HC Deb 10 July 1939 vol 349 cc1953-87

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 23, after "Act" insert: is wholly or mainly used for residential purposes.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the first of a series of Amendments to the Clause dealing with the provision of shelters in blocks of flats which was inserted in the Bill at a late stage in the proceedings in this House. Hon. Members will recall that, when the Clause was introduced, the provision made was of a permissive character, but subsequently an Amendmentwas accepted placing a definite obligation upon the owner of the properties in question, so that what had previously been a matter of discretion on the part of the owner became a definite legal obligation. As a result of that change, certain consequential modifications were thought to be necessary. The object of all these changes is to avoid overlapping, and possibly, conflicting obligations. I think hon. Members will appreciate that, as long as the matter was left entirely optional, a certain amount of overlapping might not matter, but when it became an obligation, it was essential to ensure that the obligation should be adjusted to other obligations imposed by other provisions of the Bill. This particular Amendment is necessary to ensure that premises which are not mainly residential are excluded from the scope of the Clause; in other words, that premises which under the Bill are treated as commercial buildings or factory premises, in respect of which definite obligations of an entirely different character have been imposed by other provisions of the Bill, should be excluded.

Lords Amendment: Leave out lines 24 to 26, and insert: Provided that —

  1. (a) so much of any building or block of buildings as consists of, or is comprised in, any factory premises or commercial building shall be disregarded;
  2. (b) the said expression does not include any building or block of buildings owned by any local authority;
  3. (c) if and so long as arrangements are in existence under which particular classes of persons are provided free of charge on behalf of His Majesty with materials for air-raid shelter, the said expression does not include a building or block of buildings in the case of which the majority of the occupiers of the residential parts fall within those classes.
and any question whether any building or block of buildings is or is not excluded from the operation of this Section by virtue of paragraph (c) of this proviso shall be referred to the Minister whose decision shall be final.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Following on what I have said, I may explain that the first paragraph of this proposed proviso prevents overlapping in respect of factory premises or commercial buildings and the second paragraph excludes any building or block of buildings provided by a local authority. That is because it is considered quite unsuitable that the Clause should be applied to blocks of flats provided by local authorities partly at the expense of the Exchequer and wholly from public funds. The object there is to ensure that rents should be kept at a very reasonable level, whereas the essence of the Clause is that the cost of providing shelter should be passed on to the tenants in the form of an increase of rent. Paragraph (c) is designed to meet the case of workers' dwellings where the occupants are entitled, under arrangements made by the Government, to have materials for shelter provided for them free. It was considered equally that in that case the provisions of the Clause which impose the cost of providing shelter upon the tenants are not properly applicable.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Ede

My hon. Friends and I attach considerable importance to this Amendment and we regret to see paragraph (c) and the words which follow it included in the Amendment. Unless there is some better explanation than the right hon. Gentleman has given, we shall feel compelled to divide against it. I should have preferred to try to single out paragraph (c) and move its deletion, but I understand that the stage is too late for doing that. I want to make it clear that we are not objecting to paragraphs (a) and (b). When we come to paragraph (c), it really appears to me that the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman was quite inadequate. The paragraph in the first place has a far wider application than he gave it, because if you take an old mansion which has been divided up into flats at various rentals, occupied by persons in very different occupations and social classes, if the majority of the tenants are persons belonging to the class who would be entitled to a free shelter, the whole building, both for these people and for the people who are not entitled to a free shelter, comes out of the Clause and the people who are not entitled to the free shelter cannot get the advantages which were secured by the Amendment that I moved on the Report stage. That appears to me to be a quite indefensible position.

Now let us consider the case of persons who are entitled to a free shelter of the type with which the right hon. Gentleman's name will be associated, long after the shelters themselves have disappeared. Even if such a person gets the shelter free, in the majority of cases he has nowhere to put it. He may be living in a block of flats or a converted mansion and have no right to use the ground adjoining his dwelling-place. The right hon. Gentleman did not say so, but I understand it will be the case where there is a building entirely inhabited by persons who are entitled to free shelters, that if they have nowhere to put the shelter, the local authority will, by arrangement with the occupiers of the flats or in some other way have to provide shelter for those people. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say so and I understand that no arrangement has been made with the local authorities. We hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way even now to try to meet the situation. I assure him this is not a London problem alone, but affects my constituency and also the constituency of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) and other places on Tyneside. There are big houses there including one in which the Lord President of the Council was born, divided up into flats, some let at low rentals to persons of small means, while the larger and more habitable apartments are let to people with higher incomes. There are working-class flats in connection with which there is no place where a shelter can be placed. In view of the large number of people involved, we must resist this Amendment.

Miss Wilkinson

Do I understand that where poor people are living in rack-rented houses, and paying already far beyond their capacity, the landlord under this proposal will be able to pass on an increase of rent, which would not be passed on if they were tenants of a municipal house? If so, it seems an obvious injustice.

11.20 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

If I might first take the point raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), I think she has got what I tried to convey to the House quite wrong, if I may say so. The whole purpose is to avoid using this Clause, which is really designed to deal with the middle-class and the luxury flat, to pass on to the tenants of working-class flats the cost of shelter which it is the policy of the Government to secure shall be provided for those people free. In the case of the block of flats owned by a local authority, it has been made quite clear that it is open to that authority to provide shelter at the expense of public funds, and the shelter so provided will rank for Exchequer grant under the Act of 1937.

As regards the point that was raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), again I would remind the House that the purpose of the Clause was to cover a limited case, the case of the middle-class and luxury flat, and while it may be that there are borderline cases of blocks of flats which are occupied partly by people whose circumstances would entitle them to the provision of standard shelters free of cost and partly by people on a higher economic plane who would be expected normally to provide shelter for themselves, I suggest to hon. Members that for practical purposes you must, when you are dealing with a Clause that imposes definite obligations, see that you draw the line clearly and that you leave no room for doubt as to the side of the line upon which any particular block of buildings fall. For that reason, I suggest that we have no option but to accept this Amendment if we are to avoid possible confusion, and I would remind the House, with reference to what the hon. Gentleman said, that the normal method of providing shelter established under the Act of 1937, as amended by this Measure, is in the form of public shelter, and that the provision of private shelter was an expedient introduced a few months ago in order to expedite the provision of shelter and to limit, so far as possible, the burden falling upon local authorities in connection with the provision of public shelter. I announced in the House of Commons on 13th June thatin the case of working-class flats, whether owned by local authorities, charitable trusts, or ordinary private owners, occupied predominantly by persons who would be entitled to the free provision of one of the standard type of Government shelters—and we are not concerned only with the steel shelter to which the hon. Gentleman referred—that in those cases it would be proper for the local authority to provide shelter for the occupants whether on or outside the premises under the provisions of the Act of 1937 and with the aid of the Exchequer grant payable under that Act. In the view of the Government, that is the course appropriate in those cases in which, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, there may be difficulty in finding land adjacent to the building on which those shelters could be provided.

