HL Deb 26 March 1935 vol 96 cc345-60

LORD STRABOLGI rose to draw attention to the lax administration by certain local authorities of the present law with regard to the materials and methods used in the building of dwelling-houses and the need of a further extension and strengthening of the laws relating to house-building; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I have on the Paper does not raise any Party issue—at least I hope it does not—and it is in no way a reflection on the Government or on the Ministry of Health; but it does seek to draw attention to what I believe will be agreed by your Lordships to be a very considerable scandal. I refer to the numbers of houses in various parts of the country, and not only in the South of England but also up in the hardheaded North as well, built for the most part by unassisted private enterprise and which, in spite of Statutes and by-laws, are built of disgracefully shoddy materials, and in some cases begin to fall to pieces within a few months of completion and occupation. I have sent to Lord Gage, who speaks with such ability and charm for the Ministry of Health in this House, if I may say so, a whole sheaf of the worst cases, and also some remarkable articles in a newspaper of very wide circulation, John Bull, which give chapter and verse, without mentioning names, of these cases. Since those articles appeared that newspaper has been inundated with similar cases of a most scandalous nature.

What happens is this. A glowing advertisement appears in the newspapers offering beautiful houses, on easy terms of payment, in a desirable neighbourhood. This catches the eye of a young married couple, or a couple intending to be married. They are taken down in high-powered car by the house agent to see a house. The high pressure salesman takes them round a show house and then gets them to sign on the dotted line, agreeing to take over a. similar house on deferred terms of payment. Of course they ought to have an independent surveyor's or architect's opinion, but owing to their enthusiasm or inexperience they do not always think—and perhaps they do not know—of these things, and when they have paid their deposit, which probably they have taken time to save up, and have settled in the house, they find in a few months that the ceilings are cracking or the walls are crumbling or giving way, or the roofs leaking; and then they realise that they have put themselves into a trap. The original jerrybuilder who built the house is in many cases a man of straw, mere speculator, in some cases not a practical builder at all, who has had the house built by a sub-contractor. In many cases he has disappeared, or his limited liability company has been wound up.

Then they are expected to continue their payments to the building society, and the building society refuses any responsibility. The building society has surveyed the house, it is true, but apparently certain building societies—not all, of course—only take care that the people going into the house as prospective householders are financially sound, and not that the house is structurally sound. The young people soon find themselves with a heavy repair bill to meet, or else with a house that leaks or is insanitary or unhealthy. They cannot possibly pay for the necessary repairs; in many cases they are struggling young couples whose budget is very closely balanced, and they cannot possibly meet these heavy repair bills in addition to the weekly payments on the house. What happens? In many cases quite honest and respectable people are forced to do what is known, I believe, as a "moonlight flit"; that is, they move their goods and furniture in the middle of the night, and they go back to the slums from which they came. There are dozens and dozens of those cases up and down the country. People have simply been ruined because of the heavy cost of repairs on houses that have been inefficiently built of the worst and shoddiest and cheapest materials. We used to say in Yorkshire "clogs to clogs in three generations." Now it is a case of slums, into the new garden suburb, and back to the slums in about six years in some cases.

It may be asked: But what are the local authorities doing? That is why I put this Motion on the Paper. In many cases—not all by any means, but in a minority of cases—the local authorities neglect their duty. The local surveyor is either overworked or inefficient. In some cases, I am told, he is a friend of the jerrybuilder, and he does not do his duty. Plans are passed by the local authority which look very fine on paper, but when the plans are passed that is apparently the end of the activities of the local authority; because, although the plan looks all right, there is nothing in it to specify the materials used. I shall give some actual cases of the kind of inefficient materials used. Now there are local by-laws. The noble Viscount will correct me if I am inaccurate, but I believe I am right in saying there are something like 1,400 authorities up and down the country, and the by-laws differ in a great many districts; in some cases the by-laws are not really up to date and do not meet modern conditions.

