Clause 29.—(INTERPRETATION.) (Hansard, 18 February 1959)

§ Mr. Mitchison
I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, to leave out "Section four" and to insert" Sections four and five".
We are concerned here with the question of what houses shall be taken to be unfit for human habitation. We are told by the Bill to apply the well-known definition of standard of fitness which is now Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957. I need not go into it in detail, but we seek to add Section 5 because in that Section there are other houses which, for the purpose of the Act—and the language is the same for both Sections—shall be deemed unfit for human habitation. These are back-to-back houses which still exist in comparatively large numbers in many towns.
If the Minister has excluded houses which are unfit for other reasons, there appears to be no reason why these houses should not also be excluded. I take it that the reason which has induced him to exclude unfit houses is that they are those in respect of which the housing subsidy for the building of council houses for general need ought to be restored and they ought to be replaced by new houses built under the auspices of a Tory Government.
I call attention to the fact that Section 4 does not really deal with matters which can be put right by improvement grants and the like. It deals, as does Section 5, with purely structural matters. For instance, one of the conditions which may make a house unfit for human habitation, though it may be fit in other respects, is that it is unstable or that the natural lighting is insufficient. Certainly, instability and, in many cases, natural lighting are not matters which will be made any better by an improvement grant or a standard grant. If the view is taken, I think rightly, that in these cases the standard grants ought not to apply, that must be the case equally with back-to-back houses.
There is another point. We should all like to see back to-back houses improved if they were capable of proper treatment. Section 5 recognises that they are unfit for human habitation and must be replaced. Therefore, the moral to the Government in this case is, on the one hand, to accept the Amendment and, on the other, to reintroduce the housing subsidy and get more houses built for general need.

§ Mr. Bevins
Perhaps I can help the Committee and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on this point. First, Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1957, which is a consolidation Measure and goes back a long time in most of its provisions, prohibits the building of back-to-back houses after certain dates, and it provides that any such houses which were built after those dates—and the date is generally December, 1909—shall be deemed unfit for human habitation. But the Section does not make a back-to-back house built before December, 1909, unfit by that reason. To determine whether a back-to-back house put up before 1909 is unfit or not, it is necessary to fall back on Section 4 of the 1957 Act which defines unfitness.
9.45 p.m.
The reference to Section 4 in subsection (2) of Clause 29 of this Bill is necessary only for the purposes of Clauses 5 and 13, which refer to unfitness for human habitation. Since grants in respect of standard amenities can be made only for existing houses, I submit to the Committee that Section 5, as distinct from Section 4, of the Housing Act, 1957, can have no possible relationship to the Bill or to the matter which is under discussion.
May I add that it is commonly thought by hon. Members here and by the public outside that Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1957, means that any back-to-back house is, by definition, unfit. I am assured on the best authority I can get that this belief is unfounded. For those reasons, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press an Amendment which, in the circumstances of the case, is unnecessary.

§ Mr. Mitchison
I find that explanation both tortuous and unconvincing. It is true that there is a question of date involved, and it was simply to save the time of the Committee that I did not bring that in. The language of Section 5 is clear. Back-to-back houses which fall within the date requirement and are— … intended to be used as dwellings for the working classes"— are to be deemed to be unfit for human habitation.
That is exactly the language used in relation to other houses in Section 4, and I see no ground for drawing a distinction between the two types of house. I fail to understand the explanation that Section 491 5 can have nothing to do with the Bill. Of course it has nothing to do with the Bill at present, because it is not mentioned. The object of the Amendment is to treat alike all houses which are unfit for human habitation. That simple, logical conclusion does not appear to appeal to the Government, and in the circumstances we shall no doubt see what happens when the Question is put.