Clause 20.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT BUT WELL-MAINTAINED HOUSES.) (Hansard, 3 June 1957)

§ Mr. J. N. Browne
I beg to move, in page 15, line 30, to leave out from "made" to "under" in line 32, and to insert: after the commencement of this Act". This Amendment results from an undertaking given in Committee that the Clause should not have retrospective effect. The Clause extends the scope of well-maintained payments to certain unfit houses within clearance areas which do not at present qualify, and it also enables my right hon. Friend to vary the multipliers with respect to rateable value in the second alternative formula of Section 40 (2) of the principal Act.
The Amendment does not permit any house in the extended areas to qualify for well-maintained payments unless the house is vacated, or compulsorily purchased, as the case might be, after the commencement of the Act, nor can the benefit of any increased well-maintained payment be given to any house qualifying for it before the date of the passing of the statutory instrument. This fulfils the undertaking.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, in page 16, line 33, to leave out from "subsection" to the end of line 37.
The fact that the Government made the necessary Amendments to the earlier part of the Clause shows the value of going on after midnight in the Scottish Standing Committee, for it was between one and two o'clock on the morning of 22nd May that we put these points to the Government. I was hoping that the dawn of sanity would have lasted just a little longer.
I am sure that there is at least one hon. Member opposite who feels exactly the same as I do, and that is the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. ThorntonKemsley), who will remember that at about 2.30 or 3 a.m. on 22nd May we formed a coalition on the senselessness of what the Government were proposing to do concerning the administration of the Clause. The only argument advanced by the Government was that this procedure was what was being done in England. What it meant, however, was that in respect of certain additional houses which were being brought in to get the grant for well maintained houses, an entirely different scheme of administration was to be applied.
I have put down the Amendment to enable me to express my disappointment and surprise that the Government have not put down an Amendment themselves. I feel certain that a change of the nature that we propose would have been something of a major operation on the Clause. It was on 22nd May that we finished the Committee stage and it was exactly one week later that the Government Amendments appeared on the Notice Paper.
One of the reasons, I suggest, why the Government have not performed the task which we hoped they would perform was that they did not give themselves sufficient time between the completion of the Committee and the Report stages. If that is true, I appeal to them not to let this complicated and second form of administration concerning one and the same problem to go unchanged, that they will take advantage of the opportunity of amending the Bill in another place to do as was suggested to them in the Scottish Standing Committee and that they will give that fresh consideration that they promised.
1024 In case the Joint Under-Secretary has forgotten, I remind him that the final speech on this point in Committee was made by his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus, who said: I hope my hon. Friend will at least say he will look at this rather complicated alternative system to see if it can be straightened out at a later stage of our proceedings. It would be of great advantage if it could be. Then, the Joint Under-Secretary made a very important speech and he said: I give that undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 21st May, 1957: c. 1231.] I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us what has happened so far. I would rather he told us that he had not had time properly to consider what should be done. If he says that, I shall be reasonably satisfied.

§ Mr. Lawson
No, my hon. Friend will not be satisfied.

§ Mr. Ross
Certainly, we will be left with the grouse that the position has arisen simply because this stage of the Bill has been far too speedily brought on.
It will be quite ludicrous that for one type of house there should be one procedure of inspection by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State making an order, and so on, that being obligatory upon the local authority, whereas in this case the representation is to be made to the local authority by the tenant concerned and the local authority either ignores it or decides to pay something and it is left to the initiative of the tenant to go to the court.
It is not wise to have two procedures in respect of the same problem for the same type of house. It would be far better if the Government displayed.a certain amount of originality. Simply to say that this procedure has been followed in England is not a reason. In fact, it is a good reason why it should not be done in Scotland. We usually manage to do things a little better, whether it is playing amateur golf or anything else.

§ Mr. Willis
Even cricket.

§ Mr. Ross
My hon. Friend should not boast about cricket. He was not boasting two days ago. I sincerely hope the Government will take advantage of consideration of the Bill in another place to put the matter right.

§ Mr. T Fraser
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. J. N. Browne
It is seldom I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I agree with him that if, in Scotland, we can deal with a problem in a different and better way than it is dealt with in England we are always prepared to do that. I can assure the hon. Member that this matter has been considered. At first, on the face of it, it appears a little unwieldy. The hon. Member has not suggested—it is not for him to do so—if a change is necessary, what the change should be, whether the work should be done by the local authorities or by the Secretary of State.
The position is this. From the point of view of administrative handiness, in the clearance areas it is my right hon. Friend's own inspectors who visit every house. Therefore, he is in the position to instruct a local authority. Under Part II of the 1950 Act, and the 1954 Act, it is the local authority which is the prime mover and which has the inspectors. and my right hon. Friend has no direct connection with the proceedings. So it was felt that the simplest way of doing the job would be to do it by these two different procedures, to produce the same result. The hon. Member did not speak of the effect of his Amendment, which would deny the right of appeal.

§ Mr. Ross
I beg to move, in page 16, line 38, to leave out subsection (4).
When we dealt with this group of houses in relation to the "well maintained" grant we thought at first that it was a new group of houses, but then we were told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that it was not. We said: Supposing we deleted subsection (4), these houses would still fall under subsection (2, a) as subject to a demolition order. It is using a different procedure, that is all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 21st May, 1957; c. 1236.] If, by deleting this subsection, we make absolutely no difference at all I suggest that for the simplification—the much needed simplification—of our statutes we should be well advised to make this Amendment and delete subsection (4).

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. J. N. Browne
I am glad that what I said in the early hours of the morning bears repetition tonight, but I can convince the hon. Gentleman that this subsection is necessary.

§ Mr. Ross
Do not believe it.

§ Mr. Browne
Yes, I can. It affects chiefly owner-occupied houses where the owners have probably been offered other houses by the local authority. After the sanitary inspector has examined the house he can advise the council that the house is unfit for human habitation. The council then advises the owner, who can do one of three things. He can undertake to make the house fit; or he can refrain from using it for housing; or he can agree to its demolition.
When demolition is the agreed course some local authorities accept from owners voluntary undertakings to demolish, instead of the local authorities themselves serving demolition orders, which they can do under subsection (2). It is these cases that are covered by subsection (4), and a number of progressive authorities, including Kirkcaldy, make use of this informal procedure. which does no more than save time or trouble.
1 was quite right in Committee, because under Section 9 of the 1950 Act a local authority still has powers, if an owner does not fulfil his obligations, and the rights of those who can claim "well maintained" payments are protected by administrative instruction. We are taking short cuts here and being a little progressive, but we want to preserve the rights of owners in these cases, and that is why this subsection is essential.

§ Mr. Ross
Not at all.