HOUSING BILL (Hansard, 14 July 1949)

HL Deb 14 July 1949 vol 163 cc1360-71 1360

§ 6.30 p.m.

§ Amendments reported (according to Order).

§ Clause 4 [Power of local authorities to make advances for purpose of increasing housing accommodation]:

§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 28, leave out ("improvement, repair") and insert ("repair, improvement").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 7 [Power of local authorities to provide board and laundry facilities]:

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to the clause as a new subsection: 1361 ( ) A Justices' licence granted under the Licensing Acts 1910 to 1934 for the sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with the provision of facilities for obtaining meals and refreshments under this section shall only authorise the sale of such liquor for consumption with a meal and a local authority shall in carrying on any activities under this section be subject to all enactments and rules of law relating thereto including in England and Wales the enactments relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in like manner as other persons carrying on like activities.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. In this Bill the Government seeks—I do not know why it is necessary—to take power to run restaurants in connection with the municipal housing estates, as well as to provide laundry services. Laundry services are, of course, a new provision which we discussed earlier in connection with this Bill and I am not raising that matter now. I do not know why it was necessary to include this provision for restaurants in connection with these new housing estates. Your Lordships will realise that under the Civic Restaurants Act, which was before this House in 1947, a local authority already has the power to run a civic restaurant where there is a need. It is true that the restaurants contemplated in the present Bill are to be only for those who live in that block of flats or on that particular [housing estate. If there is a real need the local authority can well apply the powers they have already under the Civic Restaurants Act.

§ Clause 7 of this Bill states: (1) The power of a local authority under Part V of the principal Act to provide housing accommodation shall include power to provide, in connection with the provision of such accommodation for any persons, such facilities for obtaining meals and refreshments"— that is the word to which I particularly wish to draw your Lordships' attention— …as accord with the needs of those persons. "Refreshments," as your Lordships would expect, include alcoholic beverages. We had a considerable discussion when the Civic Restaurants Act was before this House as to whether it should be permissible for local authorities to apply for a licence. There are only three possible courses open to the authority in this case: to apply for the full licence, which is a general publican's licence; to apply for a licence to serve drinks with a meal; 1362 or not to apply for any licence at all. During the Civic Restaurants Act discussions, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, put down an Amendment providing that no licence should be granted in any circumstances to any civic restaurant; and the original attitude of the Government on that measure was that the authority should be allowed to apply for any licence. A happy compromise was reached, on an Amendment proposed by myself, that they could apply for a licence to have drinks with a meal; it was not thought right to turn civic restaurants into the kind of place where there was a cocktail bar, or even a bar where a noble Lord could lean on his elbow and drink his pint of beer.

§ I want to know the Government's intention in regard to this new power for which they are providing in this measure. Do they intend that the local authority may be able to apply for a full licence, to apply for a licence for drinks with meals, or not apply for a licence at all? If, within this Parliament, after extremely careful discussion, we have adopted one principle in regard to the Civic Restaurants Act we should surely adopt the same principle in this Bill. It may be said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that the Government do not want the local authorities to apply for a licence. But what is likely to happen when a case comes before a licensing bench? It will be said by interested parties that in the Civic Restaurants Act Parliament was careful to say that civic restaurants would get a licence only for drinks with meals, but that in its 1949 Housing Act (as this Bill will become) no such provision was made by Parliament; and that therefore in regard to restaurants of this sort it is clearly the intention of Parliament that the local authorities should be able to apply for a full licence. Advocates would call in aid that principle in applying to a bench for the licence.

