HOUSING BILL

HL Deb 02 July 1964 vol 259 cc715-22

3.27 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Housing Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)

My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Housing Bill, I do not think I need add very much to what has already been said at some considerable length on a number of occasions. I believe that this is a useful Bill and an important Bill. It came from the other place, where it was given close scrutiny and was undoubtedly improved upon, and when it reached your Lordships' House we in our turn considered it carefully and have made some substantial improvements. I am convinced that the objectives which the Government have set out in the Bill will, in fact, be achieved and I would recapitulate only very briefly what these objectives are.

First of all, in Part I we are setting up a new Housing Corporation in order to assist and encourage the creation of new housing societies which are to be developed throughout Great Britain for the purpose of building houses for cost-rent and houses on a co-ownership basis, one-third of the money to be raised from the Housing Corporation and two-thirds from the building societies. I think we all agree that this, if achieved, will fill a useful gap, and I am convinced that this objective will in due course be achieved. In Part II of the Bill we have set out procedures for the compulsory improvement of dwellings to provide standard amenities, by way of both area improvements and improvements applied for in respect of dwellings outside designated areas as well. Part II of the Bill should perform the most valuable task of accelerating an improvement of the 2 million or more houses which should now be improved and which are still structurally sound. This ranks high in the priorities of the Government's housing programme.

In Part III of the Bill, which deals with assistance for the improvement of dwellings, we have made more liberal grants available for improvement to the full range of standard amenities. In some respects we have made grants available for amenities to the reduced standard where one cannot reach the full standard. We have also raised the limit of discretionary grant in respect of improvements in Scotland, and for three-storey conversions in England and Wales. An annual review of the situation, in regard to the cost of rural dwellings and their improvements in particular, has been promised by my right honourable friend. It was in connection with this part of the Bill that criticisms were made of its extremely complicated phraseology and cross-references. It was, of course, dealing very largely with alterations and amendments to the existing scheme of grant, and cross-references to earlier legislation were therefore hardly avoidable. But certainly there is a lot to be said for bringing all the relevant legislation into one place, and this is something which the Government have in mind and they feel can usefully be done as soon as a suitable opportunity presents itself.

Finally, on Part IV of the Bill, which deals with houses in multi-occupation and which, of course, has been the most controversial aspect of this Bill, I think there is only the one matter outstanding to which I need refer, and that is that on Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me to discuss yet once again with my right honourable friend the proposed new clause he had put forward which was designed to give a limited measure of security of tenure to tenants in a multi-occupied house during the execution of works required by the local authority—the Amendment which we might briefly refer to as "the Sheffield Amendment". I have, of course, had this discussion, and my right honourable friend and I are still of the same mind as I indicated at Report stage. Therefore, I do not think I should recapitulate now the rather long argument against the Amendment which I then made.

We feel that Part IV is a very important part of the Bill, and, after the very long arguments we have had on an Amendment which has now become known as "the Rachman Amendment", the Government are convinced that all the objectives we set out to achieve by way of the improvement of bad conditions in multi-occupied houses and the prevention of exploitation of tenants in those houses will in fact be achieved, and that we have dealt a death blow at the would-be Rachmans of the future. My Lords, I do not think I need say any more. I believe we have done our job well in this House. I was slightly out of order on Report stage in thanking noble Lords opposite and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who have done so much to help, but I shall be in order in doing so on this occasion. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.—(Lord Hastings.)

3.33 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, we are very much obliged to the noble Lord for the statement he has made, and I personally have no particular quarrel with what he has said. He has described this measure as useful and important. I would agree that it is useful; I would not agree that it is important. I have always had my doubts as to how far it is going to help in the solution of our housing problem. After all, as I pointed out on Second Reading, this is the twenty-seventh housing measure which the Conservative Government have introduced since they first came into office in 1951. I would say that it falls into line with the other twenty-six. They have all played their part, but to describe this as important is, I think, a considerable exaggeration. But we shall see how far it goes. I very much doubt whether it will go very far.

The other thing I want to say is that, whatever may be said about driving the Opposition out of public life, the fact remains that the efforts of the Opposition in this House on this Bill have very substantially improved it. We have been able to secure greater protection for persons pending the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders; we have been able to secure greater protection to other people during the course of proceedings by local authorities; and, generally, I think the Bill is a far better Bill than when it first came to this House. I therefore feel that the Opposition here have certainly justified their existence.

I do not want to go through all the parts of the Bill to which the noble Lord referred, but I want to say that I think the Government have made a profound mistake in dismissing the appeal we made to them to deal in this Bill with Rachmanism. They had the opportunity. It would have been perfectly possible for them to introduce, or to accept, a simple clause by which a control order could be made, and that would have had immediate effect in providing for those people who are quite unable to look after themselves—people who are intimidated and frightened out of their wits, and whose lives are being made a hell because their landlords want to get rid of them. The Government have found every possible and impossible excuse for not acceding to this. I am very sorry indeed, because this Bill would have been far more useful if it had dealt with what I regard as one of the major evils in housing—successful attempts by bad landlords to get rid of their tenants by this means. However, I repeat that this is a useful measure—I will not go further than that—and I hope it may have good effect.

