§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
§ 10.21 p.m.
§ Mr. David Llewellyn (Cardiff, North)Two years ago I asked for a committee to be appointed to investigate and report on the methods of minimising the effect of very cold weather on houses in general and plumbing in particular. In rejecting this demand for a committee, the Minister replied that he was advised that the recommendations in existing housing manuals and technical appendices provided adequate protection if properly applied; but the Minister did order a sample survey covering 200,000 post-war houses.
It was found as a result of this survey, as might be expected, that post-war houses fared better than pre-war, that in England 8.5 per cent. of post-war houses suffered damage to their water systems and that elsewhere, particularly in Wales, the figure was very much higher. This information was sent out to housing authorities in Circular 34/54, which drew attention to the housing manual and technical appendices; to model water bye-laws and, in particular, to paragraph 20, which laid down that every water fitting where it was liable to damage by frost or other causes, should be reasonably protected; and in paragraph 5, it stressed that much more needed to be done.
It ended with an exhortation to all concerned, which, to put it mildly, has been insufficiently observed. The Minister also declined to publish full details of the survey. He was not clear what purpose would be served. One purpose which would have been served would have been 340 to see the comparative frost resistance of different types of houses. I have this morning heard from a rural district council in Wales that prefabricated concrete houses, where the rising main is fixed direct to an external wall, are notoriously unsatisfactory in this respect.
The Minister's reticence was in part redeemed by a survey that was undertaken in 1954 of the L.C.C. estate at Oxhey, made by the Health Department of the London School of Hygiene and Medicine. A sample of 1,018 houses was taken, and of those 98 had burst pipes directly caused by frost and there were 156 in all. Four conclusions were drawn by the surveyors in this respect. First, that at least 624 burst pipes were caused altogether in Oxhey and that each burst cost 25s. to repair. Secondly, that the construction and quality of the plumbing was good. Thirdly, it stresses the vulnerability of bathroom pipes near external walls, especially where the bathroom faced north or north-east. Fourthly, it declared that the tenants were much to blame. Only two tenants in these 98 houses had lagged their pipes. Only one tenant had used a heater in his bathroom, and 23 tenants did not know where the stop-cock was before the burst. Even after the burst seven did nothing.
However lamentable this lack of self-help may be, it is arguable that the tenants are, in fact, being blamed for what is a prime responsibility of the local authority. I suggest that in the long run it would be far cheaper for local authorities to lag or box pipes in the first place. In my view, local authorities should either lag or box pipes for the tenant before he moves in, or they should make the tenant responsible for the lagging himself. In either case they should make him pay all costs of bursts due to his own neglect. I recognise that there is a special problem in so far as the protection of bathroom pipes is concerned, and this presents a 341 separate problem. But here again it would be cheaper in the long run to provide the tenants with some sort of heating.
With regard to private houses, and all questions of model water byelaws apart, it is the duty of architects and builders to make it clear to a purchaser whether or not the water system which is intended for the house is frostproof. To point out afterwards that to make the system frost-proof would have cost £50 or so more is adding insult to injury.
Another feature of the Oxhey survey was praise for the standard of plumbing, yet often it is the plumber who, if I may use the term in this connection, "carries the can" for the architect, the local authority or the private builder. There is a significant passage in the memorandum prepared by the engineer and surveyor to the rural district council to which I am referring, which states:
Provided houses are reasonably well built with light weight circular internal wall linings to the external walls and with partition walls of a similar character, and with rising mains carried up on internal walls there should be little difficulty in respect to damage from frost in modern houses, subject however to the houses being kept reasonably warm by the tenants. It has been found in many cases that bursts have occurred when the dwelling is not occupied during the day due to the fact that the wife is away at work and the house is therefore virtually without heat for long periods.This factor was also stressed by the Oxhey Report, and it suggests that water byelaws do not sufficiently provide for this feature in our national life.I do not think that any hon. Member would seriously quarrel about the tremendous amount of frost damage which has been suffered this February and in February, 1954, and, indeed, whenever there is a really hard frost in this country. I have taken figures at random from the Manchester Guardian, from editions in early February. In London, the Metropolitan Water Board estimated the number of bursts as "hundreds of thousands." In Mid and South-East Cheshire there were between 10,000 and 22,000. In Bristol over 30,000 houses were damaged with 5,000 burst pipes in council houses, and the water consumption had gone up by 25 per cent. In Hereford, 3,000 of the tenants of the 3,500 council houses in the city made emergency calls to plumbers. In Liverpool, the rate of consumption of 342 water has risen a third above the normal and more than 30 million gallons of water have been lost, the highest wastage in the city's history. There is the same story of wasted water from Wirrall and other places throughout the country. It has been particularly severe in the Rhymney Valley in Wales. The sorry story is of universal application. Also, I need not stress the tremendous damage that results to property from these bursts.
