DEMOLITION ORDER, EAST HAM (Hansard, 1 February 1951)

§ Mr. Braine (Essex, Billericay)
As the House is aware, compulsory purchase powers have been used on an ever widening scale in recent years. That such powers should exist to enable Government and local authorities to meet the essential needs of the community no reasonable person would dispute, but, clearly, those using such powers are under a moral obligation to do so scrupulously and with the utmost restraint. If 1203 freedom is to have any kind of meaning at all in this country, then it should be the duty of those entrusted with government, whether it be at the centre or locally, to maintain a fair balance between the essential needs of the community and the rights of the individual.
It is my purpose tonight to bring to the attention of the House and to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, a case where compulsory powers have been exercised in doubtful fashion, and as a consequence, have inflicted hardship upon certain of the persons affected. The Essex county borough of East Ham sustained heavy damage during the war, being badly blitzed. Today it is in need of new houses. For some time the local council have been acquiring the necessary land, using their powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts, but in the case I have in mind they have had recourse to their powers under the Housing Act, 1936.
As hon. Members are aware, where properties are acquired under the Town and Country Planning procedure some compensation is payable, but under the Housing Act, 1936, where a local authority is satisfied that properties are unfit for habitation and by reason of their disrepair and sanitary defects are dangerous to the health of the inhabitants in the area, they can make a clearance order, acquire the property compulsorily, and no compensation other than site value is given. Since the object of the Act was to facilitate the clearing of slums, that procedure was fair enough, but it was not intended to include fit houses, and in any event, special provision is made in Section 40 of that Act for compensation at market value to be paid where a house is included in a clearance area by reason of its disrepair or sanitary defects but is not injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area.
On 25th April last year the East Ham Council declared two roads in East Ham, Mountfield Road and Telham Road, to be within a clearance area. Among the properties affected was Number 18, Mountfield Road. This was a semidetached house. It was bought in 1946 by a Mr. Ginn, a young ex-Service man, a bus conductor by trade. He bought it for the sum of £550. At the time of the 1204 purchase the house was structurally sound but was in need of certain repairs. I have here the search certificate which was issued at the time and which revealed no outstanding notices except that the property was subject to an interim development order, which means that its use is restricted to that of a dwelling-house.
What is more, I have attached to the search certificate a letter from the town clerk which states categorically that: All charges have been paid and there are no sanitary or other notices outstanding. On the strength of that Mr. Ginn asked the building society for an advance of £400 and he was given this on the security of the property. Subsequently he spent a total of £117 on repairs, and today the property is sound and habitable and, what is more, it is a home.
At the invitation of certain people in East Ham I inspected the property myself. I found it spotlessly clean, in an excellent condition, glistening with new paint, the windows much larger than I had expected, the whole place airy. It was a home. The late Minister of Health who claimed a reputation for wiping floors would not have found anything to do in Number 18, Mountfield Road. Nevertheless, despite its condition, the East Ham Council served a notice upon Mr. Ginn, as upon all the other owners concerned, that his property was unfit for human habitation and that it was in a clearance area. I have the notice here. It states in what respects the house was considered injurious to health. I wish the House could see the happy, cheerful—at least, not so cheerful these days—and healthy family occupying this house. However, it was alleged that there was rising and penetrative dampness, that the staircase was too steep, that there was no bathroom, and that the existence of a single storey back addition caused lack of light and air.
On 13th July a public inquiry was held in order to hear objections, and I am advised that in the case of Mr. Ginn's property the fact was brought out that he had carried out extensive repairs which had eliminated the dampness completely. As regards the other defects which I have mentioned, no evidence was produced that the stairway—which I myself had mounted—was dangerous; the lack of a bath is common not only to many proper- 1205 ties in East Ham but to many fit properties elsewhere in the country; and the existence of a single storey back addition hardly enters into the argument because I understand that the former Minister of Health recommended that similar structures be permitted in the case of new, terrace-type houses.
I am advised, too, that evidence was given at that public inquiry that certain of the other properties in the area were defective but it was not proved—this is the point I want to make—that all the buildings in the clearance area were, by reason of their defects, injurious to the health of the inhabitants. Nor was it proved, as the Act itself requires, that the most effective methods of dealing with these properties was by the demolition of all the buildings concerned. In November, Mr. Ginn learnt that he was to lose his home, the Minister having confirmed the order.
I should like the House to consider the effect of this upon the man concerned. In accordance with Section 42 of the Act, he will receive compensation of about £90, plus whatever he gets for the site—a relatively small sum. That is calculated upon a basis of his outlay on repairs—£117—less three years' rateable value. By the simple device of scheduling his property as being unfit to live in and dangerous to the health of the inhabitants of the area—which is nonsense—the East Ham Council have acquired this property "on the cheap." What is more important, this inoffensive citizen, whose only crime is that he wants to own his own house, is to lose his home and a large part of his savings.
It is true that the East Ham Council have a statutory obligation to re-house him, but, in addition to the rent which he will have to pay, he is saddled with the repayments of principal and interest on his mortgage for the next 17 years. It is monstrous that the State should have power to inflict such hardship upon a man. If this is the law, then it should be changed. I know perfectly well, however, that if I were to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do that, you would very quickly intervene Mr. Speaker. But I do not think it is necessary to do that. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will explore the possibilities of seeing what justice can be done for this man within the limits, of the existing law.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Braine
Notwithstanding that the late Minister of Health confirmed the order upon the evidence which was presented to him, will the Parliamentary Secretary look at this matter again to see, first, whether the East Ham Council did not stretch their powers quite improperly—that is, their powers under the Housing Act, 1936—to include 18, Mountfield Road, and whether he should not remedy the matter by arranging with the new Minister for the order to be revoked on the ground that the late Minister was wrongly advised by the local authority.
Second, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider whether the order to demolish such buildings should have been made at all? After all, this is a time of acute housing shortage. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary recalls a speech by the Paymaster-General in another place on 21st June last, in which, speaking officially for the Government, he said: Housing authorities are advised that while there is a shortage of houses they should not embark on the demolition of existing properties unless these constitute an immediate danger to life and limb or to the health of the occupants. Those are very wise and necessary words, but they do not seem to have percolated down to the East Ham Borough Council.
If, on the other hand, it is decided that the order must be proceeded with, then I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the case of 18, Mountfield Road, could be excluded from the order, or, alternatively, that the owner should be compensated upon the basis of market value, as is provided in Section 40 of the Act as modified by town and country planning procedure since the war.
I hope I have not taken too much of the time of the House. This is an important matter and one vital principle, which affects a far larger number of people than Mr. Ginn. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I know that he is possessed of a generous heart and kindly disposition and I hope that I have not appealed to him in vain.

