I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Clause has been introduced by the Government in order to carry out a promise which was given on the Committee stage to meet certain criticisms which were put forward. The House will remember that there are important provisions in Clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill. Clause 53, with which we are particularly concerned, has this effect. The local authority has extensive powers under the Bill for re-developing areas that are overcrowded or contain broken-down wage earners' dwellings. The Clause gives somewhat similar powers for the development of owners' land, which are strengthened, at any rate, in the hands of the actual owners, in this form, that they are given the opportunity of putting forward their own development schemes to effect the same things as those effected by re-development schemes of a local authority. It was said that there must be some limitation of time as regards the power of owners of the land to put forward their own re-development schemes, and that when the matter got to a certain stage in the hands of the local authority it should not be open to the owners at the eleventh hour, or even after the eleventh hour, or after the twelfth hour to hold up proceedings by putting forward their own proposals. I think it was agreed that it would be reasonable to say that the schemes should not be put forward by the owners after the clearance order or the compulsory purchase order necessary for the purpose of a re-development scheme had been confirmed or approved by the Minister, and that is the effect of Sub-section (1) of the Clause. Upon that there was no difference of opinion; at any rate none was known to me.

The second part of the Clause deals with a different aspect of the same matter. It is really an amplification of the Bill in order to simplify procedure. It contemplates the conditions when the owners shall have put forward their proposals after the land in question has been comprised in the scheme of the local authority, and before the order has been confirmed. It says that in those circumstances the local authority shall have the option either of following the normal procedure under the Bill of considering the proposals of the owners and then passing on to their own proposals, or they shall be able to short-circuit the procedure in a manner which is practicable and reasonable, by referring the proposals of the owners directly to the Minister of Health in the nature of objection to their own proposals. That introduces a more business-like procedure from the point of view of local authorities, and from the point of view of the owners it has the following advantages. It gives expressed recognition to what is otherwise definitely implied in the Bill, that the Minister has the opportunity of considering the proposals of the owners when he is passing judgment on the proposals of the local authority. That posi- tion thus obtains express recognition in Sub-section (2). In those circumstances, I think that the Clause can be added to the Bill as fulfilling the undertaking which was given in Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause arises in this way. When the Bill was being considered in Committee upstairs, we came upon the form of words defining "statutory undertakers." Those words will be found in the present Clause 15, and obviously relate to the old days, in that they specifically refer to railways, docks, canals and water, but make no reference to electricity, which is an important form of public statutory undertaking in these days. It was pointed out that it might be desirable, and we accepted the suggestion, to introduce a more up-to-date form of words. It is all so necessary in this connection to amend the Act of 1925. It would be highly undesirable to have two different definitions in two Housing Acts, and, therefore, this Clause deals with the Act of 1925. It simply uses the words "statutory undertakers," and the Committee will find a later Amendment in page 2249 of the Order Paper in which we are inserting in the Bill in the appropriate place, a definition of "statutory undertakers," and it refers specifically to all the various activities which could be involved.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

It will be seen that the Clause requires that, as a condition of granting the assistance available under the Bill, the Minister shall prescribe that the houses which the provision is assisting shall be of a satisfactory character. There is nothing new in the proposal, and the absence of it from the Bill is very regrettable. My hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) gave some particulars to the House some time ago showing what may happen unless proper control is given over the provision of materials of which a house is composed. It will be remembered that several years ago there was an all-party committee of au expert kind under the late Sir Tudor Walters which presented a very complete and acceptable report. It was accepted at that time by the Ministry, and, I believe, very largely observed by local authorities throughout the country. In this particular case, we are contemplating a very important and extensive departure from what has hitherto prevailed. Previously the provision of flats has been limited under these conditions, but under the present Bill it is contemplated that they will be provided on a very large scale. Therefore, it is of special importance that the Minister should secure that the accommodation and the equipment of the flats are of a decent minimum standard.

We are not asking for any conditions to be inserted in the Bill but simply asking that the Minister of Health, with such advice as is readily available to him, shall issue regulations and prescribe a minimum standard. I cannot think that it would be reasonable to object to that proposal. I am sure that it will be necessary to adopt such a course otherwise we shall have recurrring difficulties in time to come unless proper safeguards are taken in advance. For example, the question of light is of first importance. The matter of ventilation is also a governing consideration. Unless we provide here and now that this extensive provision of flats shall be of a lay-out that will make proper security for light, ventilation and other necessary matters of that kind we may be participating in the erection of what will before very long become slums again. We want to make sure that that is not so.

In some areas, as the Minister well knows from the records of his own Department, it is very necessary to secure that the equipment of the houses is of a decent standard. There should be proper provision for a kitchen sink, where the woman of the house can perform essential domestic duties for the comfort of the home. The same consideration applies to the provision of a bath. Later on, in pursuance of a promise which he gave in Committee, the Minister has a proposal on the Order Paper for the provision of a fixed bath and a proper bathroom. What applies to a bath ought to apply to the kitchen sink and to proper accommodation for washing up, and such like. Then there is the question of the size and height of rooms. In the case of flats it may well be that some of the rooms will not be as big as we would like them to be. There is all the more reason why when there is a temptation to make the rooms smaller that there should be provision in the Bill enabling the Minister to secure that at least a minimum standard is observed.

The argument which applies to the internal equipment applies with equal force to the materials. On this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich East is better qualified to speak than I am. We know what a temptation there is to put second-rate, shoddy material into houses. It is just as necessary to have protection in regard to the materials of which the house is built as it is to have proper provision for the lay-out and general amenities of the house. I hope that the Minister will take care that he prescribes such standards as he will be proud of afterwards and which will justify the considerable expenditure of public money that he contemplates will arise under the Bill.

This new Clause ought to be read with Clause 24, which I believe aims at something of the same kind. The whole purpose of the establishment of an advisory committee, which has for so long been urged by the numerous housing organisations that have sprung up during the last 10 years, is to achieve decent standards and good sound planning. In great cities like London, where they have many years of accumulated experience as the result of past mistakes and experiments, there are very fine standards both of exterior design and interior construction. That applies not only to block dwellings, but to cottage estates, but particularly to block dwellings. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman visualises the utilisation of Clause 31 and whether he has in his mind in many great provincial towns the provision of a great number of block dwellings. Generally I think we can say that among the public, particularly the working class, there is a very natural and very proper antipathy to living in block dwellings. On the Continent, in Germany in particular, the flat dwelling habit has been general for 30 or 40 years, but the old phrase that "An Englishman's home is his castle" represents the attitude of the ordinary British citizen towards his home. He likes to be self-contained. He likes to feel that his front door is his own and that he does not share it with anybody else. By the special grant given in the Bill we are going to give special inducement to local authorities to build block dwellings in order to provide accommodation for persons who must live in the centre of the town or near their work. Some of us are afraid that the local authorities may create those awful barrack dwellings which to a great extent explain the proper prejudice of the public against block dwellings.

I do not suppose that the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) attaches great importance to the form of his Clause, but I think the Minister and his Department must become more active partners not merely in handing out public money but in securing that that money is properly spent in the good planning and construction of these dwellings, through proper regulations. The point to which I attach more importance than anything else in regard to block dwellings is proper spacing between the buildings. It has been advocated in the Press and by many housing reformers that we should go in for those 10 block buildings, skyscrapers as they are sometimes called, which are so common in America and on the Continent. Frankly, in principle, I am opposed to such buildings, but if they are to be allowed I hope that the Minister will lay down very strict and severe regulations as to the distance between the dwellings, the amount of light and air and open space provided and the general construction. Obviously, provision must be made for lifts. Lifts are very difficult things to manage in working class dwellings. Unless there is very careful supervision and a porter always in attendance the large child population in working class dwellings may lead to accidents and all sorts of troubles.

Local authorities should be required to utilise the services of a qualified architect. I do not make that suggestion in the interests of architects but to secure good design, good planning, and lay-out in the matter of block dwellings and housing estates generally. The Minister having decided to leave the employment of an architect to the discretion of the local authority a Clause of this kind is all the more necessary. It is important that the Minister should prevent local-authorities putting up those badly planned buildings we have seen in the past and prevent bad planning of estates. It is remarkable, travelling about the country, the tremendous variety of quality there is between one area and another. Just after the war model plans and an excellent manual were available for local authorities, but when public money is concerned, when we are partners with local authorities, we have a direct responsibility to see that the money is properly spent. In an effort to secure cheapness, which is desirable and important and not to be ignored, because the question of rent is vital in this matter, we do not want to lay out estates on such lines that in a few years' time they will be out of date and unsatisfactory. That is the kind of work the Department of Health should do if full advantage is to be made of this Bill.

The criticism I make is that the department of the right hon. Gentleman has been too much of a passenger in the boat, they have not pulled their weight, in the past. It has sometimes been suggested that they have been an obstruction. I visualise a department of health which in the matter of housing will give a lead to local authorities, will provide the services of the best architects, town planners and experts, so that when local authorities set to work on their redevelopment plans, and the reconstruction of the bad areas in our towns and urban districts, they will be able to work on the right lines. London will be able to vie with Vienna, which has done such interesting things in the past. That can only be brought about by a unification and centralisation of this problem in the department and the issue of suitable regulations.

I want to put one practical point before the Committee, and that is, to ask what will be the practical effect of introducing Ministerial regulations for one particular class of house which is to be built as compared with other classes of houses which are going up. The suggestion is that there shall be more precise regulations for houses which are to be built under this Bill than for the general run of houses which are being built all over the country. The quality of houses is regulated by by-laws in the various local authorities. There is some standardisation in the model by-laws issued by the Ministry of Health, but you cannot standardise conditions because they vary in each locality. Some say that the Ministry of Health have been too precise and that the by-laws are restricted, others that they do not go far enough. It is suggested that there should be one code for houses all over the country. That might be necessary if the by-laws are not adequate. What is the position with regard to by-laws for new houses? In theory, probably in practice also, the plans of houses have to be submitted to the local authorities who are also responsible for seeing that they are properly built. Many builders, however, manage to get through these bylaws, and many houses are not built properly.

The question is whether we should have a new code of regulations for one set of houses or whether we can propose any scheme for improving the by-laws all over the country, in order to tone up not simply the building of houses under this Bill but the building of all houses. I cannot see that it is advisable that the Ministry of Health should dictate to the whole country by a general code. You will get out of the system which has served us well in the past, by which local authorities are encouraged to have an interest in the quality of the houses they construct. If we can improve local government it is better to have the bylaws brought up to the mark by ministerial inspection rather than to introduce a general code. There is also the question of town planning regulations. Obviously, in view of the increasing height which buildings are now assuming, we must have regard to the space between houses, and so on. Again, that at present is provided for by the town planning. We all know the appalling discrepancy between the nominal ideal in town planning and the actuality. We know that there has been a very great delay in the adoption of town plans. But that does not mean that we are to lay down a new code at the centre for these houses. What we want to do is to reinforce the existing provisions of the law, both as regards town planning and building by-laws. I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment, but that in his reply he will say that his department are really hoping practically and helpfully and not contentiously to persuade the local authorities to get a move on as regards by-laws, and in seeing that they are observed, and also with regard to town planning in seeing that it is properly enforced and made effective.

One gets used to these statements by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). He has just stated that he hopes the Minister will not accept this Amendment. I do not know whether the hon. Member has read the Amendment or not. It asks for minimum standards of equipment and amenities. Knowing the profession of the hon. Member, one would expect that at least he would ask that the minimum standards of equipment and amenities should be given to the people of this land.

What are bylaws except a minimum standard? I quite agree that we must have a minimum standard and see that it is observed.

We want this Amendment passed so that there will be minimum equipment and standards all over the country. I expect that there are rural as well as urban districts in the division of St. Albans. Clause 30 of the Bill is mainly for cities fiats. Clause 31 is mainly for urban districts. I do not think that the Minister is going to get many houses in urban areas as a result of the passing of this Bill. The financial burdens that are put upon those districts by the Bill will prevent a tremendous number of urban district councils from attempting to build any houses at all, but if they do build houses we ask that the minimum amenities and equipment shall be provided. Some of us here knew in our younger years what it was to have practically no amenities at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has asked that there should be sinks put into the houses so that the people will be able to wash, etc., and that there shall be hot and cold water. In my own home there were 10 of us besides my father and mother. If any of us wanted hot water it had to be boiled on the fire in a small set-pot. If the hon. Member for St. Albans had had experience of that kind of thing, he would have supported the Amendment. When I came from the pit I had often to wait a couple of hours before I could get a wash. I had to wait for my father, then for one brother and for another brother. It was often five-thirty or six o'clock before I could get rid of the pit muck, because I could not get it off with cold water. Yet hon. Members say, "Do not accept this Amendment." Yesterday they were thrusting down the Minister's throat something that they said he should accept nationally. Hot and cold water in houses are necessary things to-day.

Clause 32 deals largely with agricultural areas, but the financial burdens put on the local authorities are such that I do not think they will be able to bear them. I know urban districts in my own constituency which to-day are paying 16 pence in the pound as house subvention. If those districts put up other houses under this Clause the Minister may make a grant if he thinks fit for a maximum number of years. The maximum number of years is half the maximum number under Clause 30.

The hon. Member is now going beyond the new Clause we are discussing, which deals only with the regulations to be made before contributions are made by the Minister.

I thought I was getting off the track, and I thank you for pulling me back. I hope that the Minister, with the amount of money that will be expended, will see that the amenities for which we ask are provided.

In view of the remarks of the last speaker I must say that if he would inquire about the by-laws in the different districts he would find that there is confusion enough already. This new Clause would simply make new regulations for a new class of house. I am fully in sympathy with most of what has been said by the hon. Member regarding the difficulties he had to face in his younger day, but I must say that as regards houses being built in certain parts of the country under the present by-laws there is no doubt that in some cases the work is being scimped and defects are being passed over. In cases into which I inquired I found it was not the fault of the by-laws but purely the personal fault of the inspector, who was not doing his job properly. That is what we have found out in more than one instance around Manchester when inquiries have been made. I am opposed to the multiplication of regulations for the new types of houses. I would much rather have some system of perfect model bylaws, if such are possible, to be adopted universally.

All of us will agree that the misery and discomfort suffered by the people to-day is due largely to the houses in which they have to live. That is agreed upon because the Government themselves are promoting this Bill largely for the purpose of removing overcrowded and slum dwellings. Most Members will appreciate the fact that you cannot provide houses fit to live in, unless the building materials used are of such a quality as to ensure that the house will last for a substantial number of years. A good house ought to last for at least 70 or 100 years but there are persons in these days who believe that we ought to put up, not only houses but schools, designed to last just sufficiently long to meet new ideas about these matters and that these structures should be destroyed as soon as some further new ideas arise. But I am afraid we could not keep up a continuous process of removal and of dealing with what might seem to be prospective slums in that way. We should require a very large area in which to do it, particularly with cottage property and ordinary dwellings, whatever may be said in regard to schools.