I believe it is true that 90 per cent. of the country is now under various Town Planning Acts, but those Acts have not really come into force yet, and the local authorities have not been alive to what has been going on, with this tremendous boom in building in certain parts of the country. The Public Health Acts date from 1875, and there are a number of them, but I suggest that they really need bringing up to date to meet this particular case. Where you have the local authorities themselves building houses there is a different story. They have a clerk of the works, and if there is any scandal the local councils have to answer for it. Generally speaking, those houses are excellently and properly built. What I am now referring to are the houses built by what is known as unassisted private enterprise—by speculators, financed by the building societies. And I am not generalising. It is admittedly only a minority of local authorities who do not do their duty, but in the aggregate the number of people affected is very great. The majority of building societies are conscientious. There is a minority who are more anxious to find an outlet for their money and who are not careful enough to check the activities of the jerrybuilders who are their clients. The majority of local authorities are conscientious and do their duty, but there is a minority who do not. Thus there is a minority of building societies who are not careful enough, there is a minority of builders who are not honest men, there is a minority of local authorities who are slack, and there is a minority of surveyors who for one reason or another—either from overwork or from incompetence—do not do their duty. The result is what we see in many parts of the country, and perfectly innocent people, who only suffer through their ignorance, have been ruined.

Let me give one or two examples. In London, the building by-laws lay down that partition walls must be a certain thickness, but they do not specify what the materials are to be in the partition walls, and one of the tricks of these unscrupulous jerrybuilders is to use a very cheap and objectionable form of breeze block. These are blocks made of ground coke dust from gas coke, with just enough cement mixed in to hold these blocks together. The coke dust has not, been washed, and there is a considerable sulphur content. These breeze blocks are all right to look at when they are covered with a coat of plaster and paint, but presently chemical action takes place, the blocks burst or crumble, and the walls begin to fall to pieces. That is one thing that is done, and it is quite common, Another thing is that the timber used is sometimes of the cheapest and most, unsuitable quality—what the builders themselves call "thirds," or in some cases "fourths"—green, unseasoned timber which has been rejected by the builders' merchants. It is bought up by jobbers and sold to the jerrybuilders, and in the housing boom that is going on quite a large business, I am told, has been built up by particular jobbers, who buy these rejected lots of timber and sell them to the jerrybuilders. Well, the timbers warp" the wood is rotten when it goes in, or it is unseasoned, with results that your Lordships can imagine when the very first winter's gale comes to shake those houses.

Another thing that happens is that very had plaster is used. When covered up with cheap paint it looks all right, but very soon it begins to flake and deteriorate. Shoddy and cheap electrical fittings are used, and, worst of all perhaps, inferior materials are used as foundations. The local by-laws lay it down that the foundations must be of a certain thickness. That is adhered to; but the foundations, instead of being made of proper cement, are heaped up with rubble and rubbish of all kinds. A great many cases are detailed in the batch of documents which I have sent to-day to the noble Viscount, who was kind enough to tell me he would he glad to look at the details. I am going to trouble your Lordships with a few actual cases of what has happened in the case of different estates and building societies. I am going to give the names and places. There are a great many more I could quote, and a great many more that I have sent to the noble Viscount. I have only picked out some of the outstanding cases.

I am first going to quote the case of the Grove Park Estate at Littlehampton. This is a particularly bad case, because the houses were built with a Government subsidy. £75 of Government subsidy was paid on each bungalow six years ago, and the houses were sold on deferred payments for £651 each. Six months after these bungalows had been completed, a number of them split, and had to be reinforced with cement. They are very damp; and they have since been independently valued. Their value is only about £250 each, and they were sold to the unfortunate purchasers for £651. In the other cases I am quoting there was no Government subsidy paid. At the Swan Side Estate at Liverpool a house was bought for £495. After a few weeks it began literally to fall to pieces; the details I have sent to the noble Viscount. At Warrington houses built with the assistance of the Leek United and Midland Building Society were full of defects which only appeared after the unfortunate purchasers had paid their deposits and made the first payments. At Cardiff houses that cost the purchasers from £450 to £650 each were found, on investigation, to have ceilings which were literally made of cardboard with a thin layer of plaster to cover them; and inner walls of cheap type of breeze block, with timber green and unseasoned, and doors of three-ply wood.