11.25 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams

In one part of my constituency there are a great many buildings of the type referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), houses which once were mansions but now are subdivided and occupied by people of all income grades. I appeal to the Lord Privy Seal to reconsider his attitude with a view to asking another place to send this Amendment back to us with paragraph (c) deleted, because otherwise I am afraid that a substantial number of people will not get any shelter. The tenants are continually changing. One week flat A may be occupied by a person who is entitled to get a free shelter, and a few months later is occupied by someone above the £250 income limit, and if we are to treat this class of building in this exceptional way there will be a great deal of trouble. It is not a big issue from the national point of view, but it will give a lot of trouble, especially where a district is said to have "gone down." I hate the phrase, but it is one which we all understand. I regret to say that has happened in a part of my constituency, and I find myself with a measure of considerable sympathy for the view of the hon. Member for South Shields. It will take only a few minutes of Parliamentary time if the Lord Privy Seal will ask those in another place to reconsider their point of view.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Silkin

Most Members will be profoundly disappointed by the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. Throughout the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Report stage we were led to believe that it was the policy of the Government to close every gap and to provide protection for every section of the population. If this Clause is left at it stands there will be a substantial portion of the population left without any protection at all. In London in particular there are at least 50,000 persons living in dwellings of the kind which are deliberately excluded by paragraph (c). The Lord Privy Seal has asked that they shall be left to the operations of the local authorities. In practice the local authorities are quite helpless to provide protection of the kind suggested by him. In London this will affect five-and six-storey flats in densely populated areas where it is quite impossible for the local authorities to provide any sort of communal shelter at all. The only way of providing shelter for these people is within the curtilage of the building itself.I suggest that that is what should be done, but it is impossible for the local authority to do it within the curtilage of the building. [Hon. Members:"Why?"] Because they have to get possession of a portion of the building,and, also, they have not control over the building. It is the owners who have control. This Clause would enable the owners to carry out the work in exactly the same way as—

11.29 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson

If this Clause were applied in that way the result would be that the whole cost of providing the shelter would fall on the tenants themselves, and in the view of the Government that would be entirely wrong. It is the policy of the Government that shelter in those cases should be provided without charge to the people concerned, and it is for that reason that, speaking on behalf of the Government, I cannot accept the suggestion that this particular paragraph should be omitted. As regards the point which the hon. Member made about local authorities, it is always possible for the local authorities, in the provision of public shelters, to designate part of any particular premises.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Silkin

Surely the tenants are the best judges whether they are prepared to pay for the shelters. It is for them to say, by a majority. All that is being asked is that these tenants should be in a position to say, by a majority, that they want a shelter and that they require the owners to provide it. The alternative is that no shelter will be provided at all. There are many flats in the most densely populated parts of London and other large towns where, as the Lord Privy Seal knows, shelters will not be provided except through the instrumentality of the owners. All that is being asked is that tenants should be the judges in this matter and should pay such increases of rent as the law provides. If they decide by a majority that they do not want a shelter they will do without it. Why should they be deprived of an option that is provided for people who are better off? Under our proposal they would know the cost of the shelter and the actual increase in rent.

Mr. McCorquodale

Surely it is better for these poor tenants to have their shelters provided for them, without having to pay. The hon. Gentleman has been told three times that that will be the case?

Mr. Silkin

The Lord Privy Seal knows that these tenants will be left without defence if the Clause is left as it stands. I want the Bill to give the same option to the poorer people as it gives to people better off. If the tenants can decide by a majority whether they want a scheme the matter will be entirely in their hands. I understand that the Lord Privy Seal is protecting the tenants against increases in rent. I appeal to him to give them also the protection for which I am asking.

11.34 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris

I think the House is a little confused between the experience of the Minister and that of the hon. Gentleman, who is chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council. They are in contact in a practical way with this problem. The interpretation of the hon. Gentleman is that tenants will suffer, while that of the right hon. Gentleman is that tenants will gain. It is a little difficult, reading the Clause, to judge between the two positions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed to state the position again and to assure the House that tenants will not suffer in this matter.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Duncan

I hope that my right hon. Friend will insist on paragraph (c). I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who is the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council and must have enormous experience of the poorer people in London who want houses, should ask for the deletion of paragraph (c). The people who are being housed at the present time by organisations like the Peabody Trust and other philanthropic house-building organisations are in exactly the same position as the tenants of the London County Council, and it is party to help these people, so that they do not have to pay more rent, that the paragraph is included.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Poole

I also am in a difficulty in understanding the exact implications of the Amendment. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) say that we were prepared to accept paragraphs (a) and (b), but not paragraph (c). I do not see why it should be left to the discretion of the local authority whether they should or should not provide protection for the tenants of their houses. The Minister said that the local authorities had the necessary powers and, if they did the work, it would rank for grant. Knowing local authorities, and having served on them for a number of years, I want it to be compulsory on them to give the same protection to their tenants as they ask other owners of property to provide. I know that this will affect the London County Council, in particular, very hardly, and there will perhaps be considerable difficulty in finding the accommodation, but I am not prepared to agree to tenants being left at the mercy of invading aircraft in order that the local authority may be relieved of the necessary expenditure.

The Minister says it is desirable, because a burden would be imposed on the tenants and it would affect their rent, but in a block of flats such as we now see being erected it would only mean a copper or two on the weekly rental. The Minister shakes his head, but that is the result of a rough arithmetical calculation I have made. I am satisfied that the tenants would rather pay that and know that they had air-raid protection than be excused it on these grounds. If the Minister is so concerned about relieving the tenants of the responsibility of paying for this protection, why has he not done the right and proper thing and put the cost on the Exchequer, where it ought to fall, and not on the local authorities? I think that paragraph (b) should be deleted, and that it should be an obligation on local authorities to make provision for their tenants in the same way as other owners of property.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby

In my constituency there are a number of houses of a similar character to those referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and, as I understood the Minister's reply, he said that a tenant of one of these converted houses whose income brought him within the category of those entitled to be supplied with a shelter free would get one free, but that a tenant whose income was above the limit would not. As the hon. Member for South Shields said, there is a considerable ebb and flow of tenants in the case of these buildings, and I am wondering whAt would happen to a shelter supplied free to a certain tenant who was entitled to it by reason of the amount of his income, if he left the flat and it was subsequently tenanted by someone whose income was above the limit. Would he be entitled to use the shelter supplied to the previous tenant or not? That is a matter of considerable importance in any constituency where these converted houses house a considerable number of tenants.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison

May I first clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole)? The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that we did not object to paragraph (b) is that there is a general statutory responsibility on local authorities to provide shelter for the community, and it would not be right to single out for special statutory protection any section. If my hon. Friend thinks that the London County Council has any interest in favour of paragraph (b), perhaps I had better tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), as chairman of the housing committee, and I took the responsibility of incurring an expenditure of £750,000 in that direction. That is that. And the London County Council has since ratified our action. The Lord Privy Seal apparently relies in part on Clause 2, which is the designation Clause—that is to say, a local authority may enter upon and designate buildings. But it can designate buildings only for the purpose of public shelter—that means general public shelter. What is wanted in these cases, whether they be working-class flats, mixed flats, or houses built for single occupation that have become tenements, is not general public shelter, but particular shelter for the people residing in that area or in those buildings. Therefore, Clause 2 does not fit.

