I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It might be helpful to local authorities and, perhaps more so, to those individuals who may be affected by private street works legislation if I make a very quick review of the position in regard to liability for making up private streets. The problem, of course, goes back many years, and has its origin when the urban communities began to expand very quickly during the latter part of the eighteenth century. The parish authorities then had to make up all roads within their boundaries, and, as a lot of residential streets came along, very heavy charges resulted.

The first change was made by the Highway Act, 1835, which required streets to be made up to the specification of the local authority before it took them over. As a consequence, streets were left in a very miserable condition. Another milestone came in 1875 with the Public Health Act, Section 150 of which enabled urban authorities to carry out work at the expense of property owners along the street. Many local authorities still use this procedure, but, despite various amendments that have been made to it, it is not wholly satisfactory.

A further milestone—perhaps as a consequence of the position in relation to Section 150 of the 1875 Act—was the Private Street Works Act, 1892, which was an adoptive Act based on various local authority private Acts. This made it possible for a local authority to resolve to make up a street and, under this Act, the local authority has power to contribute to the expense of so doing. There are many checks and balances in the procedure, but the point is that under both the 1875 and the 1892 Acts the initiative for making up the street lies in the hands of the local authority.

Thus, we come to the fourth milestone—the New Streets Act, 1951, which the present Bill proposes to amend. If I may summarise it, the purpose of the 1951 Act is to enable owners of property along a street to compel the local authority to make up and maintain that street. In so doing, of course, it goes back, in some sense, towards the pre-1835 position, but the 1951 Act also includes many safeguards on the expenditure of public money, including the institution of a deposit for the cost of making up the road before building along that road can begin. It also did another thing. It protected purchasers from fraudulent vendors.

I think it will be agreed that, as originally drafted, the 1951 Bill was rather rigid, and certainly had many Amendments made to it to make it more palatable to home owners as well as to builders. If it had not been for the addition to Clause 1 (3) of that Bill of paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g), at the instance of hon. Members on this side, the 1951 Act would really not have been workable. Even so, the application of the new principle of the 1951 Act has run into difficulties. One of those difficulties is dealt with in Section 9 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, which was introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

This present Bill is in the same stream, in that it intends to improve, but not to deny, the principles of the 1951 Act. It deals with what are the more important remaining defects in the procedure laid down by that Act. Clause 1 provides for cases where, between the making of a deposit and the local authority making up the street, the people living along that street do some work on it. In such cases, it enables the local authority to refund money to the extent of work done.

The Bill, of course, deals only with permanent work. For instance, if there is a concrete carriage way, built to the specification and satisfaction of the local authority—and only if the work were done by the people along the street—it would be left to the local authority at a later date only to tarmac the surface. And since the ultimate liability of the property owners along the street is diminished by their having built at their own expense the concrete carriageway, it is only reasonable, in such circumstances, that part of their deposit should be refunded. That is the purpose of Clause 1.

The Bill reads "so unsatisfactory a condition." The hon. Gentleman has been making a very good case for putting in the words "so satisfactory a condition."

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will study the 1951 Act, he will find that this is a question of several negatives leading to a positive position. I have studied these words very carefully, and I think that if he does so he will find that to be true. As often happens in Bills, they do not always mean what they may appear to mean.

I now turn to subsection (2). This empowers a local authority at any time to substitute a smaller sum for that which has originally been required and to repay the balance of anything already paid. There are two paragraphs in the subsection. Paragraph (a) alters Section 2 (3) of the 1951 Act in two ways. First, it makes clear that a smaller sum may be substituted by a local authority at any time, including after the deposit has been made.

It may be helpful to hon. Members if I give an instance in which this would apply. Suppose that somebody is planning to build a house and that the deposit has been determined in accordance with the cost of the anticipated expenses of making up the street. After that, it is proposed to build other houses along the street, and the local authority may modify the street plan. It may decide to narrow the carriageway and perhaps put green verges between the carriageway and the footpath. The consequence might be a reduction in the expense. Therefore, the sum required would not be so big as was first supposed, and one object of paragraph (a) is to enable the balance to be repaid.

The second change that paragraph (a) makes is to Section 2 (3) of the 1951 Act which provides only for serving a further notice of the deposit required, or a change in it, on the same person on whom the original notice was served. This paragraph would allow further notice to go to the owner for the time being of the land in question. Meanwhile the original owner may have disappeared. He may be dead or, in the case of a limited liability company, it might have been wound up.

Paragraph (b) of this subsection deals with Section 2 (3) and (4) of the 1951 Act. Under those provisons an owner can only appeal against the amount required for deposit if further notice has been served on him, if the further notice is given within one month of his having received the original notice. This amendment allows right of appeal against a further notice whenever this further notice is given. The Bill already proposes in this paragraph that further notice may be given at any time, and it is obviously reasonable that appeal against such a notice should be allowed.

To turn to subsection (3) of Clause 4, this amends Section 1 (3) of the 1951 Act, so that when, as is provided in Clause 1, a refund of deposit is made when an owner does work of permanent value to the street, the degree to which that owner's liability is covered is not the amount of the original deposit but only the balance met after refund. This is really a consequential provision following on the Clauses dealing with refunds in this Bill. Subsection (4) is also a consequential amendment, whereby interest is paid only on the balance of the deposit left when there is a refund, and not on the whole of it.

