HC Deb 15 May 1962 vol 659 cc1152-5

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards (Bilston)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect private house owners from the consequences of sub-standard building; to make compulsory the registration of all building firms; and to provide that such firms shall take out insurance policies to compensate private house owners for work not completed owing to bankruptcy. I hope that the House will be generous and allow me to introduce this Bill, which deals with a very urgent problem affecting many thousands of young house buyers. I am sure that the nature of this problem is well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, to my knowledge two Members have been the victims of sub-standard jerry-building.

A right hon. Gentleman, a Minister, was involved in extra cost of many thousands of pounds because of substandard building in his own residence. An hon. Member on this side of the House, who was elected at the last election and decided to take up residence in his constituency, purchased a piece of land and engaged a reputable architect and surveyor, who recommended a local builder.

This hon. Member was involved in over £1,000 of costs which cannot be recovered because the builder built the house of poor material and it has had to be pulled down. The builder went bankrupt, and the house, which should have cost £3,900, involved the hon. Member, who gave me permission to give these details, in the sum of £5,000.

If hon. Members are the victims of this rising tide of speculative jerry building, it is clear that many thousands of less knowledgeable people are also victims. I have in my hand heartbreaking letters and petitions from people in different parts of the country who are burdened with mortgages for houses built for them which are uninhabitable. They have no houses in which to live, but they are burdened with this very heavy debt. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has handed me today a petition from many of his constituents concerning an estate at Lepton, and I have the details of 13 sub-standard uncompleted jobs covering many houses on this one estate.

I have a petition from some good people in an estate outside Liverpool, in which they detail 16 different jobs in their houses which are sub-standard and incomplete. Some of these refer to dampness coming through the floor and all the walls, woodwork with dry rot in it and roofs leaking, doors which will not open, garages which cannot be used, and electrical equipment which is such that the local electricity authority will refuse to accept it.

One young couple on this estate had a house completed in 1958, but they cannot live in it. They are faced with a twenty years' mortgage. The couple are living 130 miles apart. They have been involved in litigation costing them up to now £900. All their savings have disappeared and they have no house in which to live. In my own constituency I have inspected an estate on which I was able to pull a brick out of the wall of a completed house, where front doors will not close and others will not open, where one tenant has redecorated his house five times over in six months because of a leaking roof.

It is true that I am dealing with an unscrupulous minority in the building industry, an unscrupulous minority of jerry-builders who are bringing the whole of the building industry into disrepute. The dwelling place of a family is just as important as the food they buy and the clothing they wear. They have protection against bad and dangerous food, but they have no protection from the jerry-builders who are "moving in" today as they did between the wars.

The average home purchaser believes that he is protected by the local council, by the building societies, by the insurance company, or by the bank from which he borrows the money. He believes that he is protected by decent standards in the building industry itself. This is not true. These protections are very limited indeed. Local authorities are permitted to inspect houses only in relation to the hazards to health. They are allowed to inspect drains. All they are concerned about, according to law, is whether the house is damp-proof and wind-proof and whether it will stand up and not fall down on the tenant.

They have no other right in respect of had material or unseasoned timber. They have no authority to inspect a house in stages of its building.

The building trade itself has the National House-Builders Registration Council, a very fine body indeed, and I advise all home buyers only to purchase houses which carry the registration of that council, because here they have real protection. But this is a voluntary body and it has only 1,200 members out of 10,000 builders. It inspected 33,000 houses last year out of 168,000 houses built for private purchase. It condemned 500 of the houses which it inspected, but those 500 which it condemned and refused to register were nevertheless sold to young people who invested all their money in sub-standard houses. The council with draw registration from 60 of its own members.

This gives the House some idea of the nature of the problem with which this modest Bill is calculated to deal. The Bill suggests that there should be compulsory registration of all house-building firms; either they must join and accept the standards of their own building trade or, if they are not prepared so to do, they must be compulsorily registered through and by the local authority which will have more power to inspect materials and to inspect the building of the house at every stage.

It is not true that house purchasers are protected by the building societies, the banks or the insurance companies. All that the building societies, the banks and the insurance companies are concerned about is whether the value of the house, when sold, can bring back about 80 per cent. of the purchase value. They are not concerned about the design, or the materials that go into the house, and the house purchaser has no real protection.

In my constituency there is a house that has broken in half because it was built over a disused mine. There is no complaint against the local surveyor, who did all that he could to see that the house was built on a properly constructed raft, but, nevertheless, the house has split in half. It is uninhabitable and the tenant is burdened with the mortgage taken on the house for twenty years. He has no house at all. The builder has gone bankrupt. This is the nature of the problem which affects thousands of young people who have sunk all their savings into their homes.

The House, I think, has always been generous when considering Measures of this nature to protect people against injustice. It has always been generous to legislate where there is a distinct need to protect the people. I therefore hope that the House will allow this modest Measure to go forward for its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, Mr. George Darling, Mr. Charles Loughlin, Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Walter Monslow, Mr. Will Owen, Mr. Edward Milne, and Mr. John Rankin.