HC Deb 23 July 1941 vol 373 cc913-41

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Rent of lands and heritages which have sustained war damage.)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from the beginning to "a."

This Amendment and the two Amendments which follow it on the Order Paper —in line 29 to leave out "issues," and insert may, failing agreement between the landlord and the tenant issue on the application of either of them, and in line 31, to leave out "the," and insert "and any such"—can conveniently be explained together as they relate to the same matter. If hon. Members turn to Sub-section (2) of the Clause, they will find that it makes certain provisions "in default of agreement between the landlord and the tenant." The central purpose of the Bill is that agreement shall, if possible, be secured between the landlord and the tenant in the first instance. As the Bill now stands Subsection (6) reads as follows: If on the application of the landlord or the tenant a man of skill nominated in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained issues a certificate, etc. The emphasis in Sub-section (6) is on the appointment of the man of skill but the emphasis in all the provisions of the Bill should be on the desirability of attempting, first of all, to bring about agreement. Only after the attempt at agreement has failed, is the man of skill to be called in. These three Amendments are all designed to make that purpose quite clear. It is already implicit in the Bill but we desire to make it quite plain and if these three Amendments are accepted by the Committee, Sub-section (6) of the Clause would then read as follows: A man of skill nominated in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained may, failing agreement between the landlord and the tenant, issue on the application of either of them a certificate, etc.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 29, leave out "issues," and insert: may, failing agreement between the landlord and the tenant issue on the application of either of them.

In line 31, leave out "the," and insert "and any such."—(Mr. Johnston.]

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "practicable," to insert: having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the locality. The Committee will see that in Subsection (5) there is a reference to the circumstances prevailing in the locality having to be regarded as determining the extent to which repairs can reasonably be made. There is no such specific reference, however, in the subsequent provisions, which deal with the review of the certificate, and in order to make it clear that the same criterion is to be applied in both cases, I move this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

I consider it unnecessary to insert another reference to the circumstances prevailing in the locality. It is bad enough to have the reference which is already made in the earlier Sub-section. It will be remembered that during a previous discussion various suggestions were made regarding this point and it seems to me that if the further repairs are reasonably practicable, there is no need to introduce words which will provide those who are responsible for the repairs with an opportunity of getting out of that responsibility by raising questions of what is reasonable, according to the circumstances prevailing in the locality. Where the conditions in a locality are good, the tendency will always be to carry out the repairs with the minimum of discussion and friction. Where the conditions in a locality are bad, you will find the landlord using those conditions in order to offer all kinds of objections to making repairs. If certain repairs have been done and the people are living in the houses and if, later on, it becomes obvious that further repairs are reasonably practicable, there should be no question of bringing in the conditions prevailing in the locality as a reason against doing the repairs. These words can only be of use to those landlords who want to make the bad conditions in an area an excuse for obstructing repairs that are reasonably practicable. I cannot see why it is considered necessary to introduce words, the only value of which that I can see will be to provide an excuse for the reluctant landlord in this matter of repairs.

The Lord Advocate

I think these words add but little to the words "reasonably practicable." One must always judge what is reasonably practicable by the circumstances of the locality, and in any event this is a question which will go to the man of skill. If the man of skill is satisfied, he will give a certificate; if he is not satisfied, he will not give a certificate. I think we shall be safe in leaving the question to him.

Mr. Gallacher

I must question that statement. Is it to be said that in a slum area, for instance, what is reasonably practicable must be determined by the slum conditions which exist round about the damaged property? I say again that in a clean, healthy area the desire will be to make repairs of the best possible character and that these words can only be brought into use in bad areas by landlords who wish to use the bad surroundings as a justification for doing the very minimum of repairs. Therefore, I suggest that it is better to leave- out these words especially in view of what the Lord Advocate himself has said, that they do not matter very much.

The Lord Advocate

What' the hon. Member has just said shows that he is under a misapprehension as to the meaning of these words. They do not refer to the condition of the surrounding houses but to the amount of labour and material available in the locality for doing repairs. These words would not entitle anybody to say that because there was a slum in the neighbourhood, therefore the standard should be lower.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire)

The only thing which disturbs me is the interpretation to be placed on the words "reasonably practicable." No reference is made in the Bill to the question whether the scarcity or otherwise of labour and material will be taken into consideration. I can imagine areas where there may be different standards on opposite sides of the street, and where there may be two different administrative areas and damage dealt with by the respective administrative bodies.

I do not want to continue to harp upon the position of Clydebank, but it is easier to get tradesmen to Work in Glasgow than to work in Clydebank. You will have the paradox that simply across the road there will be one standard of fitness against the other. I have complete confidence in the Secretary of State for Scotland to see that such difficulties do not arise, but this is an ever-changing world, and we may not have the same Secretary of State for very long. This is placing a weapon in the hands of persons who do not approach the subject from the same angle. I do not know whether it is possible at all for a safeguard to be put into the Bill, and quite definitely I do not like the determination of the standard of fitness to be more or less governed by the supply of labour. A house is either reasonably fit for human habitation or it is not, and there ought at least to be some reasonable standard laid down.

