§ Mrs. Alice Cullen (Glasgow, Gorbals)
I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out line 42 and to insert:(g) a separate indoor water supply for each house.
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Grimston)
It might be convenient if the two Amendments in page 21, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert(h) a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom and at a wash-hand basin, and at a sink.and in line 44, at end insert:including a separate water closet for each house.were discussed with this Amendment.
§ Mrs. Cullen
The items (a) to (k) in subsection (1) of this Clause were laid down many years ago and I think that we should set our sights higher in 1962. Can anyone say that it is wrong to insist on a separate indoor water supply for each house; or a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom or wash-hand basin, or even in a sink; or a separate water closet for each house? The houses in the constituency which I have the honour to represent never had these facilities, and if the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment they will stand condemned by public opinion throughout Scotland as a Government who are interested not in house building but merely in saving money.
§ Mr. Galbraith
I am very surprised to see that there are apparently so few Members on the benches opposite who wish to speak—
§ Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)
On a point of order, Sir Robert. On two occasions the Under-Secretary has made that sort of remark. Are you aware, as the occupant of the Chair, that we are working to a Guillotine Motion 504 and that we have to get these matters discussed as quickly as we can?
§ Mr. Galbraith
I merely thought that if other Members wished to speak and were waiting for me to speak first, it would be better if it were the other way round.
§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
We thought that this Amendment was so reasonable that the Under-Secretary would agree to it.
§ Mr. Galbraith
The right hon. Member cannot have been in the Committee. If he had been, he would realise that I am not going to accept it.
The three Amendments to which the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) has referred so movingly all propose to amend the list of items in Clause 24 (1) to be taken into consideration in determining whether a house is unfit. Their effect is, first, to delete item (g) "adequacy and accessibility of water supply" and to substitute "a separate indoor water supply for each house"; secondly, to delete item (h) "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences" and to substitute "a hot water supply at a fixed bath or shower in a bathroom and at a wash-hand basin, and at a sink"; thirdly, to amend "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences" to read "adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences including a separate water closet for each house".
The discussion on a similar Amendment in Committee showed that, as a matter of drafting, the words proposed on that occasion by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) did not fit very neatly into the pattern of the Clause. That is not a reason for rejecting the Amendment out of hand because, of course, drafting deficiencies can be put right. There seems, however, to be some misunderstanding 505 among hon. Members opposite about what Clause 24 sets out to do. There also seems to be some difference of opinion as to what they want it to do. On the one hand the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North seemed to agree in Committee that the object of the Clause was to set out matters to which a local authority should have regard in deciding whether a house is unfit. That is our view of what the Clause is intended to do. On the other hand, the hon. Member for the Gorbals seemed just now to be tempted by the idea that a house might be condemned, more or less automatically, if it lacked one of these specified amenities. She used the words, "We should insist".
§ Mr. Galbraith
If that is what hon. Members opposite really want, it is a very different matter from what the hon. Lady was proposing. It is a departure from the whole conception of Clause 24 and the existing provisions which it replaces in Section 184 (2) of the 1950 Act. That Section states that in determining whether a house is fit, a local authority are to have regard to the extent to which it falls short of the standards set by the local building regulations. Clause 24 retains the same principle. It requires local authorities to have regard to certain factors, and items (a) to (k) in the Clause are specific features to which they are required to have regard. None of these items by itself decides whether a house is fit or unfit. I think that the hon. Lady, in moving the Amendment, indicated that if a house did not have, for example, an internal lavatory it should automatically be considered unfit. What matters is whether a house is so far defective in one or more of these respects that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mrs. Cullen
We have had so many houses of this type in the Gorbals, which were slums as soon as they were built, that we want to get rid of them all.
§ Mr. Galbraith
I am absolutely with the hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, certainly. I am convinced that—
§ Mr. Galbraith
I am not a "proper square". I am a round peg in a round hole.
As it stands, the Clause sets out eleven items to which a local authority shall have regard. It does not say what standard the local authority should look for under each of these headings. For example, there are references to the general state of repair and to the adequacy of the water supply and to the sanitary conveniences. Clearly, under each of these headings it would be possible to give fuller guidance about the particular requirements to be looked for; no doubt this is what the hon. Lady had in mind in relation to the items she was discussing.