As regards subsection (5), Section 10 of the 1951 Act defines a private street. but that definition does not cover all cases. The amendment to that Section in this subsection covers the case where, for instance, the house is to be built on a defined plot within a field, and when no separate plan has been deposited for the street on which it is to front or abut. The local authority, nevertheless, expects to be informed, in the building plan, as to the road to which the house will have access, and this road would therefore normally be shown on the building plan. This subsection makes such a road a private street in respect of which a deposit can be required. Of course, the safeguards of the existing Act in Section 1 (3, e) of the 1951 Act still obtain; that is, safeguards for where a street is not likely in a reasonable time to become sufficiently built up to justify the use of powers under the appropriate street works code.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me in presenting this Bill which will, I am certain, help local authorities to use their powers to the satisfaction of the public. The Bill will remove impediments to the building of houses, and will thus help in providing what is, after food and clothing, man's most basic need, shelter. In particular, by removing impediments to the building of houses which are likely to pass into private ownership, it will help in providing for the deep desire of men and women throughout the country to own a home of their own, and it will forward the ideal of a property-owning democracy.

I beg to second the Motion.

There is not very much that I can add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), except to refer to the proposal which he anticipated might be, to some extent, controversial, namely, that there should be a registration in the local land registry of a land charge.

I have had some experience of cases of this kind. In my view, the 1951 Act was an immense stride forward towards the protection of those people who invested their money in the purchase of a home. It was my experience in a number of cases that money had been paid over to a developer of land by a purchaser on an undertaking which, unfortunately, was not legally enforceable, and that eventually, when the road came to be made up, a person of no great means was confronted suddenly with the necessity to pay the road-making charge all over again.

As I understand the 1951 Act, it was designed partially to protect the property purchaser from that very liability. Unless we take this further step, however, there is still a danger of the purchaser being caught up in that way. Whereas if the property is registered in the local land registry, and is available for inspection there, no purchaser would be so likely to be caught up. Of course, there is the possibility, between inspection by a solicitor acting for the purchaser and completion taking place, of a withdrawal being authorised, but the time limit there would be very short indeed, and I wholeheartedly support this proposition in the Bill. I am not one who engages in that form of the law dealing with real property. I approach this problem very much as a common lawyer and, as I say, the Bill commends itself to me in a remarkable manner.

Finally, in my view—and I must emphasise that this is a personal expression of opinion—it is a great misfortune that the 1951 Act did not extend to Northern Ireland. Neither that Act nor this Bill touches these affairs in Northern Ireland. I say this not only so that right hon. and hon. Members here in this House may hear what I say, but so that it may be heard elsewhere. I have been spoken to by estate developers who would welcome such a provision. They feel that it would give them protection in that it affords security to the public.

I support the Bill in the hope that some day this provision may be extended to my own country.

If I may intervene for a few minutes, I should like to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) for the excellent and much-needed Bill which he has brought before the House today and which, I think I can say, is welcomed on all sides.

If this debate should last longer than appears likely, and if I do not stay to the end of it, Sir, I hope that you and the House will accept my apologies. No discourtesy is intended but, like most of my colleagues have already done, I shall shortly catch a train so that I can spread enlightenment and cheer among my constituents—a course which I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell them about the Rent Bill?

Yes.

I have taken a considerable interest in the subject dealt with by this Bill, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government knows. I have done so since a case arose in my constituency about which I have been bothering him for nearly a year. I hasten to say that my hon. Friend has been, as everybody in this House would expect, most sympathetic, painstaking and helpful but, alas, under the law as it stands at present, all his help and all his sympathy have not prevailed.

This is a case similar to those which have been mentioned already. It is that of a woman who was left a widow in 1938. Just before her husband died he built a little bungalow, right out in the country. He moved her into it before the war and left her £3 a week to live on for the rest of her life. In the meantime, the town developed around the bungalow and the land is now built up, both opposite and beyond. Because of the fact that this lot happens to be right along the whole frontage of the road, that elderly widow, living on £3 a week, is now confronted with a bill for £890.

That is absolutely monstrous. Yet it is the law. Everybody says, "We are very sorry, but we cannot help; it is the law." They may call it the law, but I call it legalised bureaucratic rape of the most outrageous kind. If the law is enforced—the local authority is determined to enforce it—this woman will be made bankrupt. Even if the injustice is put right—I pray that it will be—a terrible fear will have hung over this woman's head for a year.

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says, but will he help me by saying who ought to pay for making up the road?

I can only think that it should be the community. I cannot think of any other answer. It should be an Exchequer charge and not a charge on the rates. One may say that this means the Exchequer spending more money, but we are talking about trifling sums. This happens to only a handful of people each year.

To an appreciable number.

Nevertheless, the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the total sums involved are very small. We are not talking about something which will raise taxation, or put a great burden on the State.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be sympathetic about my next problem. I understand that there may be a possibility that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin has fallen into the trap into which I fell about a year ago, in that he has drawn the title of the Bill a little more narrowly than he intended. I believe that some of the cases that we have in mind would not be dealt with by the Bill because they are covered by Acts passed before 1951. I suggest to my hon. Friend and to the House that it might be wise to employ in this instance a peculiar artifice which was used to get me out of my difficulty.