I happen to be a member of a local authority as well as a Member of this House, and I know of the difficulties. At the moment I am the convener of the biggest contracting department in the country, who are carrying out their own repairs, and I know of the difficulties. People come to me and say,"So and so's house has had the plasterwork repaired, and I am asked to go back into my house where the plaster work is not repaired, "or," So and so's house has daylight coming in, and in my house there is no daylight."In some instances no effort has been made to let daylight into the houses at all. They are simply boarded up, though I understand that that is a difficulty. I hope that the Secretary of State, when he is appointing his men of skill, will at least not rely too much upon the scientists or the scientific mind, but will get practical men on the job to determine among themselves what is a reasonable standard. If I were sure these anomalies would not crop up, I would be happier about the whole position. The Bill is a very good Bill, but I think that that is the difficulty.

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)

The Secretary of State for Scotland is well aware that we are harping upon this standard of first-aid repairs, because of our bitter experience in Clydebank, where even a man of the highest skill, an architect, can be a party to an arrangement to enable the billeting officer to stop the billeting allowance in order to drive people back into houses that are not fit for human habitation. It is because of that bitter experience that we are so anxious to get something definite. Evidently the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot put something into the Bill, but we want to have the position made definite across the Floor of the Chamber so that it will be in the Official Report, in order that we can make use of the Debate which is taking place to-day to ensure that there will be no low standard of first-aid repairs in any part of Scotland. I have received that guarantee as far as my constituency is concerned. I have already been able to get it fixed, and I can do no more for the rest of Scotland than draw attention to the fact that we have got such a standard in Clydebank and Dumbarton. The authorities there have supplied me with a copy, so that I am satisfied as far as my constituency is concerned.

Mr. Johnston

It is obvious to hon. Members that then; are great difficulties in the way of putting a standard into the Bill. If we did so, it would be a lower standard than that we may get by leaving it as it is. The highest possible standard in any locality will be exactly according to the supply of labour and material. I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) to a provision in the Bill which provides that the men of skill should have regard to any general direction issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.

Mr. McKinlay

Who will be the Secretary of State?

Mr. Johnston

The Secretary of State for the time being, whoever he may be, is liable to be shot at in this House, and that is the most effective public safeguard that can be made. I could be shot at in this House if the standard were unduly low in any area. I am strongly advised in this matter, and I have gone into this question very particularly and carefully, and have sought every possible means I had, as hon. Gentlemen know, to raise the standard of first-aid repairs. But I beg of them to believe me when I say that it has been found to be impossible to put into the Bill a standard of fitness which would not mean lowering the possibilities, and as long as we have a variable standard which can be fixed according to the amount of labour and material available in a given area, I would beg of hon. Members to accept that position.

As to whether the words "reasonably practicable" were sufficient, it was in part of the Bill made clear that the words had to be read in the light of the circumstances prevailing in the locality. That does not mean the circumstances on the other side of the street at all; it means in any locality or area where there are sufficient labour and material available. Hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), will believe me when I say that the great pleasure afforded in getting back into their homes comes from the tenants and not from the owners, and it is in order to enable us to have as variable and as high a standard as possible according to the circumstances prevailing at the time that these words have been inserted.

Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)

I would counsel the Committee to accept the Amendment. I think that if we provide these words in respect of the first issue of the certificate, we ought to do it in respect of the review of the certificate that will be granted by the men of skill. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) that I hope that our framing of this Bill will make it clear to the meanest intelligence.

Mr. McKinlay

There is a neat compliment in that remark.

Mr.Mathers

May I alter that and say, "to the average intelligence such as that of a Member of Parliament"?

Mr. Kirkwood

The Chairman is staggered.

Mr. Mathers

I hope it will be possible for us to make it clear in this Bill that what is reasonably practicable in a locality will be as reasonably practicable on one side of the street as on the other. I am sure there is no intention on the part of the Government to limit the reference to a locality so narrowly as is indicated by the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire. I would like to say a word or two about the suggestion that a standard should be laid down, below which reasonable repairs would not fall. To lay down a standard would mean that it would be a minimum standard. My own experience in the laying down of minimum standards is that they become accepted and maximum standards. I have had a fair amount of association with the question of standards laid down in respect of wages agreements, and we know perfectly well that the minimum standard laid down is departed from in only a small minority of cases. The minimum standard becomes the maximum standard paid for any particular grade of work.

Mr. Gallacher

Is it not possible to make the minimum standard as high as the maximum standard?

Mr. Mathers

That is the point I am making. If you take into account the possibility of repairs in a particular locality, you may find that the minimum standard you have laid down is the maximum in that particular locality. But that is not to say that in another locality, where there are more and better supplies and where more suitable labour is available, the standard cannot be raised above that which is laid down. We are hoping for the best out of this Bill, and I am certain that under the direction of my right hon. Friend we are assured of getting the best out of it. I believe that the words which it is now asked should be inserted in the Bill will have some effect in that direction.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 3, line I, after "until," to insert: the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree or in the absence of agreement until ". This Amendment is intended to deal with the following situation: A certificate of fitness, having been granted, has been revoked, and the question arises as to the house being considered fit again after further repairs have been made. As the Bill stands, it might be taken that the restoration of the house to the list of fit houses can only be done by certificate. It is the intention of the Amendment that it can be restored by agreement of the parties, carrying on the policy outlined by my right hon. Friend in his first Amendment—that, where possible, agreement is to be encouraged and that the machinery of the Bill need only be brought into operation where agreement cannot be reached.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Determination of questions under this Act.)

Mr. Johnston

I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, at the end, to insert: and his determination thereon shall be final ". The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the determination of the man of skill shall be final—in other words, that his determination shall not be subject to vexatious appeal, so rendering the provisions of this Bill nugatory and void. We propose to make this clear by adding the words of the Amendment to make certain that there shall be no appeal against his decision.

Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)

We have not had much experience of the working of this kind of thing, but we have had similar experience in the working of other Acts, where the law has laid it down definitely that a certain decision shall be final. Afterwards it has been found that the decision was reached on facts which were not all that they should have been. It has been impossible to revoke that particular decision, and while I know that we cannot have every decision turned upside down, I do not want the Secretary of State for Scotland to be placed in such a position that he will be prevented from going into the matter again if the decision reached is not in accordance with the general outline of the; scheme. This Amendment prevents him from doing that. The appointment of a man of skill is made by my right hon. Friend, and his removal is in his hands. The position may arise where the man of skill has to be removed because he is not carrying out the desires of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that presumes that his decisions must have been wrong. Otherwise, he need not be removed. I am not keen on making the decision absolutely final and binding. I think the Bill, when it was introduced, made it appear that the decision is final without actually putting words into the Bill itself. The Secretary of State should be left to take action in exceptional cases. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter. I think it would be well to leave to the Secretary of State the power, not necessarily to reverse a decision, but to send back a decision for re-examination in the light of facts that may have been revealed by further inquiries into a case.

Mr. Gallacher

We have had some experience of this sort of thing in regard to other matters, and we know that sometimes, when we raise cases on very good grounds, the Minister replies that a judgment has been given by the medical officer, for instance, or by some other person, and that nothing further can be done. The Secretary of State has said that his purpose in moving the Amendment is to prevent cases from being taken to the courts, with a consequent waste of time. If the purpose is to prevent cases from going to the courts, I do not see why it is not possible to insert some words on the following lines: "and his determination shall not be subject to appeal other than appeal to the Secretary of State." Surely, we are not to be put in the position that if we feel that a grossly unjust decision has been made and we bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State, he will reply that he cannot do anything, that the decision of the man of skill is final and binding, and that he is helpless in the matter. There is no necessity for saying that the decision shall be final in the sense that cases cannot be raised by the tenant or the landlord, or by their Parliamentary representatives, with the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State wants to prevent these cases from going to the courts and decisions being changed in all sorts of ways, surely it is possible to use words to ensure that this shall not take place, but at the same time leave power in the hands of the Secretary of State, and an opportunity with the Parliamentary representatives of tenants and landlords, to raise matters with the Secretary of State. It is a very dangerous practice to give to men of skill, or in other cases medical men, and so forth, final powers, so that everybody else associated with the cases is practically helpless. I ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider whether there is not some other form of words that will prevent—what everybody wants to prevent—these matters from going to the courts after the men of skill have given a decision. We want to see their decisions accepted, but if there is any doubt or difficulty in connection with those decisions, we want the Secretary of State to have power immediately to take steps to rectify matters.

Mr. McKinlay

A few minutes ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us that the biggest safeguard in the Bill in dealing with a certain matter was that he could be "shot at" in the House, but in connection with the matter now under discussion, he certainly does not intend to be "shot at" in the House. I can visualise who the men of skill are likely to be, and I appeal to the Secretary of State to save us from those people. I think there is no need to go to the courts to settle these matters, and I cannot see anything in the Bill that will enable anybody to hang his hat on the pegs of the court. It is no use the Secretary of State—I do not say he is doing it deliberately—delegating to outside persons what should really be the responsibility of the Department. The decision of the men of skill is to be final and legally binding. There is to be no appeal to anybody. Nobody wants to go to the courts, but I do not think there should be placed upon the man of skill the responsibility for taking a final decision, because sometimes the person making representations to the man of skill will know much more about the subject than the man of skill. But the man of skill will make his decision, and it will be binding, and as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), if we put questions to the Secretary of State he will reply, "I am sorry, but the matter is beyond me; the Act empowers the man of skill to give a decision which is final and binding." The only way in which my right hon. Friend, or his successors, might be able to get round the difficulty would be to revoke the licence of the man of skill and get him out of the way. There would then be available for legal argument the question whether the shifting of the man who gave the decision was a sufficient justification for setting the decision at nought. I do not say this as a threat, but I would sooner divide the Committee on this Amendment than accept it.

Mr. Kirkwood

I cannot understand the Secretary of State moving this Amendment now that he has resisted successfully our attempt to insert in the Bill a standard for first-aid repairs. Evidently the Committee accepts that. There are no definite instructions to the man of skill, and his decision is to be final. The Secretary of State asks us to agree to that, although he knows our bitter experience in Clyde-bank with a man of skill, an architect, whom the Scottish Office thinks is of the highest standard in the West of Scotland. That same individual issued instructions that my constituents were to go into houses which everybody, even the Secretary of State, admitted were not fit for human habitation. He asked one of my constituents to go into a house in the roof of which there was a hole five feet by three feet. The sink was not in working order, the chimney was not drawing, there was a great heap of refuse on the kitchen floor, and the outside door would not shut. That was the state of this house which was declared fit for human habitation by the man of skill. The Secretary of State for Scotland, as a result of my drawing his attention to this case, issued definite instructions laying down a standard for the man of skill. And yet, with all that experience, he now asks us to agree that the determination of this type of individual shall be final. I think that is asking far too much, and, unless the Secretary of State for Scotland is able to find some other words which will meet the situation, I maintain that we are quite justified in dividing the Committee on the matter.