There are two points I wish to make. First, it does not seem right to go into detail on these items only and not on the others. Surely structural stability, to take one example, is no less important than whether there is a bath on the premises. The lighting and the amount of air are important, but we do not go into detail about them. Why, therefore, should we go into detail about sanitation?
Secondly, it is not really necessary to invite a local authority to have regard specifically to the presence or absence of certain amenities. It comes strangely from hon. Members opposite to suggest that local authorities do not know, without being told in a Statute, that a house without a separate w.c. or water supply falls short of adequate modern standards. In considering whether a house is unfit, a local authority would automatically award a good mark if it had a hot water supply and a bad mark if it had not. Those hon. Members opposite, who have had wide experience of local authority work, know this very well. Local authorities know what a good house is like and, by comparison, when a house does not measure up to the proper standards. I therefore suggest that it is not necessary to specify these items in the Clause.
I assure the Committee, however, that when the Bill becomes law we shall take the opportunity to give guidance in a covering circular about the way in which local authorities should exercise their 507 powers and particularly about the importance of certain specific items. But it would still remain the case that no single item would determine whether a house was or was not unfit. The local authority would still have to decide—I think it is right that it should—whether, having regard to the condition of the house in each of these various respects, it was or was not reasonably suitable for occupation. With this explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that I have made the matter clearer to her and will feel disposed to withdraw the Amendments.
§ Miss Herbison
I am quite certain that the brief which has been read out by the Under-Secretary could not possibly have been supplied by any official from the Department of Health—it is so terribly poor that it must be the Minister's own brief. We were bedevilled during the Committee stage proceedings by the Minister reading a brief which gave answers to points that we had not raised but which his officials thought that we might raise.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the first part of this Clause, which states:In determining for any of the purposes of the Act of 1950 whether a house is unfit for human habitation regard shall be had"—I wish to repeat that—regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters …".Then we are given a list of the matters to which the local authority must have regard before it decides that a house is unfit for human habitation. Hon. Members on this side of the House looked at these matters and decided that, in 1962, it was time that local authorities had regard to certain specific matters when deciding whether a house was unfit for human habitation.
The Under-Secretary said that it was not right to go into details on these matters since we had not gone into details on other matters. If the hon. Gentleman will accept the details which we have gone into on these three matters, I can assure him that during the Committee stage proceedings in another place we shall see to it that similar details are provided for the other matters, if that is the main objection from the hon. Gentleman. He could help us to ensure that the kind of 508 details which he thinks should go in for all, or for none, shall go in for all.
§ Mr. Galbraith
I am sure that the hon. Lady does not wish to be unfair. I was suggesting that if we put in all the details for some matters we ought to put in details for the lot, and that if we did that we should not have the faith in the discretion and judgment of local authorities which the Opposition is always suggesting that the Government ought to have.
§ Miss Herbison
I think that is the "phoniest" argument which we have heard in the whole of these discussions. Hon. Members on this side of the House regard members of local authorities as responsible people. We know that local authorities will have regard to these matters either as they appear in the Bill now or as they would appear were the Clause amended as we desire.
I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) about houses in Glasgow and to say that there are similar houses in the Highlands and in our Scottish villages. There are many families in Scotland who have to share the use of one water closet.
§ Miss Herbison
Is that what the Under-Secretary and the Tory Government consider to be correct? If not, they have no argument at all for not putting specifically in the Statute that regard must be had to the necessity for each family to have a water closet.
The second item relates a water supply for each house. I have constituents in houses in my own village where six people have to share one sink on a landing and one water supply. In some parts of the Highlands conditions are much worse than that. Is it wrong that in 1962 we should ask that when a local authority is considering whether a house should be condemned one of the specific needs which it ought to take into account is whether there is a separate water supply for each family. If the Government think it wrong that that should be so, it shows just how little they think about the needs of our people.
509 What about a hot water supply? Is there any hon. Member opposite who does not consider a hot water supply an absolute necessity in his own home?
§ Miss Herbison
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee think the same, but we also think that conditions should be the same in all the homes in Scotland, and that is where we differ from hon. Members opposite.