§ Mr. Daines (East Ham, North:)
This case, of course, is one that received very wide publicity in the national Press, and in the 10 minutes that I can take I shall 1207 try to outline—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ten minutes?"] Yes, that is by agreement with the Minister—to outline the facts of the case, so that they can be clearly judged. Quite obviously, the facts have not been given.
This house was bought by Mr. Ginn in April, 1946, for £550. The rateable value of the house was £9 and the sum of £400 was advanced by the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society.

Major Hicks-Beach (Cheltenham)
is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member to say that he is speaking for 10 minutes by agreement with the Minister?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Daines
The point is quite obvious. I was challenged below the Gangway and it is an obviously sensible arrangement I have come to, because this case arises in a borough which I have the honour to represent. The sum advanced was £400—

§ Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
Further to that point of order. Is it in order to have a pre-arranged time-table which will leave the Minister only 10 minutes to reply?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I know nothing about the arrangements made.

Mr. Danies
If hon. Members of the Opposition want to indulge in dirty tactics, it will not prevent me from making my case. The point is that Mr. Ginn, who has our deepest sympathy, is the victim, not of a bureaucratic borough council, but of bad advisers when he purchased the property. He said—and here I am quoting him verbatim from the "News of the World"—in an interview on 5th November: Obviously the house was thoroughly in spected before I was given a mortgage and he went on to say: The house was inspected by a building society surveyor inspector and we were told that it was a good investment I have inspected the house from the outside and I am also fully aware of the nature of the district. There was no damp course in the house when it was purchased. The whole of the area, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) must know quite well, was ripe 1208 for demolition not only in 1946 but even before the war hit it.

§ Mr. Braine
Then the town clerk should have been sacked.

