HC Deb 23 January 1963 vol 670 cc221-38

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I support the Amendment, but not entirely for the reasons which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) gave. I do not believe that there is great force in the argument that this Bill or any Bill should be left until after a General Election because a General Election, of coarse, is decided not upon one subject but upon a variety. Although this Bill, among many other matters, will be mentioned during the election campaign, the decision cannot be said to be given upon the merits of demerits of one particular Bill.

However, I read with some apprehension that it is proposed to hold elections of councillors for each London borough, that is, the new boroughs, in May, 1964. That is only one year from next May. When one looks at the Bill, one realises what has to be accomplished within that time in the House, let alone outside. There are 86 Clauses and 17 Schedules, and we are now on page 2 of the Bill. We have to consider it in detail. I sincerely hope that we shall consider it fully and not be unduly hurried in our discussions because there are many matters which call for very careful consideration. When we have finished with the Bill, it must go to another place, and there are then other steps to be taken later in this place before we finally part with it.

The House of Commons will have other things to do and other matters to consider between now and the end of the Session. We shall have before us a variety of matters, apart from the Finance Bill. This Bill cannot possibly become law until late in the autumn. Between then and May of the following year the whole of the reorganisation will have to take place. In many instances, the reorganisation will have to take place between parties who are not at all willing partners in the organisation or reorganisation. All that must be done—I am speaking now only of the administrative machinery—before any sort of election can take place.

It is only fair that the various parties who will wish to support those standing for election as councillors should have time to organise or reorganise themselves in their new positions and to select the candidates who may, or may not, ultimately become councillors. How all that can be done in the few months available passes my comprehension, particularly when I remember that it has to be done by voluntary organisations.

In my view, this is speeding things up too much. I do not necessarily say that we should wait until 1967. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who said that his mind was not fixed upon any particular year. It may be that one year is sufficient. However, I do believe that to try to get the Bill through, put the machinery into action and get the amalgamations carried out—unwilling amalgamations in many cases—and then have elections held within the very few months which will remain before May, 1964, is to show an undue haste. I do not approve of it being shown in this matter, and I therefore support the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

It is most gratifying that there should be support for this Amendment from the benches opposite. We look forward with enthusiasm to the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) joining us in the Division Lobby in due course on this most worthy Amendment.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in introducing the Amendment was quite masterly and very impressive. He traversed the democratic principles which call for further time for consideration before this revolutionary change in the structure of the government of this great community comes into being. As he pointed out, as many as 8 million people are affected by the proposed Bill. When one contemplates that at the United Nations there are several sovereign Governments representing populations less than that, it is a measure of the far-reaching importance of this change which will alter the whole political structure of this vast community.

The principle of the mandate is, I agree, highly arguable, but here at any rate is a clear case of a major change in Government structure being introduced by a Government which gave no breath or hint of it at the last General Election. Failure to accept this Amendment can, I think, reasonably be interpreted as fear of the people and of their judgment of this matter if it were referred to them.

Reference has already been made to the mass of expert criticism of the con- tents of the Bill. It is important to underline the massive and substantial departures in the Bill from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I speak with some feeling on this matter, representing, as I do, the southern part of West Ham, a borough which is to lose its separate identity completely if this Measure goes through, contrary to the Royal Commission's recommendations. No such recommendation was made. That is an illustration of the way in which the Government have seen fit to play ducks and drakes with the Royal Commission's recommendations, and one cannot help having an uneasy suspicion that there are political motives behind some, at any rate, of the decisions the Government has taken, in order to ease the future of the Conservative Party.

When faced with this kind of situation, the need for time to ponder and to review the matter further is abundantly evident. Shotgun marriages are suggested in the proposed reorganisation of the boroughs, and I should have thought that if a little more time were given voluntary associations, marriages of convenience rather than marriages by the Government's pistol, might still have been capable of being organised. It is another reason for time to ponder, time for further efforts to be made to achieve a reorganisation which has the full support of the people affected by it. We do not want democratic machinery set up at pistol point and at high speed in this way.

