Lords Sitting of 3 May 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  NURSES BILL [H.L.]
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it was said during a recent discussion in your Lordships' House that until the time of Florence Nightingale it could not be claimed that there had been any serious training of nurses. That may be perfectly true. Consequently, the name of Florence Nightingale has gone down in history, and her name is ever in our minds when we come to discuss nurses and their conditions of employment. It is remarkable, however, that not until the year 1919 did the State think it worth while to give statutory form to the training of nurses. Significantly enough, that was the year following the end of the First World War, a fact which indicates a clear reason for the introduction of that measure.
  The Bill being introduced to-day, in the year 1949, follows the Second World War, and it might seem at first sight that the experiences of the country during that war had led to the issue being brought forward. I think it would be wrong if we were to think only of the
  160
  Crimean War, the war of 1914–1918, and that which has just been closed, as providing the main reasons why there should be public notice of the necessity for training nurses. Much as we admire those who have been instrumental in bringing these matters to our attention, I think it would pay us if, from time to time, we gave serious thought to the tens of thousands of men and women who, through several generations, have given either of their wealth or of their services to render possible the great hospital system of our country and to give us a standard of nursing such as we have today. Certainly I, as a person who from the beginning of my political career have thought it desirable that the State should take an ever-increasing part in hospital welfare, would not shirk the issue of giving thanks to the men and women, mostly unknown, who have made that system possible—that system which has now come under the control of the community.
  The Act of 1919 had two main purposes. The first was to maintain a Register of State Nurses, and the second was to prescribe methods of training and examination to qualify persons for the Register. In the thirty years that have elapsed since that time, great changes have taken place. The status of the profession has risen, and it can be claimed, I think, that we in Britain enjoy a nursing service second to none in the world. It would be wrong to assume that a measure passed in 1919, even though it was based on the experiences of the Great War, could stand for ever. It would equally be a mistake if we assumed that no amendment would be necessary at this date. Despite all the work that has been done, we have not sufficient trained nurses; there is far too much wastage in the training of nurses, and the hospitals are much too dependent upon the probationers for the services they require.
  It is well to remember that between the two World Wars many Committees were established, and in due course reported, and our thanks are due to them for their work. The Lancet Committee in 1932 gave us the suggestion that there should be an early scheme of training for the period between school years and the nursing-training age. That is now an established fact in our land. It is to be regretted, however, that far too much

  161
  persuasion and drive is necessary to make the scheme the great success that in the early days we hoped it would be. The Athlone Committee in 1939 gave us grading of assistant nurses, and this principle was established by the Act of 1943. Then the Horder Committee of the Royal College of Nursing suggested that we should have a "student nurse status" grade and that there should be regional and local committees for carrying out the work of training. The Bill that we are considering this afternoon seeks to bring into operation the regional training committees, and we trust that as a result there will be a great improvement in training methods. It is also well, however, to remember another series of Committees, because the recruitment of nurses will depend largely on the results of their recommendations. The Athlone Committee and the Rushcliffe Committee have now been superseded by the Whitley Councils, who have greatly increased the allowances to be paid to nurses when in training; on that side, therefore, there ought not to be the trouble in recruitment that we formerly experienced.
  But, despite all that has been done, there still remains a chronic shortage of trained nurses, amounting now to about 46,000. Of the 127,000 full-time nurses, only 45,000, or 30 per cent., are fully trained. When these figures are realised, it becomes apparent at once that something in the nature of the measure that we are introducing to-day is required, in order to give the hospital services the staff they will require. Not only have we to deal with the hospitals as we formerly knew them, when they were supported by private contributions, but we have to think of the hospitals as they now are, giving free service to vast numbers of people who, for the first time in their lives, are able to go to such institutions for their treatment. In addition, we have to think of the developments that have taken place in industry and elsewhere, leading to greater employment of nurses. It is therefore important to mention that since the war there has been appointed an expert Working Party, under the Chairmanship of Sir Robert Wood. That Working Party reported in 1947. Whilst most of their important proposals will need legislation, and will ultimately come before Parliament, the Government (so far as adminis-
  162
  tration can carry the matter) have put into operation some of the proposals that the Working Party made.
  We are now experimenting in the selection of student nurses to make quite sure that the material entering will be suitable for the courses and, eventually, for employment. We are experimenting also with the further training of registered nurses for higher positions, and in connection with that we are receiving help from the Royal College of Nursing, King Edward's Hospital Fund, and the General Nursing Council. Research which was recommended by the Working Party is now being carried on by the Nuffield Hospital Provincial Trust. The work in which they are engaged is to decide the kind of jobs that have to be performed in hospitals, and the labour or staff that will be required to carry out that work properly. Some of us are looking forward rather keenly to their Report, because it is possible that, having studied it, we may see much more clearly than in the past what we actually require in trained nursing staff. The more important recommendations of that Working Party will, however, have to be dealt with by means of legislation.
  The Bill we have before us is a finely-balanced document, trying to please as many parties as possible who are interested in nursing. It has been of some importance, therefore, that the Government should take every possible step for consultation before bringing matters before Parliament. In a matter on which so many diverse views have been expressed in the past, by both experts and laymen, it is not to be expected that unanimous approval will be obtained for any set of proposals, however carefully they may be devised. Nevertheless, it is desirable in a matter of this kind that all shades of opinion should be taken into consideration before action is taken. Accordingly the Minister of Health has been at great pains to ascertain the views of all the organisations, representing the nursing profession, the medical profession and the local authorities, and of the regional hospital boards and boards of governors. The subject has been discussed at representative meetings of all these interests, and the Minister's views have been considerably modified in the light of the opinions expressed. Thus, while it cannot be claimed that the provi-

  163
  sions of the Bill will satisfy every interested party—for no one consistent scheme could do that—it is certain that the Bill has been framed with full knowledge of, and with careful regard to, the views of all the responsible authorities and organisations.
  I should now like to say one or two words about the Bill. I do not think that a great number of words will be required, because the Bill has already received great publicity. Its main features have been printed and discussed in many parts of the country. The first feature, however, is the decision of the Government to increase the status and the strength of the General Nursing Council, to make it stronger and to put it on a more widely representative basis. It is also proposed to give to the Council an additional statutory committee. The statutory committee given to it in 1943 related to assistant nurses; the new committee refers to mental nurses. There are to be established in the regions standing nurses' training committees, and the financial side will be under the control of the Council. As to the representative character of the Council, I would remind your Lordships that hitherto the membership of that body has been no more than twenty-five. It is now proposed that its membership should be increased to thirty-four, of whom it is suggested that seventeen, or one-half, shall be elected. Of the other seventeen members, fourteen will be elected on the nomination of fourteen areas; two will be elected on the nomination of the mental nurses, and one on the nomination and election of the sick children's nurses. Perhaps it ought to be added that, of the members to be appointed by the Minister, five or six also have to be nurses, so that out of a total membership of thirty-four, the nurses will occupy on the Council twenty-three places. In circumstances of that kind, it ought to be apparent at once that the new General Nursing Council should carry the confidence of the nursing profession, and will therefore be of very great value, especially in the training of nurses.
  It has been suggested that, in dealing with the case of mental nurses, an entirely different organisation should be established. The Government, however, have come to the conclusion that the same
  164
  purpose will be served by providing for this new statutory committee. The Mental Nurses' Committee will have referred to it without question all matters coming before the General Nursing Council which refer to mental nursing; the committee will consider the matter, and will report back to the General Nursing Council when decisions have been reached. The General Nursing Council reserve their right to take action in case of emergency, but in all other cases, before the General Council reach a decision, the Mental Nurses' Committee must be consulted. There is a provision, too, that where the General Nursing Council are of opinion that the work should be carried out by the Mental Nurses' Committee authority can be given to that committee to carry out the functions allotted to it. The committee will consist of six members appointed by the General Nursing Council and four by the Minister. Perhaps I ought to add that in all probability the medical and other professions will receive notice of the members to be appointed by the Minister, and will certainly be consulted in respect of the appointments.
  The standing nurses' committees, which I have already mentioned, are of considerable importance, and around them a certain amount of controversy may easily arise, unless we fully understand what they are for. Therefore I will read a short paragraph from my instructions which will enable me to exercise especial care in putting the point before your Lordships. The Government accept the Working Party's view that, under the present arrangements, the training of nurses tends to be subordinated to the staffing needs of the hospitals, and their conclusion that, so far as may be practicable, training should be dealt with independently of hospital administration—in particular, that the finance of training should be separate from the finance of administration. How far, in the circumstances attending the administration of the hospital service, the student nurse can be given the full student status which the Working Party recognised as the ideal, remains to be seen. The Bill, while leaving this question open, creates the conditions in which the answer to it may be evolved by trial and experiment. It provides for regional committees, independent of the hospital authorities, whose main duty it will be to co-ordinate

  165
  training arrangements, and it provides for the expenses of training to be separated from the expenses of hospital administration.
  The membership of these standing nurses' training committees will be defined ultimately by the Minister by Order. That principle is adopted because it would be difficult to find a kind of committee which could conveniently function everywhere, and especially when conditions change from area to area. By taking power in this way, the Minister can, after proper consultation, build up standing nurses' training committees to meet the requirements of respective areas. The principal view of the Minister in establishing these committees is that the General Nursing Council is too far removed from the students themselves; therefore, the Council has meant less to the nurses in training than is justified or is useful. By the establishment of the regional committees, there can be a close contact between those who are responsible and the students themselves. These committees will have the duty of advising the hospital management committees, the boards of governors of teaching hospitals and any other authority in the preparation and carrying out of schemes of training.
  My Lords, I should add that the powers and duties given by the Act of 1919 to the Central Nursing Council of that day did not require very great alteration; indeed, they are only very slightly to be amended by this measure. The General Nursing Council will be given control of the formation of the Register; the conditions of admission to the Register, and the conduct of examinations for entry; in prescribing the grounds for removal from the Register, and in laying down the training for examination and experience required for a nurse to be placed on the Register. Each of those powers will be preserved to the Council, and I think it is something to be proud of that, in the rush which occurred after the First World War, Parliament did so well in reaching a conclusion about the requirements in the training of nurses.
  I come now to one or two of the other features of the Bill about which I want to say just a few words. Clause 3 provides that there shall be power in the General Nursing Council to introduce experimental training. It will be the duty
  166
  of the Council to lay down in the rules to be ultimately approved by Parliament the kind of training that will in general operate. It is our experience in such cases that rules and regulations of that kind remain unaltered for far too long a time; in fact, they sometimes become so fixed that they do not keep up with the progress of events. The General Nursing Council is to be given authority so that, outside the rules and regulations which receive Parliamentary sanction, they may, from time to time, give authority for experimental training schemes. I believe I am right in saying that the suggestion about the student nurse status is one of the matters that could be brought in under this clause. Where, in a particular locality, the bodies concerned are anxious to put it into operation as a matter of trial then it will be within the power of the General Nursing Council to authorise and approve such a scheme. So numerous are the theories about the training of nurses, many of which can be settled only after a course of trial and error, that this clause ought to find a very useful life in front of it.
  Clause 8 deals with nurses trained abroad. In this country to-day, when we have full employment, there is extreme difficulty in many directions in finding enough labour, and the hospitals themselves have experienced trouble in securing a sufficient number of nurses, either for training or for service. Power is given to the General Nursing Council to register nurses from abroad where they are satisfied that the nurses have undergone appropriate training; and in other cases where the training is considered to be insufficient, the Council will have authority to give further training, followed by examination and registration if the candidates are successful.
  Clause 9 deals with the closing of the Register. I think there may be some little misapprehension about this clause, and I will briefly explain it. First of all, the part of the Register which concerns male nurses will be closed shortly after the Bill becomes law. The male nurses will be transferred to the General Register, and with the women will become part and parcel of that Register. But the part which deals with mental nurses and with the nursing of sick children will remain for the time being.