Mr. MacLean Watson (Dunfermline)

I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for raising this point. It gives us the opportunity of having an explanation from the Secretary of State for Scotland on the matter, although I anticipate that the fears which have been expressed on this side of the Committee are groundless. I say that because it is the Secretary of State who has to appoint the panel, and it is he who will have to answer questions, in this House as to the individuals which compose it. I suppose that is what he means when he speaks of being shot at by Members.

Mr. Buchanan

It is quite true that the Secretary of State appoints these individuals, but once that is done it is impossible to alter any bad decision which a man of skill may have taken.

Mr. Kirkwood

But the Scottish Office appointed the man whom I have impeached.

Mr. Watson

At any rate, I shall await with interest to hear what the Secretary of State for Scotland has to say on the point. My view is that if he has power to appoint the panel, he is responsible for the actions of these men. My understanding of the matter is that questions are not to go to the law courts. If the Secretary of State appoints men to a panel for this particular purpose, he makes himself responsible to this House for their actions.

Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)

We have an analogy in the case of the Ministry of Pensions in regard to the decisions of the appeal tribunals. Hon. Members, like myself, will have had many cases where the Minister of Pensions has said that he cannot do anything in the matter.

Mr. Watson

That may be, but I do not think there is an analogy. At any rate, I am prepared to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland give his explanation. I agree that you might find a man of skill who gives a prejudiced decision, and, if his word is to be accepted as final and there is no appeal—and I do not put this interpretation on the words contained in this Bill—I agree that that is a different situation.

Mr. Johnston

I appreciate the points which many hon. Friends have put to me in this connection. With regard to the analogy raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I think that hardly applies here, because in the case of pensions the appeal is always made by one side against a decision of the Department. In the case under consideration an appeal may be made by both sides—it may be made either by the landlord or by the tenant. If the man of skill comes along and says he thinks there should be a reduction in rent, it is the landlord who is the most likely person to object to that decision. If we do not say that the decision of the man of skill is final, we shall have appeals to the courts upon issues which they are really unable to decide, unless they in their turn appoint another man of skill to advise them. We know there are difficulties in the matter, but we are trying to meet the situation which will vary almost from day to day and month to month. We are trying to leave our powers as flexible as possible, and we do not wish to defeat the essential purposes of this Bill by leaving it open for appeals to be referred to the law courts against decisions which have been made by a man of skill, not upon questions of law, but upon questions of fact. These questions of fact are set out in the Bill: for example, that the house is in the opinion of the man of skill unfit. The decision of the man of skill should be taken as final, and there ought to be no appeal to the law courts on the matter. Whether there is a substantial reduction in the amount of accommodation, and, therefore, whether there is to be a reduction in the rent is also a matter for a man of skill and not for a sheriff to decide. It is for these reasons that we ask that the decision of the man of skill shall be final.

May I draw attention to Sub-section (7) of Clause I, where we make provision for the tenant, to apply for a review of the certificate under certain circumstances? We say, for instance, that where further repairs have been reasonably practicable since the issue of the certificate and have not been carried out, a tenant may make application for a review after a period of not less than three months has elapsed. The tenant may, therefore, apply again to a man of skill, but over and above all these safeguards and provisions there is the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) has pointed out, that the Secretary of State for Scotland can be challenged if a man of skill has not acted reasonably fairly. As a matter of fact that is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). In the intance he gave, he came along and said the standard of repairs was unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances, and we issued a general direction to the local authority.

Mr. Gallacher

When the man of skill gave his decision on Clydebank his determination was not final, because it was possible to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland. But when the decision is final hon. Members could not raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Johnston

The hon. Member is wrong. What happened was that the general directions given resulted, as the hon. Member knows, in the wholesale raising, not in that particular case alone, of the standard of fitness in regard to essential first-aid repairs. As a result of that experience, this Bill has been framed. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot be shot at in the House.

Mr. Buchanan

The Secretary of State for Scotland can be criticised for any decision he makes or any decision a man of skill makes, but the fact remains that a decision of a man of skill cannot be altered. It can be criticised, but it cannot be altered. You cannot do what is done under unemployment insurance. You cannot even send it back for re-hearing.

Mr. Johnston

We issue general directions. If the man of skill is not working up to those general directions, he can be removed. If the general directions arc not adhered to, the Secretary of State will be failing in his duty if he does not remove him.

Mr. Buchanan

We have some experience in other Acts. When you ask to have a decision reviewed they say, "We are sorry, but we cannot, because the law says the decision is final." I want to make certain beyond doubt that a decision can be sent back for review or re-hearing.

Mr. Johnston

I do not think the Secretary of State can review a particular decision. I am not a lawyer, but I should say that any decisions which are not given in accordance with the provisions of the Act are null and void.

Mr. McKinlay

It is not the intention. It is what the Act says.

Mr. Johnston

The Act also says that the man of skill shall act in accordance with the general directions given. If the man of skill does not act in accordance with the general directions given, his actions are illegal, and he can be removed, and ought to be.

Mr. Sloan (South Ayrshire)

We have certified a man fit for his normal work, but the decision of the medical referee is final and cannot be upset.

Mr. Johnston

Will the Committee try to see what the difficulty is? It is not a case of an individual appealing to a law court against the decision of the man of skill, alleging that he was acting unfairly, unreasonably, unjustly and improperly. I am afraid that, unless some provision is put into the Bill to make it clear that the decisions of the man of skill are to be regarded as final on the questions submitted to him, we may get an organised attempt to upset the whole scheme of the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood

It was the tenants last time who beat the factors and everyone else.

