HC Deb 15 November 1967 vol 754 cc594-602

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

I wish to bring to the attention of the House the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Brunton, of 1, Moss Street, Burnley.

Difficulty has arisen between my constituents and the Ministry because their house is wanted by the local authority, quite properly, for slum clearance under the Housing Act, 1957. The bone of contention is that their home has been described as "unfit for human habitation", a phrase which will recur because those words are the nub of the trouble.

The nub is that my constituents consider that this contention is mistaken, leading to, in their case, a very serious injustice. I agree with them. In setting out the case, I will present the evidence by a series of quotations. First will be a letter from my constituents to me dated 10th May, 1967. It says: Dear Mr. Jones. We have lived in this House since June 1932 and bought it as sitting tenants in February 1956, after consulting the Borough Surveyor, whom we thought would know of any changes due to take place in this area. On studying his coloured map, which he showed to us, he told us we were safe for 20 years. As rent-paying tenants, we spent quite a lot on the house, and after buying it we went ahead to make it comfortable for our retirement. I interrupt myself here to say that the sum that my constituents spent was nearly £300, and the proof of that lies with their solicitor. Continuing the letter, it says: Therefore, we were greatly shocked on being informed that the house was unfit for human habitation. We objected to the classification and attended a Public Inquiry at the Town Hall last July. At the Inquiry Mr. Gann, the deputy Town Clerk, told the Inspector that this was probably the best house in the whole area, and when later that day the Inspector came here he said he could see for himself what Mr. Gann meant. We heard through our solicitor recently that we had been offered £88 for the house, plus £12 site value, a sum which we consider ridiculous. In January, 1963 our rate was re-assessed, and increased, in spite of an appeal on the grounds of rapid deterioration of the surroundings. I was told by the Chairman, the late Alderman G. Hale, that the rate was based on the condition of the property, which was good. So, on the one hand, it is not fit for human habitation but at the same time merits an increase in the rates, surely one cancels out the other. As the Corporation wants the site we feel we have a moral right that being deprived of our home we should be properly compensated. As you will be well aware, it would be utterly impossible for us to buy a house of this standard for at least four times the amount offered to us. We would appreciate it if our case could be taken up by the Housing Minister. This I proceeded to do. I have a reply here, dated 25th May, 1967, from the Ministry of Housing. I do not propose to read it all, only paragraphs 2 and 3, which are the relevant ones. Paragraph 2 says: I can quite understand that your constituents feel aggrieved that their house should have been found to be unfit despite the condition in which they kept it. Perhaps it would help them to understand the position if I explained that in order to qualify as being fit for human habitation a house must measure up to the statutory definition of fitness contained in Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957. In this instance, the inspector confirmed the council's view that, in respect of freedom from damp, satisfactory sanitary conveniences and adequate facilities for the storing of food it did not. Let me make a brief comment upon those three alleged disqualifying features. First, dampness. I was in that house last Saturday, when in Burnley it was virtually throwing it down. It really was raining very hard. I can say with truth that the only damp in that house was a little patch near the front door, which opens on to the street. It is an old-fashioned house and, apart from that, the whole House was as dry as a cork. I can say with truth that if one measured that damp in terms of percentage it would be rather less than 1 per cent.

The second point concerned satisfactory sanitary conveniences. These people have lived in that property for well over 30 years and never have they in any way been assailed by the sanitary inspector for lack of sanitary facilities, nor have they complained. It is true that it is an old-fashioned sanitary arrangement, but some 4,000 to 5,000 of these still exist in Burnley. As for the storage of food, here again the only thing that can be said is that it is an old-fashioned pantry, but I am sure that for hygiene and cleanliness it is above the level demanded. I should certainly be prepared to eat a meal of food drawn from that place. There is a window which admits fresh air whenever that is required.

It is very important that we consult the Act on that basis. Here again, for the sake of brevity, I will quote only Part II, Section 4(1), which says, in clear terms: In determining for any of the purposes of this Act whether a house is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters, that is to say—

  1. (a) repair;
  2. (b) stability;
  3. (c) freedom from damp;
  4. (d) natural lighting;
  5. (e) ventilation;
  6. (f) water supply;
  7. (g) drainage and sanitary conveniences;
  8. (h) facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water;".
The important three lines in the Section, which in my mind are refreshingly clear, are the concluding three lines: and the house shall be deemed to be unfit for human habitation if and only if it is so far defective in one or more of the said matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition". I am certain that, dealing with the three points which I have made, the Act abundantly clears my constituents.

