I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "height," to insert "not exceeding eight feet."

I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

This is an entirely reasonable Amendment. It was never our intention to make regulations as regards rooms with ceilings of more than eight feet in height. The Amendment does not change our purpose at all and we accept it.

I feel very sorry that any limitation is going to be imposed by Statute in connection with this matter. I suggested during the Committee stage and also on the Report stage of the Bill, that there should be some provision to take into account the height as well as the floor area of rooms. I was assured on those occasions that the Minister would do so in the regulations and that there was no need to put anything into the Bill concerning that point. I was doubtful whether the Minister had the necessary power. Since the Report stage, apparently the Ministry of Health have seen the light and they are accepting the Amendment which was made in another place and I am very glad they have done so. I think the Ministry will be making a very considerable mistake if they limit themselves by inserting "not exceeding eight feet." In the Bill there has been very much too much limitation by way of the insertion

Do I take it that the ordinary height of a roof is 10 feet, and that when it slopes and its slope gets beyond eight feet, that could be excluded?

That is the meaning of the Amendment. We shall have power, with this Amendment in, to deal with rooms which are less than eight feet high and have sloping roofs. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss), the Government have always felt that it is better not to bring in the complication of cubic capacity, but that if it did happen that a room was unfit for habitation by virtue of a low ceiling, the best plan would be to deal with it under Clause 80 and perhaps close it altogether.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It puts in a new form of the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation" in Clause 12. There are only two slight changes. The House will see that paragraph (a) repeats what is in the original definition. Paragraph (b) adds the words "and otherwise" in order to make it possible for the local authority to take into account other factors than security of tenure and proximity to place of work. Paragraph (c) carries out the promise of the Government that where a local authority is rehousing it will adopt the standard of accommodation laid down in Section 37 of the 1930 Act.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to, the Lords Amendment, to leave out "and otherwise."

I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

The mover of the Amendment failed to look at the problem from the point of view of persons who are to be moved from their accommodation, where perhaps they have been for many years and have become extremely attached to it, and only too often are to be very much inconvenienced by being shifted. It has been generally accepted in all housing legislation of recent years, for instance in the Rent Restriction Acts, that the State should not move a family from their home until it was able to put them into at least as good accommodation as that which they had been occupying. I am glad to hear that I have the support of the mover and the seconder of the Amendment. If we are to make the application of that principle as broad and wide as possible there will always be considerations over and above those met by the words of definition—short of the two additional words to which my hon. and learned Friend so strongly objects—which will have to be taken into account.

I was hoping the hon. Baronet would have given us a better example. As far as I could make out he has only proved that Free Trade has in the last 50 years ruined his constituents. If he will read the Lords Amendment he will see that the house must be one which will not be overcrowded as the result of the change, that it must be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family, that there must be security of tenure, that it must be in proximity to his place of work and, finally, must be suitable in relation to his means. I was hoping the hon. Baronet would give us an example of something not covered by those words which would be met by the words "and otherwise". What kind of case do they cover? What I am afraid of is that such words will lead to the kind of litigation which has arisen over the Rent Restrictions Acts and has caused considerable trouble to landlords and tenants alike. I do not want a continuance of that litigation, but an Amendment which is so clear that there is not likely to be litigation over it.

The Mover of this Amendment first of all raised the point that in his view the words are in the wrong place in the Lords Amendment, but I think he is wrong about that. He will see that the words in their present position qualify the words "to the needs of the occupier," and it is those words which it is intended they should qualify. There is a break in the construction there, because after the words "and otherwise" come the words "and to be suitable in relation to his needs"; but the widening of the Clause which it is intended to produce by the insertion of these words "and otherwise" is a widening in relation to the needs of the occupier. I think that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) misread the Clause, because he seemed to think that, as drafted, it enabled the local authority first to take into account the needs of the occupier and his family, then security of tenure, and then proximity to his place of work. If that were the construction of the Clause I can quite see his reason for suggesting that the words "and otherwise" ought not to be inserted, but without the words "and otherwise" the only needs of the occupier which can be taken into account are security of tenure and proximity to his place of work.

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning, to insert, "When requested by the Minister."