I was given to understand at the time that, while this House had no power to change the title of a Bill once the Measure had been introduced, another place has such a power. I found that, because of the way I had drawn the title of my Bill, I could not cover a number of cases which everyone agreed ought to be covered. With the assistance of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Merthyr, it was possible to have the Bill amended in another place. When it returned to this House, we were merely asked to agree with the Lords Amendments, which we did, and everybody was happy.

I particularly ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give very serious consideration to this point. It may be an untidy and rather odd thing to do, but it has been done before. Some such artifice ought to be used to cover the other cases that we have in mind, because the present position is inexcusable.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has raised the general position under the several milestones of law to which his hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) referred in moving the Second Reading. This is the last, as it were, of a number of bits of legislation about what is substantially a rather serious matter, and that is the condition of roads in towns and elsewhere—mostly in towns—for which the local authority has no responsibility, and the repair or maintenance of which falls on the frontagers.

There have been two attempts to deal with it in the past. One was part of the Public Health Act, 1875, which was a great step forward in English legislation and in relation to the views taken by Parliament of the responsibilities of the community vis-à-vis public health. The second was the Private Streets Works Act, 1892, an adoptive Measure, but it is very widely adopted, probably being the more frequently adopted of the two. As has been said:

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,

And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."

Those Acts were the great fleas, the little flea was the New Streets Act, and the Bill is the lesser flea, but I earnestly hope that we are not going on ad infinitum, because some day or another some Government ought to face this difficult problem.

The New Streets Act dealt only with the future, but we have only to go round some of our towns, particularly in the north of England, to see that we need to deal with something more than the future. There are far too many of these streets, very often marked "unadopted," which are used a good deal but do not get made up. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has recently repeatedly protested at Question Time about the state of such streets in his constituency. I do not know the circumstances, but he got a friendly reply, within limits, from the Parliamentary Secretary the other day. However, that illustrates what is going on.

The difficulty in the long run is: who is to pay for it? It is true, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North said, that the amount involved in the case of any individual frontager is not large in comparison with the volume of the local rates, but it is often very large for the individual frontager because the cost of road works has risen and houses have, on the whole, as is the habit of houses, tended to get no better, but rather worse. Consequently, what some time ago was a small burden has become progressively larger and larger.

I do not want to provoke the Parliamentary Secretary into too rapid a disclaimer of responsibility in these matters, but I suggest to him and to the House that the kind of Bill that we are considering this morning in itself illustrates that something is wrong. From time to time, in our constituencies all of us meet the kind of case in which there are two simple propositions—a road which obviously ought to be made up, and the difficulty of getting it done at the expense of the frontagers.

That was the problem which my friend, Mr. Kinley, formerly Member of Parliament for Bootle, had in mind when he introduced the New Streets Act. The Bill makes a small alteration in the Act, but I would agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin that it was a compromise Measure, and it is not the particular virtue or vice of either side of the House that it happened to be that. We had different views on the matter at the time. I remember the discussions very well and I have never regarded it as a fully satisfactory compromise. Today, we are considering a few small points which were not dealt with at the time.

I most earnestly hope, not from any party point of view, but as a matter of public interest and public responsibility, that this problem will be tackled and a proper method evolved for dealing with these bad roads. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerset, North that nowadays one cannot continue to try to make the frontagers responsible. It has to be a common responsibility, the responsibility of the community. The hon. Member was quite right in that and also quite right in not precluding the responsibility of the Exchequer, as distinct from the rates.

No more can be put on the backs of local authorities at present. They already have more than they can carry and must be helped over this sort of problem, if anything is to be done about it. The Bill has the support of both the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils' Association, who are probably the two bodies most concerned with it, and it is right that the Bill should have a Second Reading.

I cordially support the first three Clauses of the Bill. I dare say there is some technical objection—I do not know what it is—to registering the matters, to which Clause 3 refers, in the local land charges register, but it is clearly to everybody's advantage that that should be done and that people should not have to go to the local authority about it so that the local authority is bothered with something which can be handled in another way and should not have to send out a cautiously worded notice saying, "We hope that this is all right, but we take no responsibility for it."

I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) and to wish him well with this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to fleas and lesser fleas upon them. A difficulty with the Bill is that although it deals with a number of matters which arise out of the New Streets Act, 1951, it does not deal with that most difficult feature to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) referred.

I, too, have had a case very similar to the one he quoted. It was that of a rather aged lady who happened to have a small house with a large garden which she had inherited, through her father, from her grandparents. All seemed well until the local authority, which owned the land on the other side of the road, decided that the street should be made up in accordance with the Private Streets Act, 1892. The result, from her point of view, was a bill for £400. That came completely out of the blue and she had no resources out of which to meet it. She was prepared, if necessary, to sell the land or part of the land, but she was not able to do that, very largely because of the liability which had to be met.

I looked at the law about this matter and the only remedy I could see was for her to go to the local court of summary jurisdiction and object on certain very limited grounds. In fact, she had no grounds and was put in the very gravest difficulty. Three small cottages caused a similar difficulty, involving their owners in what, for them, was a substantial sum of money.