By this new Clause we are trying to make doubly certain that the houses to be built under the Bill will be of a proper standard as to structure and amenities. I had the pleasure on Sunday last of taking one of my colleagues over a pithead bath in one of the valleys in my constituency. I am pleased to say that pithead baths are being established in most of the coalfields. My colleague asked me whether there were many baths in the houses in that valley and I had to admit that while 300 persons were using the pithead bath about 70 per cent. of the houses had no baths at all. That percentage or perhaps a higher percentage could probably be applied to all mining communities in this country.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) was speaking I noticed that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) smiled rather satirically at a reference to my hon. Friend's experiences as a collier. My hon. Friend said that in his young days when he came home from the pit he had to wait in a queue with his brothers and his father for an opportunity to remove the filth which he had collected in the mine. Many of us on these benches have had similar experiences. I had 12 years' experience of mine working and I know what it is to have a bath in what is called a tub, that is half a barrel, in a kitchen with all the other members of the household proceeding about their ordinary household duties. My own brother has to go through that experience now. I say that in this age such a thing ought not to be tolerated. We cannot remove the blemishes of the past but we can take care that the houses which are being built to-day are substantially constructed and have certain amenities.

I think it ought to be agreed, definitely, that no houses should be built of less than a certain cubic capacity. It would appear to day that in the interests of cheapness we are bringing down the standard height of ceilings from 8 feet 6 inches first to 8 feet and then to 7 feet six inches. We are also permitting house builders to interfere with the standard cubic space by bringing down the slope of the house so as to affect the size of the bedrooms. These things are being permitted from day to day. There is far more exploitation in housing than in anything else in this country. Housing is essential to the happiness of this realm and yet we permit jerry builders to pursue their activities before our very eyes. We do it knowingly and we ought to endeavour, when the opportunity of a Measure such as this is available, to insert provisions which will enable local authorities to prevent the kind of thing I have indicated. Within a mile of my own residence the county authority has made a by pass road to enable traffic to avoid the old county town and we have speculative builders purchasing alignments on that road—

On a point of Order. As this new Clause only relates to contributions made to local authorities in respect of houses constructed by them, is it in Order to refer to houses not constructed by local authorities?

I understood that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) was referring to houses constructed by local authorities.

No, Sir, by speculative builders.

I was using an illustration. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) endeavours at all times to support his points by illustrations, sometimes of a very peculiar nature, and he sometimes makes grimaces when other hon. Members are speaking. The point which I was making was that the local authorities at present have not the power to prevent speculative building unless they have in the past made by-laws for that specific purpose. A previous speaker referred to the multi- plicity of by-laws. I agree but in many instances local authorities have not applied to the Ministry to have by-laws made in order to prevent certain things. We hope that the Minister will accept this new Clause. I have plenty of evidence here in support of it if I desired to occupy the time of the House. Information has been placed before me within recent months by the plasterers' society which indicates what is happening but I am sure the Minister is acquainted with what is going on in this respect. We ought to endeavour to prevent any person or authority constructing houses without first ensuring that those houses will last reasonably well. If we at first assess the needs which are implied by this Bill and then decide upon the class of house to be built, its length of life and its amenities, we would assure to the inhabitants of this country, at least a measure of happiness and comfort. We ask the Minister to accept our proposal as a means to that end.

I think there are one or two conditions connected with these regulations which need attention. This Bill is designed to produce houses and it is going to cause the expenditure of a vast amount of public money. Yet it does not include a single provision tending towards a reduction in the cost of building. We know that all other similar industries during the last 20 or 30 years have made considerable reductions in their costs whereas the costs of building can hardly be said to have changed at all. The Minister approves of by-laws which are made by public authorities but as he said yesterday, in answer to a question, there are some 1,500 of these authorities. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that among the approved regulations there are great variations and that a builder may use, for instance, a piece of wood of a certain strength in one piece, whereas it is necessary to have wood of quite a different strength in another place. In the case of bricks also the right hon. Gentleman has approved of one standard of strength in one place and an entirely different standard of strength in another place.

If you go along the Edgware Road, you will find that the fire-proofing re- quired in the steel work in a large block of flats built with steel frame is under an entirely different set of regulations from the fire-proofing which is required on the other side of the same road. As regards plumbing, there were some flats built by a firm under the Lambeth Borough Council, and the Minister's Department said they had done a very satisfactory job, but when the same architect wanted to use the same system of plumbing at Heston and Isleworth, the Department refused to allow him to do so. These are anomalies, and it is time these anomalies were ended. Here we have an expenditure that represents anything from £25,000,000 to £50,000,000 over the next five to ten years for building houses, and it is not a matter of laws but of putting bricks on bricks and putting timber together. There is no effort made in this country to reduce the costs of building, which it is obvious can be done, because other industries are doing it. The motor industry has cut its costs tremendously, as we all know, and the building engineers are quite as good as the motor engineers.

Why cannot we have some form of uniformity in this matter? There is no excuse for not having it, because it has been a crying need for years. Then, with regard to new materials, there is a Vote under the Board of Trade made every year to the National Building Research Station. That station looks into the quality of materials, and if it approves them, it gives a very good account of them, but if it does not, it says so. But what is the good of that now? When it has made a statement about a particular material, you have to go to 1,500 other authorities to get the opportunity of using that material. It is time consideration was given to these matters in order to help reduce the costs of building. It has been done in other parts of the world. Why do we have to lag behind in this matter here? I do not think it is appropriate for the Minister to accept this Clause. I think this is not the place to put it, because it is too big a subject to change in this one Clause in a Housing Bill, but I think the Minister should make this one of the very first matters for consideration by the Advisory Committee when they come into being.

If the Minister cannot accept the words of the actual Clause that we are discussing, I hope at least that he will give serious consideration to the point which it raises. I think the Minister's Department itself might give a little more consideration to the regulations that it issues from time to time, issued mainly, I think, on account of what it regards as the need for economy, and that it should amend them in an upward direction so far as amenities are concerned. The standard which is now permitted by the Ministry of Health is considerably lower than the standard that would have been permitted, say, 10 years ago, and I do not think anybody has a greater responsibility in that regard than has the Minister himself.

All of us who are members of local authorities know the difficulties that we have had during the last 10 years, and more especially during the last four years, in getting sanction from the Ministry of Health for building houses with reasonable amenities. Each time that we have gone to the Minister on deputations, as many of us have, and each time the Ministry was written to and the plans were sent forward, we were told that we must cut out this, that, and the other, and ultimately the house resulting would be in such a condition that it would be practically a slum almost at the beginning of its existence. In my own area, when we put our people into houses that were well constructed, so far as the Ministry would permit us to construct them well, they had amenities that were admitted to be necessary by the Ministry of five, six, or ten years ago, but since this Government particularly came into office, the standard of amenities that local authorities have been permitted to adopt has been very much lower than the standard of a few years ago. The reason that we have been given is that the Ministry thinks that greater cheapness ought to be introduced into the building of houses.

The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) referred to something to which I have drawn attention on more than one occasion, namely, the difference in the organisation of the motor industry, for example, as compared with the building industry. I think I have said it in this House before, but anybody who knows the two industries will agree that you can buy a motor car to-day twice as good for half the cost that you could before the War, but if you want to buy a house to-day, it costs you twice as much for a house that is only half as good as you could buy before the War. If that be so, there appears to me to be something wrong in the building industry, and the method of reducing costs that has been adopted by the Ministry appears to me to be wrong. It would be out of order to discuss the means by which I think building costs could be reduced without destroying the amenities as they have been destroyed by the policy adopted by the Ministry in recent years.

It has been said before that you cannot get reasonably good amenities into a house if the material itself is bad, and the Ministry of Health is well aware that the standard of materials and of fittings that are put into most of the houses for which subsidy is paid to-day is below a reasonably decent standard. I have seen fittings put into houses in recent years by contractors that no Member of this House would tolerate for a moment in his own house, and if he were building a house for his chauffeur, or gardener, or gatekeeper on his estate, he would not tolerate for a moment the standard of fittings that are put, into houses for which the nation is paying subsidy to-day. The Minister must, I think, agree that that is wrong, and he ought to agree, I think, that after all, if you expect a nation of people physically, mentally, and even morally strong, they ought to have a standard set by the Ministry which is responsible for the payment of subsidies for the houses in which those people live such as will enable them to live a decent life. It may be argued, and with truth, that the houses that we are building are better than the slums out of which many of these people are coming, but that is hardly a sufficiently good argument to justify the conditions that exist to day.

I have seen houses recently built for a local authority by a contractor in the county of Bedford in which the timber—and I speak as one who has some knowledge of timber—is of the kind that is known in the trade as "wrack", timber that would not be used by a decent boxmaker for the packing of goods. I have seen some of those houses sold to the tenants after they were built by the local authority, and everybody who knew any- thing about houses knew that it was simply a swindle on the poor persons who were buying them. We had a plea by the last speaker for uniformity. I hope we shall not get standard type houses, as we get certain standard type cars, built in every district and for everybody. We want something like uniformity in the standard of material and fittings. This new Clause is an attempt to induce the Minister to set up a reasonably high standard which we are entitled to expect. Local by-laws vary greatly, and it has been said by the Minister that the local authorities have plenty of power if they like to use it, but the fact remains that they do not use it. If even such powers as they have were used we should get a much better standard of housing that we are getting where the subsidy is paid. The by-laws vary so much in different parts of the country as to make them almost a joke.

Builders, architects and all those associated with building, especially the people who supply materials, are well aware of the districts in which they can sell shoddy material and of the districts where they cannot. Knowing that, they do in fact sell such materials in those areas where there is a laxity of supervision, and houses which really become a disgrace to the district are sold to people. I would have liked to say something about the jerry-built houses I have seen recently erected for speculative purposes, but I think it would be outside the object of this new Clause. I hope, however, that the Minister will raise his own standard, because he is largely responsible for the reduction in the standard in recent years. We have heard a good deal from Ministers about turning the corner towards prosperity. I do not admit that we have turned the corner, but, if we have, one of the things which the Government should do to show the public that it is true is to enable local authorities to get back to a standard which is somewhere near decency. Baths, fittings and other amenities have been reduced in standard, and the result is a definitely bad house.

I welcome both the matter of this Debate and the spirit in which it has proceeded. On this occasion matters have been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite and in all parts of the House which should be raised on the occasion of the passage of a great measure of housing reform, and an opportunity has been given for a statement which should be expected from the Minister of Health upon such an occasion. We have seen in all parts of the Committee a sense of the urgency of securing a better housing standard, and that is the spirit which underlies the great effort in which we are now concerned and which is further confirmed by the Bill. It seemed to me as if there had not been so much a gradual increase in our housing standards as an awakening to a consciousness that the old housing standards were intolerable, and that it is necessary to secure for every citizen a reasonable minimum in respect of the amenities of his home, such as air, light, privacy and those amenities which have been described by various Members in the Debate to-day. I entirely accept the view put forward from all parts of the Committee that it is the function of the Ministry of Health to act as the guardian and guide of the building of the country and of the health and social services in regard to securing better housing standards. I directly traverse the statement of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) that there has been any deliberate reduction of those standards by the policy of the Ministry of Health. I attribute what he has described rather to the natural sense of restriction which comes when one has to come into contact with the central Department, whose function is to see that houses are provided at rents within the means of those who have to live in them and to consider other essential considerations.

Is it not a fact that the Department has cut out cupboards and many other amenities which the Department allowed a few years ago?

That is certainly not the case.

I can prove it.

That is a statement which I directly traverse. I find myself in complete agreement with the objects set forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and other hon. Members. I think that it is right when we are looking forward to certain novel departures in house building that a Minister should, as it were, cover the bare bones of the Bill before the House with flesh and blood by giving a description of how it is intended to carry out the Bill in actual policy. What principally concerned these and other hon. Members was the prospect of an increase in the building of flats. I entirely agree that when we contemplate, as I think we must from the facts of the case, an increase in the building of blocks of flats, we must take the greatest care as regards our standards in order to avoid the errors that we made owing to lack of foresight, and to some degree to lack of knowledge, in the inception of flat building in our great cities. Let me relieve some of the fears that have been expressed by saying that there can be no question of the encouragement by the Ministry of the building of skyscrapers. They are not necessary and would be most undesirable in most of our cities.

What height does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate?

Like an elephant that is more easily recognised than defined. The hon. Member will find in the Bill that the minimum height of a flat is three storeys in order to qualify for a subsidy. That gives the order of the class of building which we have in contemplation. I contemplate three and four storeys as normal, and occasionally five storeys, but I should regard six storeys as abnormal. There should be a definite reluctance to go as high as six unless it is absolutely necessary. The problem would be immensely simplified if we could only solve the problem of the lift in order to make it an economic possibility. Unfortunately that has not yet been solved, although we are hard at work upon it. We must be ready with the most modern forms of construction as soon as the Bill is passed, and for that purpose we have had a committee of experts sitting for some time at the Ministry of Health, which, I hope, will be ready to report on a standard of flats embodying the most modern improvements in design ready for the use of local authorities and others as soon as powers under the Bill are available.

Let me say again that it will be our object to see that the greatest possible attention is paid to the appropriate use of sites. The chief error in flat construc- tion in the past has been, first of all, bad buildings and the lack of air and light. Those two great blessings of life have been immensely improved by modern design and it will be our aim to develop open-air plots of ground with space for green gardens and trees. Such will be the line of policy in that regard, but let me add this, in order to make clear what are the intentions in the Bill. It is not, as is sometimes suggested, the general policy of this Bill to exercise any pressure or preference for flat construction. If that impression is due to the form of the financial provisions of the Bill, it is an erroneous impression. The intention and policy under the Bill will be completely realist, with a view to seeing how much of each of the forms of construction is needed to deal with overcrowding, so as to provide the maximum appropriate accommodation at the minimum cost, with the greatest convenience to the population, and then to adopt scheme, both in relation to flats and cottages, for the best good of the population concerned. The scheme is completely realist, and no preference or prejudice is shown in favour of one kind of construction or another.

As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to deal with that point, does not the Pact of flats being specially mentioned in Clause 30 automatically entitle them to this subsidy? Does not that suggest to local authorities that they will be sure of a subsidy for flats, but not sure of the subsidy under Clause 31 for cottages? There is that general impression abroad.

That was just the inference against which I was rather cautioning the House. The subsidy for flats is automatic, because it is beyond doubt that the subsidy for flat building will be required in all cases. The subsidy for cottage building is not automatic, because certainly it will not be required in all cases, and it is right that the need for it in particular cases should be established.

I come to the actual words of the proposed Clause. The Clause is really unnecessary in view of the existing provisions, which possibly may not be quite clear upon the surface of the Bill. In the first place, a great deal of the supervision over size, design and so on of the buildings erected by local authori- ties in order to get a subsidy under the Bill will be exercised in the future as in the past by the steady process of administrative supervision, and no regulations are necessary for that purpose. The approval of subsidies to local authorities by the enforcement of proper standards is a day-to-day process at the Ministry. To some extent those standards in their main outline, are contained in present legislation, and that legislation is incorporated in this Bill, though it is not perfectly obvious. The legislation incorporated is Section 37 of the Act of 1930, and is incorporated by Clause 93 (2) of the present Bill. The provisions in the Act of 1930 which are incorporated relate to standards which were laid down as regards the size of the buildings by reference to the Act of 1925, and as regards the standard of accommodation, which is higher than the penal standard, that is in Section 37 (2) of the Act of 1930, which is also incorporated in this Bill. We thus have two bases as to size and standard of accommodation secured in this Bill.