In the case of tenement flats inhabited by the working classes, in most cases it will not be the building that you want to designate, but the courtyard, where the shelter would be built. So Clause 2, again, does not meet the case. But paragraph (c) specifically exempts premises occupied by the class of population eligible to receive material from His Majesty's Government without cost—that is, a steel shelter or, as the Lord Privy Seal indicated, other things which they might receive. I presume that he means bricks, cement and so on. These would not be of much use to some people. Take, for instance, the average constituents of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I imagine they would be quite incapable of taking bricks and cement, and building shelters for themselves. In the new paragraph (a), which I think the Lord Privy Seal will recommend to the House, power is taken for the local authority to enter upon common gardens. But this does not give the local authority power to enter upon the courtyards of working-class flats. It may be necessary for them to do that. That is another gap. Ought it not to be an owner's job, at any rate in part? Ought not the local authority to have some hold over the owner? In municipal flats, the local authority is to do the job. It has to carry the responsibility.

Mr. Poole

No.

Mr. Morrison

In practice it has, and a large number are doing it.

Mr. Poole

I appreciate the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given me, but all local authorities are not in the same position as the London County Council.

Mr. Morrison

So long as we are clear about that, it is all right.

Mr. Poole

I am not seeking to criticise the London County Council or to make a charge against it, but I only use it as an illustration. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) to remember that the Liverpool City Council also must have many such flats, and that council is a Tory council, and we are entitled to ask, what is going to happen in Liverpool? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me that every Tory council which owns flats has done the same as his council has done? I am not seeking to make charges, but London, being a typical area, is the best illustration to give.

Mr. Morrison

I would not interfere in the affairs of Liverpool.

Mr. Poole

That is not necessary.

Mr. Morrison

I would not take Liverpool as a case about which to argue, but the hon. Member did make an implication.

Mr. Poole

No.

Mr. Morrison

I believe he did, but I will not pursue the matter. The point I am on here is that you are excluding a whole class from the operation of the Clause, and it is wrong to do so. There is no obligation either upon the owner of the flats or the local authority to step in and put the matter right, and you are in danger of leaving a wide gap in this matter. If the local authority wishes to step in and fill in this gap, there is no provision in the Clause whereby it can effectively do so. The Lord Privy Seal has proceeded on the basis of handling this problem of shelter according to the nature of the specific problem with which he is dealing, with the idea at the end of the day that every case will be covered and every gap will be filled in. Here is a case where he has not done this, and it is wrong that that should be so. Our case is against paragraph (c) and the words that follow, and in the circumstances we have nothing to do but to Divide against their Lordships' Amendment. I still hope that the Lord Privy Seal can do something about it, otherwise we must Divide against the Amendment.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

I would draw the attention of the Lord Privy Seal to the fact that in Scotland, and in Glasgow in particular, we are very seriously troubled with the problem of huge flats and buildings being used to house a great many families. The latest reports on housing in Glasgow indicate that this is a growing menace, especially in the industrial areas. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind the fact that he is setting the local authorities a very serious problem. I lis1tened very carefully to the interchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and I believe that the House will recognise that in the London County Council we have really great men who want to tackle the job in a workmanlike manner and carry out their responsibilities to the full, but their great work does not in any way give us an estimate of the character of the work that the Lord Privy Seal himself is doing. He stated in answer to my hon. Friend that this responsibility lies with local authorities, and that if they cared to undertake this work it would rank for grant. While we recognise that places like Glasgow, London and other towns where the local authorities have Socialist majorities, are doing this work as quickly as possible, it would be interesting to have information concerning local authorities who are lagging behind. It is also of interest to note at this late hour of the Debate on Civil Defence that the Lord Privy Seal has told us that local authorities may do this or may do that. I would like him to indicate how many are lagging behind in their statutory responsibility.

With regard to paragraph (c), most of us realise that in the congested areas of Glasgow many suggestions are made, but the only practical one that can be made is that the closed mouth of the property, a small narrow way leading into a small, paved backyard, is the method of defence for the people of those huge buildings. Does the Lord Privy Seal think that that is really a practical suggestion? Can he not see any way other than by the

local authority installing huge and expensive shelters in buildings such as these? Are these people not entitled, in this income grade, to free protection? The Anderson shelter is of no use. These houses are in blocks of tenements and 30 or 40 families live in one building. There are old mansions with seven or eight families in each, in the Monteith road district of Glasgow. Paragraph (c) will materially affect the chance of those people having any kind of shelter.

I trust that the Lord Privy Seal will give the reconsideration to this question for which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) asked. I have visited Croydon recently. I met a man there who was living in a house where there were three families. When it rained very heavily the rain came in on the bottom floor. I can tell the hon. Member for South Croydon that the man also said that it was no use writing to his Member about it. Such circumstances exist in almost every big area in the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give this question his serious reconsideration as it touches Members in all parts of the House very strongly.

Mr. John Wilmot

There seems to be some misconception as to the real meaning of the Amendment, and it would be for the convenience of the House if the Lord Privy Seal were to answer the question:If the Amendment was carried and working-class people are excluded from the operation of the Clause, what form of protection will be provided for them?

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 108.