What is wrong in putting into this Clause a reference to the need for a hot water supply in the bathroom or for a shower, or a sink? The hon. Gentleman has given no valid reason, but places the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of members of local authorities. If we could raise the sights of local authorities a little higher, some local authorities, particularly Tory-controlled local authorities—might feel a greater urgency to get rid of houses which we consider unfit for habitation. Unless the Under-Secretary will state that he is ready to accept the Amendment, we shall have no alternative but to take it to a division.
§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan
I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said in her reference to houses outside urban areas as well as those in them. She rightly referred to houses in the Highlands and Islands which still not only have no hot water supply, but have no communal piped cold water supply.
I think that this Amendment is right. As my hon. Friend said, we should set our sights higher. It seems that the lower the standards that are set, the more likely are they to be completely ignored. The wrong type of local authority is only too glad to escape obligations which are not clearly defined and which it is not strictly enough obliged to apply. The Minister as well as the local authority has a duty. He has a duty to see that the statutory obligations of local authorities are carried out by those local authorities. Where they are not carried out, he cannot escape condemnation for the local authority's failure. He has a financial respon- 510 Sibility and also a general statutory responsibility.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has direct responsibility for many hundreds of houses on Department of Agriculture estates in the Highlands and Islands many of which are still with no sort of water supply—let alone a hot water supply, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) referred to as an absolute minimum necessity. The Minister has been shirking his duty and continues to do so in not making the necessary money for communal water supplies available, without which local authorities cannot satisfy the demands of the Acts which are already in being, apart from what we ask in these Amendments, and provide piped water supplies to individual tenants of rural houses.
The Under-Secretary asked that the Government should not be pressed to give any more detail in defining what local authorities have to have regard to in considering the possibility of having to condemn a house or impose a closing order. With what is already in the Bill we have enough to condemn certain local authorities, and hundreds—indeed thousands—of houses on their failure to satisfy the requirements about adequacy and accessibility of water supply, plus adequacy and accessibility of sanitary and other conveniences. A closing order could almost certainly now be put on thousands of houses in the rural areas of Scotland. The Minister must know that that is true.
That is largely because many local authorities have not carried out their existing duties and statutory obligations to provide a water supply, and Governments have not tried very hard to see that those local authorities do carry out their obligations. For example, the Minister has been writing to local authorities in Inverness-shire. Those authorities wanted, however belatedly, to get on with their plans for water supplies, which were almost ready; but, because in July last they were not ready in detail—the detail which the Under-Secretary so much abhors in these Amendments—they were told by the Secretary of State that their schemes would come under the latest economy axe. The result is that in respect of the southern area of South Uist, which 511 is so popular an island for rocket ranges and defence installations of all kinds, the county council has been told that because it had not the last dot and stroke written into its schemes, those water schemes would be put off indefinitely.
One result is that a group of county council houses, in order to satisfy the law, have to be tacked on to an already inadequate school water supply. The school water supply is itself so inadequate that there was a panic some time ago over an outbreak of polio. Some people thought that indirectly, if not directly, the outbreak was due to the poor and inadequate water supply of the school. Yet this water supply has to be tacked on to a new group of houses. It is absolutely unpardonable. For any local authority to get into that situation is to condemn itself out of hand for its failure and delays.
The Minister has an obligation to see that local authorities carry out statutory obligations in regard to water supply. The Labour Government after the war insisted that in every new house in the crofting areas provision must be made at the time of building for a bathroom, a kitchen, a kitchen sink and plumbing throughout the house and for waste disposal, so that, immediately a water supply was available the water could be laid on. All the things which are demanded in these Amendments ought, then, to be provided, not only in the City of Glasgow, but also in outlying rural parts of the country. That was all provided for specifically in the first rural Housing Act brought in by the Labour Government after the war.
