Amendments made: In page 27, line 20, after "years", insert:
(or such other period as may be deseribed)".
§ In line 22, after "period", insert "from".—[Sir K. Joseph.]1362
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 97.1361
|Division No. 68.]||AYES||[10.58 p.m.|
|Blackburn, F.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Bowies, Frank||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Morris, Charles (Openshaw)|
|Boyden, James||Howie, W.||Peart, Frederick|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Ross, William|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Janner, Sir Barnett||Small, William|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Dempsey, James||Kenyon, Clifford||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Diamond, John||Lawson, George||Thornton, Ernest|
|Evans, Albert||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Fletcher, Eric||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Loughlin, Charles||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||MacColl, James|
|Hannan, William||Manuel, Archie||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hayman, F. H.||Millan, Bruce||Mr. McCann and Mr. Whitlock.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Allason, James||Harris, Reader (Heston)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Batsford, Brian||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Biffen, John||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Pitt, Dame Edith|
|Bishop, Sir Patrick||Hirst, Geoffrey||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Pym, Francis|
|Box, Donald||Hocking, Philip N.||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Braine, Bernard||Holland, Philip||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Campbell, Gordon||Hornby, R. P.||Renton, Rt. Hon. David|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Hughes-Young, Michael||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Cole, Norman||Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Corfield F. V.||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Sharples, Richard|
|Critchiey, Jullan||Kirk, Peter||Shaw, M.|
|Dance, James||Litchfield, Capt. John||Stainton, Keith|
|Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Drayson, G. B.||Longbottom, Charles||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|du Cann, Edward||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||MacArthur, Ian||Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||McLaren, Martin||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Farr, John||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Finlay, Graeme||Madden, Martin||Walker, Peter|
|Fisher, Nigel||Maltland, Sir John||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Marten, Neil||Whitelaw, William|
|Freeth, Denzil||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Gammans, Lady||Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)||Mawby, Ray||Worsley, Marcus|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.|
|Goodhew, Victor||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Green, Alan||Mills, Stratton||Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.|
|Grosvenor, Lord Robert|
§ Mr. G. Campbell
I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 28, line 4, at the end to insert:being a dwelling in respect of which an immediate improvement notice has been served under section 22 of this Act.As subsection (7) now stands, it excludes from the provisions of the Bill a dwelling comprised in a tenement in Scotland. This would mean that a local authority could not accept an undertaking in respect of a Scottish tenement dwelling before service of the improvement notice under any circumstances. It 1363 would prevent a local authority from accepting the undertaking in respect of a dwelling in a Scottish tenement where action had been initiated by a tenant under Clause 19, or after the area had been declared an improvement area but before the improvement notice had been served.
§ Mr. Millan
On a point of order. The Under-Secretary is reading his brief so rapidly that it is completely impossible to follow what he says. He did the same thing on the last Amendment. Is there some rule of order in respect of this?
I am bound to say that I was hearing what the hon. Gentleman was saying very well.
§ Mr. Campbell
I am very sorry. I did not realise that I was going so fast as that. It was because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that this is a fairly straightforward Amendment, although it does deserve an explanation. I shall speak at a slower pace if that will be helpful.
In the circumstances I have described, it should be possible for a local authority to accept an undertaking under Clause 24 without having to serve an improvement notice, and this is achieved by the Amendment.
§ Mr. Willis
I am sorry to have to ask the hon. Gentleman what he said. I certainly heard what he said, but he said it so quickly that I did not follow it.
§ Mr. Campbell
I think I can sum it up for the hon. Member. As the Clause was drafted, it would mean that a local authority could not accept an undertaking in respect of a Scottish tenement dwelling before the service of an improvement notice under any circumstances. Now we are making a change so that an undertaking can be given under Clause 24 in the circumstances of the two examples I gave.
§ Mr. Willis
It is more clear than it was, and I certainly begin to have a glimmer of what the Amendment means. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that although it is ten past 11 it must not be understood that we are not anxious to follow what the Government are trying to do. I point out to the Under-Secretary and to the Minister in 1364 charge of the Bill that we have not delayed the passage of the Bill. A large part of the discussion has been by hon. Members opposite. On that I have no complaint to make, because they have raised points of substance, but because this takes a long time and the Government have not allowed sufficient time wt should not be brushed aside and not allowed to understand what we are doing.
I understand the Amendment to mean that an undertaking can be given by a person in respect of a dwelling prior to an improvement notice being served in respect of a tenement. This seems desirable, although I find it difficult to discover how it will work. If a local authority passes a resolution declaring a certain area an improvement area, obviously the work covers all the houses in the area. From my experience of tenements in Edinburgh, I think it would be difficult to carry out improvement schemes in many areas without undertaking all the work at once. The block has to be treated as a whole. To talk about carrying out improvements separately, even to a reduced standard in some huge blocks of tenements, seems to interfere with the principle we are trying to follow to make these houses contain all modern amenities. If that principle is breached to a considerable extent we shall not do what we desire.
I understand that the local authority is the authority responsible for accepting this proposal. It is able to make its own judgment as to the wisdom of permitting various people to carry out work when other work is being done at the same time. I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.