At Blackpool on Peel Avenue Estate the houses have faulty fireplaces, defective drains and structural weakness, which all developed within a month. These houses cost £650. After five years the roads on that estate have not been made, and the conditions described to me are appalling. Here is a case where the builder refuses to do anything and the building society, the Bingby Building Society, refuses to take responsibility. That is a, particularly bad case. If determined people, or people with money behind them, care to employ lawyers and fight building societies or companies, they may get redress, but a young couple not too well blessed with the world's goods, going into a house hoping it may become their home for twenty years, have no resources with which to fight these wealthy corporations. At Huddersfield houses were sold for £400 and £500 which are valued at £250. At Staines, Middlesex, dry rot has appeared in the floors after three years, and two new floors have had to be put in. That was a case of a building society. At Ayling Estate, Plumstead, a house was bought for £625 in April, 1934, and it is now practically falling to pieces; all the details I have sent to the noble Viscount. A similar case is reported from Brighton. I shall not trouble your Lordships with details. They are unfortunately all too similar. My tenth case I particularly want to mention. It comes from Sand Bay, Weston-super-Mare. There £1,000 was contracted to be paid for the house, and all the roofs are defective through cheap and most unsuitable tiles being put in. All the roofs leak. These are just a few cases in various parts of the country, as your Lordships will have noticed.

What should be the remedy? One remedy, of course, is publicity. That is one reason why I have brought the matter before your Lordships' House so that unsuspecting would-be purchasers may be warned to employ their own independent surveyors. Another remedy, closely associated with the last, is that I hope the Ministry of Health will issue some warnings about these housing estates. I hope the Ministry of Health, if they are satisfied that certain local authorities have been lax, will admonish these local authorities or warn them, tell them to be more careful, tell them it is no use listening to fellow councillors who themselves are jerrybuilders, and tell them they have to go into matters for themselves. The investigations should be made by independent men and not by councillors in the building trade. The Ministry of Health are quick enough to pull up a local authority which pays too much in the way of poor relief; I wish they would be equally active in dealing with local authorities who neglect their duty and do not attend to their own building by-laws. I submit there is a case for a Consolidating Act applying all housing legislation nationally. I believe that the Acts are out of date. There is, of course, a Housing Bill going through another place, but that is more to deal with slum clearance and Government assisted private building. I think the by-laws applying to unassisted private enterprise houses require bringing up to date in certain respects, particularly with regard to the materials that should be used. There ought to be a minimum standard regarding materials that may be used. It is no use saying foundations should be of a certain thickness if rubbish can be used. It is no use saying that partition walls must be of a certain thickness if unsuitable breeze blocks can be used.

Of course, it is very largely also an administrative question. I suggest that local authorities who err, or are lax, should be told it is no use simply passing paper plans and not seeing that the plans are adhered to. We have a system of punishing butchers who sell bad meat. Why should not the house-builder who puts in bad, shoddy, unsuitable materials be punished also? It is the policy of of all Parties in this country to encourage happy marriages and the bringing up of healthy, happy families. Our civilisation really revolves round the unit of the family. All of us take great pride in the development of these housing estates, some of them very attractive, round our great cities. It is delightful to think of people being able to move out from the crowded central slums into these healthier surroundings. But if they are to be fleeced and taken advantage of through their inexperience, then they might just as well have remained where they were in the middle of the towns and under conditions to which they were accustomed.