Division No. 226.] AYES. [11.55 p.m.
Aaland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Bull, B. B. Crowder, J. F. E.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Butcher, H. W. Culverwell C. T.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Cary, R. A. Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's) Channon, H. Denman, Hon. R. D.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Denner, P. W.
Aske, Sir R. W. Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Beamish, Rear-Admlral T. P. H. Clydesdale, Marquess of Drewe, C.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Bernays, R. H. Colman, N. C. D. Duncan, J. A. L.
Bossom, A. C. Colville, Rt. Hon. John Eastwood, J. F.
Boulton, W. W. Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Eckersley, P. T.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Boyee, H. Leslie Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Ellis, Sir G.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) Craven-Ellis, W. Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Emzya-Evans, P. V.
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Salt, E. W.
Fildes, Sir H. Lloyd, G. W. Schuster, Sir G. E.
Findlay, Sir E. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Seelt, Lord William
Fleming, E. L. Loftus, P. C. Selley, H. R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Shakespeare, G. H
Furness, S. N McCorquodale, M. S. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) MoKie, J. H. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Gridley, Sir A. B. Magnay, T. Snadden, W. McN.
Grimston, R. V. Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Gritten, W. G. Howard Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. Markham, S. F. Spens, W. P.
Hammersley, S. S. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Hannah, I. C. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswlek) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Harbord, Sir A. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Sutcliffe, H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Thorneyoroft, G. E. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Munro, P. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Hepworth, J. Nall, Sir J. Titchfield, Marquess of
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Tulnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Holdsworth, H. O'Connor, Sir Terenoe J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Holmes, J. S. Palmer, G. E. H. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Howitt, Dr. A B Perkins, W. R. D. Warrender, Sir V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Hunloke, H. P. Porritt, R. W. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Hunter, T. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Hutohinson, G. C. Radlord, E. A. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Williams, H. G. (Creydon. S.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J. Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.) Field, W. Allan (Derby) Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Kimball, L. Riekards G.W. (Skipton) Wragg, H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Ropner, Colonel L. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Lancaster, Lieut.-Colonel C. G. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Rowlands, G.
Leech, Sir J. W. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Lieut -Colonel Kerr and Major
Lipson, D. L. Salmon, Sir I. Sir James Edmondson.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall. G. H. (Aberdare) Pools, C. C.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon A.V(H'lsbr) Harris, Sir P. A. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Ammon, C. G. Hayday, A. Ridley, G.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ritson, J.
Barr, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Robinson, W. A. (SI. Helens)
Bellenger, F. J. Hills, A. (Pontafract) Rothschild, J. A. de
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W Hopkin, D. Seely, Sir H. M.
Benson, G. Isaacs, G. A. Sexton, T. M.
Bevan, A. Jagger, J. Silkin, L.
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Silverman, S. S.
Burke, W. A Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cape, T. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merionsth) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, T. (Normanion)
Collindrldge, F. Kirby, B. V. Sorensen, R. W.
Cove, W. G. Lawson, J. J. Stephen, C.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leach, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G. Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Merpeth)
Dalton, H. Lunn, W. Tll.ker, J. J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Maedonald, G. (Ince) Viant, S. P.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McEntee, V. La T. Watkins. F. C.
Dobbie, W. McGhee, H. G. Watson, W. McL.
Dunn, E. (Rather Valley) Maclean, N. Welsh, J. C.
Ede, J. C. Mainwaring, W. H. Westwood, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Marshalt, F. White, H. Graham
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Maxton, J. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Messer, F. Wilkinson, Ellen
Frankel, D. Milner, Major J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gallacher, W. Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doneaster) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Garro Jones, G. M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Wilmot, John
Gibson, R. (Greenock Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Noel-Baker, P. J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Oliver, G. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Paling, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemswerth) Parker, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Groves, T. E. Pearson, A. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 33, at the end, insert: exclusive of compensation; (c) state whether any and if so what compensation is proposed to be paid by the owner to persons having an estate or interest in the premises in which the shelter is to be provided and whether, and if so what, compensation is proposed to be allowed to the owner in respect of his interest in the premises in which the shelter is to be provided.

12.3 a.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is concerned with machinery. Its purpose is to provide, where a Scheme devised by an owner of a block of flats involves the setting apart of a portion of a building which may be in occupation by a tenant or in the occupation of the owner himself, that the loss suffered by the tenant or the owner, as the case may be, through the arrangement for using such accommodation for the purpose of shelter may be included in the compensation to be recovered by way of increased rent from the tenants in general.

12.4a.m.

Dr. Guest

This matter requires a little more explanation. The right hon. Gentleman in a previous Amendment said that the Clause applied to a limited number of cases. I think that is quite inaccurate; it will apply to a very large number of people. I do not know what proportion of people in London are above the level of those entitled to the Anderson shelter who are living in divided houses, but it isvery large. You will find them in Mayfair, in Bloomsbury, in every part of London and in many provincial towns. There must be a very large number who are above the Anderson shelter limit. The Amendment provides that a sum of money shall be paid to compensate the owner or tenant for giving up certain premises for the purposes of an air-raid shelter, but there is no means of compelling the owner or tenant to give up the premises if he does not wish to do so. You will be able to offer to pay money, but you will not be able to compel an individual to allow you to make a shelter. There appears to be a good deal of obscurity about this point, and as was shown clearly on the previous Amendment we discussed, there is a great deal of obscurity about the Clause. I do not raise this matter in a controversial spirit, but I want to know what the Amendment means, and to be sure that it is not too defective to work.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Silkin

Will the Minister explain a further matter? There may be cases where the owner is himself in occupation of that part of the premises which it is proposed to use as an air-raid shelter. In that case, the owner would have to give up possession and would claim to be compensated. As far as I can see, he could claim any figure he liked, and there would be no way of checking him. All he would have to do would be to insist on the amount of compensation he claimed. He would be the sole judge. It might conceivably arise that the owner would claim such a large amount of compensation that it would make the whole scheme financially impracticable. I should like the Lord Privy Seal to explain what check there is on an improper claim on the part of an owner for the accommodation which he has to give up.

12.7 a.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I speak again by leave of the House. In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), in Sub-section 9 it is made quite clear that there is no power on the part of the owner to enter any part of the premises against the will of the tenant. That matter was discussed at an earlier stage. The Government were criticised for not providing some power to compel a tenant to abate his rights in order that shelter might be provided for all the occupants of the building in the portion of the premises in his occupation. I suggest that that does not arise on this Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is that where, in fact, the owner sees his way to provide shelter, whether in a portion of the premises which happens for the time being to be untenanted, or by an agreement with the tenant, or by setting apart a portion of the premises in his own occupation, then a sum representing the loss to the person concerned due to that appropriation for shelter purposes of a portion of the premises in his occupation may be added to the amount to be recovered in due course by increased rent. There is no safeguard provided in the Clause against an extravagant claim by the owner. That is true. On the other hand, the operation of the Clause is en- tirely dependent on good relations between the tenants and the landlord and the willingness of the landlord to bestir himself and, taking advantage of the machinery provided by the Clause, to set about providing shelter under a scheme which the majority of the tenants are prepared to put through.

Sir Stafford Cripps

On Clause 69 there is a Lords Amendment which makes it clear that compensation in these cases is now covered by the Clause.

Sir J. Anderson

I was dealing with the Clause as it left this House.

Dr. Guest

If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, it would mean that in certain cases where there was not any accommodation vacant, or in the possession of the landlord himself, there is no means of securing that there shall be an air-raid shelter provided in the class of property dealt with. That is what we want to get clear, because we think such means should be provided in some way, as the Clause applies to a very large number of people throughout the country and not only in London.

