CLAUSE 20.—(Duty of local authorities to provide accommodation.) (Hansard, 5 March 1948)

§ Mr. Hastings
I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, after "in," to insert "such."
The- Subsection which I seek to amend provides, in paragraph (b) that it shall be the duty of local authorities to supply temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen, or 690 in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine. I seek by the Amendment and a subsequent Amendment to leave out the words which could not reasonably have been foreseen. I understand that that phrase does not appear in similar legislation. I submit that it would be exceedingly difficult to interpret. Perhaps I might give two examples.
Suppose any of us suddenly had his home burnt to the ground. Surely, that would be a case in which one would be grateful if the local authority would provide temporary accommodation, because the fire could not have been foreseen. On the other hand, if the case was one of eviction because the house in which we had been living was desired by its owner and we had been turned out into the street, the question then would be, could that have been reasonably foreseen or not? Such cases are very difficult to interpret.

§ Mr. Messer
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Steele
I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on this matter. The Clause makes it clear that a local authority will not ordinarily have a duty to provide temporary accommodation in circumstances which could reasonably have been foreseen, if, for example, a person at the height of the season, went for 24 hours to, shall we say, Wigan of blessed memory, knowing that no accommodation was available. The Clause gives a local authority discretion enabling them to provide temporary accommodation in that case and in all cases where no difficulty arises, but it would be a mistake to remove from the local authority the duty in the circumstances covered by the words which my hon. Friends seeks to leave out.
I am satisfied that the words will not cause any very great difficulty. We want to place a duty fairly and squarely upon local authorities in certain circumstances while leaving them completely free in other circumstances to do as they think fit. The Clause effectively carries out this intention. It will be impossible for me to agree to remove the duty from local authorities and to leave them complete discretion. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel, in the light of the 691 explanation I have given, that it is not necessary to press it.

§ Mr. Burden
I am unable to follow the explanation given by the Minister. He talked about placing the responsibility fairly and squarely upon a local authority. What responsibility? A responsibility which some other authority could not reasonably have foreseen? How can a local authority reasonably foresee something which somebody else cannot reasonably foresee? Why dodge the responsibility and attempt to pass the buck in this way upon an unfortunate local authority? If responsibility is being taken in one direction, why not complete it? The Minister is asking a local authority to assume responsibility for a residue which is unforeseeable. Quite frankly, that is not treating the local authority, or its officers who have to provide for the unforeseeable, in a proper fashion. I ask the Minister to look again at the Amendment, and at the Clause.

§ Mr. Hastings
May I call the attention of the Minister very particularly to the little word "or"? We have here two classes of circumstances, those: which could not reasonably have been foreseen "— or: such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine. It seems to me that leaving out the words: could not reasonably have been foreseen "— does not affect the power of the local authority. If the people in Wigan feel that they wish to have power and to use their power for providing accommodation, these words will not increase or diminish their power. However, the words: which could not reasonably have been foreseen "— may give an enormous opportunity to lawyers and others who want to discuss these things, to differ in different cases. I cannot help feeling that we should be much safer in the interpretation of the Clause if those few words were left out.

§ Mr. Molson
I am not quite able to follow the line of reasoning of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). I am inclined to think that the Minister is 692 quite right in the line he has taken. The purpose of the Clause is that the local authority shall be under an obligation to provide temporary accommodation for people who, through some unforeseen and unforeseeable misfortune, find themselves in that difficulty, but if a large number of people negligently and foolishly decide to go to some place and, having taken no reasonable steps to obtain accommodation before they go there, find themselves without accommodation, the Government are quite right in saying that it would not be reasonable to impose this responsibility upon the local authority. In any case, I should have thought that that is amply covered, where it is necessary, by the words: or in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine. If people have acted foolishly but not maliciously or malevolently in descending upon an unfortunate place in excessive numbers, it would be possible for Wigan, in the middle of its by-election, or a watering place, in the middle of its dissipation, to grant such relief as may be necessary. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. It will not do anything more than is already provided.

§ Mr. J. Edwards
I beg to move, in page ix, line It), to leave out from "including," to "board," in line 13, and to insert "references to."