HC Deb 23 May 1939 vol 347 cc2242-4

10.43 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, in page 19, line 24, to leave out from "shelter" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert: then, unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent, it shall be the duty of the local authority—

  1. (a) to affix these appliances, and
  2. (b) to take such steps as appear desirable in order to provide additional exits from the basement or in order to enable additional exits therefrom to be readily provided;
and for any of the purposes aforesaid they shall have power to execute such works as may be necessary in the basement or elsewhere in the building, including works in any party wall, and for the purpose of providing additional exits or enabling additional exits to be readily provided they shall also have power to execute such works as may be necessary in or under any part of the highway adjacent to the building, and in or under any land occupied or used in connection with the building, or in connection with the building and other buildings; and they shall not be liable to pay damages in respect of any act which is reasonably necessary for the due exercise of the rights conferred on them by this Sub-section. The object of this Amendment is to meet a point which I must confess had been overlooked when the Bill was drawn. It is clear that in the cases which this Clause is designed to meet, the provision of strutted basements, it is necessary not only to provide for the fixing of the necessary appliances but also to take such steps as may be required to provide alternative exits from the basement or to enable additional exits readily to be provided. These deficiencies are made good in the Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Duncan

This Amendment affects a good deal of property in my constituency. I am a little anxious about the words in the second line of the Amendment, which read: unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent. I can quite see that, generally speaking, an occupier would not refuse his consent, but in particular cases he may have a reasonable excuse for refusing. There may be unreasonable objections leading to refusal of consent, and I should therefore like to see words in the Amendment providing that the occupier of the basement shall not refuse his consent unreasonably. I imagine that the strutted basement shelter will be used in many cases not only for the occupants of the basement but for the occupants of the floors above. In my constituency and many other similar districts in London, houses are three, four or even five storeys high and are occupied by separate families in tenements. The basements will presumably be used for all the families in the house. It seems to be going a little far that the occupiers should be able, by their pig-headedness, to refuse to allow the basements to be strutted to protect not only themselves but all the other families in those houses.

The last two lines of the Amendment read that the local authorities: shall not be liable to pay damages in respect of any act which is reasonably necessary for the due exercise of the rights conferred on them by this Sub-section. Considerable structural alterations will have to be made in order to deal with strutted basements, and it may well be that occupants of basements may have to remove out of their houses for perhaps a week. Are local authorities to do this work and get away without paying compensation for damage and inconvenience caused to the tenants of such basements? I would ask my right hon. Friend to pay attention to the two points which I have raised. If he cannot meet them now, I hope that he will consider them before the Report stage.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean

I understand that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman will cover a few points of a succeeding Amendment, which would absolve the local authority from any liability to damage done so long as they exercised reasonable care. Is that repudiated in the Amendment which is now proposed?

10.50 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

I want to draw attention to one point mentioned in this discussion. Upon first reading this Amendment it looks as though it deals, as it must physically, exclusively with the strutted shelter in basements. The words of the Amendment state: then, unless the occupier of the basement refuses his consent, it shall be the duty of the local authority (a) to affix etc. Presumably this protection, however relatively effective or ineffective it may be, is to be provided in the basement in respect of the occupants of the whole building, including the floors above. If the occupier of the basement says: "No, I will not have this shelter," two things arise. The local authority cannot put it in, and, so far as I can see, the occupier of the basement is not bound to put it in. In that case, people who live on the floors above are to be victims of the unwillingness of the occupier of the basement to have the shelter put in. If such a situation arises, short of riot and revolution on the part of the occupiers of the rest of the building other than the basement, what about it?

10.51 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I am afraid that, unless these things can be installed by consent, the local authorities will have to move on and deal with the next case where consent is forthcoming. I have not been able to discover any method by which, in the case which this Clause is intended to provide for, the wishes of the occupants can be overridden. There is, of course, in the earlier part of the Bill a provision by which basements can be designated as public shelters, and there is provision there for compensation to all concerned. Here we are dealing with a case where basement strutting is employed as a method of giving protection to the occupants of a house, or to a number of occupants of a building, and I frankly confess that it is, as the Clause stands, in the power of the occupant of the basement, by withholding consent, to frustrate the purpose of the local authority in endeavouring to provide shelters. I have been able to discover no practical method of getting over that difficulty.

Mr. Gallacher

I should like to ask whether this Clause which deals with "basement or elsewhere in the building," has any reference at all to tenements and the suggestion made at one time by the Minister of special material being provided for these tenements, or if the question comes up on Clause 24.

Sir J. Anderson

It does not arise on this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

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