As to the further idea in the proposed Clause with regard to regulations to be made by the Minister, I think the practical point of view, with which we should agree, has been put by Members who have referred to the by-law system as being preferable in this matter to the system of cast-iron regulations laid down by the Minister for the whole country. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), the hon. Member for West Walthamstow and some other hon. Members who referred to the imperfections of the by-law system. Some of the imperfections, as has been pointed out, are due to failures of administration, and most of the cases referred to are, I think, cases of bad material having been passed, and so on. The hon. Member for Maidstone also referred to the anomalies in the by-laws. I do not for a moment think there are such great anomalies. There is a constant process of revision and improvement of by-laws going on through the by-law department of the Ministry of Health in order to obtain uniformity and avoid anomalies. Its model by-laws have been largely adopted by local authorities. In that way we attain constant approximation to the ideal of uniformity with due elasticity in local services. But we do not always absolutely attain the ideal, and anomalies do occur. I am afraid that that is the price we pay for our system of local government, local autonomy and independence, which, however, on the other side, has very great advantages.

There were two other matters, I think, raised in Debate about which I should like to say a special word, because they are of great significance. The first is the emphasis which has quite rightly been laid by some of the speakers upon the hope of there being schemes under the Bill to increase activity in planning. I absolutely agree. I would put it higher than the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), and would say that the brightest hopes under this Bill will fade unless we attain a far-sighted relation of plans under the Bill to town planning schemes. Redevelopment schemes cannot be effective unless they are related to the idea of what the future of a town as a whole is to be, and are worked out on a definite plan. That is not only lip-service on my part. The idea is incorporated in the Bill in Clause 14, Sub-section (2), dealing with the preparation of a redevelopment plan, where it states that the local authority shall have regard to the provisions of any planning scheme or proposed planning scheme relating to the defined area or land in the neighbourhood of it.

One last matter, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone in the discussions in Committee, concerns the need for standardisation. We must always look to the other side of the account, not only the enforcement of standards which are in accordance with our awakened conscience but the provision of accommodation, according to those standards, at the lowest price at which it can be provided so as to impose as small a burden as may be on the budget of the wage-earners who occupy the houses. The brightest hopes for a reduction of costs and a resulting reduction in rents lie in this direction. Our building industry, in common, I think, with the building industry of other countries, has still progress to make in the direction of the simplification of parts and the standardisation of materials. I am not advocating a soulless uniformity in the type of building. It would be a sorry day for the future of our country if the cottage homes of England were to be rebuilt only upon a sealed pattern issued from Whitehall. How much do the spirit and beauty of our land not depend upon the relation of the cottage home to the type of landscape in which it is built, and the intelligent use of the material which is cheapest and most readily available, and we must guard ourselves against being supposed to advocate a soulless uniformity.

How far are the local authorities carrying out that idea? Are they not responsible for much of the ugly building?

How far the local authorities are making use of their planning powers raises a wide question.

Is the Minister going to insist that those who design these cottages to accord with their surroundings shall be trained architects?

With very great ingenuity the hon. Member always seeks to carry the object which is dear to his heart a step forward; but that is a question which we must leave to be discussed as a separate issue. He knows that I am as strong an advocate as he is of the employment of architects in the designing of these cottages, but a reasonable standardisation in those parts which can be standardised without producing soulless uniformity is our brightest hope for a reduction of costs in the future. There is another bright hope which I am sure will at once suggest itself to hon. Members, and that is the organisation of the supply of materials and the grouping of orders. In this direction there must be a continual progress towards higher standards. The new Advisory Committee will, I hope, prove valuable in helping us to secure these ends, and the points I have just dealt with will be among the first subjects which will be referred to them. I believe that the practical experience of that Committee will prove useful in securing a direct line of progress. I believe I have dealt with all the points raised in the discussion, and I have welcomed the opportunity to point, out what the policy of our administration is to be under the present Bill. I hope I may have gone some way towards satisfying the right hon. Gentleman that the actual Clause which he has proposed is not necessary and would, indeed, be disadvantageous. In view of the under- takings I have given and the policy I have outlined to the House I trust he will see his way to withdraw the Clause.

May I ask whether there are any engineers on the Advisory Committee?

I do not want to impose on the good will of the House by making a further speech on the subject, but I crave permission to make some observations on the references to previous Acts which the Minister has made, because I gather that he regards them as a sufficient reason for not accepting this Clause.

I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I said that we laid down a basis only as regards the size of the house and the standard of accommodation, and that for the rest we shall rely on the by-laws.

I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. The point I am making that whilst we agree with the excellent speech which he made in support of the Clause, and are disappointed that he did not accept it, it is our duty to point out the distinction between the position taken up by the Minister and the provisions of those Acts. The Minister referred to Section 37 of the Act of 1930, which states that the Ministry will only make grants, save in special circumstances, to houses complying with certain provisions in the Act of 1923. When I turn to the provisions of the previous Act I find that they require a certain minimum standard of surface area for two-storeyed houses and a certain minimum for one-storeyed houses; and there is also a provision about a house with two bedrooms providing accommodation for four people. In the Act of 1923 there is a provision, which the Minister himself is willing to adopt in this Bill, stipulating that there should be a fixed bath in a bathroom. Otherwise the conditions are identical. There is nothing in the Acts to which the Minister referred to secure the standard of amenities which is asked for in this new Clause. All that is provided in those two Acts is that there shall be a certain floor space for a certain number of persons. I accept what he is doing in that matter, but this proposal goes farther than that, being concerned with light, air and other amenities such as the Minister said were so necessary, and such as, I am sure, could be easily obtained, without any hard uniformity and without embarrassing him in the least, if he were to accept this Clause, and I sincerely hope that even now he will be able to do so.

I also rise to appeal to the Minister, after his very excellent speech, to consider whether he can accept this Clause or something similar. The arguments that he has tendered are definitely in the direction of the insertion of a Clause of this description. I would point out that the real basis on which he is building the Bill will be highly prejudiced unless there is such a Clause. We are asking the House and the country to accept a Bill which is to remove existing overcrowding, but overcrowding is directly dependent upon the amenities that exist in the houses which are to be provided. It may very easily be that a house of one size has entirely different opportunities for removing overcrowding from a house of precisely the same size which has other amenities attached to it. For example, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) referred to the tremendous difficulties which exist in the mining areas. I am fully acquainted with those difficulties, and I have come into contact with them for a large number of years. If you are to have a house without proper bath accommodation, the accommodation which is available to relieve overcrowding in that house will not be as great as it would be if there were a proper bath, because the bath is put in the middle of the kitchen and disturbs the ordinary amenities for the rest of the family. That has been done now for a large number of years. The whole household is disturbed because there is no place in which to move or sleep. Not only is the sleep of the adults disturbed, but that of the children, who have to remain awake in order that people who are coming from the pits may have a proper opportunity to get clean.

That is one illustration of the highly essential factors that must be taken into consideration before we can dispose of the matter of overcrowding. Other considerations will occur readily to the minds of other hon. Members; one is cupboard accommodation. Why should not every house have proper cupboard accommodation for every member of the family. The other side of the matter is, as we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman, that Acts exist and provide an opportunity for building in such a way as will satisfy the requirements of everybody in dealing with overcrowding. What are the facts? Do the local authorities observe a standard in every case, and is that standard up to the standard which we or any reasonable person would require? There is need of uniformity in these matters. Satisfactory standards ought to be set, and they should not necessarily be minimum standards or a definite standard of only one kind; there may be three or four standards which are the minimum standards for the building of houses to comply with the requirements of the Bill. It is not enough to say that advice shall be given there must be something more, a compulsion upon the authorities to see that the advice which is given to them shall be accepted and that they shall act accordingly. I hope before the matter is finally disposed of that there will be a definite standard in this regard.

I am very concerned about the question of rents. I know that we must keep the houses upon a rental basis which the working man will be able to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) has made suggestions which would render it much more possible to build houses at a low rental than under a haphazard scheme which would lead certain local authorities—not all in London where, to a certain extent, arrangements have been made which would lend themselves to the proposal I am making—not to comply with the advice. This matter calls for attention, but not in a new Bill, because it is the fundamental basis of the present Bill that overcrowding should be done away with. It is as important that the amenities in the houses should be of such a nature, as to relieve overcrowding and to build houses for that purpose.

I believe every hon. Member who cares for the future of municipal house building will have been very disappointed at the speech made by the Minister of Health.

Not a bit!

If they were not, they would have been if they had realised how negative and unsatisfactory the speech was. The Minister expressed sympathy with the purpose of the proposed new Clause and said it was to be his policy to implement it as far as possible, but he refused to take any practical step to carry out its purpose, which is to make sure that, in all future housebuilding under local authorities and under the Bill, a proper minimum of equipment and amenity should be obtained. As a certain amount of public money will be spent in this matter, it is the duty of the Minister and the House to see that that public money is not spent in bad and unsuitable houses which will be regretted 10 years afterwards by everybody. A great many houses which are put up by local authorities and public utility societies who claim Government grants are most unsatisfactory, and should never have been built. It is with the object of preventing in a practical way such a development in the future that the new Clause is proposed.

The Minister expressed sympathy, but what steps did he suggest to implement the proposal? First of all, he said that plans which were prepared by the local authorities will have to be passed by the Ministry and the Ministry will thereby be able to have a certain control. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. Unless there be definite regulations to begin with so that every local authority can see them and understand them, the authorties will prepare their plans according to their own views and send them to the Ministry, and the Ministry will then have to have a long argument and a discussion, and bad feeling will be aroused between the Ministry and the local authority in almost every case. There will be a waste of time and probably an unsatisfactory compromise in the end. Surely it is a very foolish and pointless way of proceeding. The other method which the Minister suggested was to use the provisions of the Act of 1930 contained in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has already pointed out that they really do not touch the case. They are a very small and minimum requirement in regard to floor space which do not touch the amenity question at all.

The Minister mentioned a third way of dealing with the situation. It is rather suspicious that he has a number of ways to meet the request that has been put forward. If he had had one certain way his reply would have been more convincing. His third method, which is equally useless, is that of by-laws. Is it suggested that by-laws are to be changed immediately throughout the country in order, not only to deal with building materials, and so on, but to provide amenities in the houses? The Minister suggested the adoption of the model bylaws which the Ministry have prepared, but, if all authorities adopted them tomorrow, they would not cover the question of the amenities which all of us think should be incorporated in every municipal house. I will not say that all the wisdom in regard to flat-building resides in the London County Council, but I suggest that the London County Council have had very much more experience in this matter than any other body in the country, if only on account of the fact that they have built more flats and their problem has been very much greater. As a result of their experience, they have had to change their practice considerably, and even to-day, when metropolitan boroughs in London or public utility societies come along with plans which they think highly desirable, and want the county council to pass them in order to get a rate subsidy from the county council, it is found time after time that those plans are quite inconsistent with proper house-building. The county council, consequently, have laid down certain minimum standards of amenity—not all-inclusive; there are many more which could be incorporated—without which no metropolitan borough council or public utility society in London can obtain a rate grant from the county council.

I will quote a few of these obviously commonsense requirements. One is that, where no shops are incorporated in a block of flats, the flats should be laid back a certain distance from the street. That is an amenity for the people living in the flats and for the neighbourhood generally. Then a certain minimum of floor space is laid down, both for living rooms and for bedrooms. And among other requirements there is one with regard to drying arrangements, which cannot possibly be covered by a by-law. In respect of every block of flats to be built, it is laid down that, if there is not provision out of doors, in a part properly screened from the public, for drying clothes, there must be incorporated somewhere in the building, usually on the top floor, proper provision for drying clothes for the people living in the building. That is the sort of standard of amenity which we maintain, and which I think every Member in the House to-day will agree, should be included in any plan of building flats. Further requirements are that hot water should be readily available to every flat in the building, and that there should be properly approved means for refuse disposal.

Unless these matters—and I have only indicated some of them—are definitely laid down by the Ministry of Health in regulations, it is certain that the local authorities, through absence of experience in this matter, will not be fully seized of all the relevant facts, and their plans will not include these various matters. Our suggestion is that, to make the matter certain and to make it impossible for new houses to be built which will be likely to become slums again in 50 years' time, regulations should be made by the Ministry and approved by this House, and no Government subsidy should be paid to the authority that builds houses in defiance of them. It is no use saying that the Minister is sympathetic towards this idea. I am sure he is. No one could help being sympathetic towards it. It will be a simple matter for him to accept the proposed new Clause. I do not think he criticises its wording, but if he does we are willing to alter it. Here is a weapon which will enable him to see that houses are put up with a proper minimum of amenities and equipment. We are not asking that all houses should be standardised, and the Minister has refused to agree to that—

Would the London County Council like to be overruled by the Ministry of Health with regulations applying all over the country?

Most certainly. My view is that we are building flats of a higher standard than is reached in any other part of the country, but I should be the first to say that, if the London County Council were building flats which did not come up to a proper minimum standard approved by the House of Commons, the House has every right, and indeed it would be its duty, to say to the London County Council, as much as to any other authority, "Improve the standard of your flats." Therefore, I regret that the Minister is not prepared to accept this Clause, and that, as a result of his refusal to accept it, it will be possible to build new flats not coming up to the standard of requirements which every Member of the House believes to be necessary, and local authorities, with the help of the Government, will be building houses which in 50 years, or it may be 25 years, will become new slums. The House ought not to allow public money to be spent unless it is certain that it is going to be spent for a good purpose, and it is our duty to lay down at least a minimum standard in the matter of house-building before we allow any houses to be built with the help of the public purse. I regret the action of the Minister.

I should like to bring to the notice of the supporters of the proposed new Clause a point which has not yet been mentioned. All Members in that quarter of the House are very interested in promoting re-housing, re-development and slum clearance as quickly as possible. If this Clause were accepted, the Minister would have to lay down regulations for the whole country. We may all desire a certain increase of uniformity, because the regulations in many parts of the country are chaotic; but it is impossible to have complete uniformity, and, before the Minister can bring in fresh regulations, many months, if not years, of negotiations will be required with the different local authorities which at present have different by-laws and regulations. It may be two years before any Minister of Health is in a position to issue his regulations and put them before both Houses of Parliament. If the House and the party supporting this Clause are so anxious to get on with de-crowding, re-housing and re-development, would it not be unwise, by accepting this Clause, to make it impossible for the Exchequer to give any contribution unless and until the regulations envisaged in the Clause have been accepted by both Houses of Parliament?

I am very sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the proposed new Clause. We must bear in mind the fact that the primary purpose of the Bill is to deal with over-crowding, and the most important of its aspects relate to the re-housing of people on the old sites. The Minister is trying to influence local authorities in the direction of building large tenement dwellings on sites hitherto occupied by over-crowded buildings. He is giving a far more generous grant in respect of people who will be re-housed in tenements on expensive sites than in respect of people who are to be re-housed in cottages. By his financial inducements he is trying to persuade local authorities to re-house their over-crowded population in flats.

