CLAUSE 19.—(Power of local authority to order demolition of insanitary house.) (Hansard, 8 July 1930)

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, in page 17, line 34, after the word "representation," to insert the words: or a report from their officers. This is consequential.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, in page 17, line 35, at the end, to insert the words: occupied, or suitable for occupation, by persons of the working-classes. When the present Clause 17, the original Clause 14, was first in Committee the point was taken that the words "a dwelling-house occupied by persons of the working class" would not cover a house temporarily unoccupied and to meet that point the words "or suitable for occupation" were inserted after the word "occupied." It was intended to make a similar Amendment in Clause 16, but, owing to an oversight, the Amendment was not moved in Committee, and an Amendment was moved by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and accepted to delete from the Clause the words "occupied by persons of the working class." At the time, I expressed a doubt whether the word "dwelling-house," even without the qualifying words would not be governed by the terms of the long title of the Bill, and I said that I would look into the matter. The Amendment was 321 moved to cover the empty house, and the object of this Amendment is to have that effect. It is quite clear that the wording of the new Clause 17 and of the new Clause 19 should be identical in this respect, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
The only question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is Whether he is satisfied that the wording of this Clause, as amended, really carries out his intention. The Clause will read: any dwelling-house occupied or suitable for occupation by persons of the working-classes is unfit for human habitation. If it is unfit for human habitation it is not suitable for occupation for the working classes, and the two phrases coming one after the other seem to me to be rather strange. I suggest that he might usefully look at the wording of his Amendment again.

§ Mr. P. OLIVER
Before we finally leave this Amendment I hope we shall be offered some further explanation, because although I understand the Minister proposed it simply in order to secure symmetry between Clauses 17 and 19 it seems to me we are making a very radical alteration in the Bill. This legislation proceeds in two streams, one dealing with the provision of houses and another dealing with insanitary property. When we are dealing with the provision of houses we find in Act after Act the phrase, 'suitable for the working classes," but when we are dealing with insanitary property this Amendment, if it be accepted, will be the first one limiting demolition orders to houses which are "suitable for occupation by the working classes." In Schedule 5 we are repealing Sections 11 and 15 of the principal Act of 1925. Those Sections deal with closing and demolition orders, and under them local authorities have the power of demolishing any dwelling house which is unfit for human habitation, no matter to what class or section of houses it belongs, whether it is what is rather offensively called a working-class dwelling or not. If the house is insanitary there is power to demolish it; but that is a Section that we are repealing. In the Act of 1890, when we are dealing with insanitary property, there is no distinc- 322 tion between one class of house and another.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
If the hon. Member looks at the title of the principal Act he will see that it is An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes in England and Wales. That title governs the word "house" in that Act.

§ Mr. OLIVER
With great respect I very much doubt that. Certainly this Bill is not concerned only with the improvement of unhealthy areas or the demolition of insanitary houses suitable only for the working classes. The title of the Bill only specifically mentions the working classes when it comes to "the housing of the working classes." Taking this legislation as a chapter by itself, and starting from about 1860, we shall find that the working classes are only mentioned where we are providing houses; wherever we are dealing with insanitary property and with demolition and closing orders the law applies to all property, whether suitable for the working classes or not. That has been the position all along, and therefore this Amendment seems to make a very radical change in the law. If we pass it we are definitely taking away certain powers which local authorities already possess, and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further consideration.

§ Captain GUNSTON
Surely the Minister does not want a local authority to be put in the position where they cannot demolish an insanitary house because the people living in it are not of the working class; and I suggest that he might reconsider this matter. The interpretation of the Clause by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver) has put a different aspect on the question.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
The hon. Member is quite wrong in his interpretation. We are not dealing here with individual houses. In reference to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) the term "suitable for occupation" appears to be capable of many different meanings. What I would propose is that the House should pass the Amendment in its present form, and if we find that "suitable for occupation" is not the right term and does not fit in with the use 323 of the term, "unfit for human habitation" we will have some such words as the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind inserted in another place.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, in page 18, line 17, to leave out from the word "make," to the word "a" in line 19.
This Amendment and the one immediately following it are designed to make it clear that if an undertaking is broken a local authority must serve a notice not necessarily on the persons on whom it was originally served under Sub-section (1) of the Clause, because the house may have changed hands, but on the persons who at the time are the owners or mortgagees.