§ I say that what was good enough for the Minister of Food in his Civic Restaurants Act ought to be good enough for the Minister of Health in his Housing Bill. I think it would be deplorable if we did anything else. I am delighted to see the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is in his place. When we discussed this matter before he said, in regard to an absolutely similar Amend- 1363 ment to this one, put down by myself, that the Government had given much thought to making a sensible and reasonable arrangement to meet the necessities of the case. A "sensible and reasonable arrangement" is exactly what is contained in the words I am now moving. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, neither I nor any other noble Lord could possibly take exception to the fine tone and temper in which this Amendment was moved. When I hear an Amendment moved in so excellent a tone, I am always inclined to be sympathetic towards it; but I am very much afraid that on this occasion I shall not be able to accept this Amendment. We prefer the words in the Bill unamended.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I like the words in the Act.

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
If we take them unamended, I think that were I to read them in my way, we would see in them a little more value than the noble Lord has given them. They are: The power of a local authority under Part V of the principal Act to provide housing accommodation shall include power to provide, in connection with the provision of such accommodation for any persons, such facilities for obtaining meals and refreshments … as accord with the needs of those persons. In the first place, the local authority, having got their housing estate, have to examine the position: should they or should they not have a refreshment room inside the housing estate? They consider that, which is a far greater question than the one posed in the Amendment on the Marshalled List. Having considered that, they decide, "Yes, we will provide accommodation for meals and refreshments." The local authority make that decision. They then deal with the point of refreshments and say: "Shall we make any special reference to the type of re-freshments?" The Bill says: "If the local authority are the people to be entrusted with the bigger, major decision that they shall have a refreshment room, they ought also to be able to determine 1364 whether the refreshment shall be of one nature or another nature. If you entrust them with a major operation, then entrust them with a minor operation." Having done that, they have in mind the drinking facilities to be provided. I was saying last week privately to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that I was very disturbed at the attitude taken over the "clubs and 'pubs'" Amendment—that he seemed to ignore the facilities provided in the area for drinking and that in some areas the drinking facilities today were far too many. The Amendment unfortunately put in the Licensing Bill last week seemed to have no regard to the drinking facilities already provided. The Government take a strong stand on this question. They say: "The local authority with their knowledge are able to decide, first in regard to a restaurant. They are the only people to decide whether it is in accord with the needs of the persons on the housing estate—and nobody else—that a drinking licence should be permitted."

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
But even under the terms of this Bill, the local authority can only apply to the licensing justices. The local authority will not be deciding this question even if the measure goes through as it is.

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
That is right. That brings me to my second point. When they have decided that they will apply to a licensing authority, what does this Amendment do? It restricts the licensing authority. The Government feel that this is a case where no applications are likely to be made. The Government have made no reference to licensing or intoxicants; they have kept them out of the Bill, and it is better to keep them out of the Bill. You have to remember that when the ordinary housing estate is erected it seldom exceeds 300 to 400 houses. On most housing estates there are not more than 600 to 700 adults to be found. In my opinion, there will be few of those refreshment rooms decided upon by local authorities, for the reason given by the noble Lord—because they will already have a civic restaurant. I am certain that the number of applications for a licence will be near zero. The whole township and all the visitors can frequent a civic restaurant because they have a limited 1365 licence. The question is, should we in this Bill limit licences for these very small housing estates in the area of a local authority? I want to tell your Lordships that I see no hope of this Amendment being accepted—none whatever. On the question of the Amendment itself, what surprises me is this. This Bill was for weeks before another place, and it has been before this House for some weeks, and there has been no reference to this point before.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I had an Amendment down on Committee stage. Unfortunately, because I was away it was not moved. That was the first occasion when we could have done it here.