He has definitely denied that.

I am only taking the terms of the Bill. Surely the House is aware that the Exchequer subsidy to be paid in respect of tenements is much larger and much more definite in its application than the grants that are to be paid to local authorities who re-house off the site in cottages, where the grant is very and slum clearance as quickly as possible small. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches only prove my point; and I accept his point of view that if overcrowding is to be dealt with, and people will not spread outwards, they must spread upwards. I accept that. What I am saying is that this is going to lead the local authorities to embark on experiments in house building of an entirely new kind. There are not half-a-dozen authorities in the country who have had any experience whatever of tenement buildings. The only authority with very large experience is the London County Council, which has consistently built flats and large blocks of dwellings because that was the only way of dealing with the problem. They have had to evolve a standard and they have had to evolve a new technique.

Building regulations applicable to cottages are one thing, and building regulations applicable to large blocks of tenement flats are an entirely different thing. Here the local authorities are to be invited to embark on proposals for dealing with over-crowding very largely by building blocks of flats, of which they have had no experience whatever in the past. It seems to me that we ought to avoid the painful experiences we have had with regard to the standards in the building of cottages. Before our postwar legislation there were no national standards. Such standards as applied were those operated under local bylaws. To-day there are building by-laws which are 30 and 40 years old, which have never been repealed and which are a scandal. In fact, these by-laws have not operated in the post-war years because in one series of Housing Acts after another, beginning with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) in 1919, the State itself, as a condition of the grant of subsidy, has insisted on the fulfilment of certain standards.

When the last adventure of the Minister of Health in housing legislation was before the House he did propose—though he was persuaded to change his mind—to scrap all these standards and to allow private enterprise to revert to its welter of local by-laws and varying standards all over the country. It seems to me that where the expenditure of a very considerable amount of public money is involved, and where the local authorities are undertaking experiments on new lines where they have very little experience to guide them, the right hon. Gentleman ought to insist on certain standards. And indeed he has done. There is an Amendment to deal with the provision of baths. That is a recognition of the principle for which we are contending. There the Minister is saying that because public money is to be spent on dealing with this overcrowdng problem and the re-housing of the people, one of the conditions of the receipt of Exchequer assistance shall be the provision of a bath. If that is necessary in that particular case, what is the argument against the right hon. Gentleman saying that in undertaking this new and very precarious job local authorities shall be guided as to the standards they have to fulfil?

Anybody who has had experience of the housing problem knows that when one is dealing with large blocks of flats, five, six or seven storeys high, it is a very different problem from dealing with the building of small cottage houses. The majority of the small cottage houses which exist to-day have been built by builders who could not possibly under-take the building of flats because they do not know how to do it. Now that we are making this new departure and before the local authorities make mistakes—as numbers of them probably will—and to ensure that the new tenements put up will not be condemned by public opinion in a short space of time, I am asking the Minister to establish standards that can be discussed by this House and made the basis on which we shall proceed in future. Does anybody in this country want to repeat the experience of the Glasgow tenements? I am sure that nobody does. The City of Glasgow is not proud of them to-day—and we therefore need a standard. When we suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to have sufficient space between blocks of flats to enable the sun in the middle of winter to enter the flats on the ground floor, that was refused. If we are not going to do that and if we permit flats to be built where the sun does not enter except perhaps during part of the year, we shall build flats for which the right hon. Gentleman will stand condemned ten years from now.

I submit that we really must have standards of this kind. We have not imposed the kind of standards. We are leaving it to the Minister's advisers, in consultation with large authorities like the London County Council who have experience in this matter, to produce a sort of code to which the local authorities will be expected to subscribe as the condition of their grants. I submit that this is a very reasonable demand. I submit further that if it is not met now, it will confront some future Minister of Health with a very serious problem. I think it is a great mistake not to mobilise the knowledge of Members of all parties in this House—Members for instance, like the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) who understands so well the problem of flat building in London—together with all the knowledge of the Minister's department, for devising standards which can be sent out to local authorities as regulations which they must obey, as a condition of embarking on a new programme of building to deal with overcrowding.

I am only intervening at this point to deal with a point raised by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in reference to the attraction offered to local authorities to build flats rather than cottages. I think that when local authorities go into the details and know as much about it as the right hon. Gentleman gives me credit for knowing, they will prefer cottages without a subsidy rather than flats with a subsidy. There are one or two points which have been overlooked. I think that the Minister in grappling with this problem has realised that people want to be rehoused as near as possible to the former homes from which they are being displaced; and to do that in the crowded centres it will be necessary to rehouse them in flats, and not in cottages. The reason, as far as I understand it, why the Minister has offered this extra subsidy for the flat is that if you take the unit of the habitable room you will find that to build a five-storey block of dwellings, the unit of cost works out at something like £150 per habitable room; whereas in the cottage the cost falls to something like £100 per habitable room. The cost of the site on a cottage estate is a mere bagatelle compared with the cost of the site where you have to rebuild in a central area. I cannot imagine any local authority in the country—and I can certainly vouch for London—which would undertake the building of large blocks of tenement flats unless they were advised by the very best architects. I cannot imagine anyone going haphazard and attempting to build, in what has been termed a jerry sort of manner, blocks of this sort. We have a Minister and his Department who will see to it that the proper amenities are there before they will grant a licence or subsidy on these buildings.

I cannot understand hon. Members of the House to-day criticising every building that has been put up by a local authority in this country, and I should not like it to go out that all that we have done during the last 15 or 20 years has been to create potential slums. I do not know what has been done in every part of the country, but I challenge that criticism by what has been done by the great authority on which I have had the privilege of serving for many years. A water service in every flat let at an all-in rent of 10s. a week, with hot and cold water laid on in every part of the building, may be very necessary in a mining district, but I would remind hon. Members when they are talking about these amenities that I was brought up where there was not a bath in the town. We have lifted our standards, and to come at this point and ask to increase the amenities to such an extent where we are dealing with a population not touched at by what we have at the present time is asking for chaos rather than progress.

I want to make a suggestion which I think would have the effect of accomplishing the very important and necessary purpose aimed at by the Clause in a simpler form, and might obviate some of the difficulties. It is true that the effect of the Minister considering a standard of amenities to be extended all over the country by one set of regulations might result in perhaps too cast-iron a system with not enough allowance for differentiating needs. If the Clause were in a rather simpler form it might merely require the Minister to be satisfied that the proposed buildings conformed to a reasonable standard of amenities. It would enable the Minister and his Department with their great experience to satisfy themselves that the standard was a reasonable one, but it would not mean that all flats would have to conform to the same set of regulations. As a member for the last 25 years of the local housing authority which has had the biggest experience of flat building with the exception of London, I can confirm all that has been said as to the danger of inexperienced authorities putting up buildings which are inadequate and sometimes unnecessarily expensive, because they have not found a way of avoiding the difficulties. Some of the Liverpool flats put up some years ago involved expenditure out of rates and taxes in equal parts in order to let at 12s. 6d. a week, but some of the flats which we are now building have been cut down in expense so that they are not very much more expensive than cottages. That shows the advantage when you have gained long experience and know how to minimise costs.

I regret that so much encouragement is being given in the Bill to flat building. Local authorities are apt to fall into the temptation of putting up flats in excess of what is really necessary because they are tempted to do it by a very large subsidy, and a great deal of pressure is put upon them by people on the spot for all kinds or reasons, some of which have very indirect relation to the real merits of the buildings as compared with cottages. For example, very often the local representatives in the area from which the slum dweller is to be removed does not want his voters to be removed to some outer area, and the people in

The hon. Member is now going far beyond anything that can be done under the proposed new Clause.

I will leave the rest of my argument to the imagination of the House.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The attention of many hon. Members has been drawn to the fact that there have been a number of cases of real abuse on the part of the local authorities. If houses are taken over either on the ground that they are unfit for human habitation or on the ground that they are part of a clearance area, whether or not the individual houses themselves are unfit for human habitation, it seems to me obvious that they should no longer continue to be lived in. If, on the other hand, the local authority are of the opinion that they are still fit temporarily for human habitation I see no reason why the rents payable should not continue to be payable to the original owner.

In the Committee a number of cases were mentioned. I do not propose to repeat them, but I should like to mention two outstanding cases that were quoted. One was the case of a man who bought some property within a mile of this House. He undertook before he bought the property that the London County Council had come to the decision not to clear the site. Whether he was wise to buy that property or not does not for the moment matter. I understand that he put the bulk of his savings into it. The purchase price was about £4,000 and he spent about £2,000 in putting the property into what he believed to be a habitable condition. Then the County Council apparently changed their mind and the property was taken over. It happened to be leasehold property, and I understand that the bulk of the compensation went to the ground landlord. I think the ground landlord got a fairly square deal out of it, but the leaseholder only got £4 for property which cost him £6,000. The London County Council did not proceed to turn the people out and pull down the property, but some weeks afterwards they were drawing £60 a week for property for which the leaseholder was paid £4 compensation. The last that I heard about the case was that they were still drawing £35 a week.

That seems to me a, scandal. I am not blaming the County Council in particular or any local authority, but if the local authority takes over property in these circumstances and continues to allow people to live in the property, then clearly until they start to make the scheme effective for the purpose for which they took over the house, they ought to allow the original owner to be in effect the landlord for the time being. That is why in my new Clause I have made the provision that the date on which the property shall be deemed to be vested in the local authority shall be seven days after the occupants have been rehoused. The advantage of this provision will be to give a very definite stimulus to the rapidity of rehousing.

The other case, which was a very bad one, was that of a woman in Liverpool. I have forgotten the name of the street. Her property was going to be taken over, but in the first place they were going to do it on a voluntary basis, and they offered her £31 10s. compensation. She said that that was not enough, and there was a suggestion of arbitration. I believe that the actual mechanism of arbitration machinery had been started when the City Council decided to operate under the provisions of these Acts of Parliament. They took over the property from the woman and I think she got £31 10s. For a variety of reasons the property is not to be pulled down for a substantial period of time and the woman is continuing to live in her own house, and the Liverpool Corporation are actually charging her £26 a year to enable her to live in her own house, for which she got only £31 compensation. That is absolutely intolerable and without any conceivable justification.

There is not one of us who does not want these rotten houses, where they are rotten, to be pulled down as soon as possible and replaced by good ones, but if in the meantime rents are to be drawn for houses which are taken over on compensation—the basis of compensation will be better under the Bill but in many individual cases it will not be better—the original owners ought to be entitled to the rent so long as rent is payable. It seems to me intolerable that people should have their own houses taken from them on the ground of their being unfit for habitation and that then the local authority should allow them to live in the houses and charge them rent. If anyone had said 10 years ago that this kind of thing was going to happen we should have thought it a farce. I have heard of a number of cases in Bristol involving the same kind of thing, and I hope the Minister will therefore give serious consideration to the proposal. I am not wedded to the precise wording of the Clause or to the date on which the transfer of the property shall be deemed to have been made, but I do urge that we should bring to an end a number of scandals which are occurring under the existing law, and which are incapable of any defence, whether the authority is Liverpool, London or Bristol. I have no doubt that there are cases in other parts of the country as well.

I beg to second the Motion.

I do not propose to recapitulate the arguments with regard to the iniquity of persons having their property taken from them and then being charged a high rent for the property. Nor do I want to assume the role which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) so courteously described as that of the awkward squad. However awkward I may have been in another place I was none the less responsible for a good many of the amendments which were raised. The explanation why local authorities find themselves able to perpetrate this appropriation of other people's property and then charge them rent is to be found in Section (5) of the Housing Act, 1930. The object of that Act was to reduce overcrowding and clear away slum premises. The object of this Bill is to clear away slum premises, but you will not do that unless there is a definite time limit fixed within which houses must be demolished. Section (5), Sub-section (1) of the 1930 Act provides that a local authority who have acquired property under the Act,—

"shall demolish every building thereon before the expiration of six weeks from the date when it is first vacated, or before the expiration of such longer period as in the circumstances they deem reasonable."

It turns entirely on the view of the local authority as to what they deem in the circumstances to be reasonable. By that loophole in the Section local authorities get through the provisions of the 1930 Act, which were designed to bring about the demolition of these houses. When you have people in the position of being the judges of what is reasonable one of the factors which I imagine they would take into serious consideration is "how much money are we going to get out of the existing circumstances." That is a consideration which would fairly be taken into account by every reasonable person, and if they have paid an owner, as in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, £4 and are drawing £25 per week in rent they would say that it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to forego such a handsome investment and would ignore the main object of the Act of 1930 and of this Bill. The new Clause is moved in order to tighten up the legislation and to facilitate the operation of the Bill. I am not at all satisfied that local authorities may not be able to put forward another argument in order to comply with the letter of the 1930 Act and yet evade the spirit of the Act. The present Minister of Health was not responsible for that Act, but it says:

"They shall demolish every building thereon before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which it is vacated."

All they have to do is to see that it is not vacated, and they need never carry out demolition. The Section of the Act is drawn in somewhat loose terms, and the sole objective of my hon. Friend and myself is to tighten it up and insist that where houses are not fit for human habitation they shall not be habited by human beings.

I want to resist the suggestion made by the Mover and Seconder of the new Clause in regard to the action taken by the London County Council in a particular case. Actually the action was not taken by the present London County Council, but I should not like it to be thought that the procedure taken by the London County Council under any party is such as has been suggested by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), namely, that, having taken over an area cheaply and finding that they can extract a high rent for it, they delayed clearing the people out of the area so that they might be able to make a handsome profit. Nothing like that has happened. What happened in this particular case was that in a very overcrowded part of the East End the London County Council took over the houses in a certain street. In the first arbitration the lessee, under the existing Acts, which are not altered by the present Bill, received nothing at all, and he appealed. It was found that such an adjudication was impossible, that he must receive something, and the arbitrator on the second occasion gave him £4. But the expenses of the London County Council were in the neighbourhood of £4,000. They had to pay the ground landlord and various other expenses.

I said that.

The Council then proceeded, with all the haste and speed possible, to clear the area. But this cannot be done in a week or two in an area like London. If the local authority has any respect at all for the comfort and the interests of the tenants of the houses they will be rehoused in the locality close to their previous residences or close to their work. It is extremely difficult to rehouse people who are turned out under a clearance scheme. Nevertheless the London County Council proceeded with all haste to rehouse these people. They had to do it gradually. Now they have all been rehoused. There was no delay for the purpose of making a profit. Such a suggestion is monstrous.

I did not suggest that that was the purpose. I asked on what grounds you could take a man's property, give him £4, and then proceed to take £60 a week out of it. Surely the man ought to be receiving that £60 a week?

Is the hon. Member prepared to admit that the London County Council went on drawing the rent, for some time £60 and ultimately £25 per week, for what, on the hon. Member's own figures, the Council paid only £4? He has admitted that the property occupied was not fit for human habitation.

