HC Deb 08 July 1930 vol 241 cc317-20
Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, after the word "representation," to insert the words: or a report from any of their officers. This is a matter which was discussed on an earlier stage of the Bill, and I undertook in the course of the debate to see whether words could be put in which would meet the representations of certain hon. Members. This—and the consequential Amendment to Clause 19—is the attempt to meet the case put in Committee and the effect, of the two Amendments is to secure that action by a local authority, under Clause 17 as regards repairs to houses, and under Clause 19, as regards demolitions, may be taken upon consideration of an official representation or a report from any of their officers or other information in their possession. The language here used is similar to that used in the principal Act of 1925 and does go some way to meeting the case put.

Sir P. PILDITCH

The Minister has met the point which some of us had in mind when we moved an Amendment in Committee and has gone as far as can be expected. I and my friends are therefore glad to accept the Amendment and the subsequent Amendment to which he has referred. We shall not therefore move the Amendment standing in our names later on the Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SIMON

I beg to move in page 15, line 17, to leave out from the word "habitation" to the word "they" in line 18.

This Amendment has been put down on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations and is really mainly a drafting Amendment, but it relieves a local authority of the responsibility of proving that the house can be rendered fit for human habitation. If one takes the Amendment and the two following ones together, it will be seen that it, is a perfectly simple Amendment which I understand the Minister is prepared to accept.

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD

This and the two following Amendments hang together. They are, in effect, drafting Amendments, and I am glad to accept them.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE

The Minister says they are merely drafting Amendments, but they make a difference of emphasis, and a difference of procedure. As the Bill stands it says that the local authority, if they are satisfied that a dwelling house is capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation, shall do certain things. They have simply to see it is capable of being rendered fit. Under the Amendment, the Clause will provide that they shall do so unless they are satisfied that it is not capable of being rendered so fit. They have to be satisfied that it cannot be rendered fit. That introduces a very definite delay. They have to be satisfied, first of all, that it is not capable of being rendered fit and that will be a hardship to the owner. Whereas, as it stands at present, they have to be quite certain that it is capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation before they serve the notice. At present, before they serve the notice, they have to be quite certain, first of all, that what they are doing is reasonable and that the expense they are putting on the owner is a reasonable one compared with the total value of the house, but, according to the Amendment, they are to be allowed to serve a notice unless they have definite evidence brought before them that it is unreasonable.

That makes all the difference in the world to the procedure, and I can imagine them going rather heedlessly to work. They can plough right through the rights of the owners of property and can make demands for action to be taken on property that is not worth spending so much money upon, and which will cost a great deal too much to put in order. Under the hon. Member's Amendment, they need only say that they are not satisfied it is unreasonable, and can then serve these notices right and left. Surely the proposal of the Bill is the right one which requires the local authority to be satisfied, first of all, that the dwelling house is capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation. It is a protection to the rights of the owners against stupid interference. It is obviously not the same thing, and therefore the Minister's reason for accepting the Amendment does not hold good. I hope he will suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw this Amendment and say that he will look into the matter before he gives way somewhat heedlessly to this proposal, which is not a wise one.

Mr. GREENWOOD

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in thinking that there is a substantial change in the meaning of the Clause. The point that disturbed the mind of the Association of Municipal Corporations was their fear that the Clause, as drafted, would necessitate detailed estimates being submitted in every case where simple repairs are required, which was not the intention of the Bill. This is simply to carry out the object of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 18, after the word "shall," insert the words: unless they are satisfied that it is not capable at reasonable expense of being rendered so fit.

In line 24, leave out the words "can be carried out at a reasonable expense and."—[Mr. Simon.]

Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, in page 15, line 38, after the word "any," insert the word "other."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.