  167
  Authority is given to the Central Nursing Council that if at some time in the future they think those parts of the Register ought to be closed, then they can be closed, to the extent that no further names will then be added. Those nurses whose names are still on that part of the Register will remain thereon.
  I think there is only one other point in the Bill itself with which I need bother your Lordships on this occasion, and that has reference to the printing of the Register. Because of the great expense and trouble involved in publishing a Register, the General Nursing Council have sought to be relieved from the obligation to publish the Register. It should be noticed that they are to be relieved of that obligation. If in the future they consider it desirable that the Register should be printed, they will not be prevented by the new Bill from taking that course. The Register will, however, be maintained by the General Nursing Council, and that Register, retained in the office of the Council, will be the only authentic document which will receive consideration in the courts or elsewhere. An awkward point about the publication of a Register is that at the date of publication it is already twelve months old, so that if one has recourse to the Register at the date of publication—perhaps in order to be certain about the correctness of one of the points therein—one must communicate with the General Nursing Council in order to have it attested. So the General Nursing Council are to be relieved of the necessity, at any rate for the time being, of publishing the Register.
  My Lords, in view of what I have already said, I do not think it necessary to continue my speech in an examination of the Bill. There will be ample opportunity for that purpose on Committee stage. I will close now by asking your Lordships to give the Bill a kindly welcome and to give the Government aid in putting it through. Your Lordships may rest assured that in so doing, noble Lords will be performing a good piece of work, not only for the nurses but for the hospital service and all concerned therewith. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  3.8 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I, at any rate, can rise and, in the words of the noble Lord who has preceded me, give to this Bill a "kindly welcome." I do not think anybody in your Lordships' House will in any way object to the principles that underlie the Bill and, if it can do something to help that devoted profession, the nurses, I am sure everybody here will welcome it most heartily. In the main, it brings up to date the provisions made in the Act of 1919 for which, if my recollection serves me aright, the Leader of the House the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was so largely responsible. To some of us in this House it may seem odd that the nurses struggled from 1903 till 1919 before they could get established the principle of registration of nurses. It is very difficult to understand in these days what strong opposition there was at the beginning of this century to that essential provision for this great profession. Whether or not it became mixed up with the struggle for women's suffrage one does not quite know, but at any rate it seems to me that the original registration proceedings ought to have been conceded to the nurses much earlier, and it was only right that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, when he was Minister of Health, should have introduced that Bill for them.
  Passing from that, I would point out that one of the things some of the nurses lay great stress upon is that having, after all this agitation, extending over some sixteen years, obtained their Register, they are now a little anxious concerning the provision of which the noble Lord spoke at the conclusion of his speech, and to which, accordingly, it may be appropriate for me to refer now—the provision in Clause 14 (2) of the Bill whereby the Register can be taken away from them. Up to date the Register of Nurses has been published annually, and it is true, I believe, that it costs the General Nursing Council about £6,000 a year to publish it. But I would ask the noble Lord how we are to get on when fourteen nurses are elected—one for each region—without some kind of a Register. It is no good having merely a manuscript register at the central offices when this has to form an electoral register (for that is what this Register will be) and has to be correct for each of the fourteen regions. What I would suggest now to

  169
  the noble Lord, and what I shall suggest again at a later stage, is that we should make it obligatory on the General Nursing Council to publish this Register once every five years—that is, a year before the election takes place.
  We shall thus kill two birds with one stone: we shall have the Register right for the election and we shall also relieve the anxieties of the nurses. Part of their struggle from 1903 to 1919 was to get this Register—and, after all, who is there among us who does not like to see himself or herself in a published list, if he or she is qualified to be in it? I should think—though probably most of us would not admit it—that we in this House all like to be able to look up Doer s Parliamentary Companion and see that our own name appears correctly in that publication. Nurses may well like to be able to do the same thing with the Register, and, when they have gone through their course of training and have passed the necessary examinations, to say, "You will find my name in that Register." They may well think it pleasant to be in a position to take along their fathers or their mothers to have a look at their name in the Register. So I suggest that this Register should be published at least once every five years, both for the practical reason which I explained and for the more sentimental reason which I mentioned. Your Lordships will find, if you look at the First Schedule, that the fourteen nurses to serve on this Council are to be elected by persons who on the date of the election are registered, and one representative has to be elected for each area. There will quite clearly have to be a Register, so let us have it published once every five years. This election by areas is one of the main provisions of this new measure and I think it is a good idea. It is well known that in the past the General Nursing Council has consisted largely of people from London hospitals, who were no doubt eminent representatives, but it is a good thing that the representation should be spread more widely than has been the case in the past.
  The Bill incorporates another recommendation of the Working Party—namely, that there should be stronger educational representation on this Council. That, too, I think is all to the good. But here I would ask your Lord-
  170
  ships to note that although in the composition of the General Council, which we find in the First Schedule, the representation is clearly fixed and balanced, when we come to the standing nurse-training committees, we find the matter is left very wide and to be determined in each case by Order. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that it was difficult to include in the Bill the composition of these committees because there might be differences in each area. But I would suggest that, within some limits, we might lay down in the Bill what should be the representation as between X and Y. That would at any rate ensure that in the framing of these Orders the nurses themselves will be given an assured representation on these standing nurse-training committees. That is a point into which we can go later.
  In that connection, I would like to ask this question of the noble Lord. With regard to the General Nursing Council, in the case of the extra representatives whom the Minister can appoint (not those referred to in paragraph 3 of the First Schedule, but the six he is required to appoint) does the Minister intend to appoint any doctors? I think we shall all agree that the training of nurses should be mainly in their own hands. Just as the training of solicitors is in the hands of the Law Society, and the training of barristers is in the hands of the Benchers of their Inns, so I think nurses should have the main say in training matters. But as it is important from the start that the liaison between the doctors and the nurses should be complete, I should like to know whether the Minister will be appointing any doctors to the General Nursing Council to live advice and have a say in the training schedules.
  For my own part, I like the idea underlying Clause 3, the provision for experimental training, although I know that there are some people who do not. But one of the most depressing things in connection with the nursing profession is the number of student nurses who never finish the course, who never become registered nurses at all. The Working Party put the wastage at 35 per cent. in the old voluntary hospitals, and 43 per cent. in the old municipal hospitals. Of course, some student nurses leave on account of marriage, and one certainly does not blame them for that With others, their

  171
  departure is due to illness. But about 25 per cent. of those who leave too early resign for no very apparent reason. I believe that we should be able to retain more of these student nurses if a little more imagination were shown in their training in hospital, if there were a little less drudgery put upon student nurses when the hospitals are short of domestic staff. Student nurses often begin their training as housemaids or charladies for a great part of their time in hospital. I think we want a little more imagination shown in regard to the treatment of these young girls than we have had in the past.
  The Working Party give several reasons for the wastage, in this order of importance. First, there is the code of discipline, which young girls feel to be unnecessarily severe, and the unfriendly relations between the senior nursing staff and the students. This is coupled with what is regarded as the unreasonable regulation of their off-duty hours. I am one of those people who think that when a girl is off duty, she ought to be off duty. Surely she ought to have these hours to herself, so long, of course, as she returns by the right time, fit and ready to carry on her job. Apart from that, I do not see that it is any concern of the hospital what student nurses do when they are off duty. The next reason is inadequacy, both in the quantity and quality, of food. I do not see why that should be a complaint. I believe that it is still the practice, as it was when I was Minister of Food, for hospitals to receive a preferential ration. Unless there is forced economy in buying food, or (which is very likely), in not paying the wages of the right kind of cook, I do not see why staff are not properly fed in hospitals. The next reason given is the span and pressure of working hours. That is rather a difficult question with such a shortage of staff. Next comes poor accommodation, bad recreational facilities and an unnecessary amount of domestic work. I believe that if we show more imagination in implementing the provisions of Clause 3 of this measure, we can attract more young girls to this profession and save some of the wastage of those who resign part-way through their course.
  I see that the standing nurse-training committees may be given power to conduct examinations. I hope that certificates will be awarded only through the
  172
  General Nursing Council so that there will be a general standard for all admitted to the list and no diversity caused by nurse training committees adopting different standards and giving different certificates. I am glad that mental nurses are to be given their own committee and, what is perhaps more important, a definite place on the General Nursing Council. They have a most difficult job—one I would not take on myself—and everything possible should be done to make their work as pleasant as possible. Some of our mental institutions are old and out of date, and I suggest that the replacement of these out-of-date institutions should be given a better place in the Government's capital expenditure programme, because they are really frightful places to work in. While I am on this subject, I would mention that the Working Party estimate that while the percentage of the population who are mad is now 2.1 per cent., it may well increase to 4.1 per cent. over the next fifty years. That is rather a horrifying thought. Just as we say now that we cannot think why the registration of nurses was held up for so many years, I can imagine people fifty years hence asking why we did not do something to prevent some of these wretched people being born. I know that the problem of the sterilisation of the mentally deficient is a difficult one, but I am certain that within the next fifty years it will have been adopted.
  I should like to touch for a moment on the financial position of the General Nursing Council. In the past, their only source of revenue has been fees for registrations and examinations. In March, 1948, the deficit stood at £18,000, although in the balance sheet it will be seen that they made £5,000 on the sale of investments. The anticipated deficit for this year is £33,000. The Council may save some £6,000 a year by not having their annual publication of the Register, but that would save only £24,000 in five years. But at any rate it would be a saving. Although they are now to be allowed to take a lump registration fee, that will be of only temporay help; it cannot give much help at a time when we are so anxious to increase the number of recruits to the nursing profession. We find that under this measure, as we are finding with every new Bill that comes before us, there will be increased expenses. The Council will have to make payment for

  173
  training nurses, to hospitals under Clause 4 and to bodies other than hospitals under Clause 5. Under Clause 6 they will have to pay the expenditure of the standing nurse-training committees, of which there are to be some fourteen. Under Clause 15 they will have to pay the members of the Council and their travelling expenses and also the members of the Mental Nurses Committee and the standing nurse-training committees. The only money they will receive under the provisions of the Bill is for the inspection of institutions. I suppose that is the amount of £9,500 we see in the estimates for this year.
  I would ask the noble Lord whether there are to be further clauses inserted when the Bill comes before another place and whether they will be backed by the financial Resolution. If not, I should like to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the General Nursing Council, with all the commitments to which I have referred, will be able to pay their way. One thing we want to avoid is a position in which the Council would be forced to increase their fees for examinations or registration. That falls directly on those young people who are willing to enter this honourable but understaffed profession. One further question I would like to ask s this. In the Working Party's recommendations there was one that there should be a General Nursing Council for Great Britain. This Bill applies, of course, only to England and Wales. Have the Government decided that there is to be a separate Nursing Council for Scotland? If so, are we to expect a Bill for that purpose?
  There are, of course, details to be gone into at later stages, and in particular as to the standing of the General Nursing Council in respect of the provisions of Clause 4, but, taken as a whole, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a measure which I feel we can all welcome and support. We hope that by giving it a Second Reading to-day, and by passing it through all its stages, we shall give some encouragement to the honourable profession of nursing, to which each of us probably owes some of his health, and to which the whole country will always be indebted.
  3.32 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, speaking for noble Lords on these Benches, I would like to join the noble Lord, Lord
  174
  Llewellin, in giving a warm welcome to this Bill. However, there are one or two points about which I am not quite sure, and one or two suggestions I would like to make which, if they are adopted, I think will make this a better Bill than it is at present. The first point I would like to mention is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has already referred. The medical treatment of patients is something which is completely indivisible between the nurse's care and the doctor's care; but what finally occurs in the treatment of a patient, the final decision and responsibility for the patient's welfare, does rest entirely on the shoulders of the doctor. Therefore it seems to me a pity that medical practitioners are not represented on the General Nursing Council. It is true that there is a possibility that one or two may get on that Council, because there is a provision in the First Schedule that two teachers shall be among those appointed by the Ministry of Health. It is possible that those teachers may be doctors, but they need not be. I feel it would greatly strengthen the Council, and make it a much more satisfactory body, if there were medical representation upon it. I am sure the appointment of certain representatives from the Ministry of Education upon the Council will be generally welcomed. Naturally, they must have a good deal to do in any form of training; they have a great deal of advice to give and much work to do in the training of the girls before they are eligible to become nurses, and to make them more suitable for that profession.
  I would like to refer back to the debate on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, on November 9 last, when some rather frightening figures were given. I cannot remember who said it, but various speakers brought out these points. It was then said that the total number of nurses employed in the country is something over 170,000, which is higher by 31,000 than it was in 1938, but that we still have a deficit of 50,000. That is not due to the lack of new people coming in, because the same speaker pointed out that there are now 51,000 student nurses, as compared with 42,000 before the war. The deficit, I think, is due to the fact that nurses are working in shifts They now have a 96-hour fortnight, whereas in my young days they had much longer hours. It seems to me

  175
  that, no matter what is done, it is unlikely that we shall be able to fill this gap entirely. I am not even sure that it is a good thing that we should, because the type of young women who are being taken in are well trained and educated. I am not at all sure that we can afford to have a great number of those people taking care of the sick. The country has only a limited amount of man-power and woman-power, and we have to be very careful as to how we employ it.
  Therefore, I would like to suggest that the new Council should make up their minds what functions a nurse should perform and keep her firmly to the performance of those functions, and not let her waste her time doing things which are not strictly nursing matters. Also, I think the Council might give their attention to the position of quite a large number of young girls who have a real vocation for taking care of the sick, but because they have not a particular type of mind they are not very good at dealing with complicated training and at passing the rather stiff examinations which the modern trained nurse has to pass. We do not want our nurses to become like minor partners, knowing as much as the doctors do. Although the sisters in charge of wards are rather of that class, it is not really necessary for many of the junior nurses to occupy such a position. That is why I wonder whether it is not possible to get some representative of the Ministry of Labour on to the General Nursing Council. That representative could advise on the type of young women available, and on other matters of that sort. I put those suggestions forward, not in any sense of criticism of the Bill, but with the idea of improving it as much as possible.
  Another point about which I am not very happy is putting the entire responsibility for the training of nurses on these nurse-training committees. I feel that, although a great deal should be done by them, the final charge must be that of the management committees and the boards of governors of the various hospitals. One cannot entirely divorce training from staffing, but a great deal of trouble has been caused in the past by their being too closely connected. The training must depend in some sense on the number of beds available, and on the
  176
  facilities available in any particular hospital. It might be very helpful if there could be some link-up of the management committees and the boards of governors on the question of training.
  There is a further matter which I know causes a certain amount of worry to some people I do not think it is very important, but I would like to mention it. Although there are not a great number of hospitals that have not been taken over, there is a fear that when these new training schemes get going, these hospitals may be prejudiced in their supply of nurses. I think that is unlikely, but I would like to hear what the noble Lord may have to say on the point. To return to what I said at the beginning, I think there should be some medical representative on the nurses' training committees and these committees should be linked up with the management committees, because some medical opinion should be given about the kind of training which is necessary. Let me take an example which is completely absurd. A training committee might insist upon a knowledge of Greek or German, and if they had complete power they could then accept a person with a very good knowledge of Greek or German but with no nursing knowledge at all. I wonder whether it would not be an advantage if the boards of governors had direct access to the General Nursing Council. At the present time they are not regionalised at all; they have no contact with the regional hospital boards and, so far as I know, if they have any questions they are put directly to the Ministry of Health. I wonder whether it would not be simpler, administratively, if the nursing connections of these boards were all with the central body.
  I am sure that all of us who have anything to do with nurses will welcome the financial aid which is to be given, because at the present time—or at any rate before July 5—the training of nurses was part of the hospital budget and certain hospitals were not very well off. There was a good deal of parsimony in the training of nurses, and that training should be taken out of local hands and be made a general charge on the Treasury. I think the point raised in Clause 3 about the value of experimental training is excellent. There, again, there

  177
  might be some kind of training for young girls who wish to take care of the sick but who have not the mental ability to become well-trained first-class nurses or sisters. I should have thought there was a very good case for some kind of experimental training. It is no good having a completely dead-level training; it makes the profession very dull and uninspiring. So long as we keep a standard of minimum training for our senior nurses, I do not think we can come to much harm. A point about which I am not quite clear is with regard to post-graduate training. One of the most important branches of the profession has been the nurses trained in the care of children, say for the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street. Nurses trained in that branch have been able to save a great many lives. I am not clear whether that kind of training is possible in the future, or whether there will be a basic training, plus a post-graduate training. I hope it will be possible to keep up this special training.
  Finally, I wish to refer to the non-publication of the Register. I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that it would be a great advantage if the Register could be published a certain number of times. If that cannot be done, I take it that there would be no objection to the Register being perfectly free for inspection, because there may be all sorts of strange women saying they are nurses and if there is no Register to be inspected we will gradually return to an insecure state. I do not want to criticise the Bill; indeed I give it a very warm welcome. I have made these few suggestions only in order to improve the Bill.
  3.45 p.m.
  LORD MORAN: My Lords, the wellbeing, sometimes the fate, of everyone sooner or later depends upon the judgment of their doctor, and I think we may say almost as much of the nursing profession. Therefore, this Bill, which sets out to improve the training of nurses, is of some consequence to the country. The crux of the Bill is to be found in Clauses 4, 5 and 6, which for the first time separate the funds which are given to nurse training from the general hospital budget. In those few words the nurses have been given self-government as far as their training is concerned. In the
  178
  past there were no funds available for training nurses. When the authorities wished to pay lecturers or provide equipment they had to go cap in hand to the hospital and compete with the many calls on the hospital budget. I think it is perfectly true to say that in the past nursing training has been starved financially. But what mattered more was that the hospital too often treated the nurse as a pair of hands. Where the nurse worked and what she did was governed not by the requirements of her training, but by the needs of the hospital for cheap labour. I remember a nurse who did three years in a children's hospital and obtained the appropriate certificate. She then went to a general hospital to complete her training, and was promptly put in the children's ward because she would be more useful there. That was not an exceptional occurrence. What you are doing to-day is to give a charter of freedom to the nurse where her training is concerned.
  The consequences of that are far more than we can immediately see. Your Lordships will remember that, in the report of the Working Party, the wastage during the training, which was nearly 50 per cent, was ascribed mainly to this subordination of the nurses' training to the exigencies of staffing the hospital, and it may well be that the step you are taking to-day may reduce that wastage in the future. If I appear a little critical in the rest of my speech, I should be sorry if it obscures this fact: that I, like every person who is a nurse or a doctor, feels that this is a milestone in the history of the training of nurses. It would be ungenerous of me if I did not add my congratulations to the Minister on doing at last what I personally have for forty years impatiently waited for, and which previous Governments have not done.
  There is another provision in this Bill which I think is almost equally important, and that is the provision for bringing the standard of efficiency of the smaller hospitals up to the level of the best. That is an attempt to remedy what I might call the neglect of the periphery. In the past there has undoubtedly been a feeling on the part of the smaller hospitals that the great teaching hospitals have not been sufficiently familiar with their needs and their difficulties. The steps which have been taken in this Bill—some unexcep-

  179
  tional and some more debatable—are an attempt to put an end to that. I shall begin naturally with what is unexceptional. I think everybody will welcome the fact that there has been a bridge put between the teaching hospitals and the smaller hospitals in the shape of these regional committees, known as the standing nurse-training committees, which are not under the regional hospital boards. These committees have two executive functions: they distribute to the training institution the funds given them by the General Nursing Council; and they will in certain circumstances examine nurses as a substitute for the general Central State Examination. I am sure everybody is in favour of the setting up of these committees, particularly—and this is very important—if the nurses are in the majority on them. If that provision is made, I am sure everybody will welcome the fact that these committees have been established, and will welcome the financial powers given them. Their advisory powers, too, will gain momentum and persuasiveness from the fact that they have the power of the purse behind them.
  It is quite another story when we come to the other executive function, that of examining. In 1919, when State registration came in, there was established the Central State Examination, which I think everybody will admit has done a great deal to raise the minimum standards everywhere. From this time onwards I am afraid we have to admit that there will be no national minimum standard, and some of us fear that there may be a lowering of the standard, because it will be difficult for these regional committees, under the pressure of local opinion, which is naturally agitated by the desire to get nurses, to maintain the standards as they have been in the past.
  Noble Lords may inquire at this stage how it comes that in a Bill which is seeking to improve the training of nurses we are in danger, apparently, of lowering the minimum standard of the examination. I think the explanation is quite obvious: that, grafted on top of our desire to improve the training of the nurses, is this abiding anxiety concerned with the shortage of nurses at the present time. It is a very natural anxiety, and some of us feel it very strongly. Here,
  180
  for instance, is a sanatorium with 300 beds closed down, and it is said that those beds are closed because the matron insists upon each of the nurses doing two years in the sanatorium and then two years at a general hospital—that is four years in all. It is argued that if she were content that they should have two years only and take the examination of the Tuberculosis Association at the end of that training, the hospital would be adequately served and no harm would be done. It is not my purpose here to discuss this shortage of nurses and the remedy. What I am concerned to say is this: that the more we are driven, and inevitably driven, to shifts and expedients for meeting this shortage, the more essential it is that we should preserve, somewhere and somehow, the standards which we have known in the past and to which we can refer if we have taken the wrong turning and have to retrace our steps. That is why I, with others, feel some concern that the teaching hospitals are put into regional machinery for this purpose of training of nurses.
  I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is the first departure from the principle laid down by the Minister in the National Health Service Act, that teaching hospitals should be kept outside the regions, so that the growing edge of medicine should not be blunted. Was the Minister right in making the decision to keep the teaching hospitals outside the region? At first I had some misgivings, on the ground that it would undoubtedly lead to a certain amount of suspicion and ill-feeling on the part of the non-teaching hospitals, who would feel that the teaching hospitals were being favoured. But I have no doubt at all, from experience in working this Act, that the Minister took a far-sighted step and that he was completely right in taking it. He did it because he wished the "growing edge of medicine not to be blunted."
  If he was right in putting the teaching hospitals outside the region for the training of doctors, should he not have kept them outside also for training nurses? I shall be told by those responsible for the Bill that the cases are not analogous; that the teaching hospitals teach all medical students but only a fraction of the nurses. It is admittedly a very large and important fraction, but it remains a frac-

  181
  tion. But it is not quantity with which we are concerned, but quality. We are not rewarding these teaching hospitals as places of privilege, but keeping them outside the region because they have set up standards which we may have to revert to. They have spent ten or fifteen times more money in training nurses in the past than have the other hospitals. At a time when nurses were tremendously short they took nurses out of the wards for a six-weeks course of theoretical training, thus showing courage comparable to that of Mr. Churchill when, in a time of emergency, he sent aircraft to the Middle East, although we had practically none at home. It is a progressive move. They recognise too that a nurse must be more than an apprentice; they have trained her in the elements of the basic sciences, and they have constantly sent nurses to all parts of the country to become sisters in hospitals where they set up new standards, to the benefit of the country. It is not only in teaching hospitals that this is done, it is true, but it is mainly there. In these hospitals you have the "growing edge" of nursing and I look with grave misgiving on the possibility that that edge should be blunted by putting these hospitals under the region.
  Another argument that has been used by those responsible for this Bill is that if you take, for intance, Guy's into a region, you may strengthen that region and give it inspiration. But precisely the same argument could have been used against the Minister when he kept the teaching hospitals outside the regions in the Act. I know I shall be met at this stage with the remark that it is no good taking up a high educational line in these matters, because there is a shortage of 46,000 nurses and because a very large number of those we have, have never been to a secondary school. I need not tell anybody who is engaged in education that that is a defeatist argument; as Mr. Churchill once said in even more difficult circumstances, "Do not raise difficulties; anybody can do that." The original decision to keep these hospitals outside the regions was a far-sighted move. It was the decision of an individual. It showed political courage, because it was politically disadvantageous. This is a lapse. I need not remind your Lordships that progress in education comes from lonely thinking. Pascal,
  182
  protesting against the irritable desire to act quickly, the wish to be doing something, said:
  "Most of the evils of the world are due to men being unable to sit still in a room."
  He knew that ages of sedentary, quiet-thinking men had done what is most worth doing in the world. It is particularly true in the educational world that we owe most to men whom their contemporaries have thought to be dreamers, who, in the words of the proverb, have
  "walked into the well of truth through looking at the stars."
  4.1 p.m.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I hope I shall not be considered out of order if preface what I want to say on this Bill by saying what I believe to be the feeling of your Lordships—namely, how much we welcome back for the discussion on the Nurses Bill this afternoon our two distinguished invalids on the two respective Front Benches. I am sure we were all glad to see with us again the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, smiling and looking as if he is much fitter for his lengthy rest, and also our own Leader on these Benches who has had a shorter period of absence. Perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning another invalid who is not present to-day, the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, whose name one inevitably associates with all subjects connected with nursing, and who had problems for me in November when we were associating in the earlier discussions, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, dealing with the objectives of this Bill.
  I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who with his customary clarity has given us a clear exposition of the contents of this Bill—a Bill which I should like heartily to support. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on the further fact that he was able to tell us that some progress has been made in those fields dealt with in the Report of the Working Party to which your Lordships gave some attention last November. While I welcome the Bill, there are a number of queries in my mind which have been put to me by other people. There are some suggestions and questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord—questions of which, so far as was practi-

  183
  cable, I gave him notice prior to this debate.
  What worries me about the Bill is that I fear that, as a result of it, good as it is, there may be grave delay in dealing with some of the issues which affect the general shortage of nurses in this country. We are to have a General Nursing Council which I hope will be more thoroughly representative of the nurses than the present one has been. We are to have a Council which will be given powers of experiment that are workable; but it is in respect of just those powers of experiment that I have some doubts. I am not worried about the experiments themselves, but I have some fear that they may cause delay in reaching decisions upon general principles, decisions which would help us in solving the problem of the shortage referred to in the Report of the Working Party. So far as I can see, what this question of experiment means is that the three years general training argument, as dealt with in the Working Party's Report, will be shelved for a period which, so far as I judge, may well be ten years from the date on which the Working Party was set up. I do not know whether the noble Lord, in his reply later on, can give me any assurances on that point.
  The Working Party were appointed in 1946; we had their Report in 1947; we looked at it in 1948, when the Nuffield Foundation started on its examination of job analysis. This Bill gives the General Nursing Council powers to experiment in January, 1951. We cannot hope to start planning an experiment before the middle of that year, and shall not embark upon an experiment until 1952. If the experiment runs the whole period of three years—which one would expect to be the very minimum—the year 1956 becomes very clearly the year for decision on the point whether there shall be certification of any kind at the end of two years, or whether the three years' period is to be maintained. I do not want to suggest to your Lordships that we should reach any conclusion on that three years' point, or that I myself have reached a conclusion. But I am clear that the Ministry of Health, if they are to maintain the health service, cannot afford to put off for a long period of years a decision on a vital question of that kind, tied up as it
  184
  is with so many others of staffing inside hospitals.
  In this connection, I should like to know what attention has been given by the Minister to proposals put up by the medical profession, which included their suggestion of the use of aides, more on the American pattern. I do not for one moment suggest that without further examination I necessarily accept the proposition of aides. But I think we ought to know this. Are we to have that kind of system introduced? Are we going to have a further extension of orderlies? If no decisions have yet been reached, when are the decisions to be reached, and how will they tie up with the duties which the General Nursing Council have to carry out? In November last we talked of the shortage of nurses. We have to face the fact that in the next few years there will be a much more restricted field from which recruitment can take place. As I understand it, the number of women available for all employment in this country will drop by no fewer than 300,000 or so in the course of the next four years. Already, even on our existing figures, the field of recruitment for nurses, on the present standards which we have for the profession and which I am sure we all want to maintain, is very low.
  For instance, I understand that the total number who leave grammar schools of the age of seventeen to eighteen is only 14,000, and if the whole of that figure of woman-power were made available to the nursing profession, it would go nowhere near far enough to meet the ordinary annual requirements. If we look at the lower school education standard, we find that a further 25,000 girls leave secondary grammar schools at ages of sixteen to seventeen. Even if the total of 39,000 were devoted to the nursing profession, it would not be enough. For that reason, I reach the conclusion that the carrying out of the real student status idea, as desired so much by the nursing profession, will remain a dream for a considerable period of years, and that we shall have more and more difficulty in obtaining enough people to staff the hospitals as we have them to-day. We must remember too, that at the moment, owing to this shortage, we have 66,000 beds not in use. I know that, in this problem of bridging the educational gap to provide the students, there has been

  185
  valuable co-operation between the Ministry of Health, the Department for Health for Scotland, the Education Department and the Ministry of Labour. I would welcome any information which the noble Lord can give us of the progress which that programme of bridging the gap is making. It seems to me that these things are so tied up together that, whilst welcoming the new powers of the General Nursing Council, including the power to experiment, we are bound to ask that firm and definite decisions on general staffing problems of the hospitals as a whole should be forthcoming from the Government in the course of the next twelve months.
  While speaking in general about these extended powers of the General Nursing Council, may I say that there is one thing about the Bill which rather surprised me?—and I ask the noble Lord whether he will look at it, and perhaps at a later stage let us know something about it—namely, the omission of any suggestion of an annual report. I know that the 1919 Act makes no provision for such a report, and as this Bill is based largely on the general propositions of the 1919 Act I can understand why the idea of an annual report was not introduced at this stage. But it seems to me that the growing importance with which we invest the profession of nursing by this particular Bill, coupled with the fact that there is now national responsibility for the health services, makes the position one in which we ought to expect that some form of annual report would be given to the Minister by the General Nursing Council.
  If for the next couple of minutes I may turn to one or two detailed points about which some of those particularly interested in the nursing profession have raised doubts, I would ask the noble Lord whether he can give any information, first of all, as to the general standard of examination. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, with his admirable authority, raised this matter much more pungently than I can. Probably because the Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill refers only to experimentation in training there has been a tendency to forget that the appropriate clause provides for experimentation not only in training but in examination. I know that in letters addressed to your
  186
  Lordships the College of Nursing has referred to considerable doubts, both as to the experimentation in length of time and in quality of examination. Personally, I think that the experimentation in point of time must be agreed to, but I would not like to see anything done in respect of the standard of examination that would reduce the very high standard which the nursing profession has always had in this country and which we all want to see maintained.
  Like other noble Lords, I welcome the new provisions in regard to mental nurses. I am bound to say that any of us who have looked at the deplorable mental institutions in many parts of this country, and have seen the poor standard of training given to mental nurses, will realise that in dealing with this problem the General Nursing Council will have a very hard upward road to travel. What we want are a great many more hospitals such as the Maudsley Hospital, for the purpose of training and experimentation in that connection. Some people in the hospital world have been pressing the claims of a limited number of people who failed to take advantage of the opportunity offered, both in the 1919 and 1943 Acts, to secure registration. I do not want to keep your Lordships by arguing the merits of the claims of those people—indeed, I do not know that they have particular merits; they had opportunities for registration of which they failed to take advantage. But I think we are concerned to see that they have the chance of registration if it is at all possible, because we do not want to deprive ourselves, merely because some technicality has not been complied with, of the opportunity to employ any one person who has valuable experience.
  Clause 9 deals for the first time with the proper position of men in the Register, and I should like to urge that the points to which I directed attention in November last, notably the one for higher posts for men, should be given early consideration—possibly both by the Ministry and by the General Nursing Council under its new set-up. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, had something to say about finance, and I am bound to say that I associate myself with his remarks. I do not want to see an increase in the fees payable for examinations. Indeed, many of us fail to understand

  187
  why fees for sitting examinations should be expected in the future set-up of the nursing profession. Nor do I want to see a high fee for this registration commutation payment. I agree that the argument may be advanced, that people value things only to the extent that they have paid for them. I do not object to the payment by nurses of some fee, but I do not want to see that fee imposed merely in order to provide for the Nursing Council finances which, probably, ought to be provided by His Majesty's Government. I think the same is true of the observations which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, had to offer about the publication of the Register. I am in complete agreement that in these days of man-power difficulties, and the shortage of materials such as paper, and so on, publication of the Register annually is expensive and unnecessary. But I am impressed by the compromise suggestion which he made between those who advocate annual publication and the mere leaving of the matter. I recommend to the Government for consideration the suggestion he has made, so that we may have a statement, perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when we reach the later stages of the Bill.
  Before I conclude, I would like to refer to one or two of the items in the Schedules, again in order to clarify points which seem to be in doubt in the minds of different camps in the hospital world. For instance, as to the elections, everybody welcomes the division in regard to the fourteen regions; but there seem to be two different methods of interpreting the provisions in the Schedules, and there are two different schools of thought in the profession. One is that only people in region A would vote for people in region A. The other school of thought says that under the measure every nurse will have the opportunity of voting for people in each of the fourteen regions. If the noble Lord could clarify that matter, I think it would case the minds of some people, and would also make it more possible to consider one suggestion which we should like the Ministry to look at—namely, some ability inside the voting organisation for these fourteen regions to provide that at least half those elected representatives are not above the rank or status of
  188
  departmental sister. We know that we want good matrons sitting on the General Nursing Council, but we do not want it to be a body consisting entirely of matrons of hospitals over the fourteen regions. What I think would give satisfaction to the profession would be that some of the rank-and-file people, who have to do the ordinary day-to-day work of the hospitals, should sit on the body which is controlling their welfare and general position.
  My Lords, I also have some doubt about the Second Schedule. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, had some observations to make about it with which I was in fairly general agreement. He is right, of course, in saying that there has been inserted into the Bill no provision as to numbers. I have no doubt that if we consider the matter carefully, that is wise enough, because of the varying conditions that there may be in some of the fourteen regions. But I heard from medical members of this House who have been in consultation with the Ministry earlier, that a number of something like fourteen was originally contemplated with regard to the composition of these nurse-training committees. If the suggestion as to a figure of fourteen, or anything like it, is correct, and also the suggestion that they should include only four members from the General Nursing Council, I think it bears out the point of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, about the small number of nursing representatives on the local committees. That is particularly so when it is remembered that there are at least seven kinds of nurses or nursing interests who probably need to be represented, or, at least, given consideration in respect of these committees—general sick, children, mental, fever, T.B., male and the women public health officers who, clearly, at some time or other must become associated with the General Nursing Council.
  I have a number of other points but I do not propose to detain your Lordships by raising them now. I shall hope to embody some of these in Amendments which I shall put forward in Committee. The observations which I have had to offer, while they have been in some instances critical of particular provisions of the Bill and in other instances have contained suggestions, do not in any way mean that my general views about the

  189
  Bill and its main purpose are not completely favourable. I welcome the Bill, I wish it a speedy movement through this House, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to see it on the Statute Book before many months have passed.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you long, but as a representative in this House of the medical profession I wish to say, like my colleagues and other noble Lords who have spoken, how warmly I welcome the introduction of a measure to provide for the independent financing of the training of nurses apart from the payment for their services. I naturally welcome it because I have been pressing for it for years and, indeed, have often urged that the status of the student nurse should be equal to that of an undergraduate in any faculty of a university, and that her collegiate amenities should be equal to those provided for students at any of our universities. Moreover, I have had the unique privilege of planning a nurses' college, the result of an individual gift from that generous-hearted man, Colonel John Astor. That gift provided in one of London's hospitals a nurses' college equal to any to be found in any of the older universities.
  At the same time, I am not altogether satisfied with the means chosen by the Minister of Health for bringing about this improvement. I was a little disappointed from the outset that he should have selected the General Nursing Council as the body for the general control of the funds for this purpose. I am sorry that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is not now present, because I would have liked to see how he took the suggestion that something comparable to the University Grants Committee, for the creation of which he was largely responsible, would be a more suitable body for this purpose. It may well be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, the Bill has had to be very nicely balanced in view of the conflicting opinions which were brought to bear upon the Minister of Health. At the same time, if the original anxiety was to separate educational grants from ordinary hospital maintenance grants, it would have seemed better, I should have thought, that, those grants should reach the nurses through some
  190
  other channel; that from the Exchequer the grants should pass either through the Ministry of Education or through some body comparable to the University Grants Committee. However, I feel sure that we shall have some explanation on that matter. But if it is ultimately decided by Parliament that the General Nursing Council is to be the body to administer these funds, and administer the whole scheme, then, indeed, the constitution of that Council becomes of paramount importance.
  Many noble Lords have spoken about the Schedules, and arguments on matters of detail will doubtless arise in Committee. I was rather surprised to see, in Clause 2, that the Minister is empowered to set up standing nurse-training committees in any area. I should have thought that it would be impossible to exclude an area and that the clause might quite reasonably say that he shall set up a standing nurse-training committee in each area. When we look at the definition of "area," we find that there is no getting away from the fact that it is a region. These so-called standing nurse-training committees in my view would be better called "nurse-training councils." This, I suggest, would avoid the possibility of their appearing, as they do, to be subservient to some other body like the region. I find it is impossible to put out of my mind that these bodies will be essentially under the control of the regional board. The regional board is to appoint some of the members; it is to be made responsible for providing officers, servants and accommodation. That, to my mind, makes it inevitable that these committees will be largely under the control of the regional boards. If that is so, then I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that it is a matter for great anxiety if the teaching hospitals are to be brought under the control of such a committee and under the control of the regional board.
  There are other points in the Bill, most of which will come up in Committee, and I will not detain your Lordships by dealing with them. But great anxiety has been expressed about Clause 2 (3). There again, perhaps, the danger can be avoided by a proviso safeguarding the length and quality of training. In regard to experimental matters, surely

  191
  the great teaching hospitals, with their large and efficient scientific departments, should be able to carry on their pioneer work. They have raised the prestige of scientific nursing in this country and they now hold a very proud position. Surely they can proceed independently with experimental work, without reference to regional committees.
  There is one clause which, I think, no noble Lord has so far mentioned, and that is Clause 5. Or perhaps I should say that it may have been mentioned but the same anxiety which springs to my mind concerning it has not been expressed. This clause provides that
  "A standing nurse-training committee for a hospital area may make to any authority or person engaged in the area in training nurses (not being a hospital management committee or the board of governors of a teaching hospital) contributions towards the expenses incurred …"
  Now does this, as it should, make provision for educational grants to hospitals not vested in the Minister? I hope it does. If it does—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, acquiesces in the suggestion that it does—why is it that those hospitals only should be required to pay fees for being inspected and approved, as is laid down in Clause 11? There is a curious point in Clause 8. I am not so familiar with the drafting of Parliamentary Bills as some of your Lordships, but I am surprised at the constant use of the masculine gender throughout this clause and other clauses. Perhaps it is a Parliamentary rule that "man" embraces "woman," but in the circumstances we are considering to-day, surely it would be more gallant to allow "woman" to embrace "man"—or, at least, that "woman" should be mentioned, as she is in so large a majority.
  I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to give attention to subsection (1) of Clause 8, under which a person trained abroad in an approved hospital may be admitted to the Register. I find difficulty in reconciling that with the strict limitations put upon the British person who may have made an application to be admitted to the Register. As this Bill is a Bill to amend the Nurses Acts of 1919 and 1943, among other things, I should have thought the opportunity might be taken to re-open the Register. The numbers
  192
  affected may not be large, but the injustice inflicted may be great. There are people who, for technical reasons, are not eligible now to be admitted to the Register. There are ladies who are left widows and are prepared to go back to nursing but who cannot become State-registered nurses; yet somebody who comes from abroad can be registered, no matter how long they may have been away from nursing, if their training is accepted as adequate. I hope the noble Lord will give an assurance on this point, because the Minister is urging married ladies who are qualified in nursing and who can spare some part of their time for nursing duties to return to the hospitals and help. Surely it should be possible for them to be put on the Nurses' Register and accepted as State-registered nurses.
  In regard to Clause 9 I trust that the Government will consider accepting an Amendment empowering the General Nursing Council to recognise postgraduate courses and to register extra qualifications obtained. Otherwise there will be great anxiety, particularly in regard to nurses trained for the care of sick children, that nurses with extra qualifications will not be fairly treated. I will not detain your Lordships longer. The points in the Schedules to which I have referred will come up during the Committee stage. I feel sure that we are all embarking on these discussions with the sincere desire, by consultation, by give and take, and by the acceptance of proposals which have merit, to evolve an Act which will be of real service to the cause we all have at heart, and that we shall succeed in improving the Bill as it stands at the present moment. From his introductory speech, I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wishes to accept proposals which may improve the Bill.
  4.25 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have had a full discussion, not so much on the broad principles of the Bill as on the details. If I ventured to trespass on your Lordships' time to the extent of replying on them all, I am afraid that by the time I had reached a conclusion there would be few noble Lords left in the House. I will do what is possible within a reasonable time to meet a number of the points mentioned by each speaker. If, in this way, I do not refer to all the

  193
  matters raised, there will, of course, be further opportunities for the discussion of the details when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who opened the debate, had something to say about the decision to do away with the obligation to publish a Register. I thought I had made it plain in my speech that this would not mean that the Council would have no power to publish a Register.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the noble Lord made that quite clear, but I was seeking to maintain the obligation upon the Council to publish the Register once in live years.
  LORD SHEPHERD: That is a matter which will have to be considered when we reach Committee stage. But there are grave reasons which prompted the General Nursing Council to ask the Government to be relieved of this obligation. I want to make that quite plain, because the proposal did not originate with the Government. It is not merely that the Register costs £6,000 or £7,000 a year, but because only 200 copies were published and of those only 140 were sold. It will be realised, therefore, that for a very large expenditure, there was a very small circulation return. Unless there are great alterations to meet the election idea the noble Lord has in mind, what has been published in the past would not meet the circumstances at all. But we can reconsider this matter when we reach Committee stage. The noble Lord and my noble friend, Lord Crook, asked whether progress is being made in relieving nurses of domestic labour. It is the policy of the Government to relieve nurses of all work not requiring nursing skill. This policy was announced in the Memorandum, Staffing of Hospitals, in 1945, and has been brought recently to the attention of hospital management committees in notes issued for their guidance. A substantial increase has taken place in the number of domestic employees in hospitals. Since June, 1947, the numbers have increased by over 5,000; that is to say, from 117,000 to 123,000.
  The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, rightly dwelt for some time on the subject of income and expenditure. He wondered whether, when this Bill reached another
  194
  place, provisions would be included to make grants to cover the greatly increased expenditure which would fall on the General Nursing Council. It is the purpose of the Government (and this is made clear in the Bill) that grants will be made, not merely to the General Nursing Council but, through the General Nursing Council, to the training committees, to cover the cost of training. Indeed, the expenditure of hospital management committees having relation to training within the hospitals will also be chargeable, through the training committees and the General Nursing Council, to the Government. There is a short provision in this Bill for that purpose. I would add, in reply to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that a Bill for Scotland will be introduced at a later date.
  The question of whether figures can be included in the clause dealing with the appointment of standing nurse-training committees is one for consideration in Committee. As advised at present, because of varying circumstances in the different areas, the Government feel that it is better to deal with this matter by Order, rather than in the Bill. I would, however, say that the Orders, when they are made, will have to come before Parliament, and therefore each of us will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion about them. The last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to which I think I ought to reply on this occasion, is that dealing with the members of the General Nursing Council, or the standing nurses training committees, to be appointed by the Minister. In all these cases there will be prior consultation, us there has always been consultation with the various organisations representative of the medical and other professions. In the past, medical men have found their way on to these committees, and I think the noble Lord may rest assured that under the new dispensation there will be no change.
  I now come to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Moran, who had something to say about medical representation on the General Nursing Council and the standing nurse-training committees. The Minister has, for many years past, included both medical representatives and hospital adminis-

  195
  trators amongst his nominees to the General Nursing Council. There is no reason to suppose that any change in this practice is likely in future, and, in the absence of any evidence of the need for specific requirements on this point, the Minister feels that the Bill, which in this matter follows the lines of the original Act of 1919, should be left as it stands. As regards medical representation on the standing nurse-training committees, it would be open to either the regional hospital board or the boards of governors of teaching hospitals to include medical representatives among the members to be appointed by them, and the Minister considers that at present it is unnecessary to specify that more precisely in the Bill. The actual constitution of nurse-training committees will be settled by Order. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that the Minister of Labour should be brought into the picture is, I am afraid, unacceptable. The General Nursing Council is responsible for training, not for recruitment. Training must be settled in the light of functions to be performed, about which the Ministry of Labour are not in a position to judge. The function of the Ministry of Labour is to advise on the source of supply after functions of training have been settled.
  The question was then raised about disclaimed hospitals. There is no reason to think they will be prejudiced, as Clause 5 provides grants for the standing nurse-training committees for training expenses. Disclaimed hospitals are also covered by provisions under Clause 1 (2). The subject of regional examinations was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He need not fear that the standard of training will thereby be lowered. Not only will the General Nursing, Council be involved, in co-operation with the training committees, but it must be noticed that the influences on the side of the hospital management committees and, indeed, the regional boards, will be those of the Minister, and the Minister, above all, will be anxious to ensure that the training shall be efficiently done, in accordance with the plans laid down by the General Nursing Council.
  I feel I ought to say a few words on the noble Lord's remarks about the position of the teaching hospitals and their relationship to training. In the
  196
  National Health Service Act the teaching hospitals were dealt with separately from other hospitals because the position they occupied in relation to the teaching of medicine was unique. The same analogy cannot be drawn with reference to the training of nurses. While all medical students are taught in the teaching hospitals, only a small proportion of trained nurses are trained there. While the teaching hospitals include some which provide the best training for nurses, there are non-teaching hospitals where nurse-training is of an equally high standard. There are also teaching hospitals where nurse-training, is not of the same standard as the best among the non-teaching hospitals. In relation to the training of nurses, the teaching hospitals occupy a small part only of the total field, and, in the Department's view, it would be most detrimental to nurse-training as a whole to seek to separate this small part (which also contains some of the best training) from the rest. Under the Bill the teaching hospitals will be given an opportunity to raise the whole level of nurse-training throughout the country. They cannot make their influence felt if they are kept in isolation. They should welcome the unprecedented opportunity to raise the general standard.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I ask the noble Lord whether, when he refers to the Department's view, he means the Minister's view?
  LORD SHEPHERD: When one speaks of the Minister one usually speaks of the Department as well. If one speaks of the Department one always associates the Minister with it. I am speaking of the Ministry in its corporate sense. I hoped that my remarks at the beginning of my speech this afternoon would have indicated that the present Minister of Health has been amenable to reason and has seen fit to change his view in directions where advice has been given. I hope we are not going to jeopardise the chances of success of this measure because of our apparent dislike of a certain person.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that remark must cause me to intervene again, although I had not meant to do so. The noble Lord has entirely misunderstood the purpose of my previous intervention. I raised the ques-

  197
  tion as a mild protest against the representative of the Government in this House telling your Lordships what the Department's view is, and not what the responsible Minister's view is. It has nothing whatever to do with the personality of the Minister.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I stand rebuked. The noble Marquess knows that I am a new member of this House. I am also new to my position at this Table. If I have transgressed in any way, then I apologise at once. I really thought the noble Marquess was raising a question about the Minister of Health and not about myself. I am sorry.
  My noble friend Lord Crook raised the question whether the General Nursing Council should make a report to the Minister. That is not provided in the Bill, but consideration is being given to the matter and I hope that between now and the Committee stage we shall be able to say something more about it. I wish to say a word or two about the point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Crook and by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, about the number of persons who have been affected because they failed to register when opportunities were given. It is probably true to say that those who have been responsible for nurse-training have not been particularly glad to re-open these matters, but there has been a change of opinion, and I hope that it may be possible by the Committee stage to give some indication whether the lists can be re-opened for registration.
  In reply to the question put by my noble friend Lord Crook regarding the younger people under eighteen years of age, I have to say that, in co-operation with the Minister of Education, a number of pre-nursing courses have been organised throughout the country, but in many districts it is not possible to obtain sufficient students to make those courses worth while. In any case, the pre-nursing course is insufficient by itself to bridge the gap, and a satisfactory method is thought to be the employment of young girls in hospitals on suitable work, under suitable conditions, coupled with the continuance of their education. The Ministry are at present working out a scheme on those lines in consultation with the General Nursing Council. Progress has been made in respect of
  198
  aides, but the Government are holding off somewhat until more experience has been gained with the training for assistant nurses. The subject is not being lost sight of, and I am sure that the noble Lord can expect further reports later on about progress. The other matters are of very small detail, and I do not think I should trespass further on the time of your Lordships at this stage. The matters with which I have not dealt in this speech will receive consideration, and I hope, therefore, that the Motion for the Second Reading will be carried.
  LORD AMWELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he can say a word with reference to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord behind me, with regard to post-graduate teaching and its recognition, especially in reference to children's hospitals?
  LORD SHEPHERD: I mentioned in my speech that this matter is not only receiving attention but is being operated, and to that extent we are receiving the assistance of the Royal Nursing Council and other bodies.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
  4.54 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1:
  Variation of standard rents fixed by reference to new lettings
  (2) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection if the rent so determined by the Tribunal as aforesaid is less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section it shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (2):
  "Provided always that in the case of a dwelling-house the first letting of which occurred between the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five in consequence of the landlord serving in any of His Majesty's Forces or other-

  199
  wise being required to reside elsewhere than in the dwelling-house by reason of circumstances arising out of the war, the rent so determined as aforesaid shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house whether the same shall be greater or less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, you may remember that I raised this point during the Committee stage. On this occasion I will not go into it at great length, but will just repeat the reasons why I have put down this Amendment. The only people it is designed to help are, first, those who were moved away from their houses because they were serving in some branch of His Majesty's Forces and, secondly, those who, because they were civil servants, were required to live away—as, for instance, in the case of employees of the Ministry of Food, who were required to leave London and go to Colwyn Bay. Those are the two classes of persons whom I want to benefit by this Amendment, and then only if the Tribunal consider it is reasonable that the rent of the house should be higher than the rent at which it was let at the time the owner was required to leave it.
  Many of your Lordships will remember that at one time during the war London and the suburbs were not too pleasant to live in, and if anybody was required to leave his house it was not at all easy to get a tenant to come in and take that house. Therefore those houses were let at abnormally low rents. All I am saying is that those abnormally low rents, having arisen in those circumstances, should not become the standard rents for so long as the Rent Restrictions Acts last. If, in the eyes of the Tribunal, a higher rent would be reasonable, then the owner should be allowed to charge it. The point arises only because the house was first let during that period; it would not have been let at all if the person had not been required to move somewhere else, either through his service in the Forces or in some Government Department. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, while admitting that there may be some cases of hardship, said frankly that it would be quite impossible to introduce what would be the "thin end of the wedge" into this measure, and that if we proved many cases of hardship it would be impossible to introduce into this Bill
  200
  the principle of raising the rent. But the principle is already in the Bill. It is true that, so far as I can understand it, it applies only to Scotland.
  On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, introduced some Amendments into this Bill, and he said—I am now quoting from column 1142 of Hansard:
  "It is a common practice in Scotland—perhaps in England as well—for landladies in holiday resorts who depend on letting for their livelihood, to let accommodation at low rents during the winter months. If a tenant enjoying such a low rent applies to a Tribunal, the Tribunal can only approve or reduce the rent, and the rent fixed then becomes the maximum rent which can be charged until the case is again reviewed by the Tribunal as a result of fresh application. The result of the Tribunal's decision is, therefore, to bar the landlady from charging a higher rent for the accommodation during the summer months unless she applies to the Tribunal on the ground of change of circumstances. …"
  What is the difference between that case and the case that I am putting?
  The case which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is trying to meet for Scotland is the case where the landlady lets the accommodation more cheaply in the winter, for the very reason that there are not so many people going to the holiday resort. The case I am trying to deal with is that where the owner, particularly in London, has had to let his house at a lower rent than that which would be obtainable in the brighter days of peace. Anyhow, we already have this kind of case in the Bill—and very wisely: I am not saying anything against the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. Indeed, on the last occasion on which we were debating this subject, I spoke of the noble Lord's action as an example of the good horse sense of Scotland. Therefore, it is the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who has introduced this kind of case into the Bill. It is the noble Lord, and not myself, who is inserting the "thin end of the wedge." I suggest that at a time when the Government are apparently not in a position to meet the ex-Service men's claim for a review of the scale of their pensions, they might at least make this concession and see that these men who had to leave their houses in the days of the war, because of the exigencies of National Service, are not penalised by having too low a standard rent fixed for ever after. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 17, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Llewellin)
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I wish to support very warmly the Amendment which my noble friend has just moved. In doing so, I should like to say that I am not satisfied that the subsection which we are seeking to amend is worded in a very clear manner. For my own part I have considerable doubt as to what is really aimed at by the phrase in subsection (1):
  "Where apart from this section the standard rent of a dwelling-house would be—
  (a) the rent at which it was let on a letting beginning after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine …"
  I cannot help thinking that that wording probably does not carry out the intention of the Government. This clause, as I understand it, was introduced in the course of the debate by an Amendment which the Government thought fit to accept, and it does not seem to me to be clear.
  If the standard rent of the house is the rent at which it was let on September 1, 1939, then, subject to the provisions of the clause, the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Tribunal to determine what rent is reasonable. I am not sure that I know whether that provision is limited simply to cases where there was a continuing letting at that date. I suppose the ordinary case is that in which there is only a weekly or a monthly tenancy. I am not quite sure what is the meaning of the words:
  "… let on a letting beginning after the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine …"
  It is obviously desirable in a matter of this sort, which affects so many people, to have the language perfectly clear. If it is in doubt, I do not think the Government should have any difficulty in making it a little clearer. At any rate, it is beyond dispute that the whole purpose of this clause is to remedy certain injustices in respect of premises of a particular letting kind as from a particular date.
  Whatever may be the exact meaning of subsection (1), there is a case, as my noble friend explained, which calls for amendment. These people have a cast-iron case to put before the Legislature: they have been told to go, to leave their
  202
  premises in order to do their duty elsewhere—perhaps to go and fight in some other part of the world. Not only are they removed, so to speak, by Government action from the house which they occupy, but they have to go at a time which is probably the worst possible from the point of view of letting their dwellings—many of them of a very humble kind. I cannot understand what possible reason the Government have for saying that those people, for whom my noble friend has made so strong a case, have not as good a right to some amelioration of their position as those dealt with in subsection (1) and the following subsections. I cannot see how there can possibly be any question of the "thin end of the wedge."
  The subsection itself provides for an alteration based simply upon the fact that a rent is either too high or too low, and there is a right to have the matter remedied. But these people have been forced, because of particular circumstances connected with the desires or needs of a Government Department—say, of the War Office—to give up their premises. In many cases, the premises were given up on the understanding that as soon as the landlord was able to return, the tenant, who was accepted temporarily, would give up the tenancy to the original occupant. In many cases it could be shown that there was an absolute promise that the temporary tenant would give up occupancy of the premises as soon as the landlord required them. To shorten my remarks, I am talking without very careful consideration of my language here, but to my mind the Government made them go; and the premises were let, in many cases, at a figure a great deal under their value. The people who will suffer if they are turned out are the people who from the very beginning have been dishonourably sticking to the property, contrary to their promise to go out as soon as the owner of the property could return. I have great respect for the powers of the noble Lord who has to reply to this. I know how skilful he is, but I venture to say that no skill in the world could make a good case of this particular matter for the Government if they do not come to some terms and remedy so patent an injustice to which the expression the "thin end of the wedge" is not in the least applicable.
  5.11 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I am very conscious, or at least I think I am conscious, of the fact that the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken did not expect that I should be replying; I am also conscious of the fact that I fall far short of the mental ability and agility of my noble friend Lord Pakenham. But, seeing that the noble and learned Viscount said that even the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, could not have persuaded him, it does not seem to me to matter very much—I must do the best I can. In the first place, let me get one or two things clear. When we had a discussion on this matter on an earlier stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred to the fact that this clause had been in some way introduced as a result of a Communist Amendment. Like the noble and learned Viscount, I confess that the fact that it comes from that quarter does not at all endear it to my heart. But, nevertheless, the particular point that the noble and learned Viscount had in mind had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.
  Let us see what he is considering. He is considering a certain class of house which, owing to certain circumstances, has been let at something very much below its fair value. This Bill does not bring into rent control houses let after 1939: they were there already. It is the Rent Restrictions Acts which have imposed the standard rent. Speaking broadly, the standard rent is the rent at which the premises were first let. This Bill deals with a very different class of case from that which the noble and learned Viscount had in mind. There are some cases where landlords have been exploiting the situation, and charging too much rent. This Bill says that, with regard to those landlords, and those landlords only, the Tribunal shall have the right to reduce the standard rent, the rent at which the premises were first let, and which ex hypothesi is too high to be reasonable. That is what this Bill does, and that is what this Communist Amendment did. It has nothing whatever to do with the proposition that these houses are under a rent control imposed by the existing Rent Restrictions Acts.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I am sure I never said so. I am much
  204
  concerned on this point. When the noble and learned Viscount says that that is the only thing that the Bill is doing, I do not think that he is right. It is "the landlord or the tenant" who can apply. When a rent is too low, a landlord has just as good a right to apply as a tenant.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, the landlord has not. The effect of the Amendment is to give him that, but the Bill as drafted does not give the landlord that right.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If the noble and learned Viscount will look at the words, they are:
  "… the landlord or the tenant may make application to the Tribunal …"
  There are the words "or the tenant." I cannot help thinking that it is the landlord or the tenant, because it clearly says so.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: It is at page 2, line 5.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is true that those are the words but how does the subsection operate? Application is made to find out what is a reasonable rent, but subsection (2) says:
  "… if the rent so determined by the Tribunal as aforesaid is less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section it shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house."
  Therefore, although I agree that it is possible for the landlord to apply to have the rent reduced, he cannot apply, as this Bill is drawn, to have it increased. Therefore, he would not apply.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount really must look at the clause again—I say that with the greatest respect to him; I know how busy he is. As I see it, he has not read the subsection in full. The words are:
  "the landlord or the tenant may make application to the Tribunal to determine what rent is reasonable for that dwelling-house, and on any such application the Tribunal shall determine that rent and shall notify the parties of their determination."
  Supposing the Tribunal say, at the request of the landlord: "The rent is insufficient" and they notify the parties, it is obvious that, when that is done, the rent will be that amount; otherwise, why

  205
  on earth should the landlord go to the Tribunal at all, if nothing can be done for his benefit?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I remind the noble and learned Viscount, with the very greatest respect, that we are not conducting the Committee stage. We are on Report stage. I beg your Lordships to bear with me when I say that I do not think it is possible to conduct a Report stage on this basis. Now let me say what I have said before. I have read this Bill through, probably a good many more times than has the noble and learned Viscount, and I have had the advantage of discussing it with the experts. Of course, it is the fact that the landlord can apply, but he cannot apply to have the rent increased. All he can get out of an application is the certainty of fixation, so that nobody thereafter can apply to have the rent reduced. That is all he can get out of it. The tenant is the only person who by applying can obtain any reduction. There is no question of an increase. That is abundantly plain. I did not say that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, had ever made this point. I did say that if anyone read the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on Committee stage, they might be drawn to the conclusion that the noble Lord was under the impression—I know he understands this subject very well—that rent control was imposed by this Bill. Of course it was not. The rent control of these houses is imposed by the Rent Restrictions Acts. I hope that is quite clear.
  The next thing that is also, I hope, quite plain is that we are dealing in this clause only with the rent of unfurnished premises; we are not dealing with the ordinary landlord who lets furnished premises. That would come under a different Act altogether, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. With regard to rent control of furnished houses, there is ample provision for an alteration of rent on a change of circumstances. The Scottish application was dealing with the somewhat analogous case of that as between winter and summer. In this clause, we are dealing only with unfurnished premises. Let us consider just how far we have gone. In the particular case that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has in mind, of premises which owing to circumstances were let at too low a rent, as I have already said, the hardship and
  206
  the burden are imposed by the Rent Restrictions Acts. I have never concealed from your Lordships that hardships are caused to landlords by this provision, but I believe I told the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, the other day that on balance the hardships to the tenant are far greater. Owing to the fact that there has been a shortage of houses, I believe there has been a very serious exploitation of tenants, but I do not doubt for a moment that there are real hardships to landlords.
  I believe that there is only one way in which it is possible to deal with this situation—namely, to have a complete and absolute review of the whole position. Perhaps the hardest taws of all are those of 1914, because the change in the value of money has been so complete since 1914, that a rent which was fixed then has little real relevance to the circumstances of to-day. If there was one case that, if it could be put right by rule of thumb instead of by going through each case, I would try to put right, it would be that of the 1914 rent. And I suspect that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would agree with me that there you would probably find the hardest case of all. What is the noble Lord doing here? He is selecting particular cases and trying to remedy a hardship in particular cases only. Why in his Amendment does he take in, only houses let after the September 1, 1939? Why not deal with the 1914 cases? Why deal with these two particular categories of premises let after 1939?
  I remember very well that at the time of the last Government I was charged to go round and see what could be done to help the various seaside and holiday resorts on the South Coast. I remember the circumstances there. The Government put out notices requesting the people who lived in those towns to leave and, as good citizen, many of them did leave. They were carrying out the wishes of the Government of the day. They were not required to do; they were requested to go. Why are those people left out? This Amendment, therefore, applies to a very limited category of people over a limited period. As I have said, I concede at once that inevitably there are hardships to landlords in the whole of this legislation, and I hope that the day will come when one Party or another, whichever are in power, will be able to review the whole matter—if you like, with

  207
  some sort of rent courts up and down the country determining what rents are reasonable. But that would be a colossal undertaking, and no Party could possibly contemplate such a thing at the present time. In those circumstances, to select certain types "out of the bag," on a purely arbitrary basis, and say "In these cases we will allow an increase in rent, and in these cases only will we allow an increase in rent," would be to make the position far worse.
  I believe that people will stand a good deal of hardship, but if they think that the fellow next door is getting his hardship attended to, and their hardship is not being attended to, they will not stand for it. You can imagine two houses side by side, one with a man who left because he was requested by the Government to leave, and the other with a man who left because he was required by the Government to leave, and one man is going to have his rent increased and the other is not. I think that would be grossly unfair. Further, let us remember that when these people who have left their houses and want to get into possession again claim from the county court judge that they should have their houses delivered over to them, the matter turns on the balance of hardship; and if it is the sort of case about which we have just heard, then it is probable that the owner will succeed in obtaining possession of his house. In a very large number of cases, of course, that happens.
  I concede at once that up and down this whole field of legislation there are landlords whom the shoe is pinching very badly. Secondly, I concede that the only way to deal with this situation is to have a complete review of the whole thing. You cannot apply a formula only to certain classes. If you do that, and do it on a purely arbitrary basis, you may make confusion worse confounded; you make the hardship worse felt. I rest myself on this simple proposition. I do not understand on what principle of justice you can possibly apply this to the post-1939 cases and leave entirely out in the cold the 1914 cases. Anybody who has studied this matter will agree that the 1914 cases involve the greatest hardship of all. Therefore, I am unable to accept this Amendment. We cannot in this Bill, as it seems to me, embark upon the question of raising rents unless we
  208
  do it for everybody. We can do it for everybody only if we do it as a result of an inquiry, and we cannot do that now.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as always, I have listened with interest to the noble and learned Viscount, because he invariably puts his case so well. It seems to me that his case comes to this: that there is unfairness; we cannot cure the whole unfairness because it is a colossal undertaking, so let it remain a colossal undertaking and do not let us do a little now which might encourage others to do a little more later on. My suggestion to your Lordships is that, if there are these injustices, we ought to cure now such of them as we can. I cited the cases of people who were required to move away because once we get into the realm of cases concerning those who were requested generally by notice to go away it is difficult to prove whether they left in pursuance of that request or whether they were going anyway.
  Those concerned in the two classes to which my Amendment refers left to do something towards winning the war. I am not saying anything about the elderly ladies who moved from a coast resort because they were requested to, in order to clear it of people; I am not saying anything against their patriotism. But other persons were active in the Services, or were working for the Government in some capacity which required them to move. Such people moved definitely because they were helping to win the war by so doing. The reason why I did not go back to 1914 is that we are here seeking to do something for a clearly defined category. The two classes I have included have obviously let their houses at rents that were low because of the multitude of houses, whereas it is usually scarcity value which prompts action under the Rent Acts. For those reasons, I suggest to your Lordships that we should send this matter back to another place, where it was never considered, in order to give them an opportunity of saying whether or not they will do something about these deserving classes of people of whom I speak to-day.
  On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 19.

  CONTENTS

  Rutland, D.

  Marchwood, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Margesson, V.

  Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Maugham, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Reading, M.

  Portman, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Swinton, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Trenchard, V.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  De La Warr, E.

  Llewellin, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Luke, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Amulree, L.

  Meston, L.

  Munster, E.

  Belstead, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Borwick, L.

  Rennell, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Roche, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Charnwood, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Buckmastcr, V.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Chaplin, V.

  Sempill, L.

  Elibank, V.

  Clwyd, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  Derwent, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Long, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ammon, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

  Amwell, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Crook, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Faringdon, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Henderson, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Holden, L.

  Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

  Hall, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Williams, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Clause 2:
  Prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of tenancy
  (4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section, an assignor may, if apart from this section he would be entitled so to do, require the payment by the assignee—
  (b) of a sum not exceeding the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the assignor in carrying out any structural alteration of the dwelling-house;
  5.38 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved to add to paragraph (b) of subsection (4):
  "or in providing or improving fixtures therein, being fixtures which as against the landlord he is not entitled to remove."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, in Committee. He will recall, and the House will recall, that I had the pleasure of accepting that Amendment in principle, and promised to incorporate the noble Viscount's idea in the Bill. That we are now doing. This Amendment gives the assignor of a
  210
  tenancy the right to require from the assignee reasonable payment for any fixtures which he may have provided or improved and which are not removable because they vest in the landlord—that is to say, they are the landlord's fixtures which the assignor has provided or has himself improved. I hope that the House will feel that this Amendment does give effect to the undertaking, which was given to the noble Viscount during the Committee stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 34, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for so kindly meeting my views and what I believe were the views of your Lordships' House on this matter? I only hope that this action on the part of the noble Lord will be a happy augury for the future.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I rise at once in the spirit of the noble Viscount's last remarks to move this Amendment, which is also intended to meet the noble Viscount's point. It is a Government Amendment consequential

  211
  on the one which has just been carried. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 40, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("or in providing or improving any such fixtures as are mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph").—(Lord Pakenham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (5), to delete all words in the proviso down to and including "repealed," and to insert:
  "Provided that where an agreement has been made since the said twenty-fifth day of March and before the commencement of this Act, and the agreement includes provision for the payment of a premium which could lawfully be required under the enactments hereby repealed but which, if paid in pursuance of the agreement, would be recoverable, wholly or in part, by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is mainly drafting. The object of this proviso is to make it clear beyond any doubt that agreements to pay premiums between the dates mentioned are voidable at the option of either party. A premium already paid is dealt with under the substantive part of the subsection. I do not think there has been doubt at any stage about this matter, but I have been advised that it is desirable to include this Amendment to make what is plain, plainer still.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 14, leave out from the beginning to the second ("the") in line 17, and insert the said proviso.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to this Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, it has generally been agreed that the clause has this effect, but it is just as well to make it clear in the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
  Annual value for Income Tax where rent reduced.
  "Where the standard rent of a dwelling-house is by virtue of a determination by the Tribunal under section one of this Act different from what would be the standard rent apart from that section the annual value of such dwelling-house for the purposes of Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall, as from the date of such determination be equivalent
  212
  to the rent determined by the Tribunal to be the reasonable rent and section one hundred and thirty-eight of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall apply as if such annual value as aforesaid had been ascertained by a valuation verified by a person of skill under that section."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that I raised this question at the previous stage. I have no wish to weary the House with further explanations. Perhaps the noble Lord could give me some information as to the result of the inquiries which he told me he would make between the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given his personal attention to both Amendments brought forward by the noble Earl. I am glad to say he was able to do this, though hard-pressed, before leaving for Italy. I am glad to inform the House, as regards the Amendment now before us, that my right honourable friend has considered the clause and thinks it unnecessary, because any appropriate relief could be claimed under existing taxation law. The existing provisions of income tax law enable an owner of property to appeal to the local body of General Commissioners of Income Tax in cases of this kind. Whether one is looking at this matter from the point of view of the landlord or of the tenant, I can assure the noble Earl that in the opinion of my right honourable friend this is already met by the existing law.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
  Relief from Death Duties on houses in respect of which the rent has been reduced or a premium is prohibited.
  " .—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where—

  (a) the rent payable in respect of a dwelling house is reduced in consequence of a determination by the tribunal under section one of this Act; or

  (b) a leasehold interest is subsisting in a dwelling-house at the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine.

  (2) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue:—

  (a) that estate duty has been paid, or is payable in respect of a dwelling-house or of the leasehold interest in a dwelling-house and the dwelling-house or leasehold interest in a dwelling-house was valued for the purpose of that duty as at a date in the case of a dwelling-house to which paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection relates before the date of the determination by the Tribunal and in the case of a leasehold interest under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection before the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.

  (b) that the persons to whom the interest in the dwelling-house or the leasehold interest in the dwelling-house passed beneficially on the death on which the duty was payable were the same persons as were beneficially interested at the date of the determination by the Tribunal or at the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, as the case may be, and

  (c) that the interest in the dwelling-house or the leasehold interest as the case may be was the same in all respects and with the same incidents at the date of the determination by the Tribunal or at the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine as the case may be and at all dates relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the duty: and

  (d) that the dwelling-house or the dwelling-house in which the leasehold interest subsists was in the same state at the date of the determination by the Tribunal or at the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine as the case may be and at all dates relevant for ascertaining the duty

  the amount of the duty payable in respect of the dwelling-house or of the leasehold interest shall, where necessary, be reduced by repayment or remission of duty so as not to exceed the amount which would have been payable in respect thereof if the principal value of the dwelling-house or of the leasehold interest had been equal to the value of the dwelling-house subject to the limitation of rent imposed by the determination by the Tribunal or to the value of the leasehold interest as affected by the provisions of section three of this Act.
  (3) Where the Commissioners are satisfied that the provisions of the last preceding subsection would have had effect but for all or any of the following facts, that is to say:—

  (a) that the requirement in paragraph (a)of the preceding subsection is not fulfilled in that the duty was paid or payable on part of the interest only; or

  (b) that one or more of the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the preceding subsection are only partly fulfilled

  they may grant to any of the persons paying or bearing any of the duty such relief by repayment or remission of duty as may seem to them just and reasonable.
  (4) The last two preceding subsections shall have effect in relation to any legacy or succession duty becoming payable on the
  214
  principal value of the dwelling-house or leasehold interest as they have in relation to estate duty, subject, however to the modification that for the references to the death there shall be substituted references to the happening upon which the legacy or succession duty became or becomes payable."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was also raised in Committee and I will not weary the House with all the facts I endeavoured to put before the, House on that occasion. I hope the noble Earl is now in a position to make a statement on this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry on this occasion to have to inform the noble Earl that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, again having considered the proposed new clause, cannot see his way to introduce legislation to grant relief from death duties in the circumstances proposed in the clause. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel, as this is a Privilege Amendment, that it should not be pressed at the present moment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, in view of the vast size of some death duties, I think it would not make much difference either way if this provision were included. I do not think it would mean either much more going to the Exchequer or much more coming out of the pocket of the payer of death duties. Therefore I suggest that, having raised the point, we should leave it there. In any event, this Amendment cannot be incorporated in the present measure. It would have to be of general application and be inserted in a Finance Bill.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7:
  Provisions where tenant shares accommodation with landlord
  7. Where under any contract—

  (a) a tenant has the exclusive occupation of any accommodation.

  215

  (b) the terms on which he holds the accommodation include the use of other accommodation in common with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons, and

  (c) by reason only of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section, the accommodation referred to in paragraph (a) thereof is not a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply,

  the Act of 1946 shall apply to the contract notwithstanding that the rent does not include payment for the use of furniture or for services.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to the clause:
  "but for the purposes of this section the said Act shall apply as aforesaid as if Section eleven of this Act had not been enacted."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Bill is now in a different form and this Amendment previously related to Clause 9. I hope it is innocuous. Its purpose is to give some protection to a landlord in a case, and only in a case, where he is sharing rooms with a tenant. There is no need to take up your Lordships' time on this matter, because the proposal is a simple and elementary one. It is clear that in the case of shared accommodation very difficult and delicate relations arise and an altogether intolerable position is established if a landlord feels he can never rid himself of a tenant. Under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act he could give a tenant three months' notice. That power has now disappeared. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack knows that I pay great attention to what he says, and in answering this Amendment on Committee stage he urged that a period of three months was too short, that we should be very careful about what should be done and that we should rely on the discretion of the tribunals—I am paraphrasing rather roughly what he said. I say at once that I am not wedded to three months as a period of time for this proposal. I would be quite happy if the period were twelve months. But I urge that there should be some finality. If there is no finality, we shall certainly diminish the accommodation available. People are not going to let rooms or share them if in no circumstances and at no time can they be rid of unwanted tenants. I hope that, having shown my readiness to accept a much longer term, the noble Lord who replies will be able to tell me that my Amendment, at least in principle, is accepted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Buckmaster.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, while I sympathise with the kind of case which the noble Viscount clearly has in mind, if he will allow me to say so, he went rather further than he intended when he talked as though a landlord could never get rid of a tenant. He will fail to get rid of a tenant only when it is judged unreasonable by the body of fair-minded citizens composing the Tribunal. Therefore, he is not tied to a badly behaved tenant in unfair circumstances. It rests with the Tribunal to give him relief. I would remind the House that it was decisions of the courts, unlooked for at the time of legislation, that gave rise to the insecurity from which the tenant is being relieved in this part of the Bill. I would stress that but for those unexpected court decisions the tenant would have been entitled, in a case of this kind, to the full protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts and the landlord could have removed him only by obtaining an order from the court and providing that other accommodation was available, or on other certain very limited grounds. The protection given in the Bill is not nearly so extensive as that originally anticipated or intended, and therefore I am afraid the Government are clear that the protection we are extending cannot be further diminished, as the Amendment proposes.
  I am ready to concede that there are difficult human problems. The last thing I want to do is to waive them aside and treat them as of no account, but I can only repeat what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said earlier, "We must leave it to the Tribunal." I would add that the Minister will take steps to see that the considerable feeling in both Houses of Parliament about this matter is conveyed to the Tribunals, so that they may realise the kind of difficulty with which the landlord may be confronted. Though I have not met the noble Lord in fact, I hope that I have met him to some extent in spirit by that last assurance, and I would ask him to consider whether in the circumstances he cannot withdraw his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I appreciate the courtesy and conciliatory nature of the noble Lord's reply.

  217
  I should have felt happier about it had I felt happier about the composition of the Tribunals, many of whom perform their work admirably. In view of the fact that the noble Lord has offered to bring this point particularly to their notice, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 [Certain sublettings not to exclude operation of principal Acts]:
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 41, leave out ("not").—(Lord Pakenham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.52 p.m.
  Clause 11:
  Power of Tribunal under Act of 1946 to extend security of tenure.
  (2) On an application being made under this section—

  (a) the notice to quit to which the application relates shall not, unless the application is withdrawn, have effect before the determination of the application;

  (b) the Tribunal, after making such inquiry as they think fit, and giving to each party an opportunity of being heard, or, at his option, of submitting representations in writing, may direct that the notice to quit shall not have effect until the end of such period, not exceeding three months from the date at which the notice to quit would have effect apart from the direction, as may be specified in the direction;

  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to paragraph (b) of subsection (2):
  "Provided that where the lessee is occupying premises a part of which is also in the occupation of the lessor the Tribunal shall in no case grant extensions hereunder which would in total exceed six months."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a similar problem to that dealt with by the recent Amendment of my noble friend Lord Buck-master. I seek to limit this "repugnant propinquity," as I think the Minister of Health described it in another place, of two persons living in the same house. Originally, in the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, the Minister allowed an extension for only three months. As I told your Lordships last time, he was quite naive about it in the other place when he introduced this measure,
  218
  saying: "If I let them think, when we were asking for more accommodation, that they were perhaps going to have their tenant there for term after term and could not get rid of him I should not have got the offers for accommodation I then got." He was quite frank about it. But this Tribunal, equally, can go on giving a three months' additional term, both when the lessor is living outside the premises and when the lessor is sharing part of the premises with the lessee.
  I am not by this Amendment seeking to deal with the question of furnished premises where the lessor is not living in part of them. But I suggest that we ought to have a distinction between premises which are shared between the lessor and lessee and those which are not. I would suggest that the right way to make the distinction is by having a maximum period of six months for the continuance, at the Tribunal's behest, of this "repugnant propinquity" in the case of the lessor who is sharing accommodation with a lessee. In the other cases, by all mean; let it run on; I do not mind that so much. But when you have actually taken somebody into your house who turns out not to be compatible, then I think there ought to be a limit to the amount of time for which the Tribunal can order the letting to continue; and I suggest that a reasonable period is one of six months.
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, says that he will circulate these Tribunals to tell them there is this strong feeling in both Houses of Parliament on this particular matter, but I am not certain that that is the way to deal with tribunals or courts of law. I think Parliament ought to put clearly in the Act of Parliament what it wants, and let that be the guide, rather than a sort of circular letter going oat from the Ministry giving a kind of hint behind the scenes as to what line the Tribunals ought to take in coming to their decisions. My words may not be the right words, but I think we ought to show the Tribunals, in the terms of the Bill itself, that we feel there is a distinction which they ought to draw, between the case where the lessee has separate premises and the case where the lessor is trying to get rid of a person actually sharing the house. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 40, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I expressed sympathy with the point of view put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and, if I may say so, I express still more sympathy with the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, because his Amendment is of the same kind but, from our point of view, more moderate; he comes further towards us than did the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Indeed, I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is anxious to help, because, from our point of view, his Amendment is more moderate than that suggested in another place under this same heading. However, I am afraid the arguments that I attempted briefly to unfold just now hold good also against this Amendment. In our view, we must leave discretion in this matter to the Tribunals. That makes it impossible to give them this kind of legislative instruction the noble Lord would like to see them given; and it makes it impossible to inform them that if the landlord continues to protest after six months, out the tenant must go. We feel that is impossible, particularly in view of the fact that originally, before these court decisions to which I referred earlier, the tenant was thought to have the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Not furnished.
  LORD PAKENHAM: We are now talking about unfurnished premises, and we are applying to unfurnished houses the machinery of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. No doubt the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, will confirm that. I am sorry if the noble Lord is a little suspicious of these instructions which I mentioned, and I shall be only too pleased to discuss with him (I cannot give any promise at this stage of the Bill) how in his opinion the undertaking I have just given could be most effectively implemented. I cannot give the exact form the words would take, but I am anxious to meet the noble Lord, as I am sure is my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. I appreciate that this Amendment, unlike that of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, refers to furnished, as well as to unfurnished premises—I think that was the point
  220
  which was in the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin's mind. What I said in regard to our dealing here with unfurnished premises, as well as furnished premises was correct.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: We are dealing with both.
  LORD PAKENHAM: We are dealing with both. I am sorry that I cannot meet the noble Lord, because I know he has tried to meet us. But in view of what I have said further about this directive to the Tribunals, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I intended my Amendment to apply mainly to furnished premises, and I was a little surprised when the noble Lord first said that it applied only to unfurnished premises. I think we are now in agreement that it applies to both furnished and unfurnished premises. It would not be helping me if the noble Lord accepted my Amendment, if I may put it in that way, but I believe that it would be right from the general housing point of view. If you are to have a Tribunal which may continue three months at a time—possibly for years—a tenancy which is repugnant to the landlord, I do not believe that as many landlords will take other people into their houses as would otherwise be the case. That is the reason why I put forward this Amendment.
  I believe that by doing this the Government are cutting off part of the potential housing accommodation, and I should have thought that that was one of the things they would not want to do. But they are doing so by keeping on this unfortunate right of the Tribunal, because when the landlord lets a house he will know what the decision may be, and that he may be landed with a tenant whom he will never be able to get out. It is a very different matter when you are sharing your own house with him than when he is merely living in a house which belongs to you further down the street. I should have thought that, from the Government's own point of view, they would be wise to accept my Amendment or, at any rate, to accept it with regard to furnished lettings only. I do not intend to press it at this stage. I think refusal to accept it is short-sighted, from

  221
  the point of view of the Minister of Health, because he will be putting this barrier between himself and getting more of these lettings. If he takes that line, then I am not going to press the matter to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend is going to withdraw this Amendment, because I think that both Houses of Parliament should be very slow before they sign a blank cheque to the Administration in matters of this kind. I am not insisting upon it going on, but it is with great regret that I hear my noble friend is withdrawing his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, after Clause 12 to insert the following new clause:
  Amendment of 9 and 10 Geo. 6. c. 34
  " .—(1) Where the Tribunal is satisfied on the application of a lessor that the net annual sum received by him in respect of a dwelling-house in respect of which he is under a contractual obligation to provide services was less during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine (in this section referred to as 'the later year') than the net annual sum received in respect of the dwelling-house during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-nine (in this section referred to as 'the earlier year') by reason of the increased cost of providing such services in the later year over the cost of providing similar services in the earlier year the Tribunal may notwithstanding the provisions of the principal Acts increase the rent payable in respect of the dwelling-house to such an extent that if the rent had been so increased during the later year the net annual sum which would have been received by the lessor during that year would have been equal to but not greater than the net annual sum received by him during the earlier year.
  (2) In this section the expression 'lessor' means the lessor for the purposes of the Act of 1946. The expression 'services' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1946. The expression 'contractual obligation' includes an obligation to which a lessor is subject by virtue of the provisions of section fifteen of the Increase of Rent and Mortgages Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The expression 'net annual sum' means as regards the later year and the earlier year the rent payable for the dwelling-house after deducting therefrom the cost of providing the said services and any sums payable in respect of rates."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment expressed in rather more words than I should have wished,
  222
  but at the same time I believe it is simple and I believe also that it is one of some substance. Let me say at once what is the purpose of this Amendment. It is to allow the landlord of rent-restricted property to recover the increased cost of services where those are provided. I would emphasise that it is to provide him with that increased cost and with nothing else. He is not entitled under this Amendment to receive from the Tribunal one penny piece in regard to his rent as distinct from the cost of services. In no sense whatever is it an attempt to make a general increase of rents. I would emphasise also that it does not touch the pocket of the working-class. Their accommodation is not usually such as to provide a contract for services.
  I do not think it is necessary for me to quote any figures to show to what extent the cost of providing services has risen. I do not think either that your Lordships will disagree that it is very much in the interests of the community as a whole that the services should be provided: that the water should be hot, that the radiators should be warm, that the lift should function and that the porters should be present. All those things represent a very heavy added burden imposed on the landlord in addition to the burden of rent restriction. His property is rent-restricted already—I am not complaining of that—but in addition he has to bear this added cost of services.
  As to whether this proposal is reasonable or not, I think we can see straight away that it is. The Ridley Committee dealt with this matter some four years ago, and they said that it was reasonable, that it was right, that the landlord should receive the increased cost of services. They said that this question was one which should be dealt with on a basis of high priority, and in no other paragraph of the Report do you find words expressing such urgency. That was four years ago. Since then, costs have been mounting all the time, and your Lordships will realise that the men who provide those services are bound by law to do so. They can be sued, in fact, for that which involves them in a loss. A second point which would establish the justice of the case, if it is not already apparent, is this. The Government themselves, in the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, said that this was a just thing. They

  223
  allowed the Tribunals to give the landlord the increased cost of services where the flat had a rateable value of over £100 a year. They admitted that it was perfectly right that if the rateable value was over £100 the landlord should receive such proportion of the cost of these increased services as the Tribunal deemed appropriate. Yet, if he is a small landlord—in which case the services are just as necessary as they are in a case of large property—he is denied his right. He cannot go to the Tribunal and ask for the added cost of these services.
  With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who is not present, I cannot feel that the argument which he adduced against the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and with which I did not find myself in agreement—that this deals with an isolated section of the community—applies at all. We are not attempting to increase rents; we are attempting to remove a great injustice and a great anomaly. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that it was not necessary, because before the war, when these rents were fixed, landlords had 15 per cent. voids. I should imagine, if he will allow me to say so, that that was a very high percentage. I cannot see any business being conducted on such a basis and showing a profit. However, if we accept a figure of 15 per cent. voids, does it not follow that flats were almost impossible to let? With such a figure, flats cannot be let, with the result that the rent control is unduly onerous. My own feeling is that it would be more in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent., and there will still be voids owing to damage by enemy action. I believe this Amendment is a moderate one; I believe it to be reasonable; I believe it to be just and I hope it may commend itself to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I rise only to say that I support this Amendment. I cannot see that it is unfair in any way, and I think it will probably have the effect, as my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has said, of preventing a number of voids which we all hope to prevent.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to inform the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made it quite plain that we could not accept the first Amendment that was discussed; and if I might venture to distinguish between unacceptable Amendments, I should say that this one was slightly more unacceptable than the one originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and carried by your Lordships. But that is a purely personal view. I hope the House will not think me disingenuous if I say that, while I cannot hold out any hope of either Amendment being considered in the other place, I think it possible that the other might suffer damage and be contaminated by the presence of this one, and that therefore noble Lords who voted for the other Amendment should think twice before supporting this one in the event of a Division. That, I think, is the argument most calculated to appeal to certain noble Lords.
  There may well, of course, be cases of hardship here also; but I cannot repeat too often what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said at the beginning: that we do not deny that there may be quite a number of cases of hardship which landlords are undergoing which it is not sought to relieve by this Bill. There are also a great many cases of hardship suffered by tenants which we are not attempting to relieve by this Bill. We are attempting only to relieve hardships suffered by tenants in certain limited cases, and not attempting at all to relieve the hardships of landlords. We have discussed earlier why it is impossible to relieve the hardships of landlords, short of a really comprehensive measure. I think many of your Lordships, even those who voted for the first Amendment, realise that if we were to attempt to secure complete equality we should have to bring in a much more elaborate Bill, and immense labour would be required. With great respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, I would suggest that the Ridley Committee did not single out this proposal to quite the extent that possibly he had in mind. I have not a copy of the Ridley Committee's Report with me though I have read it carefully.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I have a copy here and will pass it across to the

  225
  noble Lord. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to pages 25 and 26.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The recommendation of the Ridley Committee was to the effect that Tribunals should be set up to deal with rents of all controlled houses, and that the kind of case in which the noble Viscount is interested should have high priority. But that could not be done until these Tribunals were set up; it would be untrue to the doctrine of the Ridley Report to say that in advance of these comprehensive Tribunals this particular kind of work should be started on its own. So much for what the Ridley Report has said. I can only repeat what I said earlier, that there is no evidence at our disposal that as a class the owners of flats are suffering undue hardships. I am not denying that hardships may exist; but, as the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack said earlier, we really cannot begin to pick on one particular kind of landlord and say, "Your hardship must be rectified, even though the hardship of no one else is rectified." I am afraid, therefore, we cannot make an exception in this case.
  The "thin end of the wedge" has been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin appeared to be attempting to drive a wedge between the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and the rest of us on this side. But I think we should agree after the speech of the Lord Chancellor, that that attempt has proved a blunt instrument, and the attack was beaten off. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master, will realise that we cannot in this Bill attempt to rectify all or most of the hardships of landlords. It would be unfair and improper to single out this particular category, as we have no information to indicate that they are suffering from any particular hardship at the present time.
  6.17 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord mentioned me particularly once or twice, perhaps the House will not mind if I say a few words. My remarks were not meant in the least as an attack or as an attempt to sever the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, from his colleagues. I merely pointed out that when we were talking about the "thin end of the wedge" we ought to bear in mind that we had already got a provision in this measure whereby the Tribunal could
  226
  increase the rent of a dwelling-house in cases within the ambit of this Bill. That is in black and white in the Bill.
  Be that as it may—it has not much relevance, if I may say so, to what we are now discussing—it is a simple fact that there are many agreements whereby the owner of premises has agreed to provide perhaps a lift, heating, porterage, lighting and so forth to those who are tenants in the place. Now, the Government and this House have already accepted the fact that where the rateable value of a house in respect of which one of these agreements has been made is over £100 a year, it is right that the landlord shall have an increase to meet the increased costs of these services. That was agreed here when we were discussing the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, and I should like to refer to the argument put forward by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. He said that if these matters are to be dealt with they must be dealt with wholesale. I am content to rely on that argument and say that the Bill deals only with the case of houses of a rateable value of more than £100 a year; we are now asking whether we ought not to do the same thing in regard to houses with a rateable value of less than £100 a year. This does not mean any increase in the rent, but it does mean an increase in the payment for services, the costs of which have gone up tremendously. The price of coal, for instance, has gone up enormously in the last few years, and so have the wages of liftmen and others. Yet still the owner of these premises is expected to provide these services at a loss—that is what it comes to—and, if the Government have their way over this Amendment, that is what Parliament will be seeking to do—to make him go on providing these services at a loss.
  So far as I am concerned, if it is right that there should be this increase for these extra costs of a house of a rateable value of over £100 a year, I think it is equally right in the case of a house of a rateable value of under £100 a year. To my mind, there is no distinction whatever. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, suggested that the Amendment which I have moved, and which your Lordships were good enough to carry in my favour an hour or so ago, would be contaminated if it went to the other place associated with the Amend-

  227
  ment of my noble friend. I do not mind my Amendments being contaminated with an Amendment that does justice, and that is what this Amendment does. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has given me no assurance about my Amendment in another place, so I would recommend your Lordships to send them
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  6.28 p.m.
  First Schedule [Transitional provisions as to premiums]:
  LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved to add to paragraph 5:
  "(4) Where before the commencement of this Act a premium has been lawfully required, and paid, in respect of the assignment of a tenancy to which section two of this Act applies, then nothing in this Act shall prevent the requiring, on any assignment of the first-mentioned tenancy or of any subsequent tenancy of the same dwelling house, of a premium not exceeding an amount which is proportionate to the unexpired residue of the term granted when the premium was first paid."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment that stands in my name. The matter arises in this way. If I take a grant of a tenancy from my landlord and pay my landlord a premium, and then subsequently I assign my tenancy, I am entitled to recover part of that premium from my assignee. On the other hand, if I enter into occupation
  both there together to see what happens to them, and in the hope that we may see justice done. I hope that the House will support my noble friend Lord Buckmaster in this Amendment.
  On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 14.

  CONTENTS

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Maugham, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Reading, M.

  Portman, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Swinton, V.

  Llewellin, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Trenchard, V.

  Lloyd, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Luke, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Belstead, L.

  Meston, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Munster, E.

  Charnwood, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Roche, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Derwent, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Teynham, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Margesson, V.

  Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Crook, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Faringdon, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Holden, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

  Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

  Ammon, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Williams, L.

  Amwell, L.

  in the first place by taking an assignment of a lease from a lessee and pay that lessee a premium, then, if I subsequently assign my lease, I am not entitled to recover any part of that premium from my assignee.
  I appreciate the distinction which exists between these two cases. If I pay a premium to my landlord, I may be entitled later to recover that premium from my landlord. On the other hand, if I enter into occupation by paying a premium to a lessee from whom I take an asignment of a lease, I am not entitled under the Act to recover any part of that premium from the lessee to whom I paid the sum of money in question. However, that difference appears to me to make no real distinction. What I am suggesting in this Amendment is merely a transitional provision which I could illustrate by the following example. A friend of mine recently entered into occupation of a house by taking an assignment of a lease for thirty-five years from a lessee, and he paid to that lessee the sum of £4,000.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Would the noble Lord take this fairly slowly, as I want to get down the particulars?
  LORD MESTON: A friend of mine recently entered into occupation of certain premises by taking an assignment of a lease of thirty-five years from a lessee to whom he paid a premium of £4,000. Under this Amendment, if, say, at the end of seventeen and a half years my friend desired to assign his lease, he would prima facie be entitled to charge, or to try to charge, a premium not exceeding £2,000 to his assignee. Quite frankly, in this particular case my friend did not deposit his lease with the bank by way of a security for an advance of money, but there have been many cases in which lessees who have paid premiums to other lessees have been obliged to deposit their leases with the bank by way of security for an advance of money to enable them to pay the premium in the first instance. In such circumstances, under the Bill as at present drafted, the security will be worth absolutely nothing. It is true that we all hope that as time goes on more houses will be built and that demand and supply will become equated. Therefore it is perfectly true to say that as time goes on the possibility of recovering premiums will be diminished. Quite frankly, I think that that will be an admirable state of affairs—in fact, it is a very good argument for the acceptance of my Amendment. However, I feel that to-day there are a large number of people who will suffer real hardship if this Amendment or some similar Amendment is not accepted. Therefore, I hope that the Government can give it serious consideration on this occasion. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 50, at end insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord Meston.)
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, first of all I would like, on behalf of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, to say how sorry he is that he was called away, because he was looking forward to replying to this Amendment himself, and he had gone into it very carefully. But the answer he would have given the noble Lord is, I am afraid, that which I am going to give him, though I have no doubt it would have been couched more solicitously. I am afraid the answer is that we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. To put it briefly, I sup-
  230
  pose the real objection to the noble Lord's proposal is that where it operates effectively it operates where no premium has been paid to the landlord. That is really the whole point of the noble Lord's Amendment; it covers the case where a premium has been paid but not where it has been paid to the landlord.
  The difficulty about it—and in our view the insuperable difficulty of giving effect to it—is that where a premium has been paid to the landlord, whoever has paid that premium can recover it from the landlord; and in that way the landlord who has received the original sum does, in fact, have to repay it, or part of it. But in the noble Lord's case there is really no one from whom the amount could be recovered; and, therefore, the only effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to allow someone who has himself been exploited to pass on the act of exploitation and continue it indefinitely. Therefore, weighing it all up, we have reached the conclusion that it would be wrong to help this process of exploitation. A stop must be put to it somewhere, and although we are sorry for those whom the noble Lord is trying to help, and who in some cases have been exploited, we cannot give effect to his idea because it would not enable the act of recoupment to be made at the expense of the landlord who would have received the premium—because in such a case he would not exist—and would merely pass on the act of exploitation indefinitely.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. While I appreciate the fact that this Amendment would, in effect, pass on the exploitation which has been referred to, that does not strike me as being any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. It is a purely transitional matter. It deals with a number of very hard cases, and as between A and B. and C and D, in my submission it can do no real injury. However, it is clearly a matter which cannot be pressed, and, thanking the noble Lord again for his reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Schedule [Minor Amendments]:
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendments made in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 18, at end insert—
  ("Section three…In subsection (1) in paragraph (a) after the words 'such entry' there shall be inserted the words '(or in a case in which a particular period is specified, in respect of that period)'")—(Lord Morrison).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  WAR DAMAGE (PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS &c.) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
  STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Holden be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in place of the Lord Mountevans: Read and agreed to.
  TWICKENHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SLOUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  SWINDON CORPORATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.