If the hon. Members will allow me to continue I will explain. It was not the hon. Member for South Croydon, but the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) who definitely suggested that the London County Council did this for the sake of making a profit out of the deal. It is quite true that the County Council for the time being, until they could rehouse the residents, did draw rent from the people living in the houses, a rent which would otherwise have gone to the previous owner. But it went a very little way to repay the Council for its expenditure in purchasing the site and for the huge obligation to rehouse these people in new houses. In the final analysis the local authority is very much out of pocket on the deal. The suggestion put forward in the new Clause is that until the residents of the houses have been moved a local authority should not be in possession of the houses that are to be demolished. So far as I can see you would never get on with any slum clearance at all if that proposal were adopted. It is only by virtue of possession being vested in the local authority that the local authority is able to turn the people out and demolish the houses. If the local authority were not the landlord I do not see what power they would have to get the people out and to get them into new houses, and slum clearance would be at a standstill.

I admit frankly that in some special cases there may be hardships. The Liverpool case that has been cited did sound hard. But I do not think that this proposal is the way to get out of the difficulty. The only way to get out of the difficulty which the hon. Member emphasised is, if they so desire, to increase the compensation. For other reasons I do not think it should be increased. The illustration given by hon. Members it not quite as serious as they would desire, and I am certain that they were not justified in attacking the action of the London County Council in this matter.

I feel sure that the House will be singularly unimpressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss). He stated that in charging rents to the residents of the property referred to the London County Council were receiving back only a portion of the amount which they had to expend upon this property. It seems to me that the amount which the County Council spent for this property was returned to them by the value of the property which they actually acquired. I know something of the circumstances of the case referred to, and I can assure the House that the County Council acquired that property at less than its market value, treated as a site, and I am not wrong when I state that a short time afterwards the County Council received a definite offer of an increased price for the property in question. The argument which the hon. Member put forward is one which cannot stand any scrutiny.

I appeal as strongly as I can to the Minister to accept the principle of this Amendment. I can assure him that there have been many cases in this country where individuals have been deprived of their property and have subsequently been charged rent for what was really their own. Let me give a typical case. A working man had saved a few hundred pounds, which he invested in the purchase of some cottage property. He had not sufficient money with which to make the purchase; so he created a mortgage in favour of his friendly society. He died and left the property to his widow. The property was valued by the district valuer and death duties were based upon that value. We have this position: the widow inherited the property, subject to a mortgage, and had to pay to the State a specific sum in respect of death duties. Within six months that property was included in a clearance scheme. It was taken over by the local authority. The local authority then proceeded to charge the widow a rental of 7s. to 8s. a week for the particular house which she occupied.

The property was leasehold. She did not receive one farthing by way of compensation. I believe I am right in saying that for a period of seven or eight months the widow occupying that cottage was compelled to pay rent for it. In addition she had to pay interest to a friendly society in respect of the balance remaining on the mortgage, and when application was made to the estate duty office for a return of the money which had been paid in respect of death duties the reply received was that the value of the property was as fixed by the district valuer at the time of the death of the husband, and that in consequence no sum could be returned.

Can the Minister justify a law which creates a situation like that? I suggest that there is no principle of law or of equity which would make such a condition of affairs tolerable in a civilised country. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that if the principle of this Amendment were accepted there would be no delay, as a consequence, in the carrying out of necessary slum clearance schemes. I and those who think with me have done nothing to obstruct the progress of this Bill. All of us are most anxious to help the Minister in every way that we can to proceed with the good work he has undertaken. I suggest to the Minister, in all seriousnes, that the course which he desires local authorities to pursue in the matter of slum clearance will not be impeded by the acceptance of the principle which is embodied in the new Clause. I appeal to him to alter the law in such a way that cases of injustice like those mentioned this afternoon cannot occur. It may be that the actual terms of the new Clause are open to objection but I feel sure that it is the opinion of every Member of this House, irrespective of political views, that some system or some pressure can be devised which, without obstructing the work of slum clearance, will make these injustices impossible.

I would point out to Members of the Labour party that the cases of most acute suffering in connection with this matter occur among working-people who have saved a little money and have invested it in house property. With regard to the particular case mentioned by me I should point out that it was admitted by the medical officer and the sanitary inspector that the house which was occupied by the widow in question, while it had certain inherent defects, was well-maintained and that during the months in respect of which the local authority received rent for it, they did not expend a farthing on repairs to it. There is a very strong feeling on this matter not only among Members of the House but throughout the country. In this country we have not yet reached and I hope we shall never reach the stage at which the principle of appropriation of property without compensation is tolerated. We ought to encourage the purchase by individuals of their own homes and there can be no justification for one department of the State valuing certain property—

I think the hon. Gentleman is now going outside the scope of the proposed new Clause.

That may be, but the argument which I was about to develop was that a large number of cases have occurred in which individuals have purchased houses knowing that those houses have recently been valued by a Government Department. I am informed that that is so, and I think that solicitors and others concerned in the practice of the law in this country will agree with me when I say that cases have occurred in which properties have been purchased and possession has shortly afterwards been obtained under clearance orders by local authorities who have entered into possession of those houses and compelled even the dispossessed owner to pay rent. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to admit the principle of the new Clause.

There are two points on which I would enlarge in connection with this new Clause, especially as it relates to the area which I represent. If a local authority decides that a certain area shall be declared a clearance area and that the persons who have been living there must be rehoused, it stands to reason that in the vast majority of cases those persons must be rehoused in corporation property. In Sheffield, for a long time the conditions of rehousing and the conditions of housing people in corporation houses, have been subject to what is known as a means test. A person can either go into a smaller or secondary type of house or into a larger type of house according to the wages which he receives, so long as there is a guarantee, on the basis of his wage level, that the rent is sure to be paid at the end of every week or quarter or whatever the period may be. So long as that condition is fulfilled that man is regarded as a reasonable applicant for one of these houses.

I brought to the notice of the House last night the case of a man who, when a clearance order has been completed in respect of the property which he now inhabits, will be absolutely bankrupt. The corporation will offer him an alternative house on a corporation estate. But that man, whose position I have already described, will not be able, until he finds a job, to meet the weekly rental of one of those houses. He will be an undesirable applicant for a tenancy on a corporation estate. Assuming that the corporation do not decide to proceed with the demolition which I believe is a matter to be decided between two differ- ent authorities—they will be in a position to say to this man, "Having had our clearance order sanctioned you can remain in this house at a given rent so long as the house continues to exist." This new Clause suggests the only way I can see of eliminating the possibility of a corporation having acquired property on the ground of its unfitness, automatically becoming the landlord of the property over the person who has actually been dispossessed of it on the ground of its unfitness.

It was refreshing to hear the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. H. Strauss) say that the rehousing of the people could not be dealt with in a week or two. If that is his view and also the view of the authority of which he is a distinguished representative, then I claim that it is the greatest possible justification we could have for this new Clause. We all know that rehousing cannot be done in a week or two. Unfortunately, the establishment of clearance orders is something that can be done in a week or two and there is a tendency in this Bill to give powers to local authorities to secure more clearance orders than they are capable of carrying out, in the sense of being able to find the necessary alternative accommodation. If it is true that the London County Council do not believe in compensation that is the very reason why the hon. Member should support the Clause. It does not ask for compensation; it merely asks that the local authority must have rehoused the people whom it has displaced seven days before the property becomes vested in it. In view of the amount of private money which is at stake, especially in the case of owner-occupiers, the Bill would be much fairer if this Clause were accepted. I do not think it would inconvenience the Government or the Minister, and I am sure that, worked sympathetically, it would not inconvenience any local authority in carrying out what we know to be the deepest desire of the Ministry of Health, namely, the abolition of the slums.

This new Clause seems to deal with a difficulty which is inherent in slum clearance. Many cases have been given to show how unjustly the present procedure operates, but it is very difficult to check cases which are thrown across the Floor of the House, without notice. But I have a shrewd suspicion that many of these cases are some of the old hardy annuals that arose in a time when slum clearance was not being prosecuted with great vigour, when there was little experience of it, and when the processes did not synchronise and many of the hardships that were alleged to exist did not exist. By closer supervision and better administration, however, these are disappearing or have disappeared. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), if it is the one I think it is, is that of a man who bought a lot of condemned property, knowing that it was condemned, in the hope that an order for slum clearance would not be directed against him. With such a case I have no sympathy. He bought with his eyes open, and he deserved what he got.

With regard to the proposed new Clause, I hope I may be able to satisfy the House that by administration and close supervision we do in fact attempt to get rid of an injustice which should not accrue to the owner. Let me explain exactly how it happens. The House will realise that this difficulty never occurs in the case of a clearance order; it only occurs in the case of a compulsory purchase order, and it only occurs then when there is rehousing on the site. If you are rehousing elsewhere, of course, you can synchronise the two processes by administration, so that the demolition and the provision of new houses, the vacation of the houses and the entry into the new houses, can coincide, but owing to the extreme difficulty of dealing with a site which you have purchased and on which you are rehousing, it happens that, in order to carry out the construction of flats on the old site, the local authority has to get possession. It gives notice to treat, and it enters the premises, but all that is a slow process, and it may happen that after they have entered, rents are collected by the local authority.

Let me state what the House, I know will accept as a sound principle of administration. It is a principle of administration and supervision that we are anxious to secure and that, I think, we do secure. It is, that after the entry of the local authority, nobody, neither the owner nor the local authority, should make a profit by the collection of rents, and that, in so far as rents are collected, they should be devoted to making as tolerable as possible the lives of the tenants before the new accommodation is provided for them. That is a principle that we try to enforce by supervision, and I think we are enforcing it.

Complaints have been made in respect of Liverpool. It sometimes happens that complaints are not justified. In fact, I spend my life examining cases put up to me, and in 99 per cent. of them there is no foundation in fact for the complaint. We have just taken up the case of Liverpool, and I have here a categorical assurance from the Corporation of Liverpool that in respect of the particular houses regarding which complaint is made, no profit has in fact been made, but all the rents collected—and some of the rents were not collected, because the tenants refused to go on paying rents in respect of this derelict property—were put back into the property to make the lives of the tenants tolerable until the new provision was made. I think, with that assurance, the House will see that they and we are in agreement in trying to carry out what is obviously a good and sound principle of administration.

I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that no profits are made and that the actual rent is devoted to making conditions tolerable, but are we to take that statement as a direct reply to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss), who said just now, with respect to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), that it is true that the London County Council made a profit? Is it not true in the case of Liverpool but true in the case of London?

I think the hon. Member is talking about some cases that happened in the past, but I am talking about the present. If London are making a profit—and I should be extremely surprised to hear it—we should immediately take it up, but I am sure they are doing what other authorities are doing and that, in so far as they collect rents, they are putting them back into repairs until the new accommodation is provided.

The Parliamentary Secretary is right. I will not vouch for every individual case, but taken as a whole the money collected in rents from tenants of condemned houses does go back to keeping those houses in proper repair until the tenants are given an opportunity of better accommodation. That is the practice.

I have listened with great interest to the discussion on both sides, and it seems to me that we are rather forgetting that a very important principle is involved. We are not so much concerned with what has happened or with whether the London County Council or Liverpool are worse or better than some people think. We are really concerned with whether we should put on the Statute book a law by which a local corporation, having dispossessed a slum landlord, can become the slum landlord itself and take the profit. No amount of argument about particular cases can alter that fundamental point. The Ministry never think they are unjust, but some of us never think they are anything else. That is a matter of opinion. I am not for a moment expressing any criticism of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, who are very much more reasonable than those who actually administer the law after they have introduced it. Nevertheless, the position as I understand it is this, that we were told in 1930 that no injustice would result, but who believes that now? Property can be taken from a landlord under this Bill and will be taken, and some of it will be worthy of condemnation while some of it will not. That is the universal experience of all of us. Is it right that property that is not worthy of condemnation should be treated in the same way as property that is?

That matter does not arise under this Clause, which deals with the question of when the property should vest.

I accept your ruling, Sir, but the real point of the Clause is whether the ownership should vest in the landlord at a certain time or not; whether in fact he should not have a right to the property until he wants to destroy it. That is the real purpose of the Amendment, and, as I say, all sorts of abuses can and will creep in if a local authority can become a landlord without any limit as to the time before it has really to put the matter right. The only excuse for taking away the landlord's property and becoming the landlord yourself, for practising what is virtually confiscation, is that in the interests of the community it is no longer right that people should live in that property. But while they are in that property undisturbed, the landlord also should be undisturbed. Until you take them away, you should not take him away either. That is a cardinal principal of justice.

The whole basic principle running through this Bill and through the Housing Acts is that property is taken away from a landlord because it is no longer fit to live in, and until you in fact take the people out of that property, you have no right to remove the landlord from his right. It is absolutely going against the rights of property which have existed practically from the foundations of society. It is a thing also which may be used as a precedent on future occasions for all sorts of improper actions. This may not be in itself confiscation or a grievance, but it will result in serious hardship. Probably in this case the number of actual injustices inflicted will be very much less than the number of complaints of injustice, but that does not alter the principle that you are doing something that is utterly incongruous with the order of society in which most of us believe. You are taking away people's property sooner than you need. Your only justification for taking it away is the fact that you are to give the people better conditions, and that you have to take it away as an act of social justice. If the local authority remains in possession of the property, they ought only to use it as an agent of those to whom it really belongs. It is time that, in dealing with this Measure, we got back not merely to Conservative principles, but to principles of fundamental commonsense and honest dealing with those who own property as well as to the tenants who live in it. Without the least desire to be controversial, I beg the Minister, even if he cannot accept this new Clause, to realise that we are not moving it because we want to embarrass him, but because we feel very anxious about this Bill lest in future it should be interpreted in an unwise spirit as some previous Measures have been. If the right hon. Gentleman met us in a reasonable way on this point a good part of our anxiety might be removed.

I am somewhat astonished at the hon. Member's speech. At times politics, like adversity, makes strange bed fellows, and I find myself on this matter in greater sympathy with the Minister than I did yesterday. The hon. Member spoke about what he called the real point of the Clause, but the real point of it is to get more money for slum landlords.

Will not the local authority be a slum landlord if it draws the rents?

We are very glad to have the hon. and learned Member's presence at our debates on this Bill. If he had only waited about two sentences I should have come to that point. Nobody will defend local authorities holding for any inordinately long time property which has been condemned. That would obviously be wrong, and I do not think any hon. Member ought to charge local authorities with deliberately doing that kind of thing. There may be cases where local authorities have perhaps been rather dilatory, but that is not a case for providing a little more money for a little longer period for the slum landlord who owns condemned houses. It is a case, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, for improved administration, closer supervision, and shortening the period of time between the acquisition of the property and the rehousing of the people. The proposal in this new Clause in cases where people are to be rehoused on the site, would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. You could not rehouse on the site under the terms of the new Clause. Hon. Members are asking that houses which have been condemned and which by that condemnation are unfit for human habitation shall continue to be in the possession of the landlord and that he shall be able to continue to draw rent. I suppose it is quite a proper and Christian thing for him to do it, but a wicked thing for the local authority to do it.