The present boom in house building has attracted a certain minority of unscrupulous people who are deliberately taking advantage of young people—small business men, clerks, artisans, commercial travellers—that type who are not very experienced in property matters, and palming off on them these inferior shoddy houses. It ought to be stopped. It is a scandal. Or the person might be a pensioner, an old soldier or sailor, or a retired civil servant with a small pension or some savings, who wants to give his children a chance in semi-rural surroundings. He is induced to buy one of these houses on the deferred payment system. He pays his deposit, he makes good his first few payments, and then finds that the house is built of cheap materials, that he has made a thoroughly bad bargain and has no redress. Somebody is to blame. I have hinted where I think the blame lies, and I suggest, with all diffidence to the Ministry of Health, that they could do a good deal in this respect. I am sure they are sympathetic. They probably know what is going on, and I hope this matter will have your Lordships' support and that, by itself, it will provide the Government with an opening to take action to prevent this scandal continuing. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, if any member of your Lordships' House brings to the notice of the Government cases where local authorities are not fulfilling their statutory obligations, my right honourable friend would be justified in making inquiries. The noble Lord has stated he has given me full particulars, and I have no doubt he has, but I must explain to your Lordships that the particulars only reached me two or three minutes before the opening of this debate, and I have not had an opportunity to examine them. But I can promise the noble Lord that if it is found these are eases of the kind which he has suggested —that is to say, cases where local authorities have been lax—my right honourable friend will certainly look into the matter. Perhaps my right honourable friend would also be prepared to examine any cases where it is alleged that public health is in any way being prejudiced by the failure of any local authority to adopt by-laws. I think we all agree that local authorities should, as far as possible, fulfil their statutory undertakings.

When the noble Lord suggests that the evidence he has produced justifies extensive additions to the restrictions and the regulations at present exercised by local authorities, I think that is a proposal which needs very careful consideration. During the recent debate on Socialism in this House I could not help thinking of the history of housing legislation since the War. A very large number of experiments were tried out in connection with housing, combining public and private enterprise in all kinds of ways, and, although there may be some disagreement as to the lessons we can learn from that period, I think nobody can afford to disregard the extraordinary contribution to the housing shortage that has been made by private enterprise during the last ten years. When the noble Lord complains that a certain number of people have a grievance as to the sort of house they have acquired, I think we must also remember that a very much larger number of people have been supplied with perfectly satisfactory houses during that period and are continuing to be so supplied to-day.

It might, indeed, be possible, by tightening up the by-laws and by adding more powers and restrictions, to put it within the power of local authorities to render it less possible for an individual to run the risk of acquiring a bad house, but I think it is open to the most serious doubt whether that can be done without slowing up the flow not only of bad houses but of good houses also. I would like to remind your Lordships of the powers that are exercised to-day by local authorities in regard to new houses. Houses are controlled to-day primarily in the interests of public health, and the inspections cover the structure of walls, foundations, roofs, chimneys, floors, hearths and staircases of new buildings. The noble Lord mentioned foundations, and said that in many cases they were not good. I would remind him that the by-laws do at any rate provide that the foundations should be of good material. In addition to that, they are inspected with a view to securing stability and the prevention of fires, and also in respect of the open spaces about the buildings, ventilation, drainage, water closets, earth closets, and the provision of cesspools.

In addition, under the town-planning regulations, they are controlled in regard to density, external appearance, and in other respects. I think that the amount of regulation which surrounds private-enterprise housing does appear to have reached already a fairly formidable size, and it really is hardly to be wondered at that such complaints as we have received have been complaints, not that the regulations are too loose, but that they are too stringent. The model by-laws which are issued for the guidance of local authorities are designed to meet a variety of different conditions.

LORD MARLEY

I wonder if the noble Viscount would for a moment elucidate that? Can he tell us whether inspectors are appointed, and whether he knows that local authorities actually have inspectors to see that the building by-laws are carried out?

