DEFINITION OF HOUSE MEETING TOLERABLE STANDARD (Hansard, 30 June 1969)

§ Mr. Hannan
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 41, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this Amendment we can take also Amendment No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines I to 3 and insert: (3) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

§ Mr. Hannan
The point which is embodied in these two Amendments was referred to in Committee. The House will recall that when we discussed in Committee Clause 2(2), I moved an Amendment to insert the word "improve" which would have the effect of increasing the degree of tolerableness of all the items listed in paragraphs (a) to (i) of subsection (1). When an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that he would accept the spirit of the Amendment, although not its terminology, it seemed good enough assurance and guarantee to ask the Minister to look then at the further provisions in respect of Orders. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled an Amendment to make clear beyond all doubt that it would be possible only for an Order under subsection (2) to raise those standards.
I pay a tribute to the Minister of State, who consistently throughout the Bill has said that the provision is not to be considered as an alternative to the provision of more and newer houses, but is to be regarded as an alternative to the system that is being used at present to try to lay down tolerable standards and to accept the principle of increasing their effectiveness.
By adopting the negative Resolution procedure, it will still be open to any hon. Member to pray against an Order about which he may have reservations. These Amendments would have the effect of substituting the negative for the affirmative Resolution procedure. We should not like to see a situation in which either Government or local authorities, because of procedural difficulties of this kind, were held back from taking speedy 151 action which would have the effect of raising the standards.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) for his generous tribute and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) for his support in both Amendments.
This matter was discussed in Committee, when I suggested that I should like to look at the point. I have since discussed with my hon. Friends their Amendments, which in draft form are quite acceptable and acceptable in principle. I am sure that the Opposition will accept that since we are agreed in principle on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which are virtually the same, Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 should be incorporated in the Bill. A different situation would arise if I were not to move Amendment No. 3, but since I shall be doing so, and since I hope to have Opposition support on that, it is logical that we should accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 5.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I wish briefly to respond to the invitation from the Minister. In the light of Amendment No. 3, I accept the spirit of the discussion on Amendments Nos. 2 and 5, and I support what the Minister said.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in line 43, after 'subsection', insert: 'in such a way as to raise the tolerable standard'. I promised in Committee to make an Amendment of this kind. I am glad that the Opposition have put down their Amendment on this point, which is exactly the same as mine. In order to show my natural generosity, I looked to see whether or not it would be better in draft form to accept No. 4 rather than No. 3, but I am told by the draftsman that Amendment No. 3 is a little neater. Therefore, I would ask the Opposition in their turn to be generous.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for the Amendment and his acceptance of the principle which we discussed in Committee. The concern 152 about the point was expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), and we supported him. We are glad that where standards are to be varied, they should be varied upwards. We all hope that eventually the tolerable standard will be converted into the Cullingworth satisfactory standard. Meantime, we appreciate the problem of local authorities which have many houses needing to be improved. Obviously, to set too high a standard at an early stage would present great difficulty.
As for the choice between our Amendment and the Government's the Minister has tried to be generous. I am sure that he has considered our Amendment. However, we do not hold strongly to one or the other, and in this case we return the generosity by not pursuing our Amendment and by supporting the Minister's.