Some of us feel that neither a landlord nor a local authority should draw rents for houses which are not fit to live in, but if the local authority can do it, the landlord should be able to do it. We feel that if rents are to be drawn at all they should be drawn by the person who owns the property.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has helped his case. If he would care to follow me in proposing that no rents at all should be charged for condemned houses, there might be something to be said for it, but he is not making that proposal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman making it?

I am prepared to make that proposal, but the hon. Gentleman for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) is trying to twist it into an entirely different case. The case that has been put forward for the purpose of this new Clause is that landlords should be permitted to continue to draw rents from their property after the property has been condemned and acquired by the local authority. I submit that if any rents are to be drawn during the period when steps are being taken to rehouse, nobody is more entitled to draw them than the local authority—for two reasons. In the first place, we have been assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that the local authority can be trusted to do the right thing by the tenants during this period when they are living in unfortunate housing conditions, and that the rents collected do one way or the other inure to the advantage of the tenant. That would not occur in the case of a private landlord. The second reason is that the property has been acquired by the local authority because the authority has undertaken the responsibility of rehousing the people. Surely if any rents are to be drawn in this period it is right that they should be paid to the local authority, which spends the rents to the advantage of the tenant. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will see the wisdom of withdrawing the proposed Clause. They cannot build up a big series of arguments on two or three hard cases, the dates of which have never been given to us. We cannot allow them to rediscover the poor working-man and the poor widow who owns all this property. Reluctant as I am to support the Government, I shall be prepared to do so in the Division Lobby on this new Clause.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman sees the necessity for preventing, if possible, rents being received for property that has been condemned, whether by a local authority or a private landlord. Surely a Clause which suggested that an authority should not be regarded as the owner—an authority that had condemned the property—until seven days after the late tenants had been rehoused would liven up the whole procedure. If the authority desire a scheme of demolition and rehousing, they will not become the owners, if the new Clause is adopted, until all the tenants have been rehoused for seven days. That will help the Minister in his desire to rehouse the people, and will help the local authority to help the Minister to do his job.

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the new Clause, which just makes nonsense of the Bill. In cases of rehousing on the site the new Clause will make the Bill unworkable because those will be the larger number of cases. How can you take possession seven days after rehousing the people when you cannot rehouse the people on the site until you have got possession? If the hon. Member had followed the question in Committee a little more closely he would have realised that a large proportion of people will be rehoused on the site. Indeed, one of the right hon. Gentleman's motives in providing a subsidy for the building of blocks of flats is to enable people to be rehoused on the site, and it makes the Bill absurd if local authorities cannot acquire property until seven days after the period when the people have been rehoused on the site on which the houses will stand. I am sure the hon. Member, on reflection, will see that that is a very reasonable statement.

In my opinion, the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt quite satisfactorily with the proposition in the Clause, but I would like to say that I am certainly in accord with the spirit contained in it. I certainly do object to any local authority making profit out of property which, through its own officers, it has been able to obtain through a compulsory purchase order or a clearance order. After listening to all that has been said in this Debate, I am bound to agree with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that there is bound to be a certain period before the order can be carried out, unless, of course, you adopt the method of using explosives and blowing the property sky-high. I listened very attentively to one remark of the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the method of carrying out these clearance orders, because we have had a certain amount of experience of that in Manchester. A certain area was acquired in Hulme, which is three to four miles from my division, and, so far as I understand, no provision was made for the re-housing of the disturbed tenants. That was the part of the proposed new Clause which appealed to me until I heard the whole of the arguments. The clearance order was carried out, all the property was razed to the ground and the tenants were then driven either to take houses, four or five miles away from their work, or, as they did in most cases, thrust themselves into property not condemned or pulled down. The result was that all round that particular clearance area overcrowding was worse than ever before. I must say, however, I think that this Bill will deal with that matter of overcrowding, so that this Clause in itself is not necessary from that aspect. I think, too, with the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary, that such things as the local authorities making profit out of condemned property will not occur in the future. I take assurance for that, but the instance given seemed to me like the hardy annual I have heard for the last four or five years.

It seems to me that there ought to be a way out of this difficulty. It is monstrous to think that a local authority can condemn a property, and then take hold of it and draw anything out of it. It is fundamentally wrong. It is judge in its own case. It has happened. I had a case in the courts about it. It seems to me that if the hands of the local authority are to be clean, the obligation ought to be on them, if there be any profit on the transaction, to see that it is handed over to the people who own the property.

The next Clause, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. North)—(Reasons for the condemnation of property to be supplied)—it seems to me, can be discussed together with the Clause standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—public inquiries and appeals.

Do you mean the Clause standing in my name with regard to the method of holding public inquiries?

Yes, the Clause. (Public inquiries and appeals.) The two Clauses can only be discussed together by the leave of the House, but it may be for the convenience of the House so to discuss them.

Does not the Clause in the name of the Noble Lord impose an additional charge on public funds?

It appears to be quite in Order.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The object of this Clause is really to reaffirm the rights of the subject as against the encroaching system of bureaucracy. The present procedure when a house is condemned, I think, is well known to most hon. Members. A house or property is condemned, and the owner is entitled to object. If he objects, the Minister causes one of his inspectors to hold an inquiry. At that inquiry the aggrieved party and the local authority can give evidence, and on the report on that evidence and other things the Minister makes his decision. But he gives no reason why he has reached it, and, therefore, a man does not know what are the reasons for having his house condemned. I am not complaining about the justice of the Minister's decision, because when you are dealing with a great number of cases, and embarking on a vast scheme of slum clearance, obviously there must be hard cases. There must be cases of injustice, but I think, in the main, the sympathies of the Minister are most probably as fair as anybody else's. I complain that people are not allowed to know how justice is being done; or, alternatively, if justice has not been done, no one is allowed to know anything about it. May I read from a passage in the book of the Lord Chief Justice? Lord Hewart says:

"How is it to be expected that a party against whom a decision has been given in a hole-and-corner fashion and without any grounds being specified should believe that he has had justice."

Those words explain better than any words of mine the point I am making, that if a man is not told the reasons for condemning his property quite obviously justice will not have been done, and even if it was right that his property should be condemned he will never have a feeling that he has been properly treated. Let me take an extreme case of injustice which can occur under this Bill if unamended. Supposing a mistake is made, a genuine mistake. Supposing the inspector who makes the report falls into an error, and that in consequence of it the Minister condemns the property. How is the owner ever to have a chance of discovering that a mistake has been made, or to get redress for something which should not have happened? Under the present procedure he cannot do anything, and I submit that that is not just, is not fair, and is not equitable. It is certainly not the kind of justice to which we have been accumtomed in this country.

If the Minister or his Department or anyone else makes a mistake it should be admitted, and the person who suffers should receive some form of redress. In this Clause I am not asking the Minister to publish the reports of his inspectors. I am aware that a good many Members would like to have the reports published, but I hold the view that there would be certain difficulties in the way of publication, and therefore I am not asking for it. What I am asking the Minister to do is to give, within his discretion, reasons for condemning the person's property. He can include some of the reasons which are given him by his inspectors or he cannot, as he thinks fit; but the report of the inspector has not got to be published. If the Bill is allowed to pass in its present farm we are doing something which is contrary to the spirit of British justice, which is bound to cause friction, bitterness and annoyance, and will not help us to get the Bill working in the way in which we wish to see it work. I hope the Minister will be able to accept this Clause.

I beg to second the Motion.

In Committee there were many discussions on the principle which, to a certain extent, is being carried out by this Clause, and also many discussions on various forms of appeal tribunal. I feel it is administratively possible to carry out what the Clause asks for, and that it would be advisable to grant it, mainly for this reason, that however effective and however well-planned this Measure may be, there is the possibility that it will create hardship in a number of cases, and it will be very difficult for the unfortunate person who has his house taken from him to appreciate the reasons for it. I believe that if, after all the formalities have been complied with, he were given a statement of why his house had been condemned or scheduled for slum clearance that would go some way if not to satisfy him at any rate to make him realise that there was a reason for the hardship which had been imposed on him. Am I allowed to say a word on the other new Clause? I understand we are discussing it with this Clause.

I am most unwilling to do anything which might seem to run contrary to a suggestion made from the Chair, but my new Clause raises an entirely different point. I am not wholly in agreement with the present Clause, and mine raises a different point, and I respectfully ask that if there is to be a discussion on my Clause at the same time that we are discussing this Clause that that will not preclude me from making a speech in support of my Clause when moving it.

In the circumstances we had better keep the two Clauses separate.

I am very much obliged.

May I ask whether it is your intention, Mr. Speaker, to call the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) "Appeal to the County Court"?

No, I do not intend to call that Clause.

I have made my case in support of this Clause, and perhaps I may be allowed to say something on the other new Clause when it is before us.

I rise to support this new Clause. It seems to me that the law will not be fair to the owners of large numbers of houses which are included in a clearance area. The present procedure is for an inspector to be sent down by the Ministry and then for him to make a report to the Minister, a report which is not seen by the person concerned, and for the Minister to act on that report. The owner of the property knows nothing at all about it until he hears that the Minister has made an order for demolition. The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee, on the question of the report being published, that if the report were to be published the inspector would give only the barest outline of the leading facts, because he would fear criticism. If that is the case, how unfair it must be for the owner of the property to know nothing at all of what is in the report, especially if he feels that if he had protested and the report was published he would know a great deal more about the reasons for the demolition order. What chance has he at any time to know why he is losing his property? In a court of law an offender knows the offence with which he is being charged, but the owner of property which is to be demolished has to be content with the bare statement of the Minister that his property is to go, and he is punished without hearing the evidence. He does not know why he is to be punished. Nothing is said to him as to how he might save his property. He is permitted to know only the sentence, that is, the order for demolition. That is very unfair.

I am not suggesting that there is injustice in any way, but surely a man ought to know something about reasons before property, which may mean everything to him, is condemned and taken away from him. How is it posible for such a man to feel that justice has been done in his case? He considers, possibly, that his property is in order, unless he hears something from the authorities concerned, but he is never told. All he has to do is to listen while the sentence, the order for demolition, is read out to him that his property must go. An individual who owns one house can go to the local authority, and if he is not satisfied with their decision he has the right to go to the county court where he hears a considered judgment. He knows why his property is to be demolished. The owner of a number of houses knows nothing at all. In Committee upstairs it was said that if justice is not done it ought to seem as though it has been done. I am certain that the owner of a number of houses which are to be demolished merely by an order of the Minister, will never feel that justice has been done to him.

From some of the observations which have been made it is possible that the House may have inadvertently received impressions which would not be given by one who knew very much about the machinery of this legislation. The owner of the property has a full opportunity of going into the case against him, and if he objects to the procedure there is provision for a public local inquiry in which he has an opportunity of making good his own point of view. I feel some little regret that we were not able to discuss the proposed new Clause in connection with the new Clause which follows it, because I may not be able to make clear to the House the view which I recommend. This matter deserves very careful consideration, because, as hon. Members have Tightly said, deep personal interests are involved in this procedure, and we should in all respects establish a form of procedure which satisfies our ideas of justice as regards the rights of the individual in relation to the rights of the community. I agree that there must be no breath of suspicion cast upon the full information of the owner as to the nature of the proceedings to which he is subjected.

I have given the matter the very closest consideration, and have tried from day to day to remove every conceivable difficulty from the path of this great reform which is now in progress. The discussions in the Committee upstairs were adequate to satisfy us that here is a breath of of suspicion which we can remove, the suspicion that the owner is not informed precisely and definitely what is the matter with his house. In order to remove that suspicion, it would be in accordance with natural justice and good practice that we should undertake that reasons for the condemnation of the House should be stated to the owner; in a word, I accept the principle of the proposed new Clause. I do not think that the actual wording of it is perfectly appropriate to its purpose, but I will take great care to get it into more precise wording. In view of my acceptance of the principle that a statement of reasons for the condemnation of the property by the Minister should be given to the owner, I suggest that the promoters of the proposed new Clause should withdraw it. I will undertake to supply my version, possibly in another place, and to provide an opportunity for it. Any further discussion of the reasons might perhaps be given on the next new Clause.

Before the proposed new Clause is withdrawn I would like to point out that this is a further reversal by the Government. It is within the recollection of Members of the Committee, although I have not had time to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT because the Minister's speech has only just been made, that this point was raised by Conservative Members, and either the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary very eloquently and adequately gave reasons why it was not desirable, from the point of view of administration, that the owner of property which has been condemned should be informed of the detailed reasons. Otherwise, it was stated, it would be impossible for the inspector to make an impartial report to the Minister. I think I am right in bringing this before the House, and I would ask whether the Minister can tell us on what other points he is proposing to withdraw from the attitude he took up in Committee. It would be for the convenience of the House if we could go through the Order Paper and the Minister could indicate on what amendments—

That would obviously be out of order.

Perhaps at some convenient time the Minister might be able to do that. I desire to point out this complete reversal policy on the part of the Government. To-day as on a previous occasion, after a convincing and eloquent speech is made in one direction, an equally eloquent and convincing speech has been made in the opposite direction.

The Minister said in Committee that he was not prepared to give away all the confidential information which was reported to him by the inspector, but that he was prepared to consider the person who appealed to know what was the general ground of objection.

In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I regret if I seem to have done anything that is in any way either inconvenient to the House or contrary to the suggestion which you, Mr. Speaker, have made. This Clause really raises a big question of principle, which has been the subject of debate in the country and in the Committee upstairs for some time. My noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who has given great attention to this subject, and myself, feel very strongly with regard to it. I understand, not only that the Minister is going to oppose this Clause, but that in his opposition he will have the powerful support of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and it is therefore necessary for me to trouble the House with a somewhat detailed argument as to the reasons for the Clause.

I desire to put a series of propositions before the House. In the first place, I do not think that even the most ingenious mind in the House, whether among the Opposition or anywhere else, can find reasons for saying that the operation of this Clause would delay the work of slum clearance—a work which, as I think is generally admitted, everyone wishes to see carried out, as expeditiously as possible, but, of course, in accord with the ordinary principles of justice. Sub-section (1) of the Clause says:

"Where, under the Acts of 1925, 1930, and 1935, the Minister is required to cause a public inquiry to be held, he shall appoint a surveyor to sit with the inspector holding such inquiry."

There is no delay there. Obviously, the surveyor would be a member of his profession who was not himself either immediately or directly interested in small house property. Sub-section (2) says:

"In all such inquiries where a difference of opinion is recorded in the reports of the inspector and surveyor the Minister shall refer the issue for review to a central housing appeal board,"

and sub-section (3) describes how that board should be appointed. I will describe later in more detail how these appointments would be made, but for the moment I am merely concerned with the point that no delay need take place.

What are the main grounds for the change which we desire to see made? It would not be in order to refer to it now, but the Government resisted strenuously in Committee the proposal that there should be an appeal to the county court, and I, for one, have not attempted to assist in putting forward that case here on the floor of the House. I admit that there are certain arguments against it on the ground of delay. What are the reasons for strengthening, as I maintain the proposed new Clause would do, the form of the tribunal which is to settle these all-important matters? I would cite in aid of my case a quotation from a very distinguished jurist, who wrote a book the title of which is, I think, well known—"The New Despotism"—in which these words were used, and I do not know that anyone in any quarter of the House would be prepared on party political grounds or on grounds of public interest to controvert them:

"One would have thought it perfectly obvious that no one employed in an administrative capacity ought to be entrusted with judicial matters connected with his administrative duties."