Mr. Johnston

I do not know whether they won altogether or not, but that is another point. We have had no decisions taken as far as reductions of rent are concerned since the blitz. We are seeking now to get expeditious decisions. We are seeking in effect to get decisions taken by a man of skill, who, in any case, would require to be appointed by a sheriff if the case went to court. We are seeking to put the expenses of all these decisions on the nation. We are seeking to remove all the expenses from the tenant or the owner, as the case may be. We believe that, unless we put in words to make the decisions of the man of skill final on the questions submitted to him, we shall have the whole scheme of the Bill upset by appeals in the law courts. We shall have the law courts cluttered up with appeals. We might have great difficulties placed in the way of the tenants, 95 per cent, of whom desire to get back as speedily as possible to their homes. We shall have grave difficulties placed in their way in getting reasonable reductions in rent. I therefore strongly advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan

If the right hon. Gentleman's statement is correct, he himself will be responsible for these matters going to the law courts. I do not know whether he is conscious of it. Any citizen can go to the law courts and say that the man of skill is not acting according to his directions, and it becomes at once a question of legal controversy. I think this matter about the law courts is grossly exaggerated. Anybody who knows the law courts knows that neither factors nor tenants want to go to them. My experience of courts is that you are not sure which side they are coming down on, and the less you go to them the better. They are grossly exaggerated and are used as a smoke screen. The Secretary of State says that if the man of skill does not act under directions, the Secretary of State can see that there is a re-hearing, but I do not want the law courts to enter into this matter at all. This Bill as it stands without this Amendment is not at all bad, and in my judgment there will be no appeals except on rare occasions. As one with some knowledge, I can say that the use of the power of the Secretary of State will rarely have to be made because the knowledge that he has that power will keep people right.

Mr. Mathers

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that no one wants to go to the law court unnecessarily. It is much more likely that organised owners of houses would be able and might take the opportunity to go to the law court about a matter that affected them far more than it can affect the individual tenant, who is not likely to go to the law court. I hope that we shall put this matter in proper perspective. This Bill is to deal with the few exceptional cases where there is no agreement between landlord and tenant. Conditions like those which we are laying down emphasise the desirability of agreement being reached between landlord and tenant before any kind of dispute between them requires to be adjudicated upon by anyone. The first thing that will be in the mind of the man of skill in making a determination is the fact that he has to act under the general directions which are laid down for his guidance by the Secretary of State. That is one check upon his giving a wrong decision. Either landlord or tenant may not be satisfied with his decision and will look for an opportunity of changing it, but they will consider carefully before they undertake the adventure of going to the law court where there would be a prima facie case against them because of the decision given by the man of skill.

The matter, without an appeal to the law court, does not last for ever. The Secretary of State has pointed out that an aggrieved person at the end of three months has a right to apply for a review-of the certificate that has been granted by the man of skill. In giving directions for the re examination of the decision the Secretary of State will have to take into account any criticism that has been made of the decision. He is not entirely dependent upon one man of skill, and he will not necessarily refer the matter back to the same man of skill to report upon something about which he has given a certificate three months before. It would, I consider, be his duty to allocate another man of skill to the examination of the claim that the certificate should be revised. That will form a real appeal against the first decision. Covering the whole position is the Secretary of State's responsibility, which is not affected by the Amendment—the responsibility that he has of laying down the general directions under which a man of skill will deal with these matters. The challenge in this House to the Secretary of State in matters of this kind would not be so much against the certificate that had been granted by the man of skill, but upon the way in which the man of skill had carried out his functions and whether it was in accordance with the general directions. With or without this Amendment we would have the opportunity in the House of representing the grievances of our constituents and of having matters of this kind remedied within a reasonable time.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to raise a strong objection to a practice which I do not like. I refer to Front Bench leaders on this side playing for the other side. If they are not going to play for this side, they might sit on the back benches.

Mr. Mathers

May I say that in what I have just said I hoped I was acting, as nearly as possible for one who is not legally trained, in a fair and judicial capacity?

Mr. Gallacher

The hon. Member may have been trying to play the part of referee, but at the same time he was passing the ball to the Secretary of State. That is not very helpful. All of us here want this Bill as early as possible. I do not suppose there ever was a Bill that had such a unanimous welcome from Scottish Members. It is an exceptional and helpful Measure. No one here wants to have anything in the Bill that can in any way produce a situation in which questions have to be taken into the law courts. I have had a more unfortunate experience than the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in regard to law courts. He says that you never know on which side they are coming down. When I go to the law courts I never have any doubts whatever.

Mr. Buchanan

The hon. Gentleman is referring to cases connected with politics, but I understand that here politics will not enter into it. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Glasgow courts, he will find that they come down on both sides, and sometimes on no side at all.