It is not as if the government of this great community were grinding to a halt. On the contrary, it is, in most aspects, in good heart and in a good state of health, although clearly some changes would be justifiable. Accordingly, the need for a further pause is, as my hon. Friend indicated, desirable from the public point of view and necessary in the public interest. For these reasons, I support the Amendment with enthusiasm.

Mr. Pavitt

The words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) have been echoed in many parts of the Committee concerning the conduct of the Bill. The words "shotgun marriage "have been used by many hon. Members, but the essence of the phrase is that it implies undue haste. Because the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) would give a little breathing time, I implore the Committee to accept it.

If something is good, it is capable of standing the test of time. If the Bill is right, the Government need have no fear in accepting the Amendment and delaying the operation of the Bill until 1967 or, if they cannot meet us to that extent, a year earlier—at least, without this undue haste. The mark of a classic is that it stands the test of time. It is because this is a shocking pot-boiler that we feel that the Government will not accept our proposal.

Those of us who are familiar with the work of our town halls are well aware of the time that must be taken in the localities to absorb all the vast changes caused by the Bill. The Minister came down earlier in the garb of an apostle in favour of bureaucracy and rather opposed to councillors, but he is only too well aware of the way that those conscientious people are extremely worried about how to cope with all the questions that arise as a result of the Bill. The timetable laid down by the Government places an almost impossible burden upon their shoulders. Therefore, for the sake of smooth working, apart from any question of principle, it is desirable that the Bill should be delayed to the extent suggested in the Amendment.

Being interested particularly in health matters, I should like to follow a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. When 2,300 general practitioners, who, I assure the Committee, are not necessarily Socialists and do not often support us in the ballot box, come forward with such profound argument about why the Bill will be injurious to the Health Service, the Committee must pay attention. This is an argument against the Bill as a whole. If the arguments of these people carry any weight, there should at least be sufficient time for these people, who often have responsibility for decisions of life and death, to be carried with it rather than against it. This would take time, which is what the Amendment would allow.

The general practitioners raised particularly the question of midwifery service. The statement issued by the local medical committee of the County of London pointed out the present situation that if a midwife working in one borough is taken ill, another midwife can be sent from another borough. It asked whether independent boroughs would be as quick to do the same and what would happen to a woman in labour.

When discussing this kind of thing I have to be careful not to trespass on the territory of "That Was The Week That Was", because one can imagine bureaucratic telephones ringing and anxious people trying to sort out this tricky problem at ground-floor level. The doctors, however, think not in those terms, but in the serious terms of how to cope with obstetrics when resources are divided in the way that the Bill divides them. If the Bill becomes law, the doctors and the midwifery service will need time to make the necessary arrangements so that the service is maintained and, if possible, improved. This cannot be done in a short time.

It is a complicated service involving the relationship between the general practitioners and the midwives and the whole of the social services, linked with the relationship between local services and the hospital services, the "flying squad". All these things we are talking about are matters of life and death affecting infant mortality and death in childbirth. Yet, for the sake of what seems to be a doctrinaire approach, we are hurrying the Bill through without giving the medical profession time to adjust itself to make the necessary arrangements so that the services may be continued satisfactorily.

I do not know what consultation the Minister has had with the Minister of Health on this matter, but he knows that the Minister promised that after the 10-year plan for hospital building there should be a planned local medical service, and one assumes that this planning will cover not only local health authorities' services but also the medical services at present operated by local medical committees for the local areas. What kind of planning is this, with one Minister making one kind of planning and another Minister making planning of another kind? What kind of co-ordination is it?

Whatever proposals go through, would not the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), by giving more time, help in the organisation of the administration of local government medical services? Would not that give us enough time to see whether all these things fit in together, so that they may be co-ordinated, and so that the planning which is going on in one Department and the planning which is going on in another can be coordinated? The fault in the planning of this Government is that they do things piecemeal, unrelated to one another, although they have a bearing on one another and effect one another.