That is a simple statement of fact. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) is going to take part in the debate on this Clause, but I do not think he would controvert the general truth of that statement. This distinguished jurist goes on to say:

"The respective duties are incompatible"—

again I do not think anyone would controvert that—and, further:

"It is difficult to expect in such circumstances that he should perform the judicial duties impartially."

In these admirably phrased, concise sentences is the whole basis for my argument that we need to alter and strengthen the tribunal. In this Clause we have not, as I have already said, taken the extreme course of proposing an appeal to the courts, but we seek to strengthen the existing tribunal. Let the Minister and anyone who is going to support him be fully aware of the issue that is at stake. Under the present procedure, and a fortiori, under this Bill when it becomes an Act, because there will be far bigger questions to be decided than there are at present—questions of redevelopment and so on—it is literally true to say that hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions of pounds' worth of property will come under review.

Grave doubts, both on constitutional grounds and on grounds of elementary justice, exist in the minds of thousands of people—not all of them, by any means, property owners—as to the propriety of the present system. A single official of a Government Department, a man who, though I say nothing against him, may not have risen to any eminence in his Department, reports to his departmental chief, who almost invariably accepts such reports, which until now have never been disclosed to Parliament and the public, though it is true that some slight Amendment has been made in that direction. Immensely important factors depend upon the report. As I have said, a large amount of capital is at stake, and may be to all intents and purposes wiped out, possibly quite rightly and properly if the inspector's decision is correct. If there were a property which in the open market was worth £1,000,000, and it was rightly condemnable as slum property, I should agree that it would be quite right that that £1,000,000 should be wiped out; but equally, if the decision is wrong, it is an intolerable oppression to the subject that his property should be wiped out by the fiat of a single individual. Does anyone deny that? The right hon. Gentleman upstairs made a rather curious discrimination between natural justice and justice as it is known in the Courts. If such a discrimination does exist, and I think it is a very dangerous one, both natural justice, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, and ordinary justice are at one in saying that it is not right that a capricious—or perhaps that is an unfortunate word to use in this connection—a wrong decision should wipe out capital, when the whole interest of many persons may be at stake for weal or woe.

I am sure that the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss), who is chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, will agree with me that in the case of these slum clearance schemes there are often, rightly or wrongly, objections by the tenants and occupiers themselves. I think they are more often wrong, but still there are objections. I remember an inquiry in London where the inspector could not keep order in the room because of the noise made by those who were going to be turned out. The fact that at these inquiries serious disturbance sometimes occurs, such as would never be permitted in an ordinary court of law, is in itself evidence of the badness of the procedure. As I understand, under the present law the inspector has none of the powers that would be possessed by an ordinary court of law. I would ask the House in what other industry—and, after all, the ownership of property may in some cases be called an industry, for there are numbers of companies, some of them friendly societies, who own large blocks of property—in what other industry would the future of property be dependent in this way, for good or ill, on the fiat of a single official? What would happen, for instance, in the licensed trade? What would be the feeling, not only of the brewers and the licensed victuallers, but of the whole temperance party, if, instead of questions with regard to licences being settled under the law by a panel of magistrates, a single Government official went down to a district and said, "There will be 30 licences here," or "I will wipe out 30 licences there," and if only the Minister stood between him and that decision becoming final?

In conclusion, I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite will not think I am making any wounding charge against them when I say that, holding the views that they hold about property generally, they are perfectly entitled, because of their sincere views on this subject, to maintain their attitude in respect of the proposals which are very onerous on property. They have a perfect right to do so. But I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends supporting the Government should hesitate before supporting a principle which might be applied to every other form of property. Under the proposals put forward in certain quarters there is nothing whatever to stop the taking over of land and railways, and that sort of thing, and for the same system to be adopted—of a single inspector being sent down to assess the value of property, after which the Minister comes to his decision and the property is taken over. It is all very well to be generous at the expense of other people's investments. A great many people are very willing to do that who would be extremely indignant if such methods were applied to them.

I admit that all my arguments would fall to the ground if I thought this method was going to cause delay, but I do not believe that it is. I believe my new Clause would strengthen the existing form of procedure. The technical details of the Clause are very simple. The surveyor would, if properly chosen, be as fully competent to judge of the matter as the inspector himself and in most cases, no doubt, he would agree with the inspector. I am not suggesting that the inspectors are not very competent. My charge against them is merely that like every other single human being they are liable to make mistakes. If the surveyor is in agreement with the inspector, the process will be the same as at present. If, on the other hand, the surveyor differs from the inspector, then the Minister will have the advantage of the Board to which reference is made in the Clause—the Central Housing Appeal Board. In order that the appointments to that Board may be free from any sort of political claim I suggest that the Lord Chancellor should appoint both the Central Housing Board and the panel of surveyors from which in each case the surveyor who sits with the inspector shall be drawn.

I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my Clause. He has shown himself in other respects willing to meet points of view put from both sides of the House, in spite of all that has been said. It is not his fault that he has to work the present scheme, which is a legacy from his predecessor. And it is no confession of weakness on the part of the Minister or his advisers to admit that in the working of the Housing Acts certain lacunæ have been discovered—certain gaps which ought to be filled up, in order not only that justice should be done, but that justice should appear to be done. Since raising these matters in the Committee upstairs I have had a number of letters from the public and the writers were in every case unknown to me. Not a single one of these letters, however, object to the attitude being taken up. From all over the country I had letters saying that there was no confidence in the present form of tribunal. I wrote back to some of these people saying that I thought they were unfair in going so far as that, but that I thought that the present tribunal was not the right one. I can assure the House that there is strong feeling in this matter, and, if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to meet the objection which I have put forward to the present procedure, I believe he will have the gratitude of his supporters.

This discussion is very useful in the light of the obvious public interest in the matter, but the noble Lord has unwittingly given a wrong impression to some Members who perhaps were not averse to the whole of his procedure. The system of appointing inspectors is not only not a novel one, but it is very old and dates back to the Housing Acts of 1890. It was in full operation before the war. The impression might be created in the public mind that the inspector was appointed by some interested party and that the Minister of Health has a particular interest in weighting the dice against the owner of property as opposed to the local authority who initiates a scheme for slum clearance.

I do not say that the present machinery is perfect and that because it has been in existence for a number of years we cannot improve it, but let us understand exactly how it works. Before any consideration can be given to the clearance of a particular area the medical officer of health for the district must take action. He must prepare a report on the area and present it to the local authority. He has to survey the area and he surveys it, in company with the surveyor, house by house; and it is sometimes weeks or months before the report is ready. He then presents his report to the local authority. The local authority, if it is satisfied on the report of the medical officer, then asks the Ministry of Health to hold a public inquiry. Then the Ministry of Health go into the matter and it is their business to appoint an impartial, efficient officer to hold the inquiry. If it can be shown that the officers so appointed are by reason of temperament, character or training not suitable, then I think the local authorities would not object to their being appointed by another department, say that of the Lord Chancellor. But as far as my knowledge goes the Ministry of Health has, on the whole, appointed independent, impartial and competent men to do this delicate judicial work. Many local authorities have complained that the dice is often loaded too much against the local authority. I know many examples where property condemned by the medical officer as being unfit for human habitation, that is, coloured red—to use a technical term—it has been coloured blue by the inspector. It is a mistake to think that these officials consider it their job to try and clear slums.

Suppose, in fact, that there is a great feeling among large sections of the people concerned in these decisions that the present tribunals are not satisfactory, and suppose the hon. Gentleman is right and that these litigants who appear before them are wrong; would it not be better, in the words of the Minister on the last Clause, to remove even the breath of suspicion? That can be done if these matters are tried by someone who cannot be said to be connected with the department concerned. If in fact there be a possibility of a charge being made, is it not better, in order to remove that possibility, to take the matter to another tribunal of whom it could not be said that they were connected with one side or the other.

If I may say so with great respect, this was hardly an intervention; it was a very argumentative speech and might very well have been made after I had delivered my speech. I am not trying to act as a defender of these particular people. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who has been chairman of a housing committee for many years, will bear me out that, taking a whole series of these inquiries, the officials have been impartial and have tried to hold the balance evenly between the local authority and the private interests of the owners of property in the area to be cleared. I think that there is a case for the owners of property to know the reason why their property is condemned. I do not see any objection to that, and the suggestion that the Minister should make some concession in that direction is reasonable.

The general process, as I understand it, is that the official appointed for the purpose holds an exhaustive inquiry and hears, on the one hand, the representatives of the local authorities, the medical officers, valuers and surveyors, and, on the other hand, those who represent property owners, and, having on top of that visited the area and examined it house by house and street by street according to its character, reports to the Department. I think that the Minister will bear me out that, the official having laid the report, the Department, sitting at a distance quite out of contact, considers the report impartially and comes to a decision upon it, acting as a sort of appeal tribunal. I know that the House pays the Minister a compliment by suggesting that he is very vigorous and anxious to get these slums cleared away, but it has been said that he is so interested in getting slums cleared away that he is not prepared to do justice to owners of property. That is not fair on the Minister, and it is not a right interpretation either of his character or the character of his officials. I have heard very often that after a report of an inspector reaches the Department it is modified and altered if it seems likely to cause injustice to any individual or any person owning property or is unduly severe in one direction. If there be real justification in the country for the suggestion that these particular officials are not independent, by all means let them be appointed by some other Government Department or by the Lord Chancellor or anybody else. I do not think that there is any justification for any such charge. They have been doing this work since the Act of 1890, and on the whole they have done it well, and it would be unfortunate if anything were done by this House which would suggest that they were not efficient and fair.

Hon. Members, whether they agree or disagree with the Noble Lord, are bound to confess that he invariably puts his case, sometimes with heat, but always very logically and very reasonably. He told us during the course of his observations that democracy was being superseded by outside institutions, and he quoted Lord Hewart to substantiate that point. It is very curious that the Noble Lord has only just discovered that this form, of tribunal, namely, an inspector from a Government Department, should have power to deal with what after all are very important questions, sometimes affecting individuals, and on other occasions affecting local authorities. Sometimes it is a question of a locally-owned service being in competition with the privately-owned service. Throughout the period of the Noble Lord as a Member of this House, this procedure has been carried on, and I have never recalled where the Noble Lord has objected to the procedure.

It may be that the system, whether applied to slum clearance schemes, electricity undertakings, or transport undertakings, is not the last word in efficiency or is indeed logical. I have a vivid recollection of two occasions when an inspector was sent from the Ministry of Transport to make an inquiry as to whether or not a municipally-owned electricity undertaking should continue in existence or whether they should be compelled to receive their supply of electricity from a privately-owned company. The local authority put their case, but the privately-owned company was given the decision when the inspector reported. I raised a question in the House on the matter, but I do not remember the Noble Lord supporting my appeal. In the other case it was that of a single inspector from the Ministry of Transport holding an inquiry which determined whether four urban district councils should be sent into the bankruptcy court or whether a large London omnibus company should succeed. In that case the municipal undertaking went by the board and the gigantic London omnibus company privately-owned succeeded. I did not agree then with the method employed. The interests of local authorities should not be left in the hands of one individual, and if it is possible to produce a better tribunal, a more equitable tribunal, than those which have dealt with electricity and transport, and which will deal with slum clearance schemes I should welcome it, but the suggestion which is put forward would not only prolong these inquiries but would make them infinitely more costly and in the end would have the effect of reducing the number of schemes carried through to an absolute minimum.

The Noble Lord was once at the Ministry of Health and considered that if they sent an inspector to hold an inquiry it was sufficient, but, apparently, he does not think that one inspector is sufficient to deal with slum clearance schemes. It may be that experience has changed his mind and that he now favours a broader tribunal than he did when he was at the Ministry of Health. But this new procedure will not only be costly, but you will have the inspector and the surveyor on opposite sides, there will be conflict in at least two cases out of three, and the Ministry will have to submit the case to the appeal tribunal suggested in the new clause. The delay will be almost so insurmountable as to prevent any schemes from going through.

I do not think the proposal of the Noble Lord on this occasion ought to be accepted by the House. If the Minister of Health could by any means produce a better tribunal that would dispose of any doubts, fears or anxieties not only on the part of the property owners but on the part of those who are to benefit and who reside in the area, well and good, but I cannot see the Noble Lord's suggested tribunal having that effect. We give him credit for wanting to do the right thing by the general population, as well as the slum property owners, but I repeat that this scheme seems to me to be one that would not only cause a good deal of delay and procrastination but would impose fairly heavy burdens upon the local authorities, or whoever are responsible for meeting the charges of the surveyor, etc. For these reasons, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, despite the plea of the Noble Lord, should consider and reconsider before he again surrenders to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite, for if he continues to surrender as he has been doing during the past two days he will live long to regret his lack of courage at the psychological moment.

I should like to explain why I support this Amendment and why I put my name to it. I do not share the view quoted by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) the view, I think, of the Lord Chief Justice, that administrative tribunals are, in themselves wrong. In fact, I think it would be impossible to carry out social reforms of this kind except through administrative tribunals. For that reason, although I have had many representations in the last year or so in favour of an appeal from the inspectors' report or from the Minister's decision, to the county courts, I have always refused to support that proposal. This is a case where an administrative tribunal is the only possible tribunal. That being the case the question, and it is one of the most interesting questions of government at the present day, is what should be the procedure of such administrative tribunals. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has mentioned certain administrative inquiries. He has also been good enough to refer to my past administrative experience. Let me remind him of the form of public inquiry for which I was responsible for nearly five years, the form of public inquiry under the Education Act.

It is true that no great financial questions are involved in a decision as to whether or not a new school is necessary, but the depth of popular feeling involved when it is a question of an application for a Roman Catholic or an Anglican school can hardly be exaggerated. How does that administrative tribunal proceed? In the first place, there is laid down in the. Act the considerations upon which the Minister has to decide, three definite considerations, and they are the considerations on which the inspector holding that public inquiry has to report. The inspector is very often, not necessarily, an inspector regularly in the established employment of the Board of Education. He has to report on those three points and his report, if I remember aright, is published. The Minister, as he is advised by his legal advisers, is bound to decide upon the report of the inspector. He cannot go outside the facts placed before him. If he finds that a particular point which in his judgment would have entirely altered his decision was not raised at the inquiry, the most he can do is to say "I decide on the facts in this way, but there is this other consideration in my mind, and if the case is raised anew on that basis a new inquiry will be held." Those are clearly very great safeguards.

But observe what happens in these inquiries, even after the concession which the Minister has made as to the publication of the grounds of his final decision— a concession for which I am very grateful, but one which does not entirely meet the points I am making. Observe how this inquiry operates. There is a report of the medical officer of health. I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is not going to ask the House to suppose that the report of the medical officer of health is the report of an entirely impartial authority who has never gone round the area with the chairman of the housing committee and told the chairman as they were standing on the doorstep of a house: "Of course I could condemn this house quite easily." It is not a calm, impartial, judicial report, drawn up in a study. I do not want of course to impugn the honesty of medical officers of health.