I do not see what the Minister is so frightened about. The Under-Secretary poured cold water on hot water. All he achieved was to raise a little steam, but it was not enough to take him very far in the right direction. I do not see how any hon. Member can conscientiously say that while he at home enjoys hot baths and a water supply he is prepared to condemn other people to remain in houses which do not have the simple ordinary amenities of civilised living in 1962. I do not think any hon. Member opposite is below the poverty level. How, then, they can decently 512 defend the situation as it is now beats me. Of all the impertinence and hypocrisy to say that other less fortunate people should be without water supplies, and that hundreds of housewives in the Islands and Highlands and elsewhere in rural areas should have to go often for a mile—that is no exaggeration—carrying buckets of water in order that they might wash. This is not a fantasy or the history of past centuries, but is true now. In many places, the situation is exactly as it was 2,000 years ago, with people still grubbing in holes in the ground to get water for washing and cooking and drinking.
The more we fail strictly to apply the Acts, the more will recalcitrant local authorities show their unconcern for the plight in which many people still live, the plight of thousands of people in the Highlands and Islands. The Minister has his Ml responsibility for that. He and the Secretary of State have done more in the last few years to prevent even slow local authorities getting on with the supply of water than have any Ministers before them. From 1945 onwards there was more progress with provision of water supplies in rural areas than ever before; but that has all been slowed down and now people in some areas are looking to 1970 or 1972 before they will be able to have the simple benison of cold water. The Secretary of State ought not to look so pleased about that; he ought to be ashamed of it.
§ Mr. Hendry
I say at once that I am absolutely in sympathy with the Amendment—I think I speak for every horn. Member on this side of the Committee—but I think that the Amendment would add nothing to the Bill and that the proposal is to a large extent impracticable. I think it tragic that in this twentieth century there should be any house which has not a separate hot water supply. I think it lamentable that there should be any house without a bath, and absolutely deplorable that there should be any house without a separate water closet.
The Amendment refers to a separate water closet for every house. I would go further. If we were being ideal, I would say a separate water closet in every house, but these are ideals. They are things we should all like to see, yet what we have to deal with is not the ideal, but the very practical situation 513 in Scotland at present. These are the things we should like. Certainly if there is a house or building, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) said, which has one water closet for fifteen tenants that certainly comes within the definition of paragraph (g) of the subsection,adequacy and accessibility of water supply.That house ought to be condemned out of hand.
§ Mr. Woodburn
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) is a man of legal experience. The Clause says that the local authority, shall have regard to these items. If there is any item not mentioned there, is not the local authority entitled to say that Parliament has asked it not to pay special regard to such items? Therefore, any item not in the category is not within the category to which the local authority shall pay regard. If the Amendment is rejected is it not possible for someone in a local authority to argue that Parliament has said that the local authority shall not have regard to the things which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends?
§ Mr. Hendry
The right hon. Gentleman has underlined from the other point of view what his hon. and right hon. Friends have said during these discussions—that certain people do not trust local authorities. He does not trust them.
§ Mr. Hendry
We are considering a practical question—whether a house is suitable for human habitation. It is deplorable if any house has not these amenities. But all hon. Members admit that there are many thousands of houses without them which are in other respects good houses. The Committee should encourage the Government of the day, irrespective of party, to take steps to bring that situation to an end by providing these amenities where the houses are otherwise good. In other parts of the Bill that is precisely what is done—by making it easier for people to take advantage of improvement grants and of other provisions.
I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of the definition in Clause 10 whereby a house is defined as 514any residential accommodation provided for occupation by not more than two persons and equipped with cooking facilities for the exclusive use of those persons, notwithstanding that it is not equipped with facilities of other kinds for such exclusive use.That provides for houses for old people, where it is not considered necessary that they should have an exclusive bathroom provided that a communial bathroom and other communal facilities are available in the building.
§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Member is an ex-town clerk. Having heard him give that definition and realising the type of advice which he might give to a local authority, I think that it becomes increasingly obvious that these provisions ought to be included in the Bill.
§ Mr. Hendry
I should not have given way had I not expected a more sensible intervention, as is customary, from the hon. Member.
We are trying to produce a practical code for the guidance of local authorities, but hon. Members opposite are tying local authorities down to provisions which are in no way practicable. I hope that on reconsideration they will withdraw the Amendment and leave the Clause as it stands. Personally, I am sorry that the Clause had been introduced, because Section 184 of the 1950 Act gives local authorities a very good standard of comparison—a comparison with the type of house which they are approving at present. Every hon. Member will agree that it would be intolerable if any house being built today lacked these amenities. But the Government have decided to give further guidance to local authorities by laying down these carefully-worded standards.
