CLAUSE 14.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT.) (Hansard, 16 February 1949)

Commander Galbraith
I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, at the end, to insert: (3) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty and no longer. A few moments ago the right hon, Gentleman appealed to the principal Act and suggested to the Committee that we should stick as closely as possible to the principal Act. That is what I am suggesting we should do in this Amendment. The Committee will remember that the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, was originally to end by 31st December, 1947, and has since been extended to 31st December, 1950. Here we have the principal Act extended until 31st December, 1950. We have tribunals dealing with matters of furnished lettings and the matters in this present Bill, and we suggest it is only reasonable that the limitation of time should be the same in each case. For that reason we have put down this Amendment.
Further than that, is there not something wrong in having this a permanent Act? Does it not suggest that the situation which we are trying to meet at the present moment is to be permanent? Are there not to be some limits to the operation of this particular Bill, instead of putting it on the Statute Book as a permanent Measure? Surely by doing that we are suggesting to the people of the country that the housing shortage will remain permanent, and that is something we do not expect, or at least we hope will not happen. Indeed, according to—what shall I call them—all the things we are led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself in regard to housing, we should anticipate that by the end of December, 1950, the position may well be changed to such an extent under his guidance that the housing shortage will almost have disappeared. In those circumstances, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that it is a reasonable Amendment and will, no doubt, be prepared to accept it.

§ Mr. Bevan
The Amendment which has been moved could, of course, be accepted without any very great danger. Nevertheless, I see no purpose in doing so, because the Ridley Committee itself, I believe with complete unanimity, said that rent control would have to last for at least ten years after the war. If we accept this 1257 Amendment, we would have to continue it under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, should it prove necessary. I see no reason why we should attach so much legislation to that Act.
Furthermore, in some of the great cities it will be some time before we can dispense with protective legislation of this sort, not merely because of the absence of accommodation, but because we shall be going into slum clearance, and it will still be necessary to protect certain tenants, because slum clearance, until it is completed, will always bring about a certain shortage of accommodation. That is always a problem in these great cities when re-development is started, because it is necessary to destroy accommodation in order to provide sites for the building of modern homes in place of the slums. Certain restrictions on accommodation will be necessary for some time to come as a result of the general housing operations. I suggest, therefore, that in the circumstances it is not wise to insert December, 1950, in this matter.
I was, of course, rather optimistic originally because I had accepted certain figures from the previous Government. As I said before, I was led to believe—not with much credulity, I was sceptical about the figure—and so was the country, that if we provided 750,000 additional homes we would meet the gross need for accommodation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Houses."] No, 750,000 additional homes. Hon. Members must get the facts right. I should be out of Order in explaining this at any length; I refer to it only because the hon. and gallant Member himself made reference to it. They were not houses; they were homes, because some way had to be found of distinguishing flats. They also computed in that estimate re-occupied war-damaged houses. Now that we have lifted the standards of the population, now that there is full employment and people are more prosperous than they were, and now that the two million unemployed before the war are in employment and wanting homes, we find that our success has exposed a larger problem than hon. Members thought existed. I do not want to add anything further to what has been said. I notice the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is restless in his seat.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I had no intention of interrupting the Minister, but as he seems to wish it, let me ask him this. Does he suggest that there are more people in employment now than when he made this prophecy about 1947 seeing the end of the stringency in the housing position?

§ Mr. Bevan
I am speaking of the prophecy of which I was the victim. I am speaking of the prophecy which we inherited. We are now seeking, by asking local authorities to sift their lists, to find a more realistic picture of the housing need disclosed by the fact that what was before the war a need has now become an electoral demand.
For the various reasons I have given, I suggest that these tribunals will be useful for some time to come. Indeed, they are providing us with very good experience, because suppose, subsequently, we want to apply the Ridley Committee's recommendations, suppose we reach the time when there is roughly a free market in housing, when there is a more reasonable relationship between supply and demand: we might then want to use these tribunals, or something like them, or something they will grow into, in order to charge them—I am not, and. I cannot, argue the merits of the case now—with the task of carrying out the major rent control Act when it is put upon the Statute Book. I suggest that it would be unwise to put so short a limit on the life of these tribunals. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Ridley Committee considered that their Report could not be implemented until there was a free market in houses? When the Ridley Committee said they thought that rent control would have to continue for 10 years, they believed that there might not be a free market during that period.

§ Mr. Bevan
I said no such thing. The hon. Member ought not to try to impute those words to me. I was merely suggesting a number of possibilities, and I said that we might charge these tribunals with whatever functions we put into the major alteration when we make it. I am merely making this animadversion at the 1259 moment in order to suggest that we ought not to put so short a period on to the lifetime of the tribunals.

§ Mr. Hogg
The Minister has utilised this Amendment ingeniously, from the point of view of the rules of Order to build up one of his famous "Tipperary alibis" of the past. I think there is a better reason for resisting the Amendment than the Minister has given. This Bill is in fact a piece of mosaic fitted into the structure of the Rent Restrictions Acts and into the Act of 1946 which, when it is passed, will become an integral part of that legislation. I do not think it is practicable, once that is achieved, to put a different term to the currency of this Bill than the term of the principal Acts to which it relates. I think the result would be chaotic from the legislative point of view, and I suggest to my hon. Friends that the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I am afraid that I must pursue this point further. I understood the Minister to say that the Government would probably have to continue the Measure provided in this Bill perhaps for 10 years because there would not be until after that period a free market in houses. Surely the whole basis of the Ridley Report was that there should be early general legislation. This Measure, to put it at its highest, is a stopgap, a piecemeal Measure. The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the report of the Ridley Committee and I think it is only fair that I should call the attention of the Committee to what they recommended. They said: In our opinion it is urgently necessary that the present chaos of overlapping Statutes should be replaced by a single comprehensive Act …. and further: The evidence we have received convinces us that the difficulties and anomalies produced by the present system of control causes widespread and legitimate resentment, and we are satisfied that the time has come for a determined effort to remove them. That report was over three years ago, and it seems to me perfectly fantastic for the right hon. Gentleman to pray in aid what the Ridley Committee said to justify his contention that it may be necessary 1260 to continue in effect the provisions of this Bill for another 10 years. That seems perfectly fantastic. In the case of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, this point of duration has been dealt with under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on two occasions. Two years running it was put into that Bill, and now it is carried on to the beginning of 1950. That surely is the appropriate course to take with this Bill. I cannot see in the Ridley Report the slightest justification for the arguments of the Minister. I find everything in the Report directly opposite to them.

§ Mrs. Ridealgh (Ilford, North)
I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment. In Ilford we have about 25,000 people who are overcrowded and need re-housing. At the rate of re-housing in Ilford the most that can be given accommodation by the end of 1950 is about 3,000. I hope he will resist this Amendment so that the other 22,000 will have some protection.

Commander Galbraith
I have been very much disappointed in the Minister's last reply. He is being highly inconsistent. I think that when he advises the Committee to stick to the principal Acts on the previous Amendments, and then tells us to depart from them here, he is inconsistent to a degree. What is more, it shows a complete lack of faith in his own abilities. [Interruption.] Certainly he has shown great lack of faith in himself tonight, although on other occasions he always seems to have the proper amount. The point is, did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the country that before the General Election of 1950 he would have solved the housing problem? Did he not make that declaration? We are giving him six months longer than that, although of course for that six months he will not be in office. We are giving him longer than he asked for, yet he tells us that he cannot accept the Amendment. I am disappointed in him. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen very far in my estimation. In spite of that, I will accept the advice of my hon. Friends and on this occasion I will not press the Amendment.