I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

I do not think my hon. Friend need have any apprehension about this matter. The new paragraph permits, and I think quite properly, the advisory body which is set up to advise the Minister, to brng forward suggestions on which they wound like to communicate and give advice to the Minister. The Minister is, of course, free to accept the advice or otherwise. In connection with the Post Office Advisory Body, for instance, I know that some little time ago that body had not the power to initiate matters in connection with the Post Office. It only had to consider matters which were referred to it and there was a good deal of dissatisfaction on the part of certain people because of that. I had experience of that body for three or four years, after such additional powers as are now proposed were given to them. They could initiate matters, discuss them and then ask the Minister to consider them. In my experience those powers never gave rise to the difficulty to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I hope that the proposal will not lead to any such difficulties in this connection. I hope that my hon. Friend will not insist further in his Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I am bound to say that on this side of the House we take the strongest possible objection to this Amendment. During the time of the present Government there have been repeated attempts to undermine the housing activities of local authorities by denying them the right to build houses unless they can prove that private enterprise is either unable or unwilling to do so. We have opposed proposals of this kind at every stage of the Bill, and now, at the very last moment, we have an Amendment of substantial importance dragged in which is going to strengthen the position of these housing associations. Let us admit that there may be somewhat slow-moving local authorities who may prefer to work through housing associations, and that there may be housing associations which can do very useful work, but the proposal here is that if a housing association, in its view—not in the view of anyone else—thinks that the local authority has unreasonably refused to make use of its services, it can hold a pistol at the head of the local authority and say, "Unless you give us some work to do we are going to report you to the Minister." That is a monstrous position in which to place a local authority. It is a new departure, and I say that it is improper on the part of the Government, in a new experiment of this kind, at the very last stage of the Bill to introduce new powers enabling these housing associations to bully and dragoon local authorities into taking action against their will.

I suppose I have had as long an experience of the administration of the Housing Acts as any Member present. I say that in no boastful spirit; I was doing this work for 27 years. I have the greatest admiration for the men and women who are associated with housing associations. They are most public-spirited, and have done very fine work, not only in providing houses for the working classes, but in experimenting and, in some cases, setting standards of housing. I need only refer to the St. Pancras Housing Association, which is probably the most famous in the country—a pioneer organisation which has done noble service in that neighbourhood. I also have in mind the Bethnal Green Housing Association, which consists of people who seem to get money from nowhere, and who, as I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), have in many cases tackled problems that no local authority could have taken in hand. If it is to be said that under this Measure their work may be limited or handicapped by unreasonable opposition from local authorities, then I am all for the Amendment. I gather, however, that it does not relate to the work that housing associations have already done, but rather suggests that local authorities, instead of doing their primary duty of dealing with the housing of the working classes, slum clearance, and improvement, should farm out their work to housing associations. If that be the meaning of the Amendment, I think we ought to resist it. If, on the other hand, it will secure to bodies like the St. Pancras Housing Association the power to go on with their noble and all-to-be-admired work, then we should support it. I have an idea, however, that it means something very different—that it is an attempt to shift from the local authority the responsibility for housing in their own area, and enable them to farm it out to housing associations. I hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will make the position clear.

I do not think there will be any difficulty such as has been suggested. I should have thought that any local authority, having regard to the size of the task which is now being imposed upon it, would be glad to welcome the assistance of any competent housing association. I understand that the object is that local authorities should entrust the housing associations with work which they cannot themselves do, and the task is so great and so urgent that I should have thought that that would have been very desirable where there is a good local housing association able and competent to do the work.

I welcome this Amendment, and am very glad that the Minister is supporting it. I also welcome the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), because it shows the complete divorce that exists between the attitude of the Labour party when they are dealing with politics and their attitude when they are dealing with administration. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have done their best to belittle housing associations, quite regardless of the experience, extending over some years, of the way in which voluntary housing associations have helped in the housing of the working classes and in the administration and betterment of housing in various districts. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has referred to St. Pancras and Bethnal Green. I should like to refer to Kensington, where voluntary associations have helped the local authority enormously in the improvement of housing for the working classes. With regard to the divorce between politics and administration—

The hon. Member is really misinterpreting what I said.

I should like to mention that the Kensington Housing Association includes a member of the Labour party, and also that the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council addressed their last annual meeting, showing that, at any rate in Kensington, the Labour party in London welcome the help of voluntary housing associations. It is only when it comes to the Floor of the House that they oppose it.

