HC Deb 18 February 1959 vol 600 cc406-9
Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, at the beginning to insert: Subject to subsection (5) of this section". If it suits the convenience of the Committee, I think that this Amendment might be taken together with that in page 9, line 12.

The Committee will remember that earlier there was an Amendment to Clause 4 which excluded from the new scheme of standard grants all privately owned dwellings which were provided after the end of 1944. All that these Amendments do is to apply the same conditions to dwellings owned by a local authority.

Mr. Lindgren

As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this principle has already been accepted by the Committee and as we have no desire to delay proceedings, we do not propose to object to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, after "provided", to insert: for the exclusive use of the occupants". This Amendment is as amended by a manuscript Amendment which has already been handed to you, Sir Robert, and which alters the second "the" to "its".

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston)

I have not seen the manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren

It was handed in and I understood that it would be accepted. This is a principle which has already been accepted by the Minister and I understood that the manuscript Amendment would also be acceptable to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 12, at end add: (5) An application under this section shall not be entertained if it relates to a dwelling provided after the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. MacColl

I wish to raise a point which was mentioned in an Amendment standing in my name on the Notice Paper. It is a very technical point, which does not really go to the root of the Clause, but I would like the Minister to explain what the position really is.

I have in mind an old house which can, with the benefit of an improvement grant, be modernised and where standard amenities can be provided but which has in it a room, perhaps a basement, perhaps in a maisonette in a house such as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) mentioned during our earlier proceedings, one of those big Victorian houses where the basement cannot be made fit for human habitation under the terms of the Housing Act. It may be a scullery at the back of an old house, and it cannot be made fit for use.

As I understand the Clause, that house would not be covered by subsection (3) because the Minister could not be satisfied that the execution of the works would make the house fit for human habitation. Part of it would be fit, but in many cases it would not be possible to demolish the part that was unfit. Where the unfit part is an outhouse it could be done but an unfit basement cannot be demolished. The normal procedure under the housing Acts is for the local authority to make a closing order and presumably the closed part could still remain part of the dwelling.

In the event of a closing order being made affecting part of a dwelling, would the Minister approve an application for a contribution towards the provision of standard amenities for the rest of the dwelling? It would be highly undesirable for there to be any suspicion that the Minister was wriggling out of financial responsibility on a technicality. It is very important to clear up this point for the benefit of local authorities in cases of this sort. There may be many older houses in which this situation could arise.

Mr. H. Brooke

The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said that he was raising, on this Question, a point that had been covered in an Amendment of his on the Notice Paper. Perhaps I may relate his remarks to that Amendment, because I find it a little difficult to reply on a Clause which refers to dwellings owned by local authorities. There is never any question of a local authority placing a closing order on part of one of its own dwellings.

The hon. Member has in mind a situation where one room in a privately-owned dwelling is made subject to a closing order, and he has asked whether a grant could be approved by the local authority and the Minister, if the rest of the dwelling were fit, despite the fact that one room was unfit.

Mr. MacColl

The right hon. Gentleman may be sailing rather close to the wind if he pins me down in that way. The question could still arise in the case of a house, if the local authority could not make a closing order when one of the rooms was unfit only in a technical sense.

Mr. Brooke

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman in general terms. If there is a case where a room is unfit and is closed, nevertheless a grant can be made for the improvement of the rest of the house, provided that the rest of the house consists of a dwelling by itself, that is to say, that it is sufficiently large and can be made a satisfactory dwelling without the use of the closed part.

Mr. James Mclnnes (Glasgow, Central)

In the event of the local authority carrying out the work on an old house and then discovering that one of the rooms is not fit for habitation, would the Minister withhold the grant?

Mr. Brooke

I have some difficulty in pursuing this matter, because the Clause refers explicitly to local authority dwellings. I can hardly see how a local authority would be in the hypothetical position which the hon. Gentleman has just described, of having put in work on one of its own flats or houses and suddenly awakening to the fact that a particular room is unfit. I want to make sure that the Bill is administered reasonably, and I do not want to take points of that character against local authorities, so as to deny them grants that they might reasonably think they were qualified for. I can only speak for England and Wales.

Question put, and agreed to.

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