HC Deb 16 May 1935 vol 301 cc2024-9
Mr. SHAKESPEARE

I beg to move, in page 59, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert: (1) The following Section shall be substituted for Section twenty of the Act of 1930— '20. A local authority may under this Part of this Act take the like proceedings in relation to any part of a building which is occupied, or is of a type suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes, or in relation to any underground room which, by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the principal Act, is to be deemed to be unfit for human habitation, as they are empowered to take in relation to a dwelling-house, subject, however, to this qualification that, in circumstances in which, in the case of a dwelling-house, they would have made a demolition order, they shall make a closing order prohibiting the use of the part of the building or of the room, as the case may be, for any purpose other than a purpose approved by the local authority, but—

  1. (a) the approval of the authority shall not be unreasonably with held: and
  2. (b) the authority shall determine the closing order on being satisfied that the part of the building or the room to which it relates has been rendered fit for human habitation.'
(2) In Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-two of the Act of 1930 (which confers on persons aggrieved by any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) thereof a right to appeal to the county court) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (e)— '(f) a withholding of approval in relation to the use of any purpose of premises in respect of which a closing order is in force.' Members of the Standing Committee will remember the interesting discussion we had on the right of local authorities to close parts of dwelling-houses and the very complicated state of the law governing the subject owing to the provisions in the Acts of 1925and 1930. We accepted two or three Amendments, one from the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) and another from the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss). We have embodied the effect of their Amendments here and made the law as simple as possible. This Amendment relates to any part of a building which is occupied by the working classes and not only, as provided in Section 20 of the Act of 1930, to any part of a building let as a separate habitation. The second point is that it covers any part of a house which, though not occupied, is suitable for occupation by the working classes. The third point is that it covers underground rooms falling under the terms of Section 18 of the Act of 1925. Fourthly, it enables a local authority to prohibit the use of the room or part of the building which is closed, except for purposes approved by the local authority and to prevent any unreasonable exercise of that power by the local authority it gives a right of appeal by the owner or occupier against such an order.

Mr. LOGAN

Am I to understand that under this proposal certain rooms which are not fit for human habitation may be closed but other portions of the building which are fit for human habitation may still be occupied?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

It is the law at present than any part of a house which is unfit for human habitation, if let separately, can be closed. This Amendment removes the condition as to being let separately and enables the local authority to close a part of a building for any purpose and to control the purpose and there is an appeal against any arbitrary action by the local authority.

Mr. LOGAN

I am aware of what the law is at present, but are we to understand that there is to be continuity as regards the closing of certain rooms which are not fit for human habitation while other portions of the house can still be occupied? Is that still to be the case?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

Yes, but under this proposal the purposes for which the closed part can be used, can be controlled. The rest can be occupied.

Sir P. HARRIS

Why was it necessary to re-commit the Bill in respect of these words, since there is no particular charge involved?

10.44 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS

It is not necessary that I should answer for the Government as they are well able to answer for themselves, but, in reply to the hon. Baronet, I may remark that if the local authority has the power to close these rooms an indirect burden will fall upon them, as they will have to build more new houses to re-house the people who are turned out. I think that, through inadvertence in dealing with this very complicated Clause, the Government have not carried out the undertaking which they clearly gave in Committee. I moved an Amendment to bring into the general law a provision which now applies to Kensington only in regard to the closing of rooms. It is generally conceded that these special powers which Kensington obtained under a London County Council General Powers Act, have proved very valuable and that they ought to be extended. The Moyne Committee recommended in those terms, and I moved to that effect. One of the 'powers which Kensington has, which I certainly mentioned in my speech, is that it is, able to close underground rooms which are not habitually used as sleeping places. I suggested in my speech that that power, among others, should be extended to general legislation. Plainly, if a room is unfit and damp and altogether uninhabitable, even if it is not used habitually for sleeping, the local authority ought to have the power to close it, because it might be just as bad to live in for 16 hours a day as to sleep in for eight hours at night.