VISCOUNT GAGE

Speaking from my own knowledge as a member of a local authority I can say that the surveyor is usually entrusted with that duty. It is, in fact, one of his main duties. I think it has been said on more than one occasion in this House that the duties which have been piled upon local authorities are already more than they can bear and sometimes more than they can discharge. I must say, speaking as a member of a local authority in the South of England, which I regret to say the noble Lord compared unfavourably with those in the North, that I feel some sympathy with that point of view—at any rate, to the extent of believing that if further responsibilities are to be added to their shoulders the need for those responsibilities should be proved beyond any doubt, and furthermore, it should be clear that they are likely to be effective in doing what they set out to do. It is rather important, therefore, to examine the extent of the evil that the noble Lord alleges exists.

I must say at once that the Ministry have very little evidence that jerry-building on a large scale is prevalent. That in itself is not perhaps entirely conclusive evidence, because our chief sources of information are the local authorities whom the noble Lord alleges in some cases to be lax in their duty. We all know that immediately after the War a certain amount of bad building did take place, but I think the Town Planning Acts will largely prevent that bad type of building ever occurring again. So far as the last ten years are concerned, when some two million houses have, been constructed, I think it is a somewhat noteworthy fact that, as far as I can ascertain, no substantial complaints have been made in Parliament or have been brought to the notice of my right honourable friend until quite recently. Last November the Trades Union Congress discussed jerry-building and subsequently a deputation was received by the Minister. Again, Mr. Hicks, who speaks on these matters for the Labour Party in another place, referred to this question in his Second Reading speech on the new Housing Bill. I have also a fair recollection of a good number of debates in your Lordships' House on housing matters, and, with the exception of some criticisms from the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who was dealing with the question from the town-planning point of view and made some reference to the spread of vermin to new houses, I do not recollect any general complaints on these matters. Certainly this is the first occasion upon which an extensive tightening up of the law has been demanded in this House, so far as I am aware.

Perhaps I might now turn to the actual charges made by the noble Lord in his speech. I think they can be divided into three classes. The first is that existing public health legislation has not been adhered to. That, if substantiated, is, as I have said, a legitimate complaint, and would receive the attention of my right honourable friend. The second group of charges is to the effect that the Government have failed to provide additional safeguards for health in building legislation. That I have also dealt with. The third group seems to be simply that the owners have not had proper value for money. The noble Lord says, as far as I followed him, that, apart from health questions altogether, certain owners, when they paid £400, £500 or £600 for a house, did not get a house worth that money, and he seems to suggest that we should in future give the purchaser some guarantee in that respect. That is quite a revolutionary process for Parliament to undertake. It is true, as the noble Lord has suggested, that we do in certain cases guarantee, or attempt to guarantee, the quality of certain commodities offered to the public, again usually in the interests of health, but I do not think it has ever been suggested that we should guarantee both the quality and the price.

Your Lordships will perhaps remember what I said about the degree of inspection that is now being carried out in connection with new houses. Surely, if we are to give any guarantee that is worth anything at all, that the materials used in building houses are good materials, it would clearly mean imposing another big burden on the shoulders of the local authority, and also upon the potential builders of the houses. I am not a technical expert, but it does appear to me that in regard to such a matter as timber, for instance, an inspection of timber which is largely concealed in a house, would require to take place at frequent intervals during the period of construction, and would also require a fairly high standard of technical knowledge because, as Mr. Hicks himself pointed out, some of these defects do not make themselves manifest for several years. If you take all the materials—the timber, the coke breeze, the plaster and so forth—I think that what the noble Lord is really demanding is that the surveyor should act as a sort of clerk of the works to every house constructed, because unless this is done the guarantee, actual or implied, would be worth very little. Even then I doubt very much whether the builder who really definitely intended to defraud would be entirely circumvented by such a procedure.

