HC Deb 04 March 1959 vol 601 cc487-92
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end to insert: (b) a wash-hand basin. The Amendment follows a promise that we would consider this matter, after it had been put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) at an earlier stage. The Amendment simply adds a wash-hand basin to the four items originally listed in the Bill as standard amenities, so making five standard amenities with which a house must be provided in order to attract a standard grant.

Mr. Mitchison

We thank the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend for their valuable contribution to the cause of national cleanliness.

Amendment agreed to.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I beg to move, in pace 5, line 8, at the end to insert: (4) An application under this section must also contain a statement either that the applicant is the occupier of the dwelling or that the occupier has consented in writing to the making of the application. In Committee, a similar Amendment was made to the Scottish Part of the Bill, and this brings England into line with Scotland.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

We are glad that on this occasion England follows Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevins

I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, at the end to insert: (5) Where the works include the provision of a hot water supply, their execution must include the connection of the supply to a sink as well as to the bath or shower and the wash-hand basin. This, too, follows an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend and myself in Committee. I referred to certain drafting difficulties, which the ingenious Parliamentary draftsmen have now been able to circumvent, and I hope that the Amendment is acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Mitchison

Members on this side would again like to thank the Government. We are glad to see that, unable to face the difficulties of defining a kitchen sink, they have just called it a sink and left it at that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, at the end to add: unless the dwelling was provided by the conversion before the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight of a building erected before the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-four". This matter was touched on, but not discussed at any length, in Committee. It concerns the question what should be done about the more recent conversions. It has always been the view of the Government that it should not be made possible for somebody who has built a house since the end of the war, but has left out one of the standard amenities, as we call them, to claim a Government grant now.

But a post-war conversion position is rather different. All kinds of conversions of older houses have been taking place since the war, and the Amendment makes no difference to the requirement that the house must be built before 1944. It appears to the Government, however, that it is rather difficult to argue that there is a fundamental difference in whether the conversion of an older house takes place before or after the end of 1944: indeed, in some cases it might be rather difficult to track back and discover the exact date at which the conversion was made.

At the same time, the Government have no desire to encourage for the future any conversions which are not complete conversions, and it will remain the case that a conversion grant will be given only where a complete and wholly satisfactory conversion has been carried out, in the view of the local authority. The Amendment will not apply to any conversions carried out after the end of 1958.

On balance, it appears to the Government that it is advantageous that someone who has carried out a conversion between 1944 and 1958 without supplying all the standard amenities should not be debarred from obtaining a standard grant. In the view of the Government the only people who would suffer if the Bill were left unamended would be the tenants of these not very satisfactorily converted premises. If we make the Amendment it will be to the advantage of the tenants living in these houses which have been inadequately converted, because they will unquestionably be brought up to a better standard. At the same time, we shall be fully safeguarding the position for the future.

Mr. Page

I want to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for moving the Amendment. This is a matter which I urged in Committee. The Amendment entirely covers the following one, in my name—which, even if you selected it, Sir Gordon, I would not now wish to move. My Amendment was put on the Notice Paper before that of my right hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for covering the point that I raised, and I am sure that the Amendment will be benecial in many cases where an older house has been divided since the war and a proper conversion has not been made.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, South)

I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the principle of our Amendment. I see that it will apply also to Scotland.

Mr. Willis

It has not been moved in respect of Scotland.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

The Minister may have changed his mind.

Mr. Clark Hutchison

I believe that it was the pressure of my colleagues and myself which helped to obtain the Amendment. This is another case of England following Scotland.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hoy

I would not have been provoked into saying a word about this had it not been for the remarks we have just heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison). I was intrigued, because this Amendment was down for an earlier stage of the Bill and the Minister would not accept it.

Mr. H. Brooke

indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy

Oh, yes. It does not matter which way the Minister moves his head, vertically or horizontally. I was a little surprised to hear him say that it had not been discussed very much. It was moved. He said that it had had only very little discussion, which must have meant that my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were not present at the time. If they had been I am certain that they would have discussed it. I take it that the Minister is—

Mr. Clark Hutchison

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was present.

Mr. Hoy

He may have been present, but it appears that even the Minister did not know anything about the Amendment. It is strange to hear that my hon. Friend overlooked it. It is not a habit of his. Perhaps he was reserving what he had to say for this stage. It may be that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved covers also the identical one later on the Notice Paper in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Amendment is an improvement. Where these houses have been badly built, provision should be made for improving them. That is my personal opinion. I have no objection to the Amendment.

Mr. Willis

I think that we are not now discussing the Amendment in identical terms in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. When we reach that Scottish Amendment I hope that we shall be able to subject the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the usual rather rigorous cross-examination.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

Only one Amendment has been moved.

Mr. Mitchison

Before the Committee comes to a decision on this matter I would say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we welcome the Amendment. We think it right that there should be provision for the case of past conver- sions. For many years after the war a good many dwellings were provided by conversion, particularly in London, though they are not always reckoned in favour of the Labour Party when the Government are counting the number of houses that have been built on both sides. We are not concerned with that point today. We welcome the Amendment as it affects the past. We share the views of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill ought not to apply to people in the future. There is obviously no case for encouraging people to convert in the future and then get a satisfactory grant afterwards.

Mr. H. Brooke

I am grateful for what has been said about the Amendment on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) seemed to be under the impression that I had resisted an Amendment of this character at an earlier stage. The reason I said that it had been briefly touched upon was that two of my hon. Friends—they deserve full credit for it—raised the point during the discussion of a Government Amendment of a different character. In the light of what they said, the Government decided to amend the Bill on the lines they suggested.

Mr. Ross

I do not want it to be thought that I omitted any duty of mine when this matter was raised. As the Minister has said, it was raised at an earlier stage. I recollect that when this point was touched upon we received contradictory advice from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who, evidently, had not been briefed, or not briefed very well. Later, he let the Committee know that he had been quite wrong. It is not an unusual proceeding for the hon. Gentleman to change his mind, in view of later proceedings. The Minister is quite right. He said he would look at it and he is now giving us the benefit of his look.

Amendment agreed to.

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