In the light of this evidence, which can be infinitely multiplied, is the Minister still satisfied with the provisions of the Housing Acts and the technical provisions? Also, is he satisfied with the level of co-operation among the parties concerned, and if not—I imagine that is the case—what, apart from exhortation. which has been proved futile, does he propose to do?
I have no time tonight to go into related subjects for some of which my hon. Friend has only limited responsibility, such as defective heating systems in trains, defective layouts of gas pipes, and the injury which results to public health and the loss of production which can be directly attributed to frost damage; but, clearly, the cost of all this to the country is enormous. At Oxhey, in 1954, each burst, at the price then prevailing, cost 25s. to repair. I do not think it ig an over-statement to suggest that in the first three months of this year the damage will run into tens of millions of pounds.
Much of this waste is needless. For one thing, the Continent and the Commonwealth appear to be much more successful than we are in avoiding it. The use of alternative methods and materials would certainly help. There are two interesting experiments which have been carried out with polythene piping for cold water pipes. In Oldham, 300 houses with outside sanitation have been fitted with such pipes, and there has not been a burst since. I believe the same applies to an L.C.C. experiment at St. Paul's Cray.
There is also the question of lagging. If only people would lag their pipes with the system as it is and if only heating of some sort were provided in bathrooms. needless wastage would be avoided.
Two years ago I asked for a committee of inquiry. During the past two years the problem has grown more 343 serious and it appears to have been equally neglected. I ask again for an inquiry into the adequacy of our own techniques, the hazards of our climate, Commonwealth and Continental experience, the state of our research with special reference to the use of alternative materials, the revision and enforcement of water and other byelaws, and the need for further education of architects, builders, plumbers, local authorities and the general public in their responsibilities.
With our country literally fighting for its economic life, all needless waste is inexcusable. I do not feel that exhortation is enough. I believe that, without a real lead by the Minister and the Government, this annual exhibition of national incompetence and irresponsibility will continue, to our cost, discomfort and disgrace.
§ 10.34 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell)The subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) has put before the House resolves itself into two separate parts, one relating to the structure and protection of water fittings in domestic dwellings, and the other to the behaviour of the occupants of the houses. It will be convenient if I deal 'ith those two aspects in succession.
The field of structure is dominated by the water byelaws made by the water undertakers in the areas concerned. In their old form and in their new form since 1954 the model byelaws fully cover the requirements of structure and protection. The old byelaw reads:
Every water fitting laid or fixed in such a position whether inside or outside a building as to render it liable to damage by frost shall be reasonably protected from such damage.This was clarified in the new model byelaw introduced in 1954, which runs:So far as is reasonably practicable every water fitting inside a building shall be so placed as not to render it liable to damage by frost. Where a water fitting whether inside or outside a building is so placed as to render it liable to damage by frost it shall be reasonably protected from such damage.These are the perfectly clear and adequate requirements which the water byelaws place upon the user of a water supply. The old byelaws are gradually being superseded by the new. I am advised that already about 60 per cent. of the 344 water undertakers have adopted the new model byelaws.In complying with these byelaws the local authorities and others have the guidance of the Housing Manual, as it was elaborated by the Circular of 1954. Taken together, these codes represent a standard of practice which, if it is complied with and enforced, ought to be as satisfactory as any code of practice relating to structure and protection can be. My hon. Friend mentioned the newer materials that are being experimented with and that are coming into use. There is nothing in the byelaws to inhibit such experiments and progress.