I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for the very capable and reasonable way in which he has dealt with this Bill as a whole, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who played, of course, a secondary part in this matter. Apart from the differences we have had, I am glad to say we have discussed this matter in a civilised way. The noble Lord has tried to answer the points that have been made on this side of the House and on others, and I think this Bill has been discussed in a way in which measures of this kind should be discussed. We have had our differences, and I am not satisfied in all cases with the result, but I have conceded many times, as have my noble friends, where we thought that the noble Lord had made a case, and we have withdrawn our Amendments. I hope that when the tables are turned and the noble Lord finds himself having to move Amendments to Bills, they will be dealt with in the same spirit.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but he said something which I do not think ought to be allowed to pass without correction. He said it was the intention of the Conservatives to drive the Socialists out of public life. There has been no such suggestion at all, as I understand the position, but to drive them "out of public office". There is a great deal of difference between being in office and being in public life. Being in public life and taking a proper part in opposition is a very different thing from being in office and therefore having the responsibility of office. I thought it right that that point, made by the noble Lord opposite, should not go uncorrected in this House.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, if it had been possible to put down an Amendment which dealt effectively with Rachmanism, I should certainly have voted for it. The Opposition did put down an Amendment, and I looked at it, but in my humble opinion it was unworkable, so I did not vote for it. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested lines on which such an Amendment might have been made, but, with all due respect, I did not think that his sug- gestion was in the least workable, because you are always up against the difficulty of malicious allegations. It is quite impossible to prove terrorism and intimidation, and that is the great difficulty in dealing with this sort of thing. Many of us would have voted for any practical solution, but I do not think there is one.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, your Lordships may remember that recently, on the Report stage, I made some reference to the emptiness of the Bishops' Bench. I referred to Bishops generally, and in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London and to my friend the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark, whom we are very glad to see here this afternoon. I referred to the fact that the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Southwark had led a procession from St. Paul's to Southwark Cathedral on some housing problems, particularly homelessness, and that I was sorry they were not here when we were dealing with Rachmanism so that they could have said a word about it. Indeed, there were no Bishops present; and I took the opportunity for, I think, the second time, of rather reproving the Bishops' Benches for not having somebody in attendance.

The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark has since written me a nice letter stating the inevitable ecclesiastical engagements that he had that day and which he was unable to cancel; and I accept that. I ought to have remembered that he has recently been the victim of a severe motor accident; but, having seen him the week before, I thought he was "fair game" this week. But he has sent me a letter which explains his absence and I accept it. I had dictated and signed—and it had gone off before I saw what happened—a letter in which I had got as near a chap of my temperament can get to making an apology for what I said.

I sat through the greater part of yesterday's debate and there were four Bishops here for the debate on world population. When, having listened to most of the debate, I had gone, because I had an engagement—not an ecclesiastical one, but one which I had to keep—the right reverend Prelate said [col. 694] I endorse and support everything that has just been said by my noble friend Lord Taylor. As I look across the House, my one regret is that my other noble friend, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, is not present to hear such an important speech. I should have thought he would regard it as his duty to be present. Having said that, I endorse all that has been said. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will read, mark and inwardly digest what has been said in the debate. I heard most of the debate, and I am now in the process of reading the rest. It was a perfectly fair retort on the part of the right reverend Prelate which I take as good sport and I do not in any way resent. The interchange that we had—I should not say "interchange" because I was not here at the end; I left at a late point, but he took advantage of my absence by coming in late when I had gone—I do not resent. I hope that this interchange will leave the right reverend Prelate and me the best of friends, as we have always been.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. The score was "deuce" and it has now gone to "vanout" to him. I will bring it back to "deuce" by saying that I realise I ought not to have criticised the noble Lord for his absence yesterday in view of the nature of the debate, it being on birth control, and I realise there was no need for him to be present.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, after this little diversion from the strict subject before us, the Third Reading of the Housing Bill, I should just like to say—

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I cannot let the noble Lord say that without some observation. This trouble originated on the Housing Bill; therefore, it is perfectly relative to the Third Reading.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. He had an entry into the discussion.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for some, but not all, of his remarks. I still maintain that this is an important Bill and will achieve what we say it sets out to achieve. The fact that it happens to be the 27th Bill in a long line of legislation is quite irrelevant to its importance. I would say only one thing: upon almost every occasion in Committee and in Report, and now again, I have said, again and again, that this Bill does deal with Rachmanism and noble Lords opposite have said it does not. I must have the last word on this. It does deal with Rachmanism in all respects except that of where the landlord uses intimidation which is not connected with the living conditions of the house. I explained it very logically to the utter satisfaction of all my noble friends behind me. If noble Lords opposite will allow themselves to be really objective in this matter it will be logical even to them; and I will prove to their satisfaction that this rare case, in fact, virtually never arises end never has arisen in respect of multi-occupied houses. Nevertheless, when intimidation does occur without relevance to the living conditions then a compulsory purchase order can be used. I hope that is the last word on this matter. We have dealt with Rachmanism in Part IV of the Bill.

On Question, Bill read 3², with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.