The difficulty about the Bill—and I ask its promoter carefully to consider the position—is that it amends the New Streets Act, 1951, while the amendment which is probably required is that to the Private Streets Act, 1892. In view of the Long Title of the Bill, which is merely

"To amend the New Streets Act. 1951"

it may be difficult to remedy this situation, which I think is very unsatisfactory.

I would remind the hon. Member that under the Private Streets Works Act of 1892 local authorities have power to remit charges. I think he will find that they hardly ever do that, but they very often give time to pay.

The complete objection to trying to deal with the difficulty to which he has referred is the fact that money is involved. The Government would have to do it, because a Money Resolution is required both as regards public funds and local authority funds. Therefore, apart from the difficulty of the problem, it could never be dealt with in this Bill.

I appreciate that in those circumstances it is rather difficult for my hon. Friend to do very much about it.

I should like to make one further reference in connection with Clause 4 (1), which deals with the Amendment of Section 1 (3, e) of the 1951 Act, which reads as follows:

"In a case where the local authority, being satisfied that the street or such a part thereof as aforesaid is not, and is not likely within a reasonable time to become, sufficiently built-up to justify the use of powers under the appropriate private street works code for securing the carrying out of street works in the street or part thereof, by notice in writing exempt the building from this section."

Will that exemption apply for all time? If not, it seems to me that if a person obtains an exemption, although he may be happy in the thought that he will not have any liability, it may well be that if the local authority considers that the position has changed that person may subsequently find himself liable for something. If it were possible I should like to be satisfied that the exemption is of a permanent character. If it is not it may be a very considerable trap for the unwary.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) called the Bill a "little flea". It may be appropriate that the "little flea" should be introduced by the "hon. Member for 'Itchin".

With respect to my hon. Friend, I must ask him not to drop his aitches, because there is an hon. Member for Itchen. I am the hon. Member for Hitchin.

I hope that the dislike of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) of Clause 4 will not cause the rest of the Bill to be scratched away, because I feel that that Clause is no less valuable than Clause 1.

The problem of the making up of streets is not a general one throughout the country. As a rule it applies only in isolation, to individual highways in various parts of the country. There is. however, one exception to this, namely, a very large area in Essex, which is included in the new town of Basildon and various areas round about, where there are a total of about 85 miles of unmade-up streets, all within the Billericay division. All these miles of road are occupied by small properties, mainly bungalows, most of them with a few square yards of garden around them, built during the inter-war period, when the 1951 Act did not apply. Invariably, those properties became occupied by people with modest wages, of whom many are now old-age pensioners, with incomes still more modest. In all, there are about 10,000 people living on unmade-up streets in that area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) were both able to quote individual cases. I can assure them both that such cases could be repeated a hundredfold or more in the area of Essex to which I have referred. A great deal of hardship is being caused by the fact that during the inter-war years there was no Act comparable to the 1951 Act.

I therefore support the Bill. In my view, it removes a few of the blemishes which exist in the 1951 Act. That Act has already greatly encouraged the advance towards the property-owning democracy which hon. Members on this side want to see. In so far as those blemishes are removed, I welcome the Bill, and hope that it will have the support of the House and go through unamended.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) indicated, the Bill is very limited in its scope. A number of hon. Members who have spoken have taken this opportunity to throw into the air the question of a major change in the general law of liability for the making up of streets and, in doing so, have brought out the fact that any such change must have very wide financial implications.

I will not enter into a discussion of that matter further than to remark, in reply to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), that the exemptions provided in Section 1 of the 1951 Act are not, as he seemed to think, exemptions from liability for the cost of making up streets, but exemptions from the duty of paying or securing sums under that Act either in satisfaction of that liability or towards the satisfaction of it. I am also afraid that I cannot undertake to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) about what might happen to a Private Member's Bill in another place.

As for this Measure itself, however, I think we are all agreed that it makes useful if minor improvements in the 1951 Act, which has proved in itself a useful Measure.

Although there may be Committee points upon various of the provisions, I join with other hon. Members who have spoken in trusting that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is not the most enthralling piece of legislation which has ever been placed before this House of Commons. It is an attempt to correct a rather ridiculous anomaly in our legislation and, if I may say so without impertinence, it provides an opportunity to a private Member to correct a piece of law-making nonsense which was perpetrated by his Ministers and betters in the past.

The Bill implements a recommendation of the Local Government Manpower Committee which reported in December, 1951, Command 8421. That body recommended that it should no longer be necessary for the Minister of Health to give his consent to the appointment of medical officers of health, deputy medical officers of health and of those who used to be called sanitary inspectors but who are now called public health inspectors.

In the case of medical officers of health and the public health inspectors, the necessity for consent was able to be abolished by regulations which originally were derived from an Act of 1872. But, by a quite ridiculous anomaly, the deputies having been originally appointed under an Act of 1875, the regulations did not apply because it had been done statutorily. This quite extraordinary anomaly meant that local authorities still have to apply to the Minister of Health for permission to appoint deputies.

I wish to express my great gratitude to the Ministry which has been so helpful in getting me through a mass of legislation which has led to my reading the Public Health Act, 1875, in which I discovered the fascinating fact that in that year it was legal to have a pigsty inside one's house. I also understand that there is an average of 80 consents given by the Minister each year and I am glad to say that the effect of this Bill will be to abolish the necessity for 80 communications to be made to the Ministry of Health, and, I presume, for 80 replies to be sent from that Department.

