POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE REPAIR OF HOUSES (Hansard, 19 May 1980)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new clause is basically to restore the position of local authorities to what they thought it was prior to the case of the National Coal Board versus Thorne in 1976. A 1942 High Court decision enabled local authorities to use statutory nuisance provisions in the Public Health Acts to secure the remedying of defects, which might not be substantial in themselves but which interfered with the personal comfort of occupiers. Examples such as leaking roofs and defective gutters spring to mind as typical of what was intended.
6.15 pm
Local authorities, as those of us who have served on them know, made substantial and effective use of those powers. In 1976, the Divisional Court ruled against the 1942 court decision, in effect, and said that conditions which affected only the occupiers could not be dealt with unless they were prejudicial to health. This caused well justified concern, and 92 we decided to legislate. It is fair to say that whilst this provision was not in Labour's Bill, the Labour Government's consultation paper said that they would look into this matter to see what the extent of the problem was. We have had the benefit of being able to do that, and we decided that it would be right to legislate.
Local authorities have existing powers to deal with substandard houses. They can require an unfit house to be made fit where this can be done at reasonable cost. They can require works of repair to a house which is not unfit but in a state of substantial disrepair. But I think that the House would agree that these are major powers of a somewhat sledgehammer nature.
In the circumstances of a particular case, a local authority might well not be able nor wish to require very extensive and expensive repairs to an old house. It might not be economic. This new clause gives local authorities power to deal with a defect which, whilst it may not be substantial in itself, may be causing distress or problems to the tenant. It differs in two ways from what was believed to be the position prior to the 1976 court decision. First, it can be used only when the local authority has received representations from the tenant. It cannot be used against owner-occupiers. Second, the appeal and enforcement provisions that will apply will be those common to those existing in Housing Acts. The right of appeal to courts against the notice will be there, but subject to this, if the notice is not complied with, the local authority can do work in default and recover its costs.
To make the situation crystal clear, I stress finally that the statutory nuisance provision will continue. If defects create conditions prejudicial to health, the local authority is perfectly able to continue to proceed under the Public Health Acts.

§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)
As the Minister said, if a house has a leaking roof, a statutory notice can be served on the landlord to repair it. However, one area in which there has been a lack of such provision is with defects in electrical wiring in a house. This matter has arisen on many occasions in the past. I have known of 93 houses in Southampton with defects in electrical wiring. As I understand it, the local authority has no power to compel the landlord to correct such defects. In a number of cases in my area, the electricity board has said that electrical wiring was dangerous, and the only thing that could be done was to turn off the supply of electricity. This has happened to a number of old people in the past. Their power supply has had to be cut off because of defects in wiring.
In cases where electrical wiring is ruled to be dangerous, will the new clause enable the serving of a notice on the landlord to make him carry out the necessary works? That is a simple question on an area in which, apparently, there has been a gap in legislation.

§ Mr. John Sever (Birmingham, Ladywood)
Will the Minister define the words the person having control of the house "? I assume that if a local authority served a notice it would be served on the owner, his appointed agent, or someone generally referred to as the landlord. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if someone wishes to draw the local authority's attention to a defect in his house, he will not have to wait for the local authority to track down an absentee landlord? In the past, that has often been a problem.

§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)
I seek some clarification from the Minister. Some of the worst landlords are local authorities. As chairman of a housing committee in Southampton, I sometimes find myself under pressure to deal with essential repairs. Tenants have become more selective in their requirements, particularly in respect of fencing and the provision of inside toilets. Will the Minister make some provision in the new clause for local authority tenants?

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) asked about electrical wiring. I am advised that that is an issue for the courts to decide. We believe that it will be covered by the new clause. Such faults could be described as a health risk because they might lead to a fire. The local authority might wish to proceed under existing public health legislation. It is a difficult issue. I have argued with 94 lawyers about it before. However, I am advised that the new clause covers that point. Ultimately it will be an issue-as so many provisions in the legislation are—for the courts to decide.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) raised the question of the way in which notice might be served. It will normally be served on the owner. However, it could be served on the person in receipt of rent. That might well be the agent, whose name must be written in the rent book. Normally, he would not be thousands of miles away.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) asked about local authority tenants. My experience of local authorities is that they usually adopt a constructive approach towards their properties. The minority of local authorities that neglect their tenants' welfare—for a variety of reasons—can be dealt with by an efficient local councillor or Member of Parliament. He may apply the right spur and remind the local authority that it collects rent from its tenants and has a duty towards them. However, the tenant has an ultimate sanction. He does not have to give his vote to a bad local authority.