There is the question of organising the changeover in education. Again, more time for that would be most helpful. The Bill provides elsewhere that the essential services of the London County Council in education shall remain under a single education authority. The Conservative and Labour members of Middlesex County Council have unitedly requested a similar kind of thing. We do not know the merit of this, but if we rush this Bill through, and lose this extra period of time, there is no question that the genuine fears of both the Conservative and Labour councillors of Middlesex about education will not be alleviated.

The same argument for more time applies to other provisions of the Bill, for instance, those related to highways and traffic, and the weird arrangement which seems to exist whereby the Minister of Transport has certain powers and the Greater London Council has others. It would seem that, if all these things are to be adjusted satisfactorily, there must be more time to work out all the practical details. If the Bill goes through under the present timetable there will not be adequate time.

I should like to raise once again the consideration that the speedy passing of the Bill at this time affects the youth employment services. Under the Bill it is possible, if a borough does not choose to take up these matters for the responsibility to rest with the Minister of Labour, but this is at a time when more and more school leavers are finding themselves without jobs and when unemployment is an acute problem. To have these services thrown into the melt-ingpot at this period would surely be a disaster for the youngsters now starting on their careers. Again, we think there must be sufficient time for the adjustment of all these services, and my hon. Friend's Amendment, for these reasons, has considerable merit.

As has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), we are dealing with an area with a population equivalent to that of some of the countries which have seats in the United Nations. We are affecting a wide range of services over a very large geographical area. We are trying to make Uxbridge marry Southend to make a viable unit.

Mr. Pargiter

Uxbridge is supposed to marry Southall, not Southend.

Mr. Pavitt

I was not only thinking of the marriage of Southall and Uxbridge but also of the Greater London Council, with Uxbridge at one end Southend at the other.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but Southend is not included in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Mellish

It will not be long before it is.

Mr. Pavitt

What the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) says is true, but Hornchurch is included and we are moving further and further along the River Thames.

This Amendment should receive the support not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends but also of hon. Members opposite who, while agreeing with the principle of the Bill, could give us a little more time to do the job satisfactorily and well.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman

I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the powerful arguments put forward for the Amendment not only from this side of the Committee—which will, of course, be suspect by him—but also by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). The hon. and learned Gentleman's case was very powerful apart from the questions raised by my hon. Friends.

We are on the first day of the Committee stage and we have discussed one or two important but short Amendments. Unless the Government adopt their usual method of dealing with important Bills, the Guillotine, it will be a very considerable 'time before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. As has been said more than once, it affects 8 million people in the most important centre of the United Kingdom. Many interests are involved. If the Government are to play the game they must give the Committee and the House itself ample time to consider the Bill and everything it involves.

Now, at the end of January, it is difficult to contemplate the Bill, if full justice is to be paid to its consideration, reaching the Statute Book for a considerable time. What does that mean? This provision we are discussing, for instance, requires the election of councillors under arrangements to be made by incorporation order on a day in May, 1964. How much time will that give? I have the honour to represent what used to be called the "model borough" of Stoke Newington—a very small borough—and part of the Borough of Hackney. Under the Bill, Stoke Newington, Hackney and Shoreditch are to be united in one of these wonderful boroughs the Government contemplate.

But if that is to be done, surely the Minister recognises that after the Bill becomes law a tremendous amount of time will be required administratively before the election of the -new councils can be arranged. That point was not made on this side of the Committee. It was made by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. Is not that an absolutely sound argument? Even though he has voluminous notes I hope that the Minister will pay due attention to that argument. If he agrees that it is a sound one, how can he possibly say that it would be fair to contemplate the election of borough councillors as early as May, 1964?

That is apart from other arguments—and there are many other sound arguments—in support of. the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said that he did not quite agree with the argument about the necessity for a General Election to deal with this matter, because General Elections deal with many matters. That is true, but there is no reason why we should not put before the electorate the consideration of this Measure, as proposed by the Government. in other words, a General Election would give the London electorate an opportunity of considering the changes contemplated by the Bill.