Last year 250,010 houses were constructed—a magnificent total—and if this rate can be maintained it will go a long way to satisfy the demands of the most rabid housing reformers. I cannot agree that it would be either right or proper or popular with the public to hold up all private enterprise, which, as I maintain, would be the effect of the method suggested, without more justification than we appear to have to-day. There remains the question of whether anything can be done to give purchasers any further protection by law against the dishonest builder. It seems to me doubtful whether legislation of this sort—which would certainly be controversial—would really be effective. In the first place I think the onus would be put on the purchaser of calling expert witnesses to prove that something existed which was more than trivial and that it was due to bad workmanship or defective material instead of to some such cause as traffic vibration, subsidence, unusual storm, or something of that kind. I think the effect of such legislation must be to raise the price of houses because even the good builders, against whom these practices are not alleged and who deplore them as much as anybody, would find it necessary to protect themselves against the possibility of claims. They would want to insure themselves and the cost of that insurance would be reflected in an increased price to the working-class purchaser.

So far, I must admit, I have dealt chiefly with objections to the noble Lord's proposals, but I do not wish it to be thought that the Government are not fully sympathetic towards the minority who may have suffered in this way. We all desire to see, quite as much as the noble Lord, that the members of the poorer classes do not suffer unduly. We only raise objections to what lie has proposed because we think the price to the community in general would be too high. But we do welcome this debate because we agree with the noble Lord that publicity in this matter is an excellent thing. We hope it will serve as a warning to prospective purchasers to use reasonable precautions in buying new houses. We are not dealing with absolutely the poorest class. We are dealing with people who can afford to buy a house for £400, 1500 or £600. If people are prepared to spend that amount of money I think they might reasonably spend £2 or £3 extra in getting the house properly examined by an independent expert. I think it would be advisable also that they should deal with reputable building societies, because the building societies have a very considerable interest in the houses on the security of which they are advancing loans. What we feel is that the remedy to a great extent lies in the hands of the purchasers.

If I may summarise our attitude, it is that we agree that the by-laws already in existence should be adhered to, but we do not agree that any major extension of the by-laws is desirable because, in the light of such information as we have, we think that might have worse results than the defects we are trying to cure. We sympathise with the noble Lord in his desire to give publicity to the case and we recommend prospective purchasers to exercise reasonable precautions when buying new houses.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the very full reply he has given me. I asked him this afternoon if I might send the letter to him; that is why I did not send them before. Although he is a quick worker I did not expect him to have gone through them all by this time. I could have sent him more. They are really only samples. I do not propose to press my Motion for Papers, but before withdrawing I must say that I cannot see why the Ministry of Health should not lay down definite standards of materials and construction, minimum standards that should be used. That would be something for the prospective purchaser to go upon. He could say to the builder: "In this house that you are selling me on the deferred payment system have you complied with the minimum standard of the Ministry of Health?" That would be something. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is a fairly recent evil. It is only in the last year or two that it has come to a head. Cases seem to have multiplied in quite recent years. As I began by saying, I am not blaming the Ministry of Health either under this Government or under any previous Government. This business is the result of the tremendous boom in the building industry. We see it in ribbon building and we see it whenever a railway company opens up a new branch line. Huge housing estates spring up and amongst the builders there is this minority of rogues.

The noble Viscount advised the prospective purchaser to go to a reputable building society. If I may say so with great diffidence in the presence of experts like the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the building societies are the key to this question. If they did not finance the prospective purchaser of such inferior property the jerry-builder would not be able to sell his jerry-built house. If therefore, instead of surveying the purchaser they surveyed the house properly, the evil would almost entirely disappear. The trouble is that they have been more careful in some cases—not all of course—about the solvency of the people who are going to take the house on deferred terms than about the stability of the house or the honesty of the builder. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, but I do ask him most respectfully to watch this matter because we do not want to see the countryside in five or six years time littered with new slums. And that is what in certain cases is going to happen. Houses will be literally falling to pieces. I really raised this matter for the sake of the publicity which I hope it will bring. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the trouble he has taken in his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at half past six o'clock.