Mr. Gallacher

I have not had the experience of the hon. Gentleman. I remember a well-known friend of the Secretary of State, a Glasgow clergyman, taking a bet with me that I could not say which way the court would come down. I won the bet. We do not want these matters to go into the law courts, but there is a possibility that the Minister himself, if he is not careful, may encourage the idea of going to court. The Minister has misrepresented the question that arises from the argument presented by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). A man of skill selected by the Scottish Office gives a decision that a family must go into a particular house, but his decision is not final, and because his decision is not final the Parliamentary representative of those people can approach the Minister and ask for the decision to be reconsidered, and the Minister may say, "You have made a good case, the question will be reconsidered, and instructions will be: sent to that man of skill." If the decision of the man of skill is final, all that the Member for the constituency can do is to make a protest here and say that the man of skill should be removed. People have gone back into their houses in Clydebank. Then they have sent for the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. When ho arrives they say, "Look at the house. Of course, we are glad to be back in our own house. but look at it! We asked for a reduction of rent, but the man of skill has decided that we are to continue to pay the full rent, 15s. a week, for the house. Now, Mr. Kirkwood, do you consider it is right that we should have to pay the full rent for a house like this? "And the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs says —I know what he says—" It is a scandal, and I shall raise the matter as soon as I go back to the House of Commons." But he cannot do it, he can only take exception to the man of skill. If he raises the question the Secretary of State for Scotland will reply, "The decision has been given, the decision is final, and I have no power at all."

In the same way, hon. Members on the benches opposite, whose thoughts are more towards mammon than the welfare of humanity, may think a landlord has had an injustice done to him and want to raise the case. I do not see how it is possible to do injustice to a landlord, but some Members may think injustice has been done. There, again, the Secretary of State can only say "The decision has been given, it is final, and I cannot interfere." There is no reason why we should leave things in that situation. We should insert words which will make it impossible for cases to be taken into the law courts and leave to Members of Parliament the opportunity of representing their constituents by getting the Secretary of State to reopen cases. To ask for that is to ask only for the minimum rights of a subject and the minimum rights of a Member of Parliament.

Mrs. Hardie (Glasgow, Springburn)

In view of the real fear which there is in the mind of many hon. Members that this provision may take control completely out of the hands of the Department of the Secretary of State, may I appeal to him to reconsider the wording of this Amendment, so that we could make it clear that a case could not be taken into the law courts and at the same time not prevent the Department from reviewing a case if it was felt that hardship had been caused?

The Lord Advocate

It may be for the assistance of the Committee if I state shortly what would appear to be the position, as I see it, under the Clause as it would be if amended and what are the general considerations which should be borne in mind. The question of giving a right of appeal in any litigation or dispute is always a difficult one. One has to balance the possibility of injustice remaining in a particular case if you cannot re-open it when fresh facts come to light against the general public interest that litigation and disputes should be settled as quickly, as cheaply and as easily as possible. The more summary you make the procedure the more risk there is of individual injustice in particular cases and you must strike a balance somewhere. You will never satisfy both those requirements completely, and I do not pretend that this Bill does it. Under the proposals before the Committee the law courts come in, I think, in one respect only, a respect in which they always come in in cases of arbitration. It is always possible for a person who feels aggrieved at the result of an arbitration to go to the law courts and to say that the arbitrator misconducted himself. That is quite different from saying that he was wrong. You have to show that he deliberately adopted the wrong line of approach or deliberately refused to look at the evidence or, as in this case, deliberately refused to look at the general directions. You must always leave a recourse to the law courts, and the recourse remains here as it does in every other arbitration case.

But beyond that there are several mitigations, at least, of the finality of the arbiter's decision in any case. First of all there is the possibility of the Secretary of State altering the general directions when he sees the trend which is being followed by one or more men of skill. That can be done quickly, and you catch up very quickly on the possible injustices. Secondly, you can remove the man of skill or not give him another case. That, again, mitigates the extent of the hardship. The individual's hardship remains, I agree, but for how long? For three months. At the end of that period a review is competent under the Bill.

Accordingly, there is a very narrow sphere within which injustice may possibly take place—a period of three months for the one or two cases which slip through before the Secretary of State realises that he must either alter the directions or revoke the appointment of the man of skill, and as against that very narrow limit within which possible injustice may occur there is the very real and great public advantage that people will get their disputes settled cheaply and quickly. Speed is just as important as cheapness, because most people want to know as soon as they can where they stand. If a landlord has the right, as he must have if the tenant has the right, of carrying the matter further, the tenant would be saying, "My rent has been fixed at 10s. a week, but until this matter has been taken further and cleared up I do not know where I am," and that may be a great embarrassment to him. Therefore, on the balance of advantages I would say that the advantage of having a cheap and quick and good method of solving a dispute and making a decision final far outweighs the possibility of there being what can only be a handful of cases in which justice is delayed for a possible period of three months. Weighing one thing against another, my view certainly is that the present proposal will achieve far more good and will give far more advantage to the great bulk of the people than it will provide opportunities for abuse.

Mr. Gallacher

The argument of the Lord Advocate will mean that people living in the same street will be under different decisions which have been given under different directions. The Lord Advocate says that it will only be for three months; where do we get the three months?

The Lord Advocate

When a certificate of fitness has been given, a tenant can apply for reconsideration at the end of three months.

Mr. Buchanan

But the reasons for the application must show that at that moment something is wrong about the previous decision.

The Lord Advocate

One of the grounds of appeal at any time is that the works of repair carried out before the issue of the certificate are no longer effective. When the man of skill comes round he may say, "I do not know what this place was like before, but the repair is not effective now," and he revokes the certificate.

Mr. Gallacher

It is possible that we shall have half a street for which decisions have been given by the man of skill before the new instructions have been given by the Minister, and no one in the houses will have any basis for making an appeal. There is not the faintest word of truth in the suggestion that, at the end of three months, you can apply for a new certificate and get one. That is simply trying to deceive people on the question of the appeal, and the argument of the Lord Advocate should not be accepted by the Committee. He says that some people will have to suffer, but surely we can put words into the Bill that will avoid unnecessary suffering and the necessity of cases going to the law courts. Why should Ministers say to hon. Members, "If constituents are living under an unjust decision, there is nothing your constituents can do and nothing that you can do for your constituents "? That is the argument of the Lord Advocate.