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
I agree. But here is something fairly new raised at a rather late stage in the proceedings of the Bill. If you were to carry this Amendment to-day, we would meet with another difficulty which would have to be considered before we forced it to a Division. The business in another place before the Summer Recess is well cluttered up. If this Amendment is carried by your Lordships' House, I am advised that it is questionable whether the Bill can be disposed of before the Summer Recess. I am not putting that forward in the form of a threat; I am putting it forward on definite advice that it is very doubtful indeed, if this Amendment were carried, whether the necessary arrangements could be made to have the Bill back in this House and agreement reached before we rose for the Summer Recess. In that case, the operation of the Bill would be delayed for at least three months. I thought I should tell the noble Lord that before he forced his Amendment to a Division. Our feeling is that the point under discussion ought to be left to the local authority. They will decide on the question of refreshment rooms, which is by far the bigger question involved; and they will also decide on the smaller question of refreshment. I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am not going to intervene on the substance of the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, but I am going to say something with regard to the last few words spoken by the noble Lord opposite. I quite realise that those words were not 1366 uttered in any way as a threat. I do not take them as such, but more as a statement of fact. The Leader of the House will realise the great difficulties in which we work in this House. We have hurled at us by another place a great amount of legislation in the last weeks before we separate for the Summer Recess. We are always being told: "You must not amend this or that because it will mean that it will interfere with the arrangements for the rising of Parliament." I do not think that is really an argument which ought properly to be put to us. It was used in argument as a statement of fact.

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
Yes.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I do not think it is an argument that should be put to us because, if the worst came to the worst, it would always be open to the Government to sit a day or two longer before they separated for the Summer Recess. I think it would be shocking if they did rise to go on their holidays and thus delayed the coming into operation of this measure for three months. The House of Lords would not be to blame; it would be the Government who insisted on rising at an earlier date. We shall come to our decision purely on merit. If it does mean a great pressure of business, I am perfectly sure that the Leader of the House and I can talk it over and be able to fit things in so that all will eventuate as we hope. I would not be ready to advise my own supporters to refrain from voting on an Amendment because it might mean sitting a day or two longer.

§ 6.49 p.m.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I confess frankly that I am not a little surprised at the attitude of the Government. I deplore that attitude. When I discussed this matter on the Civic Restaurants Act, I spoke on this important issue and it was keenly debated on an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. If I may recall your Lordships' attention to the circumstances, we were indebted to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for bringing us together and securing this compromise. What I want to point out is that the Government cannot very well get away with this, even with the special pleading of the noble Lord the 1367 Paymaster-General, because the issue seems to me to be a simple one. When I saw the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on the Order Paper, I said to myself "Is Saul also among the prophets?"
It was an accident of circumstance that the noble Lord was not in his place to move the Amendment during the Committee stage. We recognised that. If we had known about it other members of your Lordships' House would gladly have moved the Amendment for him; but we did not know. What I want to point out is that the issue seems to me to be simple. I concede the point that this provision is confined to the housing estates of a local authority on which they decide to place a refreshment room. But as the Bill stands at present, the local authority would be enabled to apply for a full justices' licence—I see the noble Lord agrees. Surely the Government must accept this Amendment, if only to be consistent. These words are in the Civic Restaurants Act, and I hope the Government will reconsider their decision. The Paymaster-General has said that the Minister is adamant, but surely the Minister of Health can be persuaded to make some concession on the same lines as the Minister of Food. I shall regret it if the House has to divide on this issue, but I shall follow my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, in voting against the Government if the House does divide.
I hope, however, that no such difficulty will be presented to your Lordships. I would be bold enough to ask whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House cannot see his way to intervene to help us on such an issue as this. Could not we delay the final decision on this issue until a later stage? I cannot help feeling that if the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the Paymaster-General got together, they would be able to persuade the Minister of Health to be more conciliatory about this. But if this is forced to a Division, I shall be compelled to vote against the Government in support of Lord Llewellin.