When I moved that Amendment in Committee the Under-Secretary said that he could not accept the actual wording but that he would accept the principle, and that he would like to look into the details. The confusion may possibly have arisen in this way. My Amendment was in two parts—amajor part and a consequential part The consequential Amendment was not put to the Committee because the Chairman said, "This is consequential." Everyone understood, however, and I am sure that the Minister meant to convey that he was accepting the whole thing and would make the Kensington power a general power. I raise the question at this stage because it is important that it should be included in the Bill and in order to give the Minister time to move an Amendment on the Report stage. I am sure he will find that he has not carried out the undertakings he gave in Committee, and I am certain that he is as anxious as I am that that important provision should be incorporated in general legislation.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN

I am at a loss to understand what is intended by this Amendment. I understand the English of it perfectly well, but I gather that this Bill is a measure to deal with housing, overcrowding, re-development and re-conditioning. If such a provision as is suggested suits London, it will not suit us in Liverpool. I am not able to visualise a house of which one part can be unfit for human habitation and can be closed, and in which other rooms can be considered to be fit. It seems to be a peculiar arrangement if a man, living in a room upstairs where he is able to see the sky through the roof, is told that he cannot stop there, but that the man down below is told that his house is all right because the roof had not come off yet. I am beginning to wonder how matters were dealt with in Committee upstairs, and I am not surprised at the disorganisation that has taken place here to-day. There is no place in the country that wants one part of a house to be considered fit for human habitation while another part of it is not fit. I can understand cellar dwellings being closed, but I cannot understand the first flood being closed and the attic being all right. This kind of arrangement, if it be an arrangement at all, appears to allow any particular floor in any particular section to be declared insanitary, but as long as they are barricaded off and people are prevented from getting into them everything in the garden is lovely. That is a funny kind of house. I do not know any place in the world where such an arrangement would be suitable from the point of view of accommodation.

I put a question to the Minister earlier, because I could not believe my ears when he said that rooms could be condemned and other rooms could not be condemned, cellars might be condemned but certain parts of these ramshackle, rotten old buildings were to be considered fit for human habitation. Anyone with any sense of humour knows this is not a slum clearance problem, but caravans and slum settlement, not housing at all. How any Minister dealing with the re-housing of the people or the reconditioning of houses can ever put such a proposition forward I cannot understand. We are not supposed to be perfectly sane, I agree, on some things. We are dealing with thousands of houses in Liverpool, and we would never suggest, not even to enlightened Londoners, that this was the right and proper proposal to bring to the House of Commons. I have had no relationship in regard to this particular Bill with any Member of the House. If this is considered to be a housing proposition, whatever may be suitable for particular parts of London will not meet the view of the people in Liverpool. I would suggest that if this particular Clause were deleted altogether it would be much better. This is not an arrangement which would be satisfactory to anybody, and I wonder whether any Minister or any medical officer of health in any part of London or elsewhere, finding a house carrying on under the conditions mentioned here, would agree that it was fit for human habitation. It goes beyond my knowledge to understand how any Minister or any person in this House could be agreeable to anything of this kind. I am at a loss to understand the mentality which agrees with this kind of thing.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

On the first point; this Clause is recommitted because it may increase the rate charge. On the second point, I am advised that it does substantially give the Kensington powers. I will not say it deals with every single case but it meets any case that can be reasonably put up. Any underground room unfit for human habitation can be dealt with, and any underground room habitually used for sleeping purposes. When that is taken in conjunction with the other powers I think it meets substantially every point raised on the Committee stage.

Mr. LOGAN

What about the other rooms?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

The hon. Member is always an original debater, but he is so original to-night that he disagrees not only with the powers given under the Act of 1925, passed by a Conservative Government, but with the powers given under the Act of 1930, passed by his own Government. I think he must introduce a housing Bill of his own.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN

I could introduce a better housing Bill than dais, but it is not my duty to do so. It is my duty, however, to point out that though this may meet the views of Kensington it does not meet the views of Liverpool. The Minister has no cause to be flippant about statements as to the insanitary condition of houses. We take credit to ourselves for being an intelligent assembly, but if in regard to the reconditioning of a house a medical officer ofhealth—or the Government itself—is going to declare that three parts of the house is insanitary and not fit for human habitation and one-quarter is fit for habitation, that is going beyond everything; and the flippant manner of the Minister shows that he would be better employed in managing a lunatic asylum than in dealing with housing.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS

I hope that a little further consideration will be given to the point which I raised, because when I brought it up in Committee I understood that the Government were going to deal with it in principle. I think it will be found that the Amendment which I have put down for the Report stage will cover the point. In some cases it may be a small point, but in other instances it may loom rather large. I hope that before we get to the Report stage the Government will look into the matter to see whether they can accept my Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.