The Minister of Health appoints an inspector, who holds a public inquiry. In the first place there are no statutory questions which that inspector has to answer. He can rove over all the field of general policy in his own mind and in his report. In the second place no one ever knows what the inspector has reported. The report goes to the Minister and the Minister is under no obligation whatever to decide on that report. In fact we know that there have been cases where the Minister has engaged in a negotiation with the local authority, quite apart from the inspector's report, and has come to a decision, probably a better decision than he could have reached on the inspector's report—come to a decision which was not a decision upon the facts produced at the public inquiry. I do not say that the Minister has acted improperly. I think that probably in the circumstances he acted very properly. I am not talking about the present Minister of Health, but about Ministers of Health generally.

Up to now the grounds of the Minister's decision has never been known. That is going to be rectified. I say that to administer a tribunal of that kind in this way is open to the greatest danger. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green says there is an idea that the Minister of Health is not an impartial person. There is no such idea. But I know very well that in days when there was no particular question of policy involved in the creation of a Roman Catholic school or of an Anglican school, I was accepted as quite an impartial authority as President of the Board of Education on such questions, but that the moment I tied myself up with a definite policy of central schools and reorganisation, every decision I made was watched with a lynx eye by the public as possibly indicating an attempt on my part to act, not judicially, but in pursuance of the administrative policy on which I had staked my political future and the political reputation of the Government.

That is bound to be the case, and it is bound to create a certain amount of suspicion among the public. I think I was saved by the publicity and the definiteness of those proceedings but it is the vagueness and the secrecy of the proceedings in regard to the condemnation of property which have opened Ministers of Health in the past and will open Ministers of Health increasingly in the future to these suspicions. I frankly confess that I would rather apply the whole procedure which I have described of the Board of Education inquiry, to these inquiries than go in for machinery of the kind proposed in the Amendment. But if you are to have indefiniteness, if you are to leave your inspectors in the dark as to the considerations upon which they are to act, then, I say, you must find some counterpart in your machinery for the safeguards which otherwise would be provided by the definiteness and publicity of the proceedings.

The first proposal which we make is that an expert surveyor drawn from a panel appointed by some impartial authority—I do not care whether it is the Lord Chancellor or the Surveyors Institute—should be associated with the inquiry. I do not mind whether it is a central panel or a local panel but I should say, in practice, a local panel. It may be said that the surveyor would not be impartial but that is not a tenable argument. Death Duties in this country are assessed by negotiations between the Inland Revenue official and the local surveyor, and there are professional standards in the surveying profession which raise its members far above any imputation of being liable to bribery or corruption. I do not say that the surveyor is going to be more impartial than the Minister's inspector. I think the surveyor may often go wrong. But if there is disagreement, our proposal se- cures this effect—that the Minister will not have to make his decision on a purely ex parte statement. At present the Minister's weakness, and I have no doubt the Minister has often felt it to be a weakness, is that he has to make his decision on a purely ex parte report. At any rate he would get in this case the two opinions which would show him the issues involved.

Our second proposal is that there should be an administrative—and to my mind it should also be advisory—appeal board to which the Minister might refer issues of that kind. I know that in the new Clause it is not described as an advisory appeal board, and I do not wish to take away the final decision from the Minister. But I wish to have an impartially appointed advisory board to consider any differences of the kind I have indicated. I submit that this is a genuine attempt to make an administrative tribunal workable in other ways than by publicity and definite terms of reference the solution which I should personally prefer. Therefore, I recommend the new Clause to the favourable consideration of the House.

It is rarely that I agree with anything that is said by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), but I think that on this occasion there is a good deal to be said for his proposal. I was very glad to hear a quotation which he used from the Lord Chief Justice's book, "The New Despotism." For a year or two now some of us on these Benches have been urging the Government to have regard to the principles set out in that book, which were afterwards endorsed by the report of the Committee on Ministers' powers, but which up till now have received remarkably little support from Conservative Members opposite. I hope this Clause indicates a change of heart in that respect. We have had a discussion on the inquiries which are held by inspectors sent out by the Ministry of Health. I have had some little personal experience of this sort of inquiry, not under the Housing Acts, but under the Local Government Act, 1929, with reference to county boundaries, and although the subject matters are different, the form of procedure is precisely the same. There also you have an inspector sent down to make a report, and the decision is arrived at by somebody else in the Ministry of Health.

I entirely agree with all that was said by my hon. Friend beside me about the capabilities of the Ministry's inspectors. I have seen one or two of them conducting these inquiries, and I agree that they are most able, courteous men and that they seem to have a considerable fund of patience in dealing with witnesses who are called before them. But even so the difficulty is that no matter how much care they may give to the examination of the issues before them, they are not the people who ultimately take the decision, and if one is appearing before such an inquiry one is always conscious of that difference, that the man to whom one is addressing one's arguments is not the man who makes the decision. The decision would be made by someone else in the Ministry of Health, who is not present at the inquiry, and one does not know the ground upon which his decision will be arrived at.

Therefore, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very real difference, and that it is a vital difference, between appearing before a judge or a judicial inquiry and appearing before an administrative tribunal. If one appears before a judge, a judge is able to direct the attention of the advocate to the points which are in his mind and which appear to him to be of importance, but the inspector is not able to do that, because he does not know which particular point will appear of greatest importance to the man who has to make the final decision. When these inquiries are held, for all that the public knows the ultimate verdict may be entirely against the weight of the evidence. That is the complaint, and it is from that fact that there may arise a real feeling of injustice and grievance. It is felt in all these administrative inquiries, I think, that the official in the Ministry of Health who is responsible for the final decision may be more swayed by certain views that he takes of public policy or by the policy which is being adopted for the time being by the Department to which he belongs than by the evidence adduced at the inquiry and by considertions of substantial justice.

We were told a few minutes ago that the official or the Minister who makes the ultimate decision is really an appeal tribunal as far as the person who has appeared at the original inquiry is concerned. That does not seem to be a very apt comparison, because of what use is an appeal tribunal before whom an appellant has no right of audience? I think we cannot compare an appeal tribunal with an official before whom it is impossible to place a fresh argument. Everyone in the House will agree with the soundness of the principle that no man should be a judge in his own cause, but that principle has frequently been extended, and this point was made very clear to the Ministry in the report of the Committee on Ministers' powers, that no man should be a judge in a cause in which he has an interest. Though I have not the report of that Committee by me, I remember that it was made clear there that they took the view that when you have an official who is concerned, not only with the evidence that has been adduced before the inquiry, but also with the policy that the Department happens at the moment to be pursuing, he is a person with an interest.

Although he may be acting with the best will in the world—I am not making any allegation against anyone in the Ministry of Health—nevertheless, he is an interested person, and he really cannot help himself; he really cannot be in an impartial and entirely judicial position. I do not say that this is the ideal way of dealing with the matter, but it does seem to me to be the way out. I always thought there were difficulties in the way of suggesting an appeal to the county court judge, if only for the congestion that may occur in the county court as a result. This new Clause as it stands means that only cases of doubt and difficulty, where there is a difference between the surveyor to be appointed on the one side and the Ministry of Health inspector on the other, there should be an impartial body not so much swayed by administrative considerations which should be entitled to decide between the surveyor and the inspector. I hope that, even if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept the Clause, he will give some undertaking that he will consider a revision of this form of procedure and avoid what are real difficulties which are causing substantial grievances.

On this extremely interesting and important issue I find much common ground with the Noble Lord who moved the new Clause and hon. Members who have spoken in support of it. While there is common ground on the question of principle, I do not accept the interpretation of the facts. The issues involved are of great importance to the private individuals concerned, as I have found in my own experience and knowledge in dealing with so many of these cases which have come to me for my decision. I agree that where high interests are affected and where the issues are judicial, the persons concerned are entitled to a judicial decision. I agree that on questions of fact they are entitled to an impartial decision. Finally, I agree completely that no man should be a judge in a court in which he is himself interested. If the present system in my experience offended against any of these principles I would not support it. My task is, from my intimate experience of four years of administration, to bear my testimony to the Committee and to show that it does not offend against those principles with which we all agree. Let me refer to the history of the matter.

Hon. Members have voiced what is the common experience in the country, that is, the sense of strain and some sense of injustice which resulted from the widely extended application of the Act of 1930. I was conscious of it in administration, and I inquired into it over the widest area. I became satisfied from the great volume of evidence that I received as to the working of the Act that the cause of that sense of injustice was inequity in the basis of the compensation, but not in the procedure. We have put that right in this Bill. We have made it impossible to condemn sound property and give only site value compensation; we have abolished the reduction factor and we have given compensation to the good landlord and to the owner occupier. We have made concessions to shop owners. We have in all ways, I believe, dealt with these cases on the basis of compensation, but I would say with complete assurance to the House, and in accordance with the facts that practically I have found no complaints of injustice in the working of the Act from the point of view of procedure. My point is that, as regards practical injustice resulting from the way in which cases are now conducted I have had no complaints. All Members know that there are strong protests by owners against decisions. It must be so. You will never persuade the owner of property which is condemned that it should be condemned, but as to actual injustice, owing to the present procedure, I do not think there have been any complaints at all.

Let me recall once more to the attention of hon. Members what the procedure is, in order that I may deal with the question of judicial rights. The sanitary inspector and the medical officer are the plaintiffs and their complaint is confirmed by the local authority, subject to responsibility to its constituents in the light of public opinion. When the local authority has confirmed the report of their officers, the complaint is heard at a public inquiry, at which the whole complaint is made known in the light of day before one of the inspectors. These 30 or 40 inspectors are now men of great experience and long training in two things—in the practical application of a proper standing of housing accommodation, and in keeping a judicial and impartial attitude. I say with conviction that they sit there as impartial judges between the local authority which is proceeding against a house and the owner of the house who is defending his own property.

When these impartial judges are coming to their conclusion, remember that they bring one extremely important fact to their assistance, and that is the comparative standard of housing. They relate the standards to each other, and when they have made their reports, those reports come before the housing division of the Ministry of Health, which exercises a final revising, co-ordinating power. I wish hon. Members could share my experience as to the actual inquiry and the proceedings at the Ministry of Health in order that they might be assured of the scrupulous and meticulous care which is taken at each stage in order that justice may be done to the individuals concerned. Hon. Members would then be aware that the revision by the Ministry, so far from being merely formal or automatic, or just registering the decision of the local authority, is a very practical one, and, as was well said by one hon. Member, the cause of com- plaint is more often by the local authority that their application has not been confirmed by the Minister.

Let me point out another aspect of this matter from the point of view of the preservation of judicial rights. Every right that is, in substance, judicial of the owner of the property is preserved to him under Section 11 (3) of the Act of 1930 in very express terms. It preserves to the owner the right of going to the courts if anything done by the Minister or on behalf of the Minister is not within the law. Every decision that is judicial is preserved to the Law Courts. That really answers a good deal of the case made by hon. Members to-day. What remains is an issue of fact, upon which the most appropriate and most skilful and most satisfactory judgment will be given, I submit, by the inspectors, with their long experience. They judge the facts, and when they have done so it remains for the Minister to relate those facts to the national standard of housing accommodation. We are relating the laws against slums to a housing standard which is related to the conscience of the nation as regards what is a house that is fit to live in. The final decision has to be made on the facts of the case as ascertained by a skilled expert by actual inspection.

The actual decision has got to be whether, on the facts of the case, the house is or is not fit for occupation according to the standard of housing accommodation which is accepted. I ask what authority can finally be responsible for that decision other than the Minister responsible to Parliament and, through Parliament, responsible to the nation? We are dealing with a matter which is not a pure matter of law and is not a pure matter of fact, but is a matter of fact in relation to a national policy. If the nation desires to control that policy it can only do it through the accepted constitutional means, and that is through the House of Commons and through the Minister, who is responsible on the one hand for administration and on the other hand responsible to the House of Commons. If in any respect the Minister fails in the duties laid upon him the right course in order to convey to him what is his duty is by the recognised forms by which Parliament con- trols Ministers. When it is a question of a standard such as is involved here it is my submission that we cannot ultimately accept any system other than ministerial responsibility. The House cannot allow any other power to have that responsibility except the Minister, who is answerable to the House.

I have dealt now with the question of the rights and the obligations as regards the individual himself. As regards the actual working of the scheme of slum reform, I have to represent to the House, with a deep sense of my responsibility, that such a scheme as is put forward in the new Clause would not work. It is dual throughout its organisation. There are two surveyors, and above the two surveyors there are two authorities, a tribunal and the Minister. There is no provision for the distribution of authority and for deciding filially where the real centre of gravity is to be. It is a most unworkable proposal, a two-headed monster without any form of co-operation between the two heads. We have, I hope, satisfied the House that no wrong is being done to the individual. My last word shall be as to the progress of the work. The great scheme of reform is now in progress and some third of the work is already accomplished. I can say with absolute fairness to the House that due weight has been given to every practical difficulty which has been presented as an obstacle to the efficient working of this system of slum reform. I have represented to the House reasons which I believe to be absolutely irrefragable, why, if the work is to be satisfactorily accomplished, ultimate responsibility must be maintained in the hands of the Minister.

Standing here before the House and speaking with a deep sense of my responsibility for the rights of the individual as well as for the due accomplishment of the great work of slum reform, I say that I could not guarantee the achievement of the great scheme of progress that we have in hand and the maintenance of that just division of responsibility if any step were taken which would deprive the Minister of the ultimate responsibility. The nation would be inevitably doomed to disappointment of the achievement of our great scheme. I have presented arguments for the consideration of both sides of the House by which I sought to satisfy hon. Members that the present arrange- ment is practical, convenient, sound in principle and essential in the provision of the great reform. We have had a most interesting and prolonged Debate here and upstairs in the Committee, and I hope very much that after the interesting and illuminating Debate which we have had to-day, we shall be able to come to a decision and to proceed to other important questions.

In the one or two minutes which remain I wish strenuously, but as courteously as possible, to protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has replied. He has not begun to meet the vital complaint, or the central contention, of my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that the inspectors of the Ministry are obliged to usurp more or less judicial functions. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman substantially confirmed that contention in the earlier part of his speech. Does he not know that the public will accept from men who discharge independent or judicial functions hardships which they would bitterly resent at the hands of bureaucrats, however suave, conciliatory or charming they may be? I repeat what has already been said the point cannot be driven home far enough that men in this country demand not only the reality

I have the same views as the last speaker. As I have probably had more experience than anyone else in the House in regard to inquiries by the Ministry of Health, it is only right that I should put before the House my own personal experience in the matter. I have always found, when appearing before an inspector, that the parties have felt that the inspector in their case is judge as well as jury. They have never felt that they were having a fair hearing. After the show is over, the one who has lost has complained and the other has not, but while the inquiry is being held they have both felt that they were being kept in the dark and were, somehow or other, being tried by the persons against whom they were trying to get justice. If the proposed new Clause were accepted, it would help to remove that feeling.

rose.—