Mr. McKinlay

I take it that the man of skill will act under the general direction of the Secretary of State and will take a hand in supervising the work. I do not know what the general direction of the Secretary of State will be, but I want to put forward a case which is in existence at the moment. We discovered a tenement in Glasgow that was built between 1922 and 1931 and in which the aggregate used in the division walls consisted of 13 parts of sand and one of cement. In the specification, four and one respectively were to be used. The bombs did not do much damage to those internal walls, but the walls have fractured right through, from the roof to the foundations. They are liable to collapse at any moment. I take it that the man of skill might have given a certificate that the house was fit for habitation but for our discovery. We probed further into this matter, and discovered that much damage was caused by taking substantial work away from unsubstantial work and that we were spending money in making good the 13-to-I aggregate division walls. This occurred on a State-subsidised scheme in Earl Street, Scotstoun. The bricklayers are afraid to put their shoulders against the chimney heads. The bombs started something which might not have shown itself for some years. Are we to get a certificate of fitness if we merely cover up the bad division walls? If so, they will be dangerous.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)

The Committee are not discussing the grounds upon which a certificate of fitness should be given, but whether the certificate is to be final.

Mr. McKinlay

If the certificate is to be final, we want to know what the finality is to be about. A principle is involved. Despite what the Lord Advocate has said, I am not too hopeful about the three months' revoking of the certificate. Nothing has been said which alters my view that what is being put into this Bill is positively dangerous, and I hope that the Secretary of State will find another form of words.

Mr. Kirkwood

This point affects thousands of my constituents in Clyde-bank and hundreds in Dumbarton. I should be glad if the Secretary of State for Scotland would inform me whether the man of skill is going to set up an office in Clydebank, and also one in Dumbarton, because there will be so many individuals affected.

Mr. Johnston

That is another question which we must discuss later. The question of how the man of skill is going to operate hardly arises on this particular point. What we have to face is that we have to try to make provision for unfortunate persons who have suffered damage to their homes. As it was originally drafted, the Bill did not make definite provision for the certificate of the man of skill being final. After the Second Reading, however, we were very strongly advised that the door was thereby left open for appeals to the law courts, and we therefore had to consider whether we could not introduce words into the Bill making the decision final and carrying out the intention, with which everybody in the House is in agreement, of providing a cheap and speedy settlement in these matters. I have listened to all the discussions, and I have tried in every possible way to conceive of words which would meet what the hon. Gentleman opposite had in mind and what we had in mind when we originally drafted the Bill, while at the same time keeping the main structure of the Bill intact. I could not find such words.

I would like to impress upon the Committee that it is our intention to ensure, first of all, that we get the right type of men—and, of course, we can be attacked in this House if we appoint misfits on the panel—and, secondly, that we should give the right kind of general directions. Thirdly, and most important, we intend to encourage landlords and tenants to agree between themselves and not to call upon the men of skill. I believe that there will be a very small proportion of cases in which appeals to the men of skill are made, and if we have the right kind of panel, and give them the right kind of general directions, I hope that the fears which hon. Members have expressed will not prove to have been justified. I should like the Committee to agree that the words which make the decisions final are important for the sole purpose of safeguarding the tenant from what I believe to be the possibility of having delay caused, the law courts cluttered up, and the main purpose of the Bill frustrated.

Mr. Mathers

I want to ask the Lord Advocate a question which relates to what was said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on the last occasion when he addressed the Committee. He claimed that at the end of three months there was nothing that could alter the certificate granted by a man of skill unless there were specific changes in the condition of the particular house and in relation to the particular tenant to which and to whom the certificate applied, and he cited the case that in one district there might be half a street with certificates applying to all the houses in that part. If it was felt that an injustice had been done, and if the general directions of the Secretary of State had changed the position and made it possible for the other half of the street to get certificates, would the existence of better conditions in the other half of the street constitute a sufficient argument for tenants to come forward at the end of three months for a fresh certificate?

The Lord Advocate

Certainly. Subsection (7) (b) declares that a tenant may apply for a review of the certificate on the ground that "further repairs have been reasonably practicable." If they were practicable in one part of the street, obviously they must have been equally practicable in the other half. Since they have been proved to be practicable in the one half because they have been done, That would seem to be a very relevant ground for an alteration.

Mr. Gallacher

It is all beside the point. I never heard such shoddy, rotten arguments. Suppose the man of skill decides that the tenants in this particular part of the street have to pay full rent. What appeal have they against that? None at all They can appeal for a new certificate only on the ground that changes have taken place in the condition of their houses, that the condition is worse than it was before and that there have been reasonably practicable opportunities for further repairs. If a tenant can show that, he can get a certificate. But it may be that the man of skill has fixed the full rent in respect of this series of houses. That is final, and all this playing about with words does not in any way affect that situation. Will the Lord Advocate tell me whether, at the end of three months, such a decision of the man of skill about rent may be changed, or is indeed changeable?

The Lord Advocate

I think I should merely weary the Committee if I were to repeat what I have already said previously.