In all justice and fairness, when we contemplate changes of this enormous character is it not fair that the people should judge? If we were talking about an agreed Measure, or a Measure which involved little opposition, one might be able to understand the argument for getting on with the job, but even the Minister must recognise the tremendous volume of opposition which exists to many parts of the Bill—indeed, to the whole principle contained in it. Members of the medical profession, architects, surveyors, and almost every borough affected by the Bill are protesting against these changes.

When the Government are foisting—and I use the word advisedly—a Measure of this kind upon people and boroughs who are not only reluctant to accept it but entirely oppose it, is if not right to hesitate a good deal, and take the opinions of the people concerned—an electorate comprising 8 million people? They should be given the opportunity of considering whether these changes should be made. How can that possibly be done when we have a Measure of this kind, one of whose provisions state that borough councillors shall be elected on some day in May, 1964?

There is the case. It is as simple as that. It does not warrant a lot of argument. Take the pros on one side and the cons on the other. Let the Government act fairly and justly in this matter. If they do, how can they possibly avoid accepting the Amendment and allowing further time, recognising how unfair and unjust it would be to stick to their provision for an election in May, 1964?

Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich)

All of us are hoping that the Government will genuinely have second thoughts about the Amendment. It seems extraordinary that they should feel so concerned to rush the Measure through, to an extent which worries many of their own supporters as well as hon. Members on this side of the Committee. There is no hurry for this. London has been here for a long time, now.

Arguments justifying some changes can be put up, although they are arguments which we do not accept, but it is difficult to suggest that the position London has become so catastrophic and incapable of administration that the whole of this massive Bill has to be whipped through Parliament in just over twelve months. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) made a valid point. He is not a revolutionary Member. He normally supports the Government in almost anything they do. But he felt constrained to complain bitterly about the Bill and we support him in those complaints.

There are a number of things which could be said about the present date of operations. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not think that the Government had to have a mandate for everything that they did, and that is perfectly true. I do not believe in mandated Members. A Government are elected to represent people and it is the job of that Government to govern while they have the support of the electorate. I am not here making a party point. I would never dream of doing so in the circumstances. But I do not think that any hon. Member would claim that the Government at this time have the support of the majority of the population.

Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby)

rose—

Mr. Marsh

I do not know whether the hon. Member is about to say that he believes that the Government have.

Mr. Wise

I think that the party on this side of the Committee can claim to represent a larger proportion of the electorate than hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Marsh

That is a view which the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to hold. The day that the Labour Party loses a seat with a majority of 8,000 we shall need rather more backing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen thousand."] Yes but that seat was lost in an extraordinary fashion.

The Government would have to think carefully and produce some evidence before claiming that they represent the majority of the population. But I do not wish to make a party point out of this. I merely state it as a fact. At the moment all the Gallup polls show that the Labour Party has a lead of something like ½ points over the Conservative Party. That does not mean that that will always be the position. But is is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that anything this Government may do in the foreseeable future can do other than add to that lead.

If the Government do not have the support of the electorate, they have no right to push through highly contentious legislation for which they have no sort of mandate, and clearly they could not obtain one at the present time. This is a serious constitutional point. I do not think that a Government with a majority and the support of the nation necessarily have to say that unless a Bill which they are putting before Parliament was in their last General Election manifesto, it cannot be put through. That would reduce us to being governed by mandated delegates. But I do not believe that a Government have the right to force through legislation for which there is virtually no support whatsoever and which they can push through only by the aid of a majority which does not exist in terms of the confidence of the British people. Indeed, the Government have not the confidence of some of the hon. Members opposite.

There is no secret about the fact that there is bound to be a General Election within the next eighteen months. Hon. Members opposite have made their points in the past against us and we have made our points against the party opposite. But it is generally accepted that the present Government are fast taking on the appearance of a national disaster and no Government can continue on that course for very long. So there must be a General Election by October of next year at the very latest.

If the Government win that General Election, when this matter has been before the electorate, we shall continue to oppose it because we feel strongly about this matter. But no one could challenge the constitutional right of the Government in those circumstances to use their majority to carry the Bill through. To do that and to have the support of the people, and allow the people to have some say in the matter, the Government have only to put off the matter for twelve months at the most. I do not believe that a case can be made that there is such urgency about the matter that the 8½ million people, one-fifth of the total population of the country, cannot be given time in which to express their point of view on an issue on which clearly a large number feel very strongly.

