Clause 12.—(POWER TO APPLY MANAGEMENT CODE TO HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION.) (Hansard, 27 June 1961)

§ Mr. Brooke
I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, to leave out from "in" to "that" in line 4 on page 12 and to insert: an unsatisfactory state in consequence of failure to maintain proper standards of management and, accordingly, that it is necessary".

§ Mr. Speaker
I think it would be convenient also to discuss the two following Amendments.

§ Mr. Brooke
Yes, Mr. Speaker. With the two associated Amendments, this Amendment would make an improvement and, I think, a valuable change in the wording of Clause 12. We had a useful debate on this in Committee. In the light of that debate, I expressed my dissatisfaction with the wording of the Clause as it stood and promised that I would move an Amendment on Report to seek to improve it.
11.45 p.m.
In the Bill as originally drafted the main emphasis of this subsection (1) was on the question whether, because of some failure of management, the house in its existing state was unsuitable for the number of households or individuals in it. What follows from that is that to prove a need for a management order it would always be necessary far the local authority to establish some relationship between the squalid living conditions in the house and the number of families or households occupying it.
In these Amendments, if the House will accept them, we shall be adopting a rather different approach. These Amendments, as the House will observe, drop any mention of the suitability of the house for occupation by the number of households or individuals in it. A test of that kind, in fact, could not always be entirely relevant, and horribly squalid living conditions may well exist in a house in multiple occupation even though the house is not numerically overcrowded.
I hope that hon. Members, looking at the alterations which these three Amendments will make if they are adopted, will appreciate that the Government have sought to meet the criticism that was presented in Committee and are seeking now to provide that the test will be the simple one whether the house is in such a bad state because of a failure of management that the regulations made under Clause 13 should be applied to it. The condition of the house remains the determining factor but the number of families or individuals is now no longer relevant.

§ Mr. MacColl
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is certainly improving 364 the Bill by this proposal. It is only fair to say that the original criticism, although the voice was mine, came in fact from the Association of Public Health Inspectors who had felt some uncertainty about the existing wording of the Bill, and it was only right that tribute should be paid to them for their help in this matter.
I said in Committee that I was not wedded to the form of words which I suggested, nor did I claim authorship of the Amendment. I now thank the right hon. Gentleman for having made this proposal, which I am sure will clarify the position.

§ Sir K. Joseph
I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to insert "thirty-five".
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 18, page 21, line 2, which is in identical terms?

§ Mr. Speaker
If the House so pleases. I had not appreciated the significance. I thought they were the same principle but different points.

§ Sir K. Joseph
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These two Amendments deal with the case where an applicant seeks the revocation of a management order in the case of Clause 12, or a direction about the number of occupants in a house in the case of Clause 18. In both these Clauses the local authority is given 28 days to deal with the application for revocation, and if no decision has been made at the end of the 28 days by the local authority the applicant has the right of appeal to the magistrates' court in the first case and to the county court in the case of Clause 18.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lt.-Colonel Cordeaux) represented in Committee that 28 days was a bit short because some local authorities meet only once a month. Although my right 365 hon. Friend is anxious that applicants should not have to wait unduly long for a decision on the important matter of a revocation order, he thinks that 28 days is a trifle short. The Amendment is proposed to increase the time which a local authority will have before coming to a decision from 28 days to 35 days. I hope that both Amendments will be accepted.