§ Mr. Daines
One cannot re-develop an area leaving one house in isolation. When I inspected the property last Friday, there was a distinct damp mark in the surrounding houses. This type of property has been ripe for development for some time. Responsibility rests on the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society for making the advance to this man and giving to him what was a strong certificate of value.
I find a point of some singular interest that the solicitors who acted for the vendors were Messrs. Edwards, Son and Noice, who I think are also known to the hon. Member and whose leading partner, Colonel Edwards, is the Chairman of the regional Conservative organisation. The hon. Member for Billericay used words like "monstrous," but surely he knows quite well that East Ham Borough Council are only carrying out the provisions of the Housing Act, 1936, which was passed by a Conservative House of Commons under the initiative of a Conservative Government. If it is monstrous, obviously the responsbility lies there.
The figures are that the site value will fetch £75, and on the public statement of Mr. Ginn, as far as maintenance is concerned, there will be a figure of £117 which will stand a slight reduction and give him a total of £180. It has already been stated that the local authority will do all they can within the terms of the law. But the local authority cannot go beyond the law. It is prepared to move him at the council's expense and place him in a council house. I am prepared to admit that the burden Mr. Ginn will face with this increase of 4s. or 5s. on the rent and the cost of settling him in his new home, plus the payments on the mortgage to the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, may place upon him a burden impossible to carry. But the responsibility is on the building society for making an advance on this doubtful valuation. The person responsible more than anyone is the surveyor who valued the property, in my opinion upon an entirely false and misleading basis, and misled Mr. Ginn.
There is also the other case of Mr. S, where the agent—and I am not certain 1209 that it was not the same agent—went to this man who had been living with his parents for many years and obtained an eviction order from the court upon the death of the parents. The agent offered the man the house at £600. He tried to get a loan from the Woolwich Equitable Building Society, and they rightly turned it down. The man had another mortgage offered to him by the estate agent, and when the whole case was exposed in the council chamber, the agent got the wind up to such an extent that he offered to resume the tenancy.
I have every sympathy, as has the borough council, with Mr. Ginn, but we are powerless in this case because of the re-development of the area. In my constituency, as well as in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, there is a deliberate racket by unscrupulous landlords and land agents to get tenants who are living in properties which are ripe for development to purchase the houses—I say under false pretences. We are doing all we can to protect them by statements in the council chamber and by all the forms of publicity we can use. I ask the House to recognise the facts. We can only do what is within the law. We can do no more than that. This case has not been put forward with a desire to help Mr. Ginn, who has already placed his case in the hands of his own Member of Parliament, but because of political animosity, and is more concerned with making party capital than with helping Mr. Ginn.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren)
I hope that hon. Members opposite will at least give me the courtesy which I and my hon. Friends gave to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) who opened the debate. We did not intervene or interject, although we disagreed with him. Therefore, I think the correct thing is that, if a statement has been made—and made, I believe, in all good faith—a reply should be given.
The hon. Member who raised this subject said that we ought to explore everything possible in order to do justice to this man. Well, that is being done. The man concerned saw his Member of Parliament, who happens to be my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport; 1210 and my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Member of Parliament for that division, is trying, in the light of the circumstances, to see that this man does get justice.
The injustice appears to me, on the evidence I have from the Minister's inspector who inspected the property, to be the fault of those who led the man to think he should buy the house. It is evidence which leads me to think that someone advanced money on the house in excess of its market value. Generally, the ordinary individual, when he secures a mortgage from a building society, believes that that mortgage is given on the basis of what the particular house will fetch in the market.

§ Mr. H. Nicholls
Does the hon. Gentleman not attach any importance to the fact that on the date of the purchase the clerk to the borough council said that there was no order on the property at all, and the man made the purchase on that?

§ Mr. Lindgren
The hon. Member is a surveyor; he has doubtless inspected more houses than I have ever seen, and he knows that a purchase is made on the strength of certain statutory documents; but they are not a certificate of structural value.

§ Mr. H. Nicholls
The value was affected, and at a time when the Parliamentary Secretary is accusing a building society of having misled the purchaser.

§ Mr. Lindgren
That is a matter for someone else to decide; the matter is in the hands of the Member of Parliament for the division. My right hon. Friend is taking up the case, as we all do when a constituent feels that he or she has a grievance. I must say that I do not think that the hon. Member who raised this matter tonight meant what he said when he stated that East Ham County Borough Council had used its powers in a doubtful fashion. I refute that most strongly. East Ham County Borough Council or, for that matter, any other borough council in the country, if they use their powers as they think right. are doing what is expected of them. But they have also to satisfy the Minister. If there are objections, these powers have to be shown to have been correctly used.
1211 In this particular case, the council asked for a compulsory purchase order. There were local objections and the Minister, because of those objections, arranged for a public local inquiry to be conducted by one of his inspectors. That inquiry was held, and in the light of the evidence, and of his inspector's report, the Minister was satisfied that the borough council was right in regard to the fulfilling of the conditions of the Act, including properties brought to the special notice of the inspector. The Minister was satisfied that his duty was to confirm the order. That the Minister did.
Reference was made to the fact that properties should not be destroyed in the present circumstances even though they may not be as good as they ought to be. East Ham is one of those many boroughs which has built up its area right up to the limit. They have used every available space. If I might say so, as an outsider, they have used some space which ought not to have been used and which should have been left as open space. But they have done it in an effort to meet the housing requirements. Having completely built up their area, their only possible way of providing for the persons on their lists who require accommodation is to re-develop the area at a higher density by the provision of flats, together with maisonettes, villas, and the rest.
It is true—I do not want to play on it—that the 1936 Act is a Conservative Act of Parliament. As a member of a local authority and a member of the U.D.C. Association, I pressed the Government for the 1936 Act. In the light of that time and in a period of Conservative Government, it was a good Act. Wherever 1212 you put a large clearance area, there will always be some hardship for someone or greater comparative hardship for one person than another. One can never get over this.

§ Mr. Braine
What about Section 40?

§ Mr. Lindgren
Section 40 and Section 42 both apply. The Minister, in the light of the inspection of this property, declares it insanitary and unfit for human habitation, but if it was reasonably maintained, allows for special payment under Section 42. That is what the Act of Parliament allows for and one cannot operate an Act of Parliament such as this one, on the basis of a poor widow who is going to suffer some particular hardship.

§ Mr. Braine
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to be very fair, but surely Section 40 makes provision, where a house is not injurious to health, for compensation to be assessed at market value?

§ Mr. Lindgren
No, only under Section 42 can an additional payment be made where a house which it is decided is unsanitary, is in fact in a reasonable standard of maintenance.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson (Ilford, North)
rose—