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, all I can say, with the leave of the House, is that I see no hope of settling this by reserving a decision until a later stage. One does not like to disregard a plea by Lord Rochester, and when he and Lord 1368 Llewellin are in combination one feels something ought to be done. I am loath to say anything which may lead to a Division and an insertion of these words in the Bill, but on instructions I am sorry to say that I can give no undertaking whatever that if the matter is left over the position will be any different in a week's time. If the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has any confidence in further talks on the matter, I am quite prepared to consider them, but I see no opportunity at all of compromising on this issue.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken frankly, as we would expect, and I hope I shall be equally frank. I think it is quite wrong in the same Parliament to make two different provisions—namely, to give a local authority power in one case to come along and ask for a full justices' licence, and, when the clerk of the court looks it up, to say "You realise this application is not made under the Civic Restaurants Act; this application is made under Section 7 of the Housing Act, 1949, and so we are perfectly in order." If the noble Lord has his way, that will be the exact position. I can tell the noble Lord that quite a lot of this Housing Bill is a reenactment of legislation which was previously in force; but a great deal of it, as I think I said once before, consists of a certain amount of verbiage about which nothing much is likely to be done. This is the Government's Housing Bill, and not ours. It is for them to decide whether or not they would like it held up because they cannot be consistent between the Civic Restaurants Act and the Housing Bill. That is not for us.
When we have had careful and earnest discussions, as the Leader of the House will remember, when we persuaded the Government to assent to exactly the same words in the Civic Restaurants Act less than two years ago, and when, apart from the general Government for which they were speaking, the Home Secretary, the Minister of Food, the Leader of the House and Lord Henderson were all in complete agreement personally and the matter was carried in this House, I do not see why the Minister of Health should not fall into line with his colleagues. Therefore I advise the House to insist now on this Amendment and, if necessary, to insist upon it if it comes back I from another place.

1369

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
My Lords, I seem to be the victim of circumstance in this particular case. I well remember the discussions to which the noble Lord refers, and it is true that we arrived at the arrangement embodied in the Civic Restaurants Act. So far as I understand, it is also true that if this Bill stood simply as it is it would be open to the local authority, if they had the consent of the justices, to obtain a licence for such a thing as a cocktail bar. If the noble Lord's words were put in, they would not be able to do that. Until three-quarters of an hour ago the matter was quite new to me. Being concerned with other matters, I was not aware of this particular difficulty. I would suggest, without giving any undertaking, that if the noble Lord would be good enough to let us have a further talk about it, perhaps we may reach some solution.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, if I may speak again by leave of the House, I am always ready to fall in with any suggestion made by the noble Viscount. If I may, by leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment now and I give notice that I will put it down again on Third Reading. If we can have talks in the meantime, I hope we shall find that the Government will be consistent in regard to these two matters. I appreciate that the noble Viscount cannot give me an undertaking now. One realises that on Third Reading an Amendment cannot be altered by further oral amendment, and I will try to word my Amendment so that it exactly reproduces the words of the Civic Restaurants Act. In the meantime, we can have talks and reserve our right to divide. I hope that by the time we come to the Third Reading our talks will have been successful. On that condition, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 21 [Amounts, and payment, of improvement grants]:

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to correct a clerical error.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 18. after ("executing") insert ("the").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1370

§ Clause 23 [Conditions to be observed with respect to dwellings]:

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move—

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line 12, leave out from ("subsection") to first ("to") in line 13 and insert ("at a time when they are required").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 27 [Provisions as to further improvement grants]:

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 34, leave out ("in relation") and insert ("with respect").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, this and the following Amendment are both drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 35, leave out ("for the time being apply") and insert ("are for the time being required to be observed").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwacnysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 6, leave out from ("occasion") to end of 1ine 11, and insert ("the condition as to rent applicable by reason of the giving of assistance, on the last occasion shall be deemed to be the condition as to rent applicable also by reason").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenvsgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 28 [Provision as to dwellings improved under Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926]

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, the next three Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 15, leave out from ("which") to ("for") in line 17, and insert ("conditions contained in the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 to 1942 ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 20, leave out ("the conditions aforesaid") and insert ("conditions contained 1371 in the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. 1926 to 1942 ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 21, leave out ("the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 to 1942") and insert ("those Acts").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 30 [Provisions as to security of tenure of tenants]:

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on a previous Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 23, line 27, leave out from ("is") to ("to") in line 28 and insert ("at a time when the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act are required ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 33, line 6, leave out ("other") and insert ("remaining").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.