HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) BILL (Hansard, 9 December 1965)

§ LORD ST. HELENS
I rise to support, very briefly, the Amendment moved with great ability by my noble friend Lord Newton. I am not going to repeat the detailed arguments because both in another place and in this House almost everything that could possibly be said on the subject has already been said. But the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, with characteristic whimsicality, dwelt for a long time on speeches made in the past by my right honourable friends Mr. Duncan Sandys and Mr. Enoch Powell. I can only imagine that he did so in order to divert the Committee's attention from the proceedings which took place in Committee in another place, where Member after Member got to his feet and expressed dissatisfaction with the present state of the Bill.
Member after Member, including many from the Government side, said that they were unhappy about the present position, 422 and asked the Government to think again. They pointed out many anomalies that arise under the present conditions, of which your Lordships will be aware if you have read the proceedings. They pointed out that the people whom we are considering are not the type of people who can either afford to get, or are in the habit of getting, expensive professional advice. They pointed out that many of those people did not know the legal position; and any of your Lordships who have had experience of slum clearance will realise that, although it is no excuse not to know the legal position, very few people dwelling in those slums do ever know it. They pointed out, too, that there is no question of profit to the owners: it is a question of homes. Unless I mistook the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, at the beginning of his speech he referred to this as a minor matter. Those of us who have had experience in the slums of great cities realise that the homes of these people are in no sense a minor matter to the people concerned.

§ LORD MITCHISON
I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope I made it perfectly clear why I said it was minor. I said that it was minor only as regards the amount of money involved and the number of people involved. I fully realise it is of course a very serious matter to those who are concerned.

§ LORD ST. HELENS
I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, and of course I apologise for any misapprehension that I may have caused. But, still, this is a very serious matter for these people. Indeed, as was said in another place, this is not a legal and technical matter: it is a matter of human compassion to the relatively small number of people involved. In spite of the arguments that have been put forward, both in this House by my noble friend Lord Newton and in another place by Members on both sides, the Government have turned a deaf ear, and one is inclined to think that the Government are impervious to the hardship which is going to be caused to a lot of little people living in the slums.
I was particularly interested when the time factor was referred to. On the Second Reading of this Bill, my noble friend Lord Newton drew attention to this. He said that the Government 423 seemed to consider— and I now quote him—that:
…. when an owner-occupier of an unfit house has had fifteen years' beneficial occupation, he does not deserve anything more than the site value…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 271 (No. 14), col. 79; 6/12/65.]
My noble friend was, of course, referring to the attitude of the Government. I must say that this astonished me, because I remember that during the last Election the Socialist Party were thumping about the country speaking about leasehold enfranchisement; and they said the longer a tenant had lived in a house the greater the hardships to that man if he was evicted. Surely, the same applies to the owner of a slum dwelling.
I cannot help but feel that the Government have presented a very insensitive attitude to this problem. I cannot help but feel, also, as was said in another place, that the Government are asking certain unfortunate owners to subsidise their slum clearance plan. I personally do not feel that this is good enough, and I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Newton will press this matter to a Division.

§ LORD NEWTON
I am most grateful to my noble friend for the knowledgeable contribution which he has made. I do not think I need say very much more. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, really did not say anything new this afternoon. When I say that, I mean that he did not really say anything he did not say last Monday. In moving the Amendment, I tried to anticipate what I thought he was going to say. He enjoyed himself (as he is fully entitled to do) displaying himself as standing like a knight in shining armour coming to the defence of my right honourable friends Mr. Duncan Sandys and Mr. Enoch Powell. He said I was proposing to ask your Lordships to throw them overboard. This is really a red herring, and the noble Lord knows that just as well as I do. It is the noble Lord and the Government who are trying to overthrow what Mr. Sandys and Mr. Powell put into the 1956 Act, and it is I who am trying to preserve in this Bill what they put into that Act. That is what matters, not what they may have said nine and a half years ago when they were introducing the 1956 Act.
424 As to the cost, which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has just described as a minor matter as to the amount of money involved, he said that my Amendment might cost an additional £5 million on top of the £3 million envisaged in the Bill as it now stands. I would think that is a pretty rough guess.

§ LORD MITCHISON
It is.

§ LORD NEWTON
And an even rougher guess, I would think, than the £3 million. But let us assume that it is reasonably accurate. What does that amount to? It amounts to an extra £1 million a year for five years—£5 million all told. I can think of many worse ways of spending £5 million than the way I envisage in this Amendment, and I know that very much more than £5 million has been much worse spent in the past year. But if the noble Lord is really frightened about placing an additional unfair burden upon the rates, assuming that your Lordships agreed with the Amendment, were it not for the fact that the Government are now insisting upon completing all stages of this Bill in your Lordships' House to-day, it would be perfectly open for the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, at a later stage, to put down his own Amendment designed to ensure that any additional cost over the £3 million would be made up to the local authorities by way of direct Exchequer subsidies, which we discussed, he may remember—and I will not go into it again—last Monday afternoon.

§ LORD MITCHISON
In this House?

§ LORD NEWTON
Certainly. The only other thing I would say, finally, is this. If the positions of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and myself had been reversed, and if he were standing at this Box now and I were in charge of this Bill inviting your Lordships to approve the discrimination written into it, I just dread to think of the wrath that would have descended upon my head. I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment.

§ LORD NEWTON
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential, and I beg to move accordingly.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Luke, L.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Erroll of Hale, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Ailwyn, L.	Falkland, V.	Merrivale, L.
Ampthill, L.	Ferrier, L.	Milverton, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Foley, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Atholl, D.	Forster of Harraby, L.	Newton, L.
Auckland, L.	Fortescue, E.	Oakshott, L.
Audley, B.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Ogmore, L.
Bathurst, E.	Grenfell, L.	Rathcavan, L.
Bessborough, E.	Gridley, L.	Rea, L.
Birdwood, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.	Reading, M.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.	Hawke, L.	Rockley, L.
Carrington, L.	Henley, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Coleraine, L.	Horsbrugh, B.	St. Helens, L.
Colyton, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	St. Just, L.
Crathorne, L.	Hurd, L.	Selkirk, E.
Denham, L.	Ilford, L.	Soulbury, V.
Derwent, L.	Inglewood, L.	Stonehaven, V.
Devonshire, D.	Jellicoe, E.	Strathclyde, L.
Digby, L.	Killearn, L.	Swinton, E.
Dilhorne, V.	Kilmuir, E.	Tenby, V.
Dulverton, L.	Lambert, V.	Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Dundee, E.	Long, V.	Windlesham, L.
Dundonald, E.	Lothian, M.	Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Archibald, L.	Goodman, L.	Royle, L.
Bourne, L.	Greenway, L.	St. Davids, V.
Bowles, L. [Teller.]	Hilton of Upton, L.	Segal, L.
Brockway, L.	Hurcomb, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L.	Leatherland, L.	Silkin, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Listowel, E.	Snow, L.
Champion, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Sorensen, L. [Teller.]
Chorley, L.	Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Stonham, L.
Clwyd, L.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Strang, L.
Colwyn, L.	Mitchison, L.	Taylor, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L.	Phillips, B.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Fraser of North Cape, L.	Plummer, B.	Williams, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)