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 3, leave out from the beginning to "dissent," in line 4.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Under the original permissive form of the Clause the owner was not allowed a vote in respect of any premises which might be in his own occupation. Now that the Clause is compulsory it has been suggested that it would be only reasonable that the owner, in common with the tenant, should have a vote should he himself occupy part of the premises. The effect of omitting these words is to give the owner a vote.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Silverman

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, for the purpose of the Amendment, "occupation" means actual physical occupation or occupation in a purely notional, legal sense. I think everyone would appre- ciate that, if the owner is himself an actual, physical tenant, he would be a perfectly proper person to take part in such a vote as is necessary to put this machinery into operation. But suppose he does not actually live there and leaves part of it unoccupied. That might conceivably give him a controlling voice and nullify the whole purpose of the Clause, so as to make it impossible for the others to get a majority. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether purely legal occupation is intended by "occupation," or only physical occupation?

Sir J. Anderson

I am advised that "occupation" here means occupation in the legal sense.

Mr. Davidson

Does the Clause mean that an owner can have friends in, occupying his own part of the premises in his name, or must he himself be resident there?

Mr. Silverman

I hope we shall get some better answer from the right hon. Gentleman than we have had up to now. If purely legal occupation and not actual, physical occupation is intended, would it not have this result, that where a large block of flats was half empty, this Clause could conceivably have no effect at all?

12.18 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the definition of "occupier" in the Bill, on page 76, as follows: 'Occupier,' in relation to any unoccupied land, premises, building, or part of a building, means the person entitled to the possession thereof. That is not the legal definition, because unoccupied land has no occupier. It is an artificial definition, created for the purpose of this Act, and that is why it is put in the definition Clause, so that in the case which my hon. Friends have put, the owner would in fact be dealt with as the occupier of all the unoccupied part of the premises, and he could in that case out-vote all the people actually living on the premises. In such a case, although he had no personal danger, because he was not actually living there, and it did not matter to him two pins whether or not there was an air-raid shelter in the building, he would have as many votes as all the people who actually had to live there, and he, though not risking the dan- ger, could say, "I do not wish to have an air-raid shelter," because it would cost him money or for any other reason. That does not seem to be a very desirable state of affairs.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

"The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 81.

Division No. 227.] AYES. [12.20 a.m.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Hammersley, S. S. Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Anderson, Rt. Hn, Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) Hannah, I. C. Rankin, Sir R.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Harbord, Sir A. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Aske, Sir R. W. Haneage, Lieul.-Colonel A. P. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Ropner, Colonel L.
Bernays, R. H. Hepworth, J. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Bossom, A. G. Holdsworth, H. Rowlands, G.
Boulton, W. W. Holmes, J. S. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Salmon, Sir I.
Boyce, H. Leslie Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haok., N.) Salt, E. W.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) Hunloke, H. P. Schuster, Sir G. E.
Bull, B. B. Hunter, T. Scott, Lord William
Bullock, Capt. M. Hutohinson, G. C. Shakespeare, G. H.
Butcher, H. W. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cary, R. A. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Snadden, W. McN.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Clydesdale, Marquess of Kerr, Sir John Graham (Soo'sh Univs.) Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preiton) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Spens, W. P.
Colman, N. C. D Lancaster, Lieut.-Colonel C. G. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Leech, Sir J. W. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Lloyd, G. W. Sutoliffe, H.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Craven-Ellis, W. Loftus, P. C. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. MeCorquodale, M. S. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Culverwell, C. T. MoEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Titchfield, Marquess of
Davies, C. (Montgomery) MoKie, J. H. Tufned, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H. Magnay, T. Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull)
Drewe, C. Margasson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Duggan, H. J. Markham, S. F. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Duncan, J. A. L. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Eastwood, J. F. Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Ecksrsley P. T. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Ellis, Sir G. Morrison, G. A. (Soottish Univ's.) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Fildes, Sir H. Munro, P. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Findlay, Sir E. Nail, Sir J. Wragg, H.
Fleming, E. L. O'Connor, Sir Terenee J. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Palmer, G. E. H.
Furness, S. N. Perkins, W. R. D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Green, W. P. C. (Worcester) Piokthorn, K. W. M. Captain Dugdale and Major
Gridley, Sir A. B. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Sir James Edmondson.
Grimston, R. V. Radford, E. A.
NOES.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) Grenfell, D. R. Price, M. P.
Adamson, W. M. Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Pritt, D. N.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hall. G. H. (Aberdare) Ridley, G.
Ammon, C. G. Hall, J. H. (Whiteohapel) Ritson, J.
Barr, J. Hayday, A. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hills, A. (Pontefraot) Rothsohild, J. A. de
Benson, G. Isaacs, G. A. Seely, Sir H. M.
Bevan, A. Jagger, J. Sextan, T. M.
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Silkin, L.
Burke, W. A. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Silverman, S. S.
Collindridge, F. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cove, W. G. Kirby, B. V. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lawson, J. J. Sorensen, R. W.
Daggar, G. Leach, W. Stephen, C.
Dalton, H. Logan, D. G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)-
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Maodonald, G. (Ince) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McEntee, V. La T. Tinker, J. J.
Dobbie, W. Mainwaring, W. H. Watkins, F. C.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Marshall, F. Watson, W. McL.
Ede, J. C. Maxton, J. Westwood, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Messer, F. Wilkinson, Ellen
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Milner, Major J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Donoaster) Wilmot, John
Frankel, D. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gallacher, W. Noel-Baker, P. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Garro Jones, G. M. Parker, J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Poole, C. C. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 33, line 5, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 33, leave out lines 14 to 19.

12.27 a.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be left out had to be inserted in a different place, because the reference to "owners" appears only once in the Clause and now appears twice. That is the whole purpose of the change,