It seems to me that the Amendment adds nothing to what is in the Clause and that the Clause gives a good code for circumstances varying from the Gorbals in Glasgow to the Western Isles and the part of the country which I represent. The Amendment is ill-thought-out. Hon. Members opposite should take it back and think about it again. I am certain that if they did so they would be able on another occasion to produce an Amendment of a much more satisfactory kind This Amendment should be withdrawn.
§ Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)
I do not want to keep the Committee long but I felt that the kind of speech 515 made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) ought to be answered. In his Dr. Jekyll form we heard his idealism and the sort of thing which we ought to have in houses, such as an inside toilet in every house. But the hon. Member then went on in his other guise of Dr. Hyde to tell us that this was not practicable. That is the nub of the argument. We are seeking to provide a goad not only on local authorities but also on the Scottish Office. If there is any subject on which the Government ought to be prodded it is that of Scottish housing. If we pass legislation which irritates them and forces them to grant a bigger housing programme for local authorities, all the better for the people of Scotland.
It is wrong that in 1962 we should be unwilling to write into legislation an exact provision of this nature. The Under-Secretary of State's suggestion that these amenities are details would be laughable if it were not so tragic. That he should consider the provision of an inside toilet and a piped water supply as details in the code of living is a sad state of affairs.
§ Mr. Galbraith
The hon. Member misunderstands me. I said that these words were spelling out what paragraph (g) means. When we talk about theadequacy and accessibility of water supply",that is general, and it is unnecessary also to say that there should be an internal water supply.
§ Dr. Mabon
All hon. Members have had the experience of people coming to them and raising matters which they subsequently take up with the sanitary inspector who, even though he has as much sympathy as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West and feels that a house should be condemned, is always able to fall back on the law and to say, "By law I am not required to condemn it". There are all sorts of practical reasons advanced. Normally the local authority cannot provide a new house or is in great difficulty in rehousing people. Or he may say, "I have been given a quota of houses which I may condemn and I cannot exceed it". He is able to take refuge in laws which are ill-defined like this and which enable him to say, "This good family must remain in this inadequate house".
516 This is the point which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West must face. If he wants legislation which a local authority, either through negligence or because it does not want to spend the money, can use as an excuse for not providing further housing for Scotland, he should leave the Clause ill-defined. But if he accepts the need of the people of Scotland and wishes to meet it, he should accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Galbraith
We are perhaps generating a little unnecessary heat on the Amendment. I understand exactly the feelings of hon. Members opposite; they feel so strongly that an internal water supply, a bath and a private w.c. are essential for living a decent life today that they wish these items to be specifically mentioned in the Bill. I agree with them absolutely about the need for these items—and I want to make that clear, because it seemed that there was a danger that the Conservative Party might be branded as a party which did not think that these things were necessary.
§ Mr. Galbraith
It is not true. If the point in moving the Amendment is to make that charge, then it is a purely political Amendment. I understood that hon. Members opposite were concerned about the condition of houses. But it now seems that they are more concerned with trying to put before the country a false image of the Conservative Party. I agree with them absolutely about the need for these items which are specified in the Amendment, but I do not see why they should be mentioned more specifically than, for example, details about the amount of light or air or the state of repair. After all, consideration of the adequacy—
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Miss Herbison
On a point of order. Sir Robert do you realise that we are working under the Guillotine? Is it right to have needless repetition? The Under-Secretary is making the same speech.
§ Mr. Galbraith
I am sorry if I am offending the hon. Lady. I did not want to rise at the beginning, but she forced 517 me to my feet at the beginning. I therefore think that it is only right that I should reply to this. I am not making the same speech. Hon. Members opposite may think that I am making the same speech, but I am not. Considerations of the adequacy and accessibility of water supply must include the questions whether the supply is indoors and separate and whether such a supply could reasonably be provided.
§ Mr. Galbraith
The hon. Member says that he has heard all this, but it obviously has not sunk in. That is why I am saying it again. Hon. Members opposite are always saying that the Government do not trust the local authorities. Here it seems to me that it is they who are not trusting the local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) rather let the cat out of the bag when he referred to what he called the wrong sort of local authorities.