In setting out the case, I feel it right that I should quote a letter from the Town Clerk to me dated 9th March. I will read the one paragraph in which my case is powerfully supported, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will pay close attention to the detail. It reads: You will have noticed from Mrs. Brunton's letter (which I return herewith) that the Local Authority, whilst being of the opinion that the premises were unfit, did lean towards the objector. My Deputy, who represented the Council at the Inquiry, stated to the Ministry Inspector that the premises, Nod. 1 Moss Street were probably the best premises ever represented as being unfit. Mr. Gann made it quite clear to the Inspector that the Council would be very happy to leave the matter to the Inspector's judgment. There were, of course, other objectors on the same grounds, and in confirming the Order the Minister directed that two houses in precisely the same position as No. 1 Moss Street were not unfit for human habitation and should in fact be moved from the Clearance Area to the land outside the Clearance Area, to be acquired at market value. Unfortunately, in the case of 1 Moss Street the Inspector agreed with the Council's findings that the Premises were unfit, and compensation is therefore payable at site value only. In plain language, the only interpretation one can place on the Town Clerk's statement to me is that although the Brunton's home is officially described as the best house in the area, other houses in precisely the same position geographically but not in as good a condition were to attract market value compensation, while the Brunton's received only site value compensation. Can one wonder why it is that my constituents persist in saying that a serious mistake has been made? I am absolutely convinced that such is in fact the case.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say that this matter has been the subject of a public inquiry. I want to to say very definitely that if this public inquiry was for the purpose of establishing impartial justice, then it was as near to being a mockery as does not matter, and the reason why I say that is that the local authority and the Ministry were represented by professional people; Mrs. Brunton, an old-age pensioner, was on her own. I leave you to judge, Mr. Speaker, if that is what we call the dispensation of impartial justice. I have no doubt at all that Mrs. Brunton received sympathy, but I suggest to the House that sympathy is a very poor substitute for justice.

What has been the attitude of Mr. and Mrs. Brunton during the whole months that this case has been discussed? It is simply that we are seeking for a re-inspection, and that, I believe, is a perfectly reasonable and fair request to make. I realise we are not dealing with evil people doing evil things, but I am convinced that we are dealing with people who have made a mistake, and I would say that the continual refusal of the Ministry to re-inspect these premises really is not good enough because what it really amounts to, in my humble opinion, is, the rights of ordinary people and the rights of people's properly elected Member of Parliament must pay homage to the infallibility of bureaucracy, and that I refuse to do. There is nothing in the Act of 1957 which denies the Executive the right to re-inspect if they choose to do so. It may be said that there is nothing in the Act which requires them specifically to do so, but there is nothing which says they may not, and I would say the Executive should exert their proper authority in this respect.

I do not want to persist very much longer but I do want to bring to the attention of the House that here we are dealing with the human aspect of a problem. I was sitting with this old lady and her husband last Saturday, in their house, a perfectly good house, one of a standard above the normal. Mr. Brunton said to me, "You know, Mr. Jones, this is not only a question of money." I asked what else was worrying Mrs. Brunton. She replied, "Well, I will have to move to another part of Burnley"—and that, of course, is perfectly true; that is one house standing now where several months ago there were a hundred—"and when I move my new neighbours will say this is a lady who formerly lived in a home which was unfit for human habitation." Her distress was very real.

My mind cannot possibly escape the fact of these people, who have persisted so long in this house, the best in the neighbourhood, classified as the best by the local authority, having seen other houses classified as less good, and of their having to receive that market value plus a little site value. I am powerfully convinced an injustice has been dealt to them. I appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to use the powers in the Act and agree to a reinspection. This matter can then be dispensed with satisfactorily and on a basis of justice, and I do most sincerely appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to agree to this very reasonable course which my constituents advance and I support.

11.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

Before dealing with the facts of this case, I should dispose of one point which is implicit in what my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) has said. It is the strong feeling which both sides of the House have that the present arrangements for compensation in respect of owner-occupiers of unfit properties are not working in a very fair manner.

This is a matter which has been debated in the House. It is one for legislation, to which my right hon. Friend is giving a lot of time. However, that is not what is under discussion in this debate, although it is part of the background of my hon. Friend's views about this case.

My other general point relates to the standards of unfitness which have to be implied. To show that we have not treated this case in the sort of cavalier way that my hon. Friend suggested, we asked the Central Housing Advisory Committee to look into standards of unfitness, and a sub-committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Dennington made a careful and detailed review of the position and considered how best one could arrive at even standards of unfitness over the country, from local authority area to local authority area.

As a result of that sub-committee's report, which I am sure many hon. Members have read, my right hon. Friend sent out a circular in October of this year which dealt with the procedural matter of slum clearance and, in an appendix, gave an extract from the Dennington sub-committee's advice on the determination of fitness. That information and the advice of the Denning-ton sub-committee is not only known to all inspectors as part of their equipment when looking at these cases, but is also a public document which is available to local authorities and individuals.

Therefore, it is only right to say that our inspectors do not approach any case of potential unfitness in an amateurish way, giving each case only casual attention. They are experienced men who spend a great deal of their time looking at houses, and they pick up a very wide reserve of knowledge and wisdom about what makes a house unfit. They use that to get fair and uniform standards from house to house over the country.