Mr. Buchanan

The Sub-section referred to by the Lord Advocate means that the decision cannot be reviewed. All that can be done at the end of three months is that anything which has happened since the decision was given can be reviewed. You cannot go back on the decision of the man of skill. Everyone knows that, despite what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have every respect. The decision is final, and that is the end of it. The issue between us is the maintenance of this decision of the man of skill as final. We want to see whether there can be any modification whereby a decision, if wrong, may be modified. You say you will not do it. We are not children in this matter; we come here with long experience. Please respect us for it instead of having all this by-play, which the Lord Advocate would never use to a judge in the courts. He ought to make a decision and not introduce things that do not matter into it. I say frankly that I understand the position. You are insisting on this decision remaining final. I am not going to divide the Committee on it or even threaten to do so, but I think you are making a serious mistake in what, in the main, is a good Bill. I have had some experience on this matter, because it constantly occurs in connection with unemployment insurance. We have done our best to try to change the view taken, and I am certain that experience will show that the judgment of those who take that view is wrong.

The Lord Advocate

May I say one word, because I am sure that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) would not have said what he did say unless he was under a serious misapprehension? The fact is perfectly clear that the decision is final, but there can be a new decision after three months. That means that a decision is final for three months. If the decision is that you should pay 15s. a week rent up to that date, that decision stands until a new one comes along, but a new one can come along. Therefore, I am perfectly right in saying what I have said.

Mr. Buchanan

But that decision which is wrong remains. That is the point. Full rent is to be paid for that three months. All that a new decision can say is to alter the amount after three months. We have got that made clear now. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) gave the impression that the decision can be altered. It cannot; the injustice remains. May I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that, if you are a poor person, payment for those three months might be a serious matter? It is not a matter we should skip lightly over if a way out can be found, though it may be unavoidable and we cannot do so. I am certain that experience will prove my point, if there are any widespread raids, which God forbid. The Secretary of State for Scotland would be wise to leave the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Mathers

I am certain that I made it clear, when I was speaking on this point, that the injustice would remain for three months. I am perfectly well aware that a new decision would not be retrospective over that particular three months. In reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) I would say that the financial burden laid upon the tenant unjustly for a period of three months would, in my judgment, be a smaller burden than incurring the cost of taking the matter to the law courts.

Mr. Gallacher

I take strong exception to the Lord Advocate's statement. He now gives the impression that, if a decision has been given on rent, that may be reviewed in three months' time. Where is that provision in the Bill? There is no such provision and a decision on rent might go on for three months or three years with no possibility of a change. The grounds of appeal for a new certificate are laid down in the Bill and if those conditions do not obtain, there is no chance of getting a new decision on the rent. If there is a whole street paying a particular rent and, at the end of three months, there is no ground of appeal for a new certificate, there is no appeal. It is entirely wrong for the Lord Advocate to try and suggest that there is an appeal against the high rent and that it need only be paid for three months.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Johnston

I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end, to insert: Any such appointment made by the Secretary of State may be revoked by him. In view of the long discussion we have had on this matter, I do not think I need take up the time of the Committee by any laboured explanation of the reasons for this particular Amendment, which is to the effect that the Secretary of State may revoke the appointment of any member of the panel proposed by him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision as to the rights of tenants under 2 and 3 Geo. 6. c. 80 or at common law.)

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move in page 3, line 27, to leave out "under a short lease," and to insert: held Under a short lease at a rent not exceeding ninety pounds per annum. This is a drafting Amendment. In all other parts the Bill has been limited to dwelling houses held under a short lease at a rent not exceeding £90. These words were missed out here.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Relief from occupier's rates granted to landlord of small dwelling house to be passed on to tenant.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of MR. JOHNSTON: In page 4, line 2, to leave out from the beginning, to "be," in line 4.

Mr. Johnston

I do not propose to move this Amendment. We had great difficulty in making up our minds as to whether there was legal necessity for it. I am now advised that it is unnecessary. Therefore, I do not move it.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made:

In page 4, line 31, at the end, insert "let as a separate dwelling."

In line 33, leave out "let as a separate dwelling."

In line 34, after the second "house," insert "so let."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out from "accordingly," to the end of the Clause, and to add: (2) In this Act and in the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act, 1939, the expression 'war damage' shall have the meaning assigned to it by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 80 of the War Damage Act, 1941, and Sub-section (3) of that Section shall apply for the purposes of this Act and of the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act, 1939, as it applies for the purposes of the War Damage Act, 1941, and the definition of the said expression in the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act, 1939, shall accordingly cease to have effect. This Amendment incorporates into the Bill the most recent definition of war damage. The Bill, as it stands, does not refer to the last definition, and it is desirable that it should do so.

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as Amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as Amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)

Before we part with this Bill, I want to say that I think it will prove to be a very useful instrument. I express the hope again, as I did on Second Reading, that, because of good will between landlord and tenant, it will require to be Used only on very rare occasions. We said on the Second Reading that the Committee stage would be much more important. It has certainly proved much more fruitful of discussion; and my own opinion is that, in this process of discussion, the Bill has been considerably improved. I think that, as Scottish Members, we can feel great satisfaction with this Bill. As originally drafted, and as we have amended it to-day, it can be read by the average person, who can obtain a proper understanding of what it means. It is a simply drafted Bill, to do a simple job. I hope and believe that, in so far as it is necessary to use it, it will prove equal to the job for which it is designed. I am sure that it goes from this House with our good wishes and with the hope that it will speedily be placed upon the Statute Book, and we hope, as we do in regard to all matters relating to the war, that its provisions will not have to be used because of war damage to any considerable extent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.