The water undertakers who make these byelaws are greatly interested in avoidance of damage by frost. Waste of water is one of the most undesirable and expensive results of frost damage. It is the interest and responsibility of water undertakers to prevent and avoid it. In the enforcement of the byelaws they have, to all appearances, adequate powers. They have powers of entry and inspection, and the penalties attaching to infraction of the byelaws are by no means insignificant: a fine of £20 and a fine of £5 per day for a continuing offence can be imposed. Yet when we look at the facts of recent weeks we must conclude that non-compliance with the byelaws is extremely widespread. We are faced with the further fact, even more surprising, that there is scarcely any record of prosecution for non-compliance. The obligations exist and so do the power and the means of enforcing them; but enforcement lags behind.
That is the reason why my right hon. Friend this afternoon told the House that he proposed to consult the water undertakers as to what more effective methods can be adopted to ensure better observance of the byelaws. If these existing byelaws can be reasonably observed, a great deal of the problem which we are discussing will have been solved. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that there would be no advantage, in this respect at any rate, in the establishment of a committee, that it is the responsibility of the water undertakers to ensure that their byelaws are complied with, and that we shall get earlier results by the direct investigations with the undertakers to which my hon. Friend referred.
I now turn to the other side of this matter, the practices adopted by occupiers. 345 For I think it is generally accepted that, however completely the byelaws are complied with, nevertheless, if a house is unoccupied, or if it is insufficiently warmed, damage from frost cannot be avoided. Therefore the occupier must play his part by taking the necessary precautions.
What those precautions are will vary according to the water system of an individual house. For example, drainage of whole or part of the system may be practicable or it may not. The plumbing system may be such as to render draining easy or difficult. It may be a question of ensuring a little, but constant heat, either in an attic or in an outdoor lavatory. There are a wide variety of simple measures which, if taken by the occupiers of houses, would close the gap by which satisfactory structure and protection fall short of giving complete immunity from frost damage.
Who are the parties who are interested in securing a proper standard of practice by the house occupier? I suggest that there is always someone who must be pecuniarily interested in this. There is either the local authority in the case of a local authority house, the landlord in the case of a rented house, or the owner-occupier where people own their own houses. So there is always someone who has a direct pecuniary interest in taking the sensible precautions on top of the structural and protective measures already called for by the byelaws.
It is not so easy to say how we can secure a general and improving application of these reasonable precautions. Many local authorities already circularise their tenants, drawing attention to the simple steps which they ought to take; and my right hon. Friend is considering whether to issue a leaflet which would be available to local authorities as well as to private occupiers, or some form of further advice to local authorities on this subject.
346 There is no doubt, however, that by a combination of compliance with the byelaws and observance of comparatively simple precautions, the solution can be found. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that in the new town of Cwmbran, in South Wales, only 2 per cent. of the 1,600 houses were affected in the recent cold weather. In fact, Cwmbran put up a record and meritorious "low" in this matter. flow was it done? It was done by structural measures, by account being taken of the frost danger in the planning and construction of the houses, and also by instruction to tenants upon the precautions which they could take. It is, therefore, by no means impracticable virtually to eliminate frost damage, if the builders—the providers of the houses—and the occupiers observe the byelaws—as they are, indeed, bound to—and if the occupiers apply the simple precautions of which it is not difficult to obtain the necessary information.
I feel that this is one of those subjects which it is easy to analyse but difficult to deal with completely in a measurable span of time. I think we have to attack it on these two fronts. We have to find out why byelaws satisfactory in themselves are more honoured in the breach than the observance; and we have to secure that whatever measures are necessary for enforcement are, in future, much more widely and vigorously taken. On the other hand, we must see whether there are not ways in which the simple precautions open to all occupiers can be brought more widely to the notice of both tenants and owner-occupiers. If we can do something in those two directions, then I have every hope that I may not find myself answering a similar Adjournment debate in 1958.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.