They cover different areas, and do not remain in any one place. One of the important duties of my right hon. Friend in the discharge of his responsibilities under the Housing Act is to be certain that there is uniformity of standards. In the present case, the inspector looked at the house very carefully and formed an opinion based on his great experience and knowledge that it was a house which was unfit within the meaning of the Act. If one is to have uniform standards, one has to have a determination of that sort. It is very difficult for a Minister or anyone else in Whitehall to say that the judgment of an experienced man is wrong.

When my hon. Friend, in his charming and inimitable way, says, "I looked at the house and I thought it was fit", that is a very understandable view. I admire him for the vigour with which he wishes to look after the interests of his constituents, but we cannot conduct proceedings of this kind on the basis that a Member of Parliament takes a look at a constituent's house and says, "I do not think that is fit" or "I think that it is fit", as the case may be.

Mr. Dan Jones

I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary is addressing himself to the point. It is not my opinion that matters. I have already described the local authority's inspectorate as describing this house as the best house in the area. They, too, are professional people. My hon. Friend must tell the House whether he regards these inspectors as being infallible and beyond the powers of making mistakes, which is quite human. Would he answer that?

Mr. MacColl

None of us is infallible, not even my hon. Friend. We all make mistakes. But my hon. Friend must choose his words carefully when he attributes a view to the local authority which I do not think is the case. The Town Clerk in a letter may have said that he thought this was a property which was of a high standard within the standards of unfitness, and it is also common ground that it is very well maintained and qualifies for a well maintained payment. However, the fact remains that the local authority represented this house as unfit. The local authority started it, not my right hon. Friend. The local authority decided that it would make a clearance order and, therefore, it would represent the houses as being unfit. The local authority inspected them and it never withdrew that representation. The case was taken to the inquiry, it was reviewed at the inquiry, and the inspector confirmed the view of the local authority in carrying out its duties. Those are the facts of the situation.

It is also true that when my hon. Friend, with his characteristic vigour, raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Public Building and Works, when he was in our Ministry, and we had another careful examination. We looked at the inspector's notes. We asked the inspector to be quite certain that he had not made a mistake, that his decision was a conscious one and not something done as a routine, and we came to the conclusion that there was no ground at all for believing that a mistake had been made.

I do not want to slide off on a technical point, because this is a very real and human issue, but once a decision has been ken, as it had in this case, to confirm the order, my right hon. Friend has no more powers in the matter. He has no right of appeal against himself. He cannot say, "I will have another look at it and I will change my mind."

Mr. Dan Jones

On a point of order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that I am not reading the Act correctly? I can quote the Act, but the Parliamentary Secretary must know that there are no prescriptive rights on a reinspection.

Mr. Speaker

That is a useful intervention, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. MacColl

I was trying to explain the difference where, for example, there is a planning appeal where planning permission is refused and it is determined and then there is some doubt whether it is right or not. One can at least say to the applicant, "You can apply again" and, when the procedure is started again, it may be found that another decision is reached. In the case of a clearance order of this sort there is no possibility of doing that. My right hon. Friend has no more powers to intervene once he has confirmed the order asked for by the local authority. I am not seeking to defend my right hon. Friend on this matter on the basis of a technicality.

I want now to look at the merits of the case. There were 120 dwellings in the clearance area which were represented as being unfit. In only 4 cases was an objection made to the order. I mention this to show that this was not an area of good, high standard property, in which an irresponsible local authority had rushed in and made an order. It was accepted that this was an unfit area to the extent that, except in four cases, there was no objection to the orders.

Mr. Dan Jones

I think that my constituent has suffered as a result.

Mr. MacColl

I think that my hon. Friend wants to hear what I have to say. Knowing his fairness, I am sure that he wants to, and I am explaining the position. It may be argued from what I have said that the council had merely run down the road and the houses had not been carefully looked at. But that there were objections in respect of only four houses drew the inspector's attention to the fact that in these four cases the owners did not agree with the proposals. In one of these cases the finding of unfitness was confirmed. In another—and this is the case to which my hon. Friend has been referring—the house was found to be unfit, but it was also found to be well maintained, and a well-maintained payment was made. The remaining two houses were found to be fit, and this shows that my hon. Friend's suggestion that the inspector was slack or incompetent is not justified. It shows that he paid careful attention to each house.

My hon. Friend said that the two houses which were found to be fit and were taken out of the order were the same as the Brunton's house. My information is that they were different, in that structural works had been carried out to improve them, and therefore some of the defects which were inherent in the other houses were not to be found in these two.

Slum clearance work is very difficult. Some poignant cases come to light because people's property is being taken from them. It may be that there is a case, not for altering the test of unfitness—because the Dennington Sub-Committee looked at that very carefully and came to the conclusion that there was no case for altering the standard of unfitness—but for some alteration in the financial arrangements for compensation. There is every reason to believe that within those tests of unfitness the inspector, with his wide knowledge and technical experience of unfitness, which nobody else in the country—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.