of the principal Act (which specifies matters to which regard is to be had in determining for the purposes of that Act whether a house is fit for human habitation) shall have effect as if the reference to that Act included a reference to this Act.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This Amendment is consequential on the drafting Amendment we made at page 42, line 32. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 11, after ("twenty-nine") insert ("in subsection (1).")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.