The hon. Member has been answering an argument which has never been made. It has never been suggested, so far as I am aware, on this side of the House or by people holding the opinions that we hold, that housing associations may not in proper circumstances fulfil a very useful function. The hon. Member is perfectly right

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

This is consequential upon the last Amendment, and equally raises a question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

A question of privilege arises on this Amendment which may result in additional compensation in some cases.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Will the authority concerned be able to satisfy themselves that the person knows the ground upon which the proceedings are to be taken.

The objector, first of all, notifies the Minister and a copy is sent to the clerk, and then the clerk will presumably post a registered letter to notify the objector of the grounds upon which the proceedings are to be taken.

That I take it would be sufficient to enable them to say that they knew that the objector had such knowledge.

We must be satisfied that reasonable steps are taken.

May I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for implementing the undertaking he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. North), who moved an Amendment similar to this on the Report stage which I supported.

I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I must point out that the Amendment raises a question of privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

We certainly cannot agree with this limitation of time. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that in the development which now takes place of these very large schemes for local authorities, a period of five years is far too short. The Dagenham Scheme, for instance, was under development 14 years. I happen to know a little about these matters because I have acted on behalf of the London County Council on the accession of a very great deal of the land in various parts around London. One of the things experienced constantly in these cases was the way in which directly the London County Council or other local authority started to go into an area prices rocketted up alarmingly. From month to month prices used to rise £20, £30, £40, £50 or £100 an acre. A local authority like the London County Council coming into the Morden, Dagenham, or Edgware district has to buy enough land not sufficient for five years but even for 10 or 15 years for big schemes of that sort. To limit them to five years is to give the speculators the very opportunity they want.

I should like to support what my hon. and learned Friend has said. If we accept this Amendment it will strike a fatal blow at the best kind of housing development. My hon. and learned Friend understated the case. Becontree was bought 19 years ago and is not yet finished. If you follow garden city development and you are going to have proper planning and proper facilities for amenities, parks and open spaces you have to take the long-term view of the housing problem. You have to buy ahead. Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend is right in that respect. The average price of the Becontree estate when it was bought was something like £100 an acre—in my view that was rather too high a figure—but if you were to try and buy land in that neighbourhood now, as a result of the development of Becontree by the London County Council, you would have to pay four or five times that price.

As I was the person who signed the contract for the Becontree Estate I should like to make some comments on the Amendment and on the speeches that have been made by the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Baronet opposite. If the right interpretation of the Amendment is that which has been put by those two hon. Members, I should be entirely against it, because it is obvious to everybody that when there is development land goes up immensely in value. Becontree would have cost immensely more if we had had to buy the land piece by piece. In July, 1919, I signed the contract for £30,000,000, one of the largest contracts anybody has ever signed, on behalf of the County Council. It was a contract with a make and break Clause in it. Would that contract be accepted as proof that the land was required for those purposes? The scheme is now completed, or to all intents and purposes finished, and was opened by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) last Saturday. The whole question rests upon the interpretation of the words:

"unless it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be required for those purposes."

In five years.

The point is what does the word "required" mean? It does not necessarily mean that you have to complete the building on the estate in five years. I should like the Minister to say how he is going to interpret the word "required". When I signed the contract for Becontree in July, 1919, the area was required for that purpose, and therefore the money could have been granted. The question is, how does the Minister interpret the word. All depends on whether he says that it will meet the provision if there is a presentation of plans, or the beginning of building, or still further the completion of buildings. That point has not been discussed. I think that "required for the purpose" may be interpreted by him as a prepared scheme being brought forward, or a contract signed for reasonable progress of development within five years. That would be reasonable, but if the words mean that the buildings have to be completed within five years then, surely, neither the Minister nor any of us would so wish to diminish the possibilities of building.

Surely the roads and sewers were not finished within five years or anything like it.

No, but my point is as to the way in which these words will be interpreted.

I appreciate the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) but the House must realise the position before the Bill was introduced and how it has now been altered. The Becontree Estate was evolved under existing powers, under which a local authority cannot purchase in advance compulsorily, only by agreement. The existing powers have not prevented the London County Council developing Becontree. What we are doing now is to give compulsory powers to buy in advance of need. Having done that it seems only reasonable that you should fix some limit—five years seems to me to be a reasonable limit—for the exercise of these compulsory powers. What we have to consider is whether it will interfere in any way with housing, and the answer is no, because local authorities can anticipate a five-year programme, and have in fact done so. We have also to consider whether it will interfere with redevelopment. Every stage of redevelopment is governed by a time limit, there is six months for one process and two years for another. There again, this limit of five years will not interfere with redevelopment. It will give a new housing spirit to local authorities, who instead of dawdling along without having any plans will now know what they want to do in the matter of housing contracts and can come to us for compulsory powers to buy in advance of need.