I feel that my speech in favour of the introduction of the Bill should not be entirely without a peroration and, therefore, perhaps I might say that the Measure is a step towards setting what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) called, I think, the harassed local authorities slightly freer than they are at present.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) and other hon. Members in believing that this Bill will give a little more freedom to local authorities to do things which, in their opinion, they are more qualified to do than, perhaps, even the Minister of Health or his advisers.

I find that there is a good deal of disinclination nowadays on the part of many suitable men and women to undertake the responsibility of serving local authorities. I have questioned quite a number of such people and the answer commonly given by them is that they find that in many directions they are simply becoming rubber stamps of the Ministry of Health. They feel that there is no scope for their own particular local interest, and they say that there is very little interest for them in the work of many local authorities.

That is a bad thing because, with the extension of welfare and other schemes which are calculated to improve the conditions of the people, it is very necessary that we should not only have enthusiasm at the centre, but a good deal of enthusiasm and local knowledge on the perimeter as well. In so far as this matter is one more example where that power has been vested in the centre and not on the perimeter, I am fully able to support the Bill not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the City of Manchester, which I have the honour to represent.

Another argument which I can adduce is that, in so far as the health appointments are concerned, the qualities required of officers vary a little as from one part of the country to another and from one town to another. I know that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), who also spent some time in Manchester, when his father was postmaster there, will agree that there are certain local problems in Manchester which are probably not to be found in other cities in the country. I know from my association with the town for twenty years that the Port of Liverpool has medical problems which would not be appropriate to or which would not occur in any other port, and, therefore, I feel that some consideration should be given to these matters of local requirements.

I believe it is in the interests of the National Health Service as a whole that these problems should be resolved by local knowledge and by the consideration of local councillors and aldermen. That might possibly help to make the work of the local councillors much more interesting and might make them feel that they have a say in the matter.

Finally, I believe that in many of the health committees much more importance should be attached to what I call teamwork; in other words, that the local health authorities should work as teams. If that is done, then I think they are entitled to pick the best players for their team, and, in so far as the Bill assists them in doing that, I fully support it.

I feel sure that the whole House will support the Bill. It may not be as thrilling a piece of legislation as that which I see reflected in it, because I notice that the legislation with which we are dealing refers to gentlemen some of whom are medical officers of health and that we are also dealing with people who, in olden days, were known as sanitary inspectors. But we have progressed since then. By an Act of Parliament sanitary inspectors have become public health inspectors. I feel that this further move towards their higher status and greater freedom will be a great encouragement to them.

In all seriousness, it really is rather ridiculous that, apart from the question of the deputy medical officer for the county, the appointment of a deputy public health inspector should require the approval of the Minister every time. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) has used his opportunity so happily and has received such firm, sensible and eloquent support from my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams).

I wish to agree with all hon. Members who have so far spoken and to say that we very much welcome this small but most useful Bill. We are, indeed, grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) for using the opportunity afforded to him to introduce the Measure which, as he said, removes a rather stupid anomaly that arose not from any lack of willingness on the part of Governments but from the fact, as he explained, that it was possible to implement the relevant recommendation of the Local Government Manpower Committee by regulation.

In the case of deputies to medical officers of health, and, similarly in the case of deputies to sanitary inspectors, now public health inspectors, the need for permission from the Minister was enshrined in the Local Government Act and the London Government Act. Therefore, it has been necessary to go through the whole gamut of introducing a Bill. It has not been possible to get this piece of legislation into the very crowded programme of legislation which falls under direct Government business.

I thank my hon. Friend for the care and trouble that he has taken and for the detail in which he read a far more copious piece of legislation in order to help us to get this most useful Bill and to remove the anomaly. It has been very difficult when, in some cases, the deputy, who may have been appointed for only a few weeks, had still to receive the Minister's approval and had almost finished his business as deputy before this approval had arrived.

I wish to thank the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) for his support. The hon. Gentleman answered his own case about the criticism which he said was being made by some officers of local authorities when he commented that, far from there now being less responsibility, there is more. Certainly, so far as my Department is concerned, they have a great deal wider responsibility and play a vitally important rôle. To the extent that this Bill will give them an additional sense of authority by enabling them to appoint their own deputies, I am delighted to welcome it on behalf of the Ministry.

I am extremely sorry to observe that there is no representative of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance present on the Government Front Bench.

May I inform the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is on his way. I regret that business has been more expeditious than was expected, but he has left another appointment to come to the House and will be here in a moment.

I took the personal precaution of getting in touch with the Ministry within the last hour and informing the Ministry that business would be expeditious today. But now that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is present, I can proceed.

On 1st December, 1952, over four years ago, I called the attention of the then Ministry of National Insurance to the fact that there was no area office of the National Assistance Board in the Borough of Stoke Newington, and that it was causing considerable hardship to residents in the borough who had to apply to the area office in Tottenham. I asked what steps were being taken to remedy that state of affairs. I was informed that the provision of an office would be considered, if suitable premises could be found, but that in the meantime arrangements had been made for personal inquiries about assistance to be dealt with at the local office, which is at 191. Stoke Newington High Street.