§ Mr. Galbraith
That implies that the Opposition do not trust the local authorities. All through the Bill they have been criticising the Government for what they call not trusting the local authorities. I maintain that the local authorities do not need to have everything spelt out for them. They know very well when the state of repair is bad. They know when the lighting is not sufficient. Equally well, they know when the water supply is adequate. Adequate means whether it is inside or whether it is not.
I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I emphasise that this is not because I do not value internal plumbing most highly. I value it as highly as hon. Members opposite value it, perhaps even more highly. I value internal plumbing as highly as I value a good state of repair. I cannot accept the Amendment simply because it is unnecessary to specify these matters in detail, and I prefer, and the Government prefer, unlike the Opposition, to trust the local authorities to do the job within the general guidance contained in the Clause.
§ Mr. Woodburn
I do not want to take up any time, but I must point out that the Under-Secretary has not treated this 518 matter seriously. It has been suggested that there are two alternatives—either to have a general description covering anything like the existing standard of local authority housing, or to specify the things to which local authorities must have regard. The Government have stated a a number of matters to which local authorities must pay regard, but local authorities are entitled to think that matters which are not specified need not be taken into consideration. The Under-Secretary, by refusing to accept the Amendment, is lending not only his own authority but also the authority of Parliament to the view that local authorities are not bound to pay attention to matters which are not stated in the Clause.
§ Mr. Brewis
What is important in this matter is to get the amenities into these houses and install sanitary fittings. [Interruption.] We did just that in the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1949, which dealt with the standard grant.
§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
On a point of order. We are under the Guillotine and my colleagues are doing their utmost to get through the Bill. Are we to be all the time held up by hon. Members opposite rising and trying to spin out time?
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have already said that that is not a point of order. If an hon. Member on either side rises to speak and remains in order, he is entitled to speak and no point of order arises.
§ Miss Herbison
Sir Robert, may I put this point to you and ask for your advice? Is it possible for me to move the Closure on this Amendment? I ask for advice.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Lady can move the Closure. That is not to say that it will be accepted.
§ Mr. Brewis
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) should be a little more patient. It is important to get the amenities into houses and not condemn houses just because they have not got them.
§ Mr. Brewis
Then what would happen to the inhabitants? My area has a very great problem indeed. In many cases there is not a water supply, so not much can be done. If a house is in good structural order and not liable to be condemned under paragraphs (a) to (k), I cannot see that we are doing a service by condemning it if it has not got a bath, if a bath cannot be installed because there is no water supply. In my area one could condemn a great number of houses. The agricultural cottages would come under two of these paragraphs. I cannot see that the Amendment would take the matter very much further.
§ Mr. J. Robertson
To listen to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) one would think that the provisions in the Clause would cover all
§ circumstances, but what are the facts. In Paisley—I am now reading from the last survey in Paisley—there are 8,514 tenement houses. Over 7,000 share external w.c.s. There are 8,319 houses with no baths. There are 5,000 houses with no hot water. Three thousand houses have gas heaters. Three thousand have no sculleries. Eight thousand, five hundred have no larders. I could go on. These houses would be condemned under almost every paragraph in the Clause, but they are not being condemned. They are considered to be fit for habitation.
§ Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 172.523
|Division No. 148.]||AYES||[6.37 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Curran, Charles||Hobson, Sir John|
|Aitken, W. T.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Holland, Philip|
|Allason, James||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hollingworth, John|
|Arbuthnot, John||Deedes, W. F.||Hopkins, Alan|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||de Ferranti, Basil||Hornby, R. P.|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.|
|Balniel, Lord||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)|
|Barber, Anthony||Doughty, Charles||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John|
|Barlow, Sir John||Drayson, G. B.||Hughes-Young, Michael|
|Barter, John||du Cann, Edward||Hurd, Sir Anthony|
|Batsford, Brian||Duncan, Sir James||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Bell, Ronald||Eden, John||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||James, David|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Jennings, J. C.|
|Biffen, John||Emery, Peter||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Errington, Sir Eric||Kerby, Capt. Henry|
|Bishop, F. P.||Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Finlay, Graeme||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Bossom, Clive||Fisher, Nigel||Kimball, Marcus|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Box, Donald||Foster, John||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Leavey, J. A.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Freeth, Denzil||Leburn, Gilmour|
|Brewis, John||Gammans, Lady||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Lindsay, Sir Martin|
|Brooman-White, R.||Clover, Sir Douglas||Linstead, Sir Hugh|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||Litchfield, Capt. John|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Goodhart, Philip||Longbottom, Charles|
|Bryan, Paul||Goodhew, Victor||Longden, Gilbert|
|Bullard, Denys||Gower, Raymond||Loveys, Walter H.|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Green, Alan||McLaren, Martin|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Gresham Cooke, R.||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||McLean, Neil (Inverness)|
|Chataway, Christopher||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||McMaster, Stanley R.|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Hastings, Stephen||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Collard, Richard||Hay, John||Maddan, Martin|
|Cooke, Robert||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Maginnis, John E.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Maitland, Sir John|
|Corfield, F. V.||Hendry, Forbes||Marshall, Douglas|
|Costain, A. P.||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.|
|Mills, Stratton||Renton, David||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Miscampbell, N.||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas||Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Ridsdale, Julian||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Morrison, John||Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Nabarro, Gerald||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Turner, Colin|
|Neave, Airey||Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Russell, Ronald||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Scott-Hopkins, James||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Orr-Ewing, C. Ian||Seymour, Leslie||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Osborn, John (Hallam)||Shaw, M.||Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)|
|Page, Graham (Crosby)||Shepherd, William||Walder, David|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)||Wall, Patrick|
|Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Smithers, Peter||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Peel, John||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Percival, Ian||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Whitelaw, William|
|Peyton, John||Speir, Rupert||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Pott, Percivall||Stanley, Hon. Richard||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch||Stodart, J. A.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Profumo, Rt. Hon. John||Studholme, Sir Henry||Wise, A. R.|
|Pym, Francis||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Quennell, Miss J. M.||Talbot, John E.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Ramsden, James||Tapsell, Peter||Woollam, John|
|Rawlinson, Peter||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Teeling, Sir William|
|Rees, Hugh||Temple, John M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Mr. Noble and Mr. Frank Pearson|
|Abse, Leo||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Padley, W. E.|
|Albu, Austen||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Paget, R. T.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Hannan, William||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Harper, Joseph||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Awbery, Stan||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Parker, John|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Hayman, F. H.||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Beaney, Alan||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Peart, Frederick|
|Benson, Sir George||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Pentland, Norman|
|Blackburn, F.||Holman, Percy||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Blyton, William||Holt, Arthur||Prentice, R. E.|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)||Houghton, Douglas||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Boyden, James||Hoy, James H.||Probert, Arthur|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hunter, A. E.||Randall, Harry|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Rankin, John|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Callaghan, James||Janner, Sir Barnett||Reid, William|
|Chapman, Donald||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Cliffe, Michael||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Rhodes, H.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Cronin, John||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||King, Dr. Horace||Ross, William|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Short, Edward|
|Deer, George||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Dempsey, James||Lubbock, Eric||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Diamond, John||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Dodds, Norman||McInnes, James||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Driberg, Tom||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Small, William|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||McLeavy, Frank||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Edelman, Maurice||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Steele, Thomas|
|Evans, Albert||Manuel, Archie||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mapp, Charles||Stones, William|
|Finch, Harold||Mason, Roy||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Fletcher, Eric||Mayhew, Christopher||Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Mendelson, J, J.||Swain, Thomas|
|Forman, J. C.||Millan, Bruce||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Milne, Edward||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Mitchison, G. R.||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Monslow, Walter||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Ginsburg, David||Moyle, Arthur||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Neal, Harold||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Timmons, John|
|Gourlay, Harry||Oliver, G. H.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Oram, A. E.||Warbey, William|
|Grey, Charles||Oswald, Thomas||Weitzman, David|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Owen, Will||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Whitlock, William||Williams, LI. (Abertillery)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Wilkins, W. A.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Willey, Frederick||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Williams, D. J. (Neath)||Winterbottom, R. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Lawson and Mr. Irving.|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.