The Becontree Estate was largely purchased compulsorily in advance of need.

I myself signed the order for the compulsory purchase of Becontree, nearly 3,000 acres, 14 or 15 years in advance of need. The hon. Member is entirely misinformed.

In any event local authorities will still have those powers.

No, this Amendment will take them away. They cannot buy for five years in advance of need. It would make a case like Becontree entirely impossible. In that case the whole point was whether the Minister was to sign an order for the compulsory purchase for the whole area; and I signed it.

I have just made inquiries and I understand that this Amendment will not interfere in any way with the powers of the London County Council.

I am sorry to intervene in a debate in which hon. Members seem to be proud because they have developed the Becontree Estate. There is a substantial body of opinion which is not too pleased with the building of a great mass of municipal houses all of the same type in a given area, producing social consequences of a kind which many people do not like. So far as the Amendment is likely to restrict that undesirable form of housing development I rejoice at the Amendment, but although it seems that it does not go as far as I thought it did I shall support it.

There seems to be a little misunderstanding in regard to this matter because the Minister himself is not quite certain how far the Amendment goes. If our view is correct it is going to have the most appalling effect on housing development. Everyone will agree that housing development is best done by means of large estates, and it is clear that if the Amendment is accepted the London County Council and other local authorities are going to be prevented from developing large estates. Every layman reading the proposal can come to no other conclusion but that. If the Solicitor-General can satisfy us that we are wrong I shall be the first to agree to the Amendment. As it appears now the Minister, through ignorance, I am sure that he does not want to do anything contrary to the best interests of housing, is asking the House to agree to something which is going to strike a most serious blow at housing development by large estates. I think we should have a definite legal view on the matter before we part with this most important proposal.

I think it will be admitted that interpretation that is put upon this Amendment by hon. Members on this side of the House is the right one, and if the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) desires to do which he has said he want to do, then, obviously, he must vote with us. The point I want to make is that if only sufficient land is bought to carry over a period of five years, then if a local authority wants to purchase further land in the same vicinity the price will rise. What is going to be the effect of a rise in the price of land on the second lot of houses which may be built. Every £100 added to the price per acre means 6d. per week on the rent of the houses that are built. In the case of Becontree the price of land immediately increased by 300 to 500 per cent. Land which could be bought at the beginning of the scheme for £100 could not be bought later on for much less than £500 per acre. That would mean an increase of rent for the tenants equal to 2s. 6d. or 3s. per week. It is something that the House ought not to contemplate without very serious thought. I hope the Minister will be prepared to give the Amendment further consideration.

I hope that the Government will not accept this Lords Amendment. In any event we ought to have some statement from the learned Solicitor-General to clear up the position. We ought not, even at this late stage of the Bill, to allow the Amendment to go through unless the House is clear as to what it means.

I have been considering this matter, and I am impressed with some of the arguments that have been addressed to me. No one has any desire to do anything which would restrict a local authority in having a reasonably advanced view. At the same time I want the House to appreciate that there have been cases cited in which local authorities have purchased land and then held it for a very long period, and ultimately have disposed of it. If it will be agreeable to the House I will move to substitute "ten years" for "five years." That would meet all requirements and would give the local authority a reasonable period. If I had the general assent of the House to that proposal it would strengthen me when I have to make the necessary provision in another place. If I have the support of the whole House I shall take the responsibility of making the period ten years instead of five years.

The right hon. Gentleman is between the devil and the deep sea. We do not like this idea of a time limit at all. In the cases which have been cited the ten years limit would have been insufficient. However, I realise the difficulties of the Minister. He has to return this Bill to another place. My hon. Friends and I would feel that it was some advance towards dealing with the problem if ten years were inserted instead of five years. That would make necessary a consequential alteration of the Amendment on line 24. Then if the right hon. Gentleman finds from experience that something further is necessary I am sure the House will be agreed on the question of principle.

With regard to the last sentence in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), I hope that the Minister will give some attention to what is suggested.

I will take into account the experience that this may give us in deciding whether anything further can be done, and whether there is any reason for the apprehension which has been expressed. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion for agreement with the Lords Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "fourteen" and to insert "twenty-one."

I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."