The position was that the premises at 191, Stoke Newington High Street were then being used as an office for two areas, not only Stoke Newington, but also for the large area of Tottenham, for the purposes of pensions, sickness benefit, industrial injuries, disablement benefit, widows' pensions and matters of that kind, which, of course, come under the terms "pension" and "National Insurance", but for matters relating to National Assistance, applicants had to go to the National Assistance office situated then, as it is now, in Lansdowne Road, Tottenham. Forms for National Assistance may be obtained at any post office, but for any personal application for assistance, or where people wanted to make inquiries about personal assistance, they had to go to Tottenham.

There are cases where families are dependent on sickness benefit, and where the application has to be made for assistance to bridge the period of eligibility. There are matrimonial cases where deserted wives are without means and have to apply for immediate assistance. There are cases of physically handicapped persons who find it very difficult to travel when they have to apply for assistance; and, of course, there are cases of women who have to make personal calls, and often have to make this journey attended by children. I have instanced only cases of hardship. There is no place in Stoke Newington to which they can apply, and they have to travel to Tottenham.

The National Assistance Board office in Tottenham is three miles from Stoke Newington. It involves, in some cases, a single bus fare of 8d., and certainly in the majority of cases a single bus fare of 6d. It is obvious, therefore, that the failure to provide such an office for ready and immediate assistance in Stoke Newington constitutes a real hardship.

As I have said, I raised this matter over four years ago. What has happened since? In December, 1952, after I raised the matter, the National Assistance Board was approached by the town clerk of the borough of Stoke Newington. He asked that all cases of National Assistance should be dealt with at 191, Stoke Newington High Street, the local office. He was told—I wish to emphasise this because of what I proposed to deal with later—that the premises were inadequate. The matter was raised again in the early part of 1953. The same answer was given. In October, 1954, the town clerk, on behalf of the Stoke Newington Borough Council, offered for this purpose the use of part of premises in what is called their Hall of Remembrance, which had just been vacated by the Ministry of Food.

The town clerk was told that it was too small, but he was informed that the Ministry of Works was proceeding with the erection of a new building at Tottenham, and that on the completion of that building, it would be handed over to the Ministry of National Insurance; and the office until then used in Stoke Newington High Street for Tottenham cases of Pensions and National Insurance would be available for the purposes of the National Assistance Board for Stoke Newington. As I said, that was in October, 1954. On 10th February, 1955, a letter was received from the Deputy-Controller of the National Assistance Board stating his intention to establish an area office at Stamford House, Stoke Newington, as soon as the Tottenham office of the Ministry of Pensions could be removed to Tottenham—that is, the one at Stoke Newington High Street could be removed to Tottenham—where premises were being erected, provided that accommodation was suitable.

It was said that it was hoped that the new building would be ready by May, 1955. Because of the difficulty of adaptability, there was little prospect of an office for National Assistance purposes being open ready for this purpose in Stoke Newington before November, 1955; but an assurance would be given that it would be done as soon as was readily practicable. The next thing was that a letter was received on 10th November, 1955, from the regional controller asking for the co-operation of the council in finding suitable premises.

The council immediately went into action and an offer was made of premises in Edward Lane. "Not suitable" was the answer. An offer was made of premises at 307, Green Lane. Again the answer was "Not suitable". An offer was made of premises at 189, Stoke Newington High Street. Again the answer was "Not suitable". Matters dragged on in this way.

On July 23rd, I put a Question to the Minister in which I asked him why, despite promises, a National Assistance office had not yet been provided in the borough of Stoke Newington and when he proposed to provide it. His reply stated that it was desirable that such an office should be provided but that, so far, suitable premises could not be found. He added that no promises had been given to open the office at any particular date. In my supplementary question I then pressed upon him the fact that the matter had been raised nearly four years before and that various offers had been made by the council, and I asked him to appreciate the great urgency of the problem and to realise that long and expensive journeys were entailed which caused hardship to many of my constituents.

His reply was that he recognised the desirability of getting premises but there was no suitable accommodation. He then said:

"But the hon. and learned Member will be reassured to know that the ordinary personal inquiry work is being undertaken by my Department's own office at 191, Stoke Newington High Street; and, of course, in any event, a good deal of National Assistance work can be, and is, carried out by post."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1.]

I have made it my business to ascertain exactly what the position is. I have visited the premises at 191, Stoke Newington High Street. I did so as recently as yesterday afternoon. I want to put the facts before the House, because if ever there was a glaring example of incompetency and waste of money this is one. The premises at 191, Stoke Newington High Street are used by the Ministry for pensions work and National Insurance. The Tottenham building was completed and has been used since August of 1955, so that since that date the work previously done for Tottenham at 191, Stoke Newington High Street in the way of pensions and National Insurance has gone.

Since August, 1955, a very considerable part of the premises at 191, Stoke Newington High Street have been vacant and not used for any purpose whatever. I saw the rooms yesterday. There are two very large rooms which might be described as small halls and three other very large rooms which are not quite so big. There are also three smaller rooms, making eight in all. There is ample space for a considerable staff and there are canteen facilities available. Those facilities are used by the existing staff and I am told that they could be extended to cater for a very much bigger staff. Just imagine that since August, 1955, these rooms have been empty and not used for any purpose whatever.