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 33, line 22, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 24, at the end, insert: (b) there shall then be added to the sum ascertained under paragraph (a) of this Subsection the amount, if any, proposed by the scheme as compensation to persons (including the owner) interested in the premises in which the shelter is situated, or the amount (if any) properly paid by, or, as the case may be, reasonably allowed to, the owner in respect of such compensation, whichever is the less.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from the word "scheme," to the end of the Lords Amendment, and to add: to be paid by the owner as compensation to persons having an estate or interest in the premises in which the shelter is to be provided or the amount, if any, properly paid by the owner in respect of such compensation, whichever is the less; and (ii) the amount, if any, proposed by the scheme to be allowed as compensation to the owner in respect of his interest in the premises in which the shelter is to be provided or the amount reasonably allowed to the owner in respect of such compensation, whichever is the less. The Lords Amendment is in a form which it has been suggested is somewhat obscure, and I propose that it should be amended in terms which will make the Amendment read: (b) there shall then be added to the sum ascertained under paragraph (a) of this Subsection the amount, if any, proposed by the scheme to be paid by tie owner as compensation to persons having an estate or interest in the premises in which the shelter is to be provided, or the amount, if any, properly paid by the owner in respect of such compensation, whichever is the less, and (ii) the amount, if any, proposed by the scheme to be allowed as compensation to the owner in respect of his interest in the premises in which the shelter is to be provided or the amount reasonably allowed to the owner in respect of such compensation, whichever is the less. That alteration of wording makes no difference to the sense, or the meaning which it was intended to convey, and is a good deal easier to construe. The effect of the Amendment made in another place, the wording of which I suggest should be somewhat modified, is this: As already explained, there shall be included in the sum which is to be recoverable by way of increased rent either an amount included in the estimate originally furnished by the owner as the sum to be paid in compensation to an occupier whose premises are being used for the purpose of providing shelter, or the amount actually paid to such person, whichever is the less, where the interest of an occupier is affected, or, alternatively, where the interest of the owner is affected then the sum recovered is either the amount included in the original estimate or the amount ultimately allowed to the owner, again, whichever is the less. The matter is complicated. That ensures that the owner shall not recover more than he represented to the tenants in his original estimate would be recoverable under a particular head, or more than, in fact, has proved to be recoverable, whichever is the less.

12.32 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I think the House may be satisfied with the words which the Lord Privy Seal has moved to be substituted for the very difficult words which their lordships seemed to think would be adequate. May I put this in explanation of what the meaning of the Amendment is? If I may take an example I think it may be made fairly clear. Suppose, in a block of flats, a scheme is put forward by which the bottom flat is to be taken for the purpose of an air-raid shelter or a portion of it, and as a result of that the rent of that bottom flat is to be reduced, let us say from £100 to £50. The landlord will suffer the loss of £50 rent because in future he will get only £50 instead of £100. The tenant will suffer some loss due to inconvenience through having to move out of the flat while the air-raid shelter is being built. That might be assessed at £50. The air-raid shelter itself will cost, say, £500 to build. The scheme would then be: cost of building air-raid shelter, £500; compensation to be paid to the tenant, £50; compensation to be allowed to the landlord, £50 a year for eight years, £400. total £950.

That would be the scheme. If there were a dispute as to the justice of the £50 or the £400 to be paid to the tenant or the landlord, under Section 69 that can be taken before the Official Arbitrator and he may fix the figure of £300 to be paid to the landlord and £25 to the tenant. Then the only figure which can be ultimately charged in the calculation of the increase of rent would be the £300, and not the £400, or the £25 and not the £50. If, on the other hand, he awarded £500 to the landlord —more than actually in the scheme —the landlord could not recover more than had been in the scheme, because that was what he had put forward in his compensation to the tenants in order to get their acceptance of the scheme. This amended paragraph (b) makes it quite clear that both as regards what has to be paid to the tenant and what has to be paid to the landlord, it will only be the smaller of the two sums, either that which was in the original scheme or that which was ultimately awarded as reasonably payable under Clause 69.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 33, line 32, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 35, leave out "one-tenth" and insert "one-eighth."

12.39 a.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a substantive Amendment which alters the relationship of the owners and the tenants as regards the recovery of the cost of providing shelters. In the Clause as it left this House it was provided that one-tenth of the cost to the owner of the provision of shelters should be recoverable from the tenants by way of increased rent in different years. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that the amount recoverable in each of the 10 years shall be not one-tenth but one-eighth, and the object is to limit the loss which, under the Clause as it stood before, the owner might be put to in the provision of shelter. Such loss is liable to arise in two ways. In the first place, the owner would find himself, in the normal case, under an obligation to pay Income Tax under Schedule A in respect of the increase of rent to which he has to look for the recovery of his charges.

In the second place the machinery of the Clause makes no provision for the recovery of interest on the capital outlay incurred by an owner in the provision of shelters. If, for example, he had borrowed money from the bank in order to provide the shelter the sums which might have to be paid by way of interest on such a loan would represent actual out-of-pocket losses. In addition, he would be liable to the risk of loss in respect of any vacancies in the tenancies of his property. Therefore it was proposed in another place that in order that the owner might not have financial inducement against, or at any rate not be subject to a definite financial deterrent in, the provision of shelter, he should be enabled to recover a sum exceeding the amount of his outlay, but not exceeding that amount to the extent sufficient fully to recoup him for all the loss he might be liable to incur. It has been calculated that the additional sum which in the most favourable circumstances an owner would be in a position to recover as a result of this Amendment would do no more than meet his liability to Income Tax under Schedule A and leave him with a very small sum amounting to, possibly, one-fifth of 1 per cent. as interest on his capital outlay.

It appears to the Government that, from the point of view of ensuring that advantage shall be taken of this Clause, and that it should be made to work in as great a proportion of cases as possible, there is a good deal to be said for the principle of this Amendment, and I, therefore, propose that this House should agree, with the Lords in the Amendment.

12.41 a.m.

Mr. H. Morrison

The point here is very clear and I am going to ask my hon. Friends on this side to divide against this Amendment. The Clause proposed that one-tenth of the cost should be charged annually over a period of 10 years and it is now proposed that one-eighth shall be charged, still over a period of 10 years. That means that the owner would get his capital and expenditure back, and not merely back, but would get it back one and a quarter times over the period. I am not clear about the Income Tax point at all. I should have thought that the owner would get an allowance on Income Tax because of the additional expenditure in the upkeep of buildings, and that therefore that is an irrelevant consideration. But, apart from that, it may well be that because the shelter is there, for any subsequent lettings he will get higher rents. That is the real additional probable income point for the owner himself.

The other point was that he had to earn interest on it, and must have compensation for, possibly, empty flats in the building. We do not agree. When this work has been done the cost is to be passed on in any case to the tenant in full, that is to say, the actual capital expenditure is to be recovered from the tenants. The tenants have, therefore, got to pay the additional rent in order that this shelter may come to them. They have to pay and to pay more than was formerly the case. If the tenant is to make a sacrifice in order that the shelter may be provided, is it not right that the owner of the buildings should also make his contribution by way of sacrifice in order that the shelter may be provided for the estate, including, possibly, the place where he himself wants to live? At any rate, it is right that the owner as well as the tenants should make a contribution and this seems to be the Government's prejudice in favour of the owner against the tenant, that somehow or other the owner must not be mulcted in any charge at all. We do not agree. We say that it is reasonable that the owner of these great blocks of flats for the middle classes and others should make some sacrifice for the interest of the tenants from whom, after all, he is going to draw an increased rent.