One of the things which has surprised all of us is the intensity with which people feel on the issue of the Bill. That is a good thing. One of the great problems of the modern urban community is the difficulty of obtaining any identification between the individual and the area in which he lives. The sense of community is very difficult to maintain in a large area. But one of the things which has amazed me is the extent to which this feeling clearly exists in London, the biggest Metropolis in the world.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee probably received, as I did last week, a letter from a group of wards in North Epsom and Ewell—on the Southern Railway line—and at the top of it was a list of the local bodies who were appealing to Conservative Members, Socialist Members and the Liberal Member to try to prevent the Bill from being passed because they felt strongly about it. There was the Epsom and Ewell Conservative Association, the Epsom Labour Party, the Epsom Trades Council, the Epsom Churches organisation and the Chamber of Commerce. All these people feel strongly about what is proposed in the Bill affecting their community—and it is a good thing that they should feel strongly about it.

10.45 p.m.

Why should they be denied the right of expressing a point of view about it? Have we reached the stage at which the gentleman in Whitehall has the right to decide the future of 9 million people and it is regarded as impertinence if they ask for twelve months in which to give a decision on it? Is it unreasonable that they should ask at least to be permitted to express their point of view? If the Government retain their majority after the next election they are entitled to ignore that point of view, but are not these people entitled to express a point of view?

The right hon. Gentleman set up a Commission, and that is his justification for much of the action which he undertakes. But he has ignored many of the Commission's recommendations and has changed others where they were inconvenient. In a democracy, he cannot deal with the destinies of 9 million people by a Commission, particularly when it is clear that the Government do not represent the people or a majority of them.

The Government of the day introduced a Bill in 1884 to extend at that time the city boundaries and to provide for what eventually became the basis of the London County Council as we know it. It was not until 1894 that the boroughs began to be created—ten years later. Since that time there have been seventy years of evolution. One can have different points of view about the form which the L.C.C. should take. That is legitimate. It is a matter of opinion. But I do not think that anyone on either side of the Committee would seriously suggest that the L.C.C. can be regarded as bad local government at present. It can fairly be argued that changes should be made in it, but by and large it is accepted as one of the greatest municipal authorities in the world. It has taken seventy years to evolve.

Yet the Government, without discussing the matter in a General Election, produce a Bill which creates enormous opposition throughout the area concerned, causes dismay and heartache among a large number of their own supporters and add, "To suggest waiting until after the next General Election so that the electors may express their point of view is unreasonable and should not be accepted."

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will regard this as a reasonable request for the Opposition to make. This is a big and fundamental issue. If the Government make a mistake in the Bill, it will cause a great deal of difficulty to one-fifth of the population of this country. The Government obviously believe that they are right, but to rush a Bill of this type after this length of time can be justified on one ground only. That was contained in the Commission's Report, where it said that the size of London had made it a major political prize. Do not let us be pious about this. We are all politicians in this Chamber and obviously we are interested in prizes for our own party. The Government are setting out to reorganise the London County Council area against the wishes of the people concerned, without permitting them the right to express their opinion in a General Election, and doing it so quickly that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that irreparable damage could be done to services which are among the finest in the world.

To do all that for purely party political gain because the Government feel they have lost the next General Election and will not have the opportunity to do this after would be a despicable action and one which I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman, having heard the convincing arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, would not wish to be a party to. I hope that he will immediately rise and apologise for not having made the Amendment in the first place.

Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)

I, too, hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, although I have not any great expectations that he will. However, I hope that in his own defence he will give the same sort of assurance that he has given from time to time today, namely that he will look at the arguments carefully before Report, which it seems will not be for a considerable time.

The Minister will recollect certain difficulties in getting a very nefarious Act called the Rent Act through the House of Commons. That was a situation where the Government had made a decision and told their supporters that it needed great courage, would result in short-term political unpopularity, and could succeed only if it was pushed through quickly and forcefully. Many of the Minister's supporters at the time pleaded for delay in one or two little matters. The Opposition certainly pleaded for delay. The answer was always, "No". In the end the Minister had to produce a pitifully inadequate little amending Act where small justice was done in a limited way to a few but many who in the meantime had had to make their own arrangements were denied even the benefits of the amending Act.

Even if the Minister and the Government are right in their courage and determination to bring about this massive and important change, it is less than likely that they will be right on every point. It is less than likely that they will see now exactly and that their advisers can see exactly how the immense detailed changes in administration of the different welfare services will work out in different boroughs or areas. I beg the Minister to try to find a way of leaving a door open for reconsideration of some of these vitally important human matters which have already been referred to.

One cannot overstress the difference between one area and another in its capacity to take over such subjects as child care from the London County Council. One cannot help thinking about the lack of experience, the difficulty of finding trained and experienced personnel, and the immense social damage which may result. The Minister does not need me to remind him at this hour of the night of the statistical facts of the case in my constituency, of the areas where in certain parts there have been twenty times the national average of children taken away from the care of their families and placed in the care of local authorities. He does not need to be told the statistics about fatherless children in an area like mine. He must know that, wealthy, successful and honourable as the City of Westminster is, it cannot take over these orphans of Paddington, run the necessary organisation and understand exactly just what these and similar community problems are unless there is a reasonable period for recruitment.

It is very important that we should retain the best talents available in these places. At present they are tending to scuttle away and look for their own interests—and who can blame them? They are bound to be thinking that, with so much uncertainty, they cannot be sure that their parts will succeed. Let it be proved to them by a detailed working out and assessment of the staff available, and the qualities of that staff, that it can succeed. Let them see the blue prints for their areas.

When talking of staff I am not thinking so much about the great organising figures, but those who are at the very root of the matter; the welfare officers and those who visit homes. They are the most important first contacts. They must be told something about their communities and the future of them. This is most important, especially when one remembers that different parts of London differ from one another in their impact an these different social problems.

We had an interesting example in this connection over the Housing Act. This is not the time to criticise the working of such Measures, but I would like to quote some facts about two boroughs. In one case the borough, with a Conservative majority, refused even to accept the recommendation that it should call a special meeting of its establishment committee to look for new staff and to implement the Act. Another borough, also with a Conservative majority, was on the ball and was immediately recruiting new staff. It so happens that those two boroughs will be amalgamated under the Bill. Someone will have some headaches.

I hope that there will be an improvement in the good will and intention towards the Bill, but that cannot happen unless time is allowed for careful blueprint preparation. This good will cannot exist unless there is a prepared assessment of the number and quality of the junior staff required and an assessment of whether that staff will be available. Can the Minister tell us anything about preparations of this kind? Surely it is a little grotesque of him to expect this sort of thing to take shape within about twelve months of the Bill becoming law?

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consult his Service colleagues. Let him find out from the Air Ministry, for example, at what date it was necessary to begin to recruit intelligence officers so that they might be trained and fully equated with what they had to do in time for one of the major invasions. Let him inquire how many times the number of such officers had to be reconsidered and how it was necessary to allow for wastage, inefficiency, fresh selection, and so on. There is not a Ministry in Whitehall, except the right hon. Gentleman's, which would be prepared to tackle such a gigantic task at such short notice, it is almost as though the Ministry is determined to demonstrate its own cruelty in thrusting this knife into the welfare services which are so efficiently run by the L.C.C.

Is the Ministry determined to prove that it can be done? It seemed determined to push the Rent Act through, to demonstrate that it did not mind if a few fell by the wayside and if minor injustices occurred. Only pressure from the Government's supporters made it bring in a pitiful Amending Act which had to be rushed through its Committee stage upstairs. We were told, in effect, "If you do not take it as it is people will suffer." Many of them did suffer, including the loss of their homes in circumstances which could never be put right. Of course, the Minister knows that there is force in these arguments. He is the sort of person—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.