It would be hard to find a more blatant example of waste of public money. I suggest that it should be brought to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder how many similar examples there are in the country.

Today the National Assistance work for Tottenham and Stoke Newington is dealt with at Lansdowne Road, Tottenham, by a staff of 33. I am told that the work for the Stoke Newington area constitutes about one-fifth of the total work dealt with there, and that if the whole of the cases dealt with at Stoke Newington are considered—about 2,000 are dealt with by post and in addition there are calls and personal inquiries—they amount to not more than 2,500 a week. In other words, not more than one quarter to one-fifth of the total work is in respect of Stoke Newington, and the whole work, both Tottenham and Stoke Newington, is dealt with by a staff of 33.

I wish that the Parliamentary Secretary would pay a visit to these premises. I have not the slightest doubt from my personal observations that since August, 1955, there has been more than ample space at 191, Stoke Newington High Street for the staff required to deal with the National Assistance work for the area. Moreover, the rooms are ready and available, they are in excellent condition, there are canteen facilities, and there is no reason why they should not be used from tomorrow. However, somebody seems to have gone from the Ministry of Works, examined the premises and other premises and then said something about there not being sufficient room.

It is a crying scandal that these empty rooms should remain unused when they are so urgently required for this purpose. I ask why, since at least August, 1955, especially having regard to the fact that we pressed this problem again and again upon the Ministry, nothing has been done. In fact, if the Ministry desire to do a useful piece of work, there is the problem of many people in the Hackney part of my constituency who now have to travel a considerable distance to get to the office at Mare Street. There is sufficient space to make such an arrangement that in the available accommodation at 191, Stoke Newington High Street the whole of the work for the Parliamentary Division of Stoke Newington and Hackney, North in connection with National Assistance should be done. That would be to the benefit of my constituents in Hackney, as well as in Stoke Newington.

I have a further point. It was said in 1952 in answer to me, and again in July, 1956, in answer to me, that I need not worry and that personal inquiries into National Assistance work were being dealt with at 191, Stoke Newington High Street. I have asked about that. The truth of the matter is that of course the forms for National Assistance can be obtained there, just as they can be obtained from any post office, but that in fact the staff is there for the purpose of pensions and National Insurance work. There is no one there specially trained in National Assistance work in order to answer queries. All that happens if anybody goes there about National Assistance is that they are referred to the office at Tottenham, yet the Minister said to me in answer to my Question that personal inquiries are dealt with there.

I have taken great care to verify my facts. I present this as a case of gross ineptitude on the part of the Ministry. There have been four years of pressure and inquiry which have resulted in nothing, and I say that at least since August, 1955, premises have been available for the purpose for which they are required. I repeat that it is a scandal that these rooms should remain empty. It is a waste of public money. Meanwhile, my constituents are suffering from a real need which the Minister, in answer to my Question, conceded was a real one. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that this problem is dealt with at once as a matter of the greatest possible urgency.

I am sorry that I was not present when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) began his speech, but he will appreciate that the Motion for the Adjournment was moved rather earlier than was expected.

May I interrupt? We have plenty of time this afternoon. What could be more uneconomic than to leave these rooms as I have described them since August. 1955, without anything being done?

I am coming to that point. I think I shall be able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a satisfactory answer.

It is important to emphasise that the National Assistance Board has to look at the picture not only in the light of the needs of Stoke Newington, important though they may be, but of the whole pattern of the county. It has to provide facilities for people in every area of the country.

It would be equally reasonable to decide that offices should be within reasonable travelling distance, especially for aged and infirm people, would it not?

I quite agree. I have had a fair amount of experience in Birmingham of these matters and I know that in most areas the office accommodation of the National Assistance Board is within reasonable distance for people who want to use them. I admit that in some cases the journey may be long, but not unreasonably so. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing his best for his constituency, but the Board has never dissented from the view that an office in Stoke Newington would be an advantage and could be justified.

The only difference of view between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Assistance Board—and the Minister, as expressing the views of the Board-seems to be how pressing the need was for such an office. It was explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman in answer to the Parliamentary Question to which he has referred, and it has certainly been explained to the Stoke Newington Borough Council which has made representations to the Board from time to time, that provided suitable premises could be found an office would be established in Stoke Newington.

In any case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has reminded the House, it is not necessary for anyone applying for National Assistance to call at a Board office. A simple form is obtainable from any post office. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the procedure. He has gone to considerable research to familiarise himself with the work of the Board's offices in the areas adjacent to his own constituency and with the work of my own Ministry's office in Stoke Newington. In case he does not know, I would tell him that anyone who is in need of National Assistance and wishes to apply has only to walk into a post office to obtain a simple printed form which is very easily completed and is already franked, prepaid, to the address of the local office of the Assistance Board.

To get a form of application at a post office is one thing and to get immediate assistance is another, because the applicant has to go to the office in Tottenham to get such assistance. He cannot get it without going there.

The hon. Gentleman may like to know I have here a form of application for National Assistance, which I always carry in my handbag. Whenever I find somebody who might be eligible I try to persuade that person to apply. This form states:

"If your need is so urgent that you must have assistance immediately or within the next day or so, please state the circumstances below."

There is space for this on the form, to enable people to get assistance within a day or two. I readily admit that there may be people who want assistance within hours. Then, of course, they must go to the nearest office. If their need is so urgent, it is not unreasonable that they should be asked to make a short journey.

In the majority of cases, certainly within my own experience, people either apply for a form at the nearest post office or there is somebody like myself who is interested in the welfare of people and who calls on them and produces a form. Once the form has been received, the National Assistance Board sends an officer to see the individual concerned at home and collect the necessary details.

I gather that the need in this area has been established. Is not the question of finding suitable premises the predominant issue?

The hon. Gentleman is taking the case a little further than the facts warrant in saying that the need has been established. It was agreed that it was desirable and that it would help if an office could have been found in Stoke Newington. That argument might be advanced in many areas of the country. In Stoke Newington, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there was, in any case, a standing arrangement that anyone desiring a personal interview could call at the office—

This talk about personal interview at the office is a mistake, because the staff at 191, High Street, Stoke Newington, are not trained in personal assistance. All they did when inquiry was made to them—I verified this—was to say, "You go along to the office in Tottenham." How does that square with the idea that personal inquiries are answered at 191, High Street, Stoke Newington?

I am a little surprised at the comments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because most of the officers of our Ministry have sufficient working knowledge to give answers to straight-forward questions. If there is anything complicated, I can understand a person having to be referred to the Assistance Board.

There is room for difference as to whether the need for this office is pressing. I assure the hon. and learned Gentlemen that the Board has all along been doing its best to find suitable premises in the Stoke Newington area.

Will not the hon. Lady recognise that the premises are there? I have seen them. They are sufficient for any amount of staff. Surely we ought to cut this red tape and get down to the job.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to make my own speech in my own way, I will come to the point which gives him the answer he is seeking. He should know that it has not been easy to find suitable premises in the Stoke Newington area. He has detailed the answers that have been given showing that the premises to which he has referred were not satisfactory. The hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that the local authority has been most anxious to give practical suggestions about suitable premises. The Board would like me to acknowledge the assistance which the local authorities have tried to give. At various times, the local authority has given particulars of four properties, but none, on inspection, proved suitable for the purposes of a National Assistance office.

Apart from the wish to help residents in Stoke Newington, the Board had another reason why a local office in that area would be desirable. The present premises at Islington of the Assistance Board are not satisfactory by any means. Other accommodation, much more suitable, but smaller, is available in the Islington area. If suitable premises could have been established at Stoke Newington, some of the case-load from Islington could have been moved to Stoke Newington, and the Board would have been able to transfer from Islington, from the present unsatisfactory premises, to the satisfactory premises that were available.

This is the point for which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been waiting. I am glad to say that arrangements are now in hand which the Board thinks will help all the interests concerned. The difficulty has been premises, as I have tried to stress. It was not until the middle of last year that any premises of sufficient size, that might offer possibilities of satisfactory adaptation, came to notice. The particular premises to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred are part of the premises which were used by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.

It was about this time in the middle of last year that the Ministry of Works informed the National Assistance Board that part of Stamford House, occupied by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, had become vacant. It was not at that time considered by the Board that this vacant accommodation was sufficient or was of a suitable character to provide really satisfactory offices, and so the search continued. In August of this year, having once again drawn a blank, the Board reviewed the position. It has been anxious to help. It came to the conclusion, that, despite its defects, unless this vacant accommodation was utilised, the prospects of setting up an office in Stoke Newington were very remote. So, again, this accommodation was viewed and the Ministry of Works has been able to agree to a scheme of adaptation which will enable it to be used.

I want to emphasise the date, which was in August of this year. I think that the hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members will appreciate that certain other steps had to be taken. There had to be consultations with the staff side, and there were questions of boundary adjustments to be agreed, but on 19th November—I think the date is not without importance—provisional agreement was reached on a scheme of adaptation, and on 3rd December the Ministry of Works was informed of the Board's acceptance of the premises subject to the adaptations being agreed. A great deal of work still has to be done before the premises will be ready for occupation, but the Board now has hopes that at long last there will be an office in the Borough of Stoke Newington by the late spring.

This will give relief to the neighbouring areas of Islington, Tottenham and Hackney, as well as a service to the people of Stoke Newington. I must emphasise that the provision of an office in Stoke Newington, where, as the hon. and learned Member said, the need was moderately small, could be considered only in the light of what that office could provide to assist adjoining areas. That is what the new proposals will now cover. I think that this will give some pleasure to the hon. and learned Member and the borough council. If, with the cooperation of the Ministry of Works, the work of adaptation and improvement can be expedited to enable the office to be opened sooner than the late spring date estimated, I assure the hon. and learned Member that no one will be more pleased than the National Assistance Board.

I am very grateful that, at long last, the Ministry has moved in the matter, but I must emphasise that from what I have seen there seems no reason whatever why the use of these premises should be postponed until the spring of next year. They appear to be in such perfect condition that they could be used tomorrow if the desire was there.

I have no doubt that the premises are in good condition, as they were recently vacated by my Ministry, but they must be made to serve the purposes of the Board and some adaptations are necessary.