It seems to me that the Government, with their bias against the tenant and in favour of the owner —a bias which is shared by another place —is a bias which is unreasonable and improper in the circumstances. I would remind the Lord Privy Seal that in the Committee stage of the Bill in this House an Amendment was moved by hon. Members opposite in favour of one-seventh being put on the rent over a period of seven years. That was a much milder Amendment. It meant that the owner got his money back more quickly than would have been the case under the 10 years' proposal, but he would have got only one-seventh over a period of seven years. That milder Amendment was resisted by the Lord Privy Seal, who thought it was wrong, but directly he finds his Bill dealt with at the other end of the corridor he collapses in the face of the pressure promoted by landlords and property-owning interests of this sort. We think it is quite wrong for him to collapse in that way. We must resist this Amendment, which is against the interests of the tenants, and, therefore, we are going to divide the House upon it.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to offer very strong objection to the proposed Amendment. As a matter of fact, I intended to oppose the Clause dealing with the liabilities that were being put on the tenant in the previous Amendment, but the very lucid explanation of that Amendment given by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) hypnotised the House, and before I got a chance of getting up to express my opinion, the Amendment was put. I want to suggest that it is quite wrong to say that the tenant shall have to pay for the cost of these shelters and especially, as in this Amendment, that they should have to pay for the cost and a quarter over the cost. In the days that lie ahead any property that will let will have to be in such a condition that it will provide air-raid shelters for the people who are going to occupy it. The property will then have this advantage over those that have not got such shelters. Why is it, if the landlord is to be put in the position where he has to remodel his property in order that it may be in a more suitable condition for letting, that the unfortunate tenant should have to pay for that remodelling? Why that should be I cannot for the life of me understand. You might just as well say that if an employer has the responsibility of erecting a shelter for his employes he should be allowed to deduct the cost of that shelter from their wages. The one thing would be as sensible as the other. The employer has to provide shelter for his employes and the landlords have the responsibility, or should have the re- sponsibility, along with the local authorities, of putting the buildings in proper order and of meeting the ordinary needs of the tenants and the special needs that would arise in the event of air raids. They should be responsible for meeting the cost of that and not only for meeting the cost but they should be under liabilities that might arise for meeting the compensation to the sub-tenant. That landlords should be able to come along and receive one and a quarter times the cost is a scandal.

I do not believe any hon. Member on the other side of the House —I am certain there is not one —would go to his constituency and support or try to justify proposals of this kind. But I am certain that it is not only the working class, but the ordinary middle class who would also be seriously affected. I do not think any hon. Member could honestly support the Lords Amendment. The landlords are represented in another place and they will also see that the landlords' interests are always given consideration. In the next day or two there will be a publication that will be a terrible exposure of what goes on in another place and this Amendment is indicative of what that book will tell. I hope that not only on this side of the House but on the other side there will be many who will have the decency to vote against the Amendment.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Silkin

The Minister has given three reasons as justification for asking the House to support this Lords Amendment. The first is that Income Tax under Schedule A will be increased by an increase of rent. I submit that that is not necessarily so. An increase in Income Tax does not automatically follow an increase in rent. There has to be a fresh assessment and unless the assessment is increased and it is shown that the rental value has permanently increased as a result of the protection, there will be no justification for an increase in assessment. If, on the other hand, it is shown that the rental value has permanently increased as a result of the protection, then the landlord has already full value for his protection by a permanent increase in his rent.

Secondly, the Minister is suggesting that the landlord will somehow suffer loss of rent, but he has given no justification for that statement at all. I cannot under- stand in what way there will be loss of rent. On the contrary, it seems to me that there will be a gain of rent in many places. There are large numbers of blocks of flats which have basement premises which are at present unlet. and under the Amendment which we have just passed it will be possible for the owner to claim as compensation the rents of those empty basement flats if he uses them for the purposes of shelter, they being in his occupation. Consequently. he will actually be the gainer by being able to charge for the rent of the flats which he has not been able to Jet. But the Lord Privy Seal is going to the extreme and saying that there will be empty flats as a result of this protection being given, and I cannot follow him.

Finally, the Minister says that the landlord is entitled to interest on his money. But surely the landlord is to get a very big interest on his money if this increased rent which he charges will become a permanent increase of rent. It will go on long after the ten years. Therefore, he is to get full value for the expenditure and his interest will be very large indeed if you capitalise the increased rent which he is going to charge. I should have thought that would be ample to compensate him. Therefore, I think the case which the Minister has submitted falls on all three grounds which he has given, and I hope the House will Divide on this amendment.

12.54 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

Where, in such cases as I gave in illustration, the rent has been increased, quite clearly in the new valuation there will be a less onus of Income Tax. At the same time, under the provisions of the Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) Act, which was applied to this type of building especially, by a new Clause inserted by the Lords, the extra rent will not fall to be dealt with by Income Tax at all, and it will not come into the valuation for the purposes of Income Tax. Therefore, the landlord will, in fact, be getting a benefit, because he will be rated on the reduction, he will pay no Income Tax on the reduction; he will not have to pay Income Tax on the compensation, and, therefore, he will, in fact, benefit so far as the Income Tax and will not suffer. And at the end of eight years he will be provided with an air-raid shelter at the expense of his tenants which will be his in perpetuity, and if the present Government go on it will surely be of great value in eight years' time, because nothing will have been done to make the danger any less.

Apart from that, the shelter can be used for many other purposes. A sensible landlord can make it usable for a swimming bath. Such a thing has been done in many places abroad. He will have those premises the value of which has been paid for by his tenants, and the Lord Privy Seal has allowed nothing for that increase in value at all. In fact, the landlord would do quite well out of this as a commercial proposition. He would do well as a profiteer out of providing this air-raid shelter. I suggest that the Lord Privy Seal might on this matter give way to the demands on this side of the House, because this is a matter in which, if he thinks there would be a small burden on the landlord, it is one which he should be asked to share and not to put the burden wholly on the tenant. Will not the Lord Privy Seal say in this case that he will advise the House not to accept the Amendment but leave the matter where it was before it went to another place?

12.57 a.m.

Sir J. Anderson

With the permission of the House, the ground on which I suggest the House might accept the Amendment is that I believe in practice it will have effect of sharing the burden between landlord and tenant. As regards the Income Tax point, I believe that in practice landlords who make a claim on the Inland Revenue for allowance in respect of basement flats have always to set against any such claim any incidental increases of rent, and I have been advised —because I made a special inquiry on this point —that in the normal case the increase of rent that will be payable in respect of a shelter will be fully taken into account by the Inland Revenue authorities as a matter of practice. I would only like to add that I hope hon. Members will recognise that, although when the Clause left this House it was cast in the form of a compulsory provision, there is in fact no effective machinery provided for requiring owners to carry the obligation that it has been sought to put upon them. That was made clear in the discussions of the Clause. I can only hope that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) may be right in thinking that the Clause in its new form will prove highly attractive to owners of fiats. If that proves to be the case —I am doubtful about it —we shall find owners competing with one another to provide as speedily as possible the shelters we all wish to see provided for their tenants.

I am going to remind hon. Members of the argument put forward —I think with little justification —in regard to the charges which might have to be borne by the occupants of working-class flats, and that was that the charges these people would have to pay would be very small. That argument applies here. The additional charges would be very small, but there would be a cumulative effect on the owner of having to bear the cost while being able only to recover his actual outgoings without any allowance for vacant flats and liabilities for Income Tax; and I would only say that the possible financial consequences in to years' time for the owner who has had to provide shelter is a highly speculative matter, and I doubt whether owners would be very highly influenced by considerations of that sort.

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Silverman

I hope the Lord Privy Seal will not leave his argument entirely until he has dealt with a further point. We were dealing just now with the position of the owner of premises who was in occupation of part of the premises, and, apparently, we have now reached this position that, if the part of the premises of which he is an occupier as well as an owner be empty, he will be entitled to vote on equal terms with those who live there against the provision of a scheme; whereas, if he lives upon the premises himself then he is entitled to vote for the provision of a shelter which will not really cost him anything, but out of which he himself will make a profit. Really it will be very difficult to justify a proposition of this kind except on the basis laid down in another place that in no circumstances can the landlords lose anything by it.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. Davidson

I would ask the Lord Privy Seal to depart from the attitude that whatever the Opposition may say or whatever suggestion they may make is something that just must be said, and that in the final resort he has his majority behind him. I want to show to the Lord Privy Seal his inconsistency in argument here to-night and how completely weak his position is. In the first place, when the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) had put forward an argument that this would be something that would attract these owners and they would be induced, therefore, to undertake the building of these precautions, then he says he hesitates himself, and does not think it is so and then he is asking us to accept an Amendment that he does not believe will attract these owners to carry out their responsibilities as owners of property. I want to know

which of these he is going to choose. It has been proved quite clearly that these owners will only carry out the responsibilities of national defence for the price he is prepared to pay. This Clause is an indication that the Lord Privy Seal has given himself over hook, line and sinker to those in this country who are demanding payment for National Service. There is one thing certain, and that is that his friends the owners are demanding more than their fair share, and that the burden of National Defence should be placed on other shoulders.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 79.

Division No. 228.] AYES. [1.7 a.m.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Greene, W. P. C. (Worcestar) Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Gridley, Sir A. B. Ratmbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Anderson. Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) Grimston, R. V. Rankin, Sir R.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Aske, Sir R. W. Hammersley, S. S. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Hannah, I. C. Ropner, Colonel L.
Bernays, R. H. Harbord, Sir A. Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Bossom, A. C. Heneage, Liaut.-Colonel A. P. Rowlands, G.
Boulton, W. W. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Bowsr, Comdr. R. T. Hepworth, J. Salmon, Sir I.
Boyce, H. Leslie Holdsworth, H. Salt, E. W.
Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.) Holmes, J. S. Scott, Lord William
Bull, B. B. Howltt, Dr. A. B. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Bullock, Capt. M. Huntoke, H. P. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Butcher, H. W. Hunter, T. Snadden, W. McN.
Cary, R. A. Hutehinson, G. C. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Jarvis, Sir J. J. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Spens, W. P.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Colman, N. C. D. Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Limb, Sir J. Q. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Leeeh, Sir J. W. Sutcliffe, H.
Cooke, J, D. (Hammersmith, S.) Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Lloyd, Q. W. Thorneyeroft, G. E. P.
Craven-Elliss, W. Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Culverwell, C. T. Loftus. P. C. Titchfield, Marquess of
Davies, C. (Montgomery) MeCorquodale, M. S. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H. MeEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Drawe, C. MoKie, J. H. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Magnay, T. Waterhouse, Captain C
Duggan, H. J. Margasson, Capt. Rt. Hen. H. D. R. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Duncan, J. A. L. Markham, S. F. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Eastwood, J. F. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Eekersley, P. T. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Morris-Jonas, Sir Henry Wllloughby de Eresby, Lord
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Ellis, Sir G. Nail, Sir J. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Erskine-Hill, A. G. O'Connor, Sir Teranes J. Wragg, H.
Fildes, Sir H. Palmar, G. E. H. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Findlay, Sir E. Perkins, W. R. D.
Fleming, E. L. Piskthorn, K. W. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Radford, E. A. Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.
NOES.
Adamson Jennie L. (Dartford) Burke, W. A. Davies, S. O. (Marthyr)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Collindridge, F. Dobble, W.
Ammon, C. G. Cove, W. G. Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Barr, J. Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Ede, J. C.
Burn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Daggar, G. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Bevan, A. Dalton, H. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Buchanan, G. Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Frankel, D. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Saxton. T.M.
Gallagher, W. McEntes, V. La T. Silkin, L.
Garro Jones, G. M. Mainwaring W.H Silverman, S. S.
Gibson, R. (Greanock) Marshall, F. Smith Ben (Rotherhithe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Mathers, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Gnentell, D. R. Maxton, J. Sorensen, R W
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Massel, F. Stephan, C.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Milner, Major J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-is-Sp'ng)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapol) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Haekney, S.) Taylor, R. J. (Morpath)
Hayday, A. Noel-Baker, P. J. Tinker, J. J.
Hills. A. (Pontefract) Parker, J. Watkine, F. C.
Isaacs, G. A. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. Watsan, W. McL.
Jagger, J. Poote, C. C. Westwood, J.
Jenkina, A. (Pontypool) Price, M. P. Wilkinson, Ellen
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Marloneth) Pritt, D. N. William., E. J. (Ogmore)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Ridley, G. Wilmot, John
Kirby, B. V. Ritson, J. Woods, C. S. (Finsbury)
Lawson, J. J. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Leach, W. Rothschild, J. A. de
Logan, D. G. Seely, Sir H. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 33, line 36, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 24, at the end, insert: and where a part of a building or block of buildings is occupied under a lease of which the unexpired term is less than six months, that person shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to be the occupier of that part who would be the occupier there of if every such lease thereof had been surrendered. (11) The provisions of the last preceding Section shall apply in relation to the owner of a building or block of buildings who is providing an air-raid shelter of a permanent character under a scheme under this Section, as it applies in relation to the owner of any such premises as are mentioned in Sub-section (1) of that Section.

1.16 a.m.

Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The first part of this Amendment deals with a matter to which I have already referred, when I explained that because of the introduction of the second reference to these words appearing earlier in the Clause they must be re-inserted at a later point.

Question put, and agreed to. —[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 24, at the end, insert: