Lords Sitting of 21 June 1951

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

SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL
Read 2a.

SUN DAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is nothing in this Order to which I need call special attention, the law having been complied with in the locality. Therefore, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section one of the Act to the Borough of Batley, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment in lieu of one of the Lords Amendments and their Reason for disagreeing to certain other of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment in lieu and Reason be considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment in lieu and Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill No. 45]
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("immediately before") and insert ("at all times during the period beginning with the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty, and ending with").
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment and two others for the following Reason:
Because the Amendments would deny certain tenants the protection of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendments which your Lordships are now called upon to consider really fall under two heads. The first three deal with the question of the qualifying period. Your Lordships will remember that the House decided, against my advice, to insert into the Bill a qualifying period. Let me make it quite plain that I have never said that to insert a qualifying period, as your Lordships did, was unreasonable or anything of the sort. I can well understand the case for a qualifying period, though, be it observed, in the Rent Restrictions Act, which was suggested as an alternative method of dealing with this problem, there was no qualifying period. The Rent Restrictions Act dealt, as it were, with premises rather than with persons. As I ventured to say to your Lordships before, I concede that the qualifying period would cut out of the Bill certain people who do not need protection. I concede that it will deal with this case—I do not think it is very likely to arise, but it may. Imagine a case where a man is an investing tenant in a block of flats; he is not living there himself, but he is a lessee; he is not the occupying lessee, he is the investing lessee; and by a mere ruse or manœuvre, he manages to get possession of one of these flats just at the end of the term. In those circumstances, he brings himself within the advantages of this Bill. I concede that, and it was to meet that sort of case that your Lordships put in the qualifying period.
We have to look at both sides of the matter. I felt then, and I feel now, quite convinced that this system of a qualifying period would cut out a lot of deserving people, whom noble Lords on both sides of the House would desire to help. For instance, it would cut out the man who, following his work and wanting to go to work in some other part of England, which would mean being away from his house for a month, sub-let the house for that month in order that he might go and work away. There is no reason whatever why such a man should not be helped. In the case of a holding owner, with which the third of the Amendments deals,

257
imagine a tenancy which expires on March 25. Under the Bill as drawn, if that man holds on until June 24, he gets the benefit of the Bill. But why should he be affected if, for a perfectly good reason (it may be concerned with health or to follow his work), he has sub-let his premises for the month of January? Why should he be without and the man who did not sub-let his premises be within the Bill? That is purely arbitrary. There is no logical ground for it. Therefore, I venture to say that the insertion of the qualifying period, useful though it may be in some cases, in many other cases would work a real injustice. For that reason I very much hope that your Lordships will not insist upon this Amendment.
I should be remiss if I did not point out, as a mere matter of fact, though it is not in the least by way of a threat that if this Bill does not receive the Royal Assent before Sunday next, June 24, very considerable difficulties will arise, of which your Lordships are no doubt aware; because Part II of the Bill, dealing with shops, applies only to those shop tenancies which were in force immediately before the passing of the Act. We have provided that this Act shall come into force on June 24, and those shop tenancies which come to an end at midnight on June 23 will get the protection of the Act. If the Bill is not passed until some time after June 24, then there will be obvious difficulties. Whether we could surmount those difficulties is a matter we should have to consider; but I hope that that will not be necessary. I think the first three Amendments really hang together, but taking the first one, I beg to move that this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as usual, we have heard the case very fairly put by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He has not suggested, as was suggested in another place, that by this Amendment we were in any way trying to wreck the Bill. And of course we were doing nothing of the sort. We were anxious only that the Bill should deal with the class of persons with whom it was originally intended to deal:
258
that is to say, people who for long periods have been in Possession of one of the houses to which the Bill when it becomes an Act will apply. We thought that it was unfair to put a landlord in a position to turn them out at the end of their long lease, if more permanent legislation was to be brought in which might eventually protect their interests. I do not think, however, if I may say so, that the Lord Chancellor's reference to the Rent Restrictions Act was quite in point. Our reason for inserting this Amendment was to ensure that people should not be able, after they had got to know the contents of this Bill, to slip into a position which they were not in before the Bill was introduced. Normally—as I think I said on a previous occasion—if there is going to be an alteration in, say, taxation, the Budget Resolution comes in and clamps down on it from within ten minutes or a quarter-of-an-hour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting down after his Budget Speech. Noble Lords who have been in another place realise that that happens whoever is Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whatever Government may be in power.
What another place is here insisting on doing is to say that although this occupier was not in the house when notice of the Bill was first given and its provisions were introduced, if he gets in after that by any kind of manoeuvre—and he can get in by the simple manœuvre of getting one of the sub-tenants to allow him to go and live there over the material date, while never intending to live there permanently—he shall get the benefit, of this measure. Our Amendment was designed to exclude that kind of transaction which, of course, would be carried through only by unscrupulous people after the general intention of Parliament had been published in Bill form.
On the other hand, I concede that by the Amendment protection might be denied if a person who had entered into a house quite genuinely after the date of the introduction of the Bill had not been there continuously—perhaps he had let it to friends when he went away. I think that on the last occasion the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor quoted the case of a man going to Korea, though I believe that people in that category have special protection. If, for example, the man had been deputed to

259
attend one of the numerous conferences which we now find taking place, with little effect, all over the world, and had gone there, it might be that he would not qualify within the Amendment to which your Lordships agreed. But we came to the conclusion that on balance, it was right to try to prevent a situation in which a man did not really intend to live in a house but desired only to get the benefits of this measure, and perhaps make extra money out of it for the next two years. These were the reasons that prompted us.
The question with which we are faced to-day is what line we are to take when another place says that, because this Amendment "would deny certain tenants the protection of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill" they disagree with it. I believe that, in the main, the tenants who would be denied that protection would be the sort of people who do not in the least deserve it—the kind of people to whom I have been referring. The noble and learned Viscount has said that we may get into difficulties if this measure does not receive the Royal Assent before June 24. If your Lordships remember, we inserted June 24 as the date of its coming into force, and that Amendment another place has seen fit to accept. As I read the position, whatever date this Bill eventually receives the Royal Assent, the date in question will be June 24.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him? The difficulty arises because of the words "immediately before", which, as the result of our Amendment, come in Clause 10, which applies only to shop leases. It deals with shop leases which expire immediately before June 24. So if the Royal Assent were not given until, say, June 26, a lease which expired at midnight June 23, would not expire "immediately before" this Bill became law.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understood that our Amendment said "this Act." I think the words in Clause 10 are: "immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act." Later on in the Bill we have inserted an Amendment to say that the date of the commencement of this Act shall be June 24. So I do not think there is a great deal of validity, if I may say so, in that argument. On the other hand, it is true that, supposing the Royal Assent were not given until, say, June 30,
260
there would be a period when this measure was not an Act of Parliament. During that period a landlord, if he were fool enough to do so, might let the property to someone else. Then immediately this measure received the Royal Assent the original tenant would be protected under it; but some complications might arise. However, I do not think that need disturb your Lordships very much to-day, because I am going to suggest that we do not insist on this Amendment. We in this House have done our best to see that scoundrels do not get any advantage out of this measure, and if, by our assenting to an Amendment of another place, some scoundrels get advantage of it, then it will not be our fault. We do not want to place your Lordships in the position of being misrepresented in the country, as we might well be, by its being said that we held up this measure from becoming law because of our tenderness towards landlords. I think that those of your Lordships who are landlords are among the best landlords in the country. Those whom I know run their estates extremely well, and take no improper advantage of any of their tenants. But it is easy enough to misrepresent any action of your Lordships' House in regard to landlords. There was no Division on the general principle underlying the Bill, either here or in another place, and I suggest this afternoon that we do not insist on this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("has been").
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment would deny certain tenants the protection of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in regard to this next Amendment, exactly the same situation arises. I beg to move that this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after ("continuation") insert ("or in the case of a tenancy expiring on or after the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty, at all times during the period beginning with that date and ending with the date of continuation.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment would deny certain tenants the protection of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the third and last Amendment in this group is substantially the same, and relates to the holding over period. I beg to move that this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
2.55 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 21 and insert ("Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, shall, irrespective of the rateable value of the property comprised in the tenancy, apply to the tenancy as it applies to a lease of which five years or more of the term remain unexpired;").
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
Page 4, line 20, leave out from ("to") to ("damages") in line 21, and insert ("bring any action against the tenant for").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment at page 4, line 17, to which the Commons have disagreed. It refers to an entirely different topic from the three Amendments we have been discussing. It concerns what is to happen if, during the two years' extension, a tenant does not repair as he was obliged to repair under the covenants of the lease, assuming that they were operative during that period. The scheme of the Bill is that during the two years' extension the tenant cannot be turned out on the strength of an allegation that he has failed to carry out his repair covenant, but during this time the landlord has the right to go in and do whatever repairs he thinks necessary, and to recover the amount front the tenant after the two-year period. That is the framework of the Bill.
262
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just said that there are good landlords, and I readily assent. I must add that there are bad landlords, though I think that the good landlords are greatly in the preponderance. I have often thought, and have sometimes said, that if every landlord had been ready to enforce with rigour the rights which the law gives him, the whole system of land tenure would have been up for review a long time ago. It is idle to pretend that some landlords will not resent most bitterly the provisions of this Bill—they will. And over and above it there is the passing shadow of more permanent legislation which I am convinced any Government, no matter what their colour or complexion, will have to introduce in the very near future. Therefore, it might be of great advantage to a landlord to try to get rid of a tenant now. If he gets rid of him on the ground of not fulfilling a repair covenant, he gets out of the two years' period provided by the Bill; and, further, he puts himself in a better position in regard to future legislation which casts its shadow over him. I am not forecasting what that legislation might be, but he would be dull of wit who did not contemplate that it might be an advantage to be in the position of an occupying tenant. Therefore, it might be to the advantage of a landlord to get a tenant out in order to prevent him from being an occupying tenant when the material time came. I think all your Lordships will agree with that.
With these two inducements, landlords may now be ready to enforce the rigour of the law, instead of behaving as they have behaved heretofore in the great majority of instances. It is common knowledge that whenever a long lease draws to an end, it is almost inevitable that the premises are not in that state of repair which they would have been in had the covenants of repair seen strictly and accurately observed. Your Lordships' Amendment gives a landlord the right to go to the county court to enforce repair covenants, with the result that he may be able to turn out the tenant for not keeping the premises in the appropriate state of repair. It seems to me that that would put the tenant in a great difficulty. Confronted with a lawsuit, which is not a pleasant thing at any time, and with the cost and expenses of a lawsuit, he might

263
agree with his adversary quickly and consent to disadvantageous terms to get out. If I am right in saying that there is now this inducement, which there has not been heretofore, to landlords of the less scrupulous variety, we should be really inviting the bringing of lawsuits alleging, at the end of a long lease, that premises were not in an appropriate state of repair. By so doing we should be putting the tenant to the risk of a lawsuit, and causing complete uncertainty as to whether he had or had not security of tenure.
The Lords Amendment adopted the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, a very beneficial Act, which was passed to deal with this sort of situation. There were unscrupulous landlords, even in those days, and they were minded to try and get tenants out of premises on this very ground of non-repair. The lease might have twenty or thirty years still to run, and if the landlord could have obtained possession, he could have made a very good thing out of it. Therefore, the Legislature of that day said: "Unless you can establish that the lack of repairs is such as to involve serious damage to the reversion, you shall not be in a position to bring an action." It did not apply to the last five years of a lease—and for this very good reason. When it comes to the end of a lease (and we are dealing here with the last few minutes of a lease) any lack of repair involves damage to the reversion. That must be so. It is only if you have a substantial period to run that you can differentiate between those repairs which do, and those which do not, involve damage to the reversion. That was the Act of 1938.
Your Lordships' Amendment takes that Act completely out of its context and seeks to apply it to a case like this, where the lease is coming to an end. I venture to assert to your Lordships that this provision would be likely to produce a crop of lawsuits; would make the unscrupulously-minded landlord anxious to use this method of getting rid of the tenant; and, instead of bringing benefit to the tenant, would subject him to uncertainty and possibly the costs of a lawsuit. It was in those circumstances, considering all this, that we adopted the structure of the Bill which we did: an absolute extension of these two years, subject, of course, to the payment of rent, rates, and so on. But if the
264
tenant does not do his repairs, then the only remedy which the landlord has is to go in and do the repairs himself, and to recover the cost from the tenant at the end of the two years. That is the structure of the Bill, and it is for that reason that I ask your Lordships to accept the view which the Commons have taken, and not to insist on the Amendment to which they have disagreed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, one thing which will probably be of interest to all your Lordships is that in this case the Commons give no reasons for disagreeing with our Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Wherever the Commons put in a further Amendment—and they have put in a drafting Amendment here—it is a rule of the House that they shall give no Reason for so doing.
LORD LLEWELLIN: But the further Amendment, although it may be appropriate to be brought in at this stage, does not deal with this point at all. Of course, they could not have brought in an Amendment unless they had tagged it on to this one. It seems as if that is what has happened. Under the structure of the Bill, if we do not insist on our Amendment, what will the position be? It will be that a landlord can still get possession and an order for forfeiture or re-entry for non-payment of rent, if the holder of the lease has failed in his covenants to keep the premises insured, or if the premises are being used for illegal or immoral purposes. Putting aside all questions as between landlord and tenant—which rent and the failure to insure certainly are—and looking at it from the general national point of view, one of the most essential things, especially with the housing programme not going at all well, is to keep existing houses in good repair.
What will be the position if the Bill remains as it was when it came to us, and we do not insist on our Amendment? Wherever there is a convenant in a lease putting on the leaseholder the obligation to repair, for two years he will be released from that covenant. Therefore, there is no direct obligation upon anyone. It is true that the landlord may go in

265
and carry out the repairs, but he cannot charge for them at the time; he can only try and get the money back from his tenant—whose obligation it still remains, although he has not to fulfil it—in two years' time. This is all on the basis that the Act will come to an end in two years' time—and I would not put any money on that. We have seen a number of Acts dealing with property of this sort which, although originally intended to be temporary, have been extended from year to year and have been temporary for so long that they are now pretty well permanent. So, whether it be for two years, or two years extending, there will be nobody upon whom the obligation will rest to keep the house property in repair. If we look at the matter from the point of view of the country, it is far more essential that property should be kept in repair than that an individual landlord should get his rent. If the individual landlord fails to get his rent, then he may turn out the tenant; but if, to the disadvantage of the country as a whole, another house, or row of houses, becomes a slum, nothing is done about it.
All we sought to do was to say that the obligation to repair should continue, but that no one, provided he complied with the simple form of giving notice under the Act of 1938, could be turned out, except by leave of the court. Years ago, when I was in practice at the Bar, I used to deal with a number of rent cases, and I found that county court judges, quite properly, were most reluctant to turn people out of their homes unless there had been a flagrant breach of their obligations as tenants of houses. In my view, we should have kept in reserve the sanction that these leaseholders should keep this property in repair, and we should have made it possible for them to be turned out only after a full and impartial hearing by what are recognised to be very good tribunals to deal with matters of this sort. The main purpose behind our Amendment was not to take the landlord's side against the tenant's side, or the tenant's side against the landlord's side. It was to try and preserve in good repair some of the house property in this country (and everybody knows, if he looks at the housing lists in one city after another, how short the supply of houses is), and by this measure to preserve the status quo. We have tried to do that. The Government
266
do not seem to care very much whether these houses are kept in repair or not, otherwise they would have supported this Amendment.
As I have said, however, if your Lordships were to insist upon your Amendments it could be represented in the country as saying: "The House of Lords are all against the tenants; they are all against any kind of modification of some parts of the leasehold system and the Lords are with the landlords"—which indeed we are not, any more than we are with the ordinary, common, everyday people of this country. Bur it could be so represented in the country. We have done our best to try and see that somebody still has an obligation to keep these houses in proper repair. We have failed. Nobody can do more than try to do his best. It is not a question of our putting this Bill off until another Session. I think that that would probably be wrong, and therefore, with great reluctance, because I hate to see more house property going into disrepair—and I believe that that will be the effect—I assent to the suggestion made from the Woolsack this afternoon.
3.13 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry on one ground that we are being asked to assent to the noble and learned Viscount's proposal; and that is the ground of dry rot. Dry rot is a serious menace in this country, and has gained a grip on our houses owing to the neglect of requisitioned houses during the war. There is a great temptation for any occupier to neglect dry rot and to pretend not to notice it, because the treatment means such great hardship on the occupier himself. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said, the Government have proceeded on a policy of limiting the construction of houses. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has left the Chamber, because I remember that in the debate on the gracious Speech he frankly acknowledged that on behalf of the Government. In fact, I think he founded a conundrum which he put to the noble Marquess who leads us on this side. He then gave the answer and, if I may say so, he gave the wrong answer to his own conundrum. However, it seems to me that if the Government are limiting the programme for new houses, they should certainly do everything they

267
can to ensure that existing houses are kept in a proper state of repair. I wish to put on record my great regret that the Government are asking us to forgo this Amendment.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene, but I did not see this Amendment until I came to the House this afternoon. I am intervening in the hope of obtaining from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack an explanation, because it may be that I have not quite understood the effect of the Commons Amendment. It seems to me that the Amendment is doing something which was not intended by the Government. I hope that I am wrong, and if I am I shall be glad to admit it. The effect of the Commons Amendment will be that paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 5 will read thus:
"The landlord shall not be entitled, by action or otherwise, to enforce any right of forfeiture or re-entry in respect of any failure to comply with a term or condition of the tenancy"—
that is right enough, but mark these words which come in under the Amendment—
"or to bring any action against the tenant … in respect of such a failure."
LORD LLEWELLIN: "For damages": "damages" remains in, I think.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Yes. It was not intended by paragraph (a) to prevent the landlord obtaining payment of rent. Under that paragraph he was entitled to bring an action for rent, but not to turn his tenant out for non-payment of rent. I think that was the intention of the draftsman of this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I help the noble and learned Viscount? If he looks at the Bill he will see that there is a proviso to that clause. The result which would otherwise follow from (a) is obviated by the proviso, which says:
"Provided that nothing in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall affect forfeiture or re-entry for non-payment of rent. …"
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I was going to read that, because that tends to support my idea that a landlord was entitled to bring an action in the county court for his rent, but could not turn the tenant out. The words which the Lord Chan-
268
cellor has just read show that the proviso limits the landlord to a right of forfeiture or re-entry for non-payment of rent. But it may very well be that the landlord does not want anything of the sort. He wants his money. His term may be coming to an end in a few months, and he would not know what to do with the property if he turned the tenant out. To my mind, that is a very serious thing, because with a long lease the last thing which the landlord with an approved ground-rent—to use the technical term—wants to do, is, as a result of his tenant not paying, to go into a house which may have a large number of bedrooms and so forth. If the tenant has any money at all, what the landlord wants is to get £x which is due for rent. That does not seem to me to be provided for in the clause as it stands, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will be able to explain that that is not affected. I think it is affected, and accordingly, with great respect, I suggest to him that the clause wants further amendment if it is to carry out the object which I believe it was intended to carry out. I do not believe it was observed that the first part of the proviso here refers only to forfeiture or re-entry and does not refer to an action to recover a small, or, it may be, a considerable, sum for rent which happens to be due.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chancellor a question? I do not think a landlord sues for damages for failure to pay rent; he sues for the rent, and I do not think that this clause in any way precludes persons from doing that. But I should like to have that confirmed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is perfectly right. An action for rent is a different thing from an action for damages. Subsection (1) (a) contains nothing to take away the right of the landlord to bring an action for rent. It does not take away the right of forfeiture or re-entry except in the case of failure to comply with a condition. The proviso says that nothing shall affect the right of forfeiture or re-entry for non-payment of rent. The action for rent has never been interfered with, and therefore there is no need to protect it in the proviso.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Does the right remain, in view of this Amendment? I do not want to pursue this matter. If my noble and learned friend the Lord

269
Chancellor is content, well and good, but I should not like the matter to leave this House without somebody in the House who claims to be a lawyer raising the question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite satisfied.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Now we come to the Commons Amendment in lieu. It is interesting as showing something of the procedure of the two Houses. Your Lordships may remember on this point, that an Amendment concerning repairs was inserted in this House on the Report stage. On the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, had moved an Amendment which he correctly described as a drafting Amendment, and we agreed to it. Consequently we had inserted our drafting Amendment of the words. Then an Amendment arose on Report stage and the words went out, and with the words went out the drafting Amendment. When the Bill went back to another place, they compared it with the Bill as it left them. They, of course, would know nothing about our Committee stage. It is an odd rule that neither House gives any Reason for its Amendments—either we to the Commons or they to us. That Parliamentary practice dates far back. I confess that it struck me as odd. I was at great pains to know why it was in this case that the Commons did not give any Reason, and I was informed on inquiry, that it was a practice of Parliament that when an Amendment of this kind is made, it does not contain an explanation. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the Amendment proposed in lieu.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment in lieu.
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much indebted to my noble and learned friend for the explanation which he has given. It certainly struck me as odd that the Commons had not given any Reason for disagreeing with our Amendment. I thought in my ignorance that it was perhaps a lack of courtesy on the part of the other place, but it now understand the reason. we all assented to the Amend
270
ment when the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, proposed it, and I have no hesitation in agreeing with it now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW STREETS BILL
3.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, in saying farewell to this small Bill I wish to express my appreciation of the friendly discussion we have had, and of the cooperation we have received on all sides of your Lordships' House. I am hopeful that when it gets to another place there will be none of that controversial spirit which I seemed to detect in the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill with which we have just dealt. I should like to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who has helped us so much to improve the Bill during its passage through this House. I should like also to thank the various organisations who have helped us in a number of ways, and particularly the representatives of the Departments concerned, who were always ready to find the best and most satisfactory way of meeting our wishes and to make alterations. I am glad here, on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, to say how much all this help is appreciated. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Marley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord allow me to take this opportunity of apologising for not having been in the House during the Report stage, when two Amendments in my name were discussed. Unfortunately, I was unable to get away from what I was doing, but I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon put forward the Amendments better than I could have done. As Lord Marley knows, I did not intend to press either of the Amendments, but I pit them down in order to give him an opportunity of explaining things to us. I am grateful for the explanations he gave, and I think we can now let this Bill go its way.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TELEGRAPH BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

JAM MAKING AND FRUIT CANNING
3.30 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to call attention to the need for the allocation of more sugar to housewives and manufacturers and more tinplate to canners in order to make full use of the British fruit crop; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first declare what interest I have in this matter, though it is small. I grow a very small quantity of fruit for the market, just sufficient to realise the difficulties of those who have to earn their living by so doing. This is not a very exciting Motion but if, as a consequence of my moving it, His Majesty's Government are able to do anything to meet our requests, we shall have fulfilled a definite public service to the housewife and will have done something vital for horticulture.
The British climate grows some of the best fruit in the world. But we lack sunshine, and therefore our fruit tends to be rather sour. Even some of the dessert fruit, the fruit eaten raw, we require to eat with sugar. As for cooking fruit, and for preserving, in nearly every case we need quite substantial quantities of sugar. That means that we cannot make the best use of our fruit crop unless we are able to lay our hands on the appropriate amount of sugar. We all know that at certain times of the year our fruit goes to waste, particularly in private gardens. In the autumn, it is almost impossible to give away cooking apples, and in the earlier part of the year most of the rhubarb in the country is never eaten. If you ask any housewife the reason for that, the answer is always: "We just have not the sugar." I was hoping to produce the testimony of a member of your Lordships' House, who supplies the hotels in the Lake District with fruit. He would have told your Lordships that, in the season of the sourer fruits, he finds difficulty in persuading hotels to take his
272
produce if they can possibly buy something full of sugar syrup in a tin from the grocer.
Do we want to encourage fruit eating? I should have thought the answer to that question was obvious. After all, the medical profession has been going round for years telling us that "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." They would hardly have told us that unless the evidence was overwhelming. They could, of course, change to the more modern saying, equally applicable, which is "Black currants daily, and you take life gaily." Still, the medical evidence is all on my side. Then, do we want to encourage people to plant more fruit? Undoubtedly we do, and His Majesty's Government have taken great steps in that direction. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan will be producing the evidence. What sort of quantities of fruit are we talking about? To discuss anything intelligently, one must have some vague idea of the figures involved. Figures of fruit crops are even more speculative than those of most other commodities nowadays. Last year, the official figures ran something like this: apples, 560,000 tons; pears, 25,000 tons; plums, 65,000 tons (a very bad year); cherries, 15,000 tons. Then we get on to the soft fruits: strawberries, 33,000 tons; raspberries, 15,000 tons; black currants, 17,000 tons; gooseberries, 8,000 tons, and the others, 5,000 tons. So that the apples are overwhelmingly the largest group, followed by the plums, which, at 65,000 tons, were a very bad crop last year.
How is the consumption of fruit affected by sugar? In other words, what is the incidence of sugar upon fruit? What is the sugar-fruit ratio? First of all, in the factory. The jam manufacturers turn out jam with a considerably lower fruit content than does the housewife. For instance, the fruit content of black currant jam is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 22 per cent. That, of course, is a matter which must be looked into as more of our fruit-bearing land comes into crop, so that the more fruit we have, the higher will be the fruit content of our jam. However, that is not the subject of our Motion this afternoon. Therefore, one can say that the jam manufacturer uses less than one pound of fruit for each pound of sugar that he is given. The canner achieves a much

273
better ratio. For every pound of sugar he is given, he uses about 3 lb. of fruit; but, of course, he is subject to a far greater restriction than the sugar—that is, the tinplate. My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney will be pointing out the difficulties regarding the tinplate position for canners.
Then there is a small body of people, who sprang up during the war, who make a sort of black currant syrup which was at one time, I believe, distributed free to the mothers of England to give to their offspring. The offspring were very fond of this stuff. Moreover, it was full of vitamin C, the vitamin which we import from overseas in oranges. These people no longer have their products distributed free by the Ministry, but have found a very wholesome and expanding market. From the horticultural point of view, they are most worthy people, because they enter into long contracts with growers to take all their produce and pay a respectable price. Up to date, these people, as the trees of their contractor growers get older and thus grow more fruit, have been needing more sugar to deal with the resulting increases in crop. This year, this was not to he and I understand that supplies are "frozen" at last year's figure, which is less than they require and less than they could use. The result will be that some of their contractor growers will have to throw their fruit on to the market, and these particular manufacturers may have to manufacture at their subsidiary factories on the Continent. They are not among the large users of fruit, but they are very useful ones.
We come next to the lady who carries the burdens of the Empire on her shoulders—the housewife. If she can be persuaded to use her sugar for the consumption of fruit she achieves the best ratio of the lot. When she makes jam she generally uses a pound for a pound; occasionally she even puts a little more fruit in on top of that. When she goes in for bottling, depending upon the variety of fruit, if she bottles with sugar she will use a quarter to half a pound of sugar for each pound of fruit. When she stews she uses the same proportion. But if you ask any housewife from one of the poorer families in the country whether she serves stewed fruit often, she says: "No, it is too hard on the sugar." She never has the sugar to spare. Why is that? I think
274
it is largely the result of the change of habit amongst the people of this country in what they eat and drink. The lack of food substantial enough to make the foundation for a hard day's work means that people are always going in for snacks, They feel they want something to recuperate their energy, and there is no finer and quicker recuperator than glucose or sugar. They even sell packets of glucose to golfers, in order that the eighteenth hole may not seem too far away when they are at the ninth. To-day, the British working man is drinking innumerable cups of tea, flavoured very strongly with sugar, because he needs the energy given out by the sugar. That is the reason why the ordinary sugar ration does not permit the working-class housewife of this country to supply her family with much in the way of stewed fruit. That applies particularly to the sourer of fruits.
What is the crop position this year? My noble friends will go into it in more detail, but one can say that there has been a very late spring and no late frosts; crops look good, with the exception of cherries, which do not use much sugar anyway, and the season is expected to be a late one and a short one. Now we come to the sugar position. I purposely do not want to turn this into a sugar debate, because if I did we should soon invoke a smoke screen of statistics. We should be throwing at each other irreconcilable figures. I personally am quite convinced that if the Minister to-morrow ordered his statisticians to prove that sugar could be de-rationed they would do it. I am equally certain that if he told them to prove that it could not be de-rationed they would find no difficulty in doing that. But the position, very roughly, is that the refineries here turn out 2,700,000 tons of sugar a year from imported and homegrown raws. Out of that we in this country consume roughly 2,000,000 tons, and we export about 700,000 tons. My noble friend Lord Llewellin may be enlarging slightly upon those figures.
Now we come to the two great archenemies of higher consumption of food in this country—our old enemies, the cost-of-living index and subsidies. So far as I can make out, there is nothing in either of these to deter us greatly from increasing the quantity of sugar available for the domestic consumer. In the index "sugar plus syrup" is given a weight of 11 points

275
in 1,000, or just over 1 per cent. A modest addition to that would make practically no difference to the cost-of-living index figure. Jam, which is hardly relevant, comes in with a multiple of other groceries, in a portmanteau heading weighting at 24 points in 1,000. The subsidy has some relevance, because on domestic sugar there is a subsidy, in very round figures, running at the rate of £9 to £10 a ton. I believe that on manufacturing sugar there is either no subsidy or even, possibly, the reverse of a subsidy—whatever that may be called.
How is the sugar applied at this moment? There is a domestic ration of 10 oz, a week, which uses up about 750.000 tons. In addition to that there is a so-called bonus, which is doled out in six-monthly allocations of 1 lb. each, with, probably, 1½ lb. at Christmas. If we include the caterers—and frankly I do not know how much they use—it accounts for a consumption of roughly half of our total. The balance is used in various forms of manufacture. The preservers as they are called (I presume they are the jam manufacturers), are the biggest of these, and the amount used by them is given by the Minister as 194,000 tons. The canners use 15,000 tons. Quite frankly, I do not know what the black currant syrup manufacturers use, but at a guess it is only one or two thousand tons. Of course there are many other manufacturers, such as brewers and so on, who receive sugar; but that sugar does not have any great effect upon our fruit consumption. At the moment the bonus is being given in six-monthly 1 lb, lots, from March to September, omitting the month of April, and there is a Christmas bonus in December. From the point of view of horticulture this is an extremely bad method, because, instead of being used for jam making or bottling, the sugar tends to go into ordinary current consumption. I know people will say that the prudent housewife pops it all at the back of the shelf. Well, she may do; but then when "little Willie's" birthday party comes along she has not the heart to refuse him a sugar cake. The result is that out comes the bonus that used to be called "jam sugar," and bang goes the chance of using that amount of fruit. I am sorry to say that the March allocation, which in my own household I expected to find in
276
the cupboard, has gone the way of the rest.
How should we deal with the matter in another year, when we have time to think about it? I believe that we ought to make the domestic bonus drawable in either one or two lots, strategically placed in the fruit season, the first lot to deal with the soft fruit, and the second lot to deal with the plums. And we ought to call it "Jam sugar." That, psychologically, is most important. If we do that, and issue it in good large lumps, we shall find that those who do not intend to make jam will not draw it at all, whereas those who have the jam-making mentality will draw it and turn it into jam. It is fatal to dribble it out month by month and call it a "bonus." Secondly, the jam makers, clearly, should be given as much as they think they can use, provided that they increase the fruit content of their jam. I think the vitamin C black currant syrup people ought to have all that they can reasonably expect to use. In war time they provide our strategic reserve of vitamin C baby food. Canners should, obviously, have as much sugar as they need to match the amount of tinplate available for them. It is a piece of fine business to put our enormous plum crop into cans in this country instead of importing canned fruit.
What can we do now? It is very late. I suggest that there is no time at all to have long, inter-departmental wrangles. There is no time for the tribal warfare of Whitehall. Nor is there time for lengthy talks with the trade; particularly is there no time for lengthy talks with those people in the trade who would not be receiving an allocation, inasmuch as their consumption of fruit is not significant. If every little bit extra that can be squeezed has to be parcelled round to everyone, from the horticultural point of view it will be absolutely useless.
I have given the noble Earl notice of certain suggestions which I desire to make. I notified him that I was going to ask whether it would not be possible that the bonuses due on July 15, August 12 and September 9 should be obtainable now, or in the very near future. Further, I desire to ask that those bonuses should be replaced by a 3 lb. allocation as soon afterwards as it could be made available, so that the plum crop might be dealt with. I would also suggest that the

277
Minister, if he sees fit to do these things, should announce that he is doing them specifically in order to deal with the bounteous fruit crops which appear to be in prospect, and that he should pay attention to the psychology of the matter and definitely call this sugar "fruit sugar" or "jam sugar." That is very important. The 3 lb. per ration book which would be involved, as I work it out, would amount to a total of approximately 69.000 tons. Then he should give the jam makers some more sugar. I am informed that they could sell more jam if they had more. Therefore, I suggest they should be given 10 per cent. more, which comes altogether to something of the order of 19,000 tons. And they should be told to use it for English fruit, and not for turning imported oranges into marmalade. As to the small black currant syrup people, I think they might well be given what they want. In any event, the amount involved is quite small.
With regard to canners, the whole position depends on what tinplate they can get. Clearly, any tinplate they get must be matched with sugar, and I have suggested 5.000 tons as a tentative figure in this connection. That would make a total of 94,000 tons, which is under 3 per cent. of the output of refineries. In other words, I am asking His Majesty's Government to squeeze out less than 3 lb. of every 100 lb. which is already being manufactured in this country. Those allocations would deal with the soft fruit crop and the plum crop which, so far as anyone can put an estimate on them, may be somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 tons. With regard to cooking apples, I am afraid that the figures are so large, and the fruit comes on so much later in the year, that nothing short of de-rationing of sugar would be much good for them. But I maintain that this comparatively small quantity of sugar, strategically disposed at the right time, would make a very great difference, both to the consumers and to the growers. Without it, a great deal of fruit may well be wasted, as it has beer wasted at times in the past, or, alternatively, sold well below the cost of production. This is not in the least a Party Motion. I believe that I shall probably have the full sympathy of the noble Earl who is to reply. I think we are allies in this matter in fact. Even if we have lo be sparing with sugar, let
278
us see that sugar is employed to the best advantage in using up our own crops which have often been wasted. It is common sense to try to save the crops which the Almighty has given us, and in doing so we should confer a boon not only on the consumer but also on the grower. I beg to move for Papers.
3.58 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hawke and I do so because feel that from the point of view of the horticultural industry there is an extremely strong case for particular attention to be paid to this subject at the present moment. The suggestions which Lord Hawke has put forward are eminently practical ones, and I should imagine they are quite possible of implementation. I very much hope that the noble Earl, in his reply, will give us some hope of steps which will remove the sense of disquiet that is felt by so many horticulturists at the present time, in view of the condition of affairs that obtains with regard to these questions of sugar, containers and so forth.
Your Lordships will recollect that a little time ago my noble friend Lord Carrington initiated a discussion with regard to the horticultural industry and horticulture generally. He was able to show clearly the great importance of this industry to our country—its importance from the point of view of health and also its importance having regard to the considerable interests involved in that particular branch of the agricultural industry, if I may call it so. We had brought out in this House what I understood was the policy of His Majesty's Government, which was to put forward a four-year plan calling for the development of horticulture in many respects in this country. That plan was ambitious, but I do not think it can be described as too ambitious. It was one which appealed to those engaged in the industry and has had encouraging results. I do not propose to go into the figures at any length or to go deeply into the question of how much more could be done than is being done at present; but considerable disquiet exists in the industry.
The target for soft-fruit growing put forward by the Government was an increase to 60,000 acres by 1951. That target has not yet been reached, but the acreage for England and Wales is around

279
51,500. The Government also called for an increase of 10,000 acres of dessert apple orchards and for an increase of 5,000 acres of pear orchards. These targets have not been reached, but have also been approximated. The target for tomatoes was an increase of production from 60,000 tons to 125,000 tons. There is no doubt that in spite of our uncertain climate we have the soil to grow a good deal more agricultural and horticultural crops. The plum crop, to which my noble friend Lord Hawke alluded, was bad last year, but the yield is expected to be about 120,000 tons this year.
The allocation of sugar for the making of jam and the growing of fruit are intimately connected. The disquiet amongst horticulturists is caused by the uncertainty they feel about being able to sell a high proportion of their crops. Hitherto, their prosperity has been affected by the importatipn of fruit from abroad and now it is being affected also by the allocation of sugar, which my noble friend has described as ludicrous, and by the difficulty in obtaining tin for containers. If the Government are sincere, as I feel sure they are, in pressing forward the four-year programme for the horticultural industry, it will be of the greatest help in promoting the industry on the lines they wish if some definite announcement is made about the allocation of sugar. This is not an easy subject with which to deal, but I suspect that most of your Lordships realise that the condition of horticulture is not satisfactory and that the industry has not reached that degree of productivity which we all seek to ensure for this not unimportant side of agriculture.
4.5 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for raising this important subject. It is our duty to see that the fruits of our soil are not wasted. It is not only in the interests of the producer, who has been encouraged by the Government to increase his acreage and will suffer severe financial loss in the event of a glut, but it is also in the national interest that in these days of scarcity we should make full use of our produce, both in season and out of season. I wish to speak of one particular method of conserving our crops for use out of season—namely, canning. Between 1946
280
and 1949 there was a rise in the production of canned fruit and vegetables from about 260,000 tons to 390,000 tons—an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in four years. In fruit alone the increase was from 22,000 to 89,000 tons—an increase of over 300 per cent. I should have thought that the Government would be delighted at the progress of this industry. It is conserving valuable fruit. It is using home-grown produce. It is taking comparatively little sugar, which is in short supply—about I ton to every 2½ tons of fruit—and at the same time is adding variety to the nation's diet and saving foreign exchange.
But what do the Government do to encourage it? They cut the tinplate allowance by 14 per cent. in 1950, so that whereas in 1949 the industry had produced the equivalent of 900,000,000 1-lb. cans, in 1950 it produced 800,000,000 cans—a drop of 100,000,000 cans. Speaking in another place on February 27, the Minister of Food promised that the allocation for 1951 would not be less than that for 1950, and went on to say:
"But we got by last year, and I have no reason to suppose that, given the good will of the industry and the close, detailed consultations that we now have with it, we cannot get by this year as well, without undue disturbance."
To be fair, he went on to give many reasons why he could not increase the allocation. But surely the object of the industry is not to get by without undue disturbance, but to preserve the maximum possible amount of our crops, and, in particular, the fruit crop, much of which may otherwise be wasted. It is true that last year we got by. There was an increase in the production of canned soft fruit from 9,000 tons to 16,000 tons, which took about 16 per cent. of the soft fruit crop. But this was made possible by a reduction of 9,500 tons in the production of canned plums. As your Lordships will recollect, last year was not, on the whole, a good fruit year, and there was, in particular, a failure of the plum crop, which is by far the largest fruit crop which is canned. This year, as we have heard, the prospects are much different, and we are faced with increased yields from increased acreages of almost all our fruit crops. If we are to avoid a glut, with all the consequent losses and waste, we must increase the amount of tinplate allotted to the canning industry. Although

281
there are supplies of produce available, and there is the demand for an increase of about 10 per cent. over the 1949 production, I think that the most the producers and canners hope for is for the cuts made in 1950 to be restored. This would mean about 12,000 tons of tinplate for fruit and vegetables, and would enable about 36,000 extra tons of produce to be canned.
There seems to be no hope of any appreciable increase in the production of tinplate until the new factory comes into operation in the late autumn, which is far too late to help with this year's crop. Therefore, it seems that the only possibility of obtaining the 12,000 tons is from tinplate which is going for export. The estimated production for this year is, I believe, 760,000 tons. Of this about 270,000 tons is to be allocated to the fruit and vegetable canners. Exports for the first four months of this year have been 86,000 tom, of which about 50,000 tons have gone to the Commonwealth, which means that about 36,000 tons—or an annual rate of about 108,000 tons—have gone to foreign countries. It is from this amount that I am sure we must find the 12,000 tons that we need. It is, of course, for the Government to decide where the cuts should be made, but I think the noble Earl should give us some details of how the amount exported is made up, and the reasons for exporting it. Over 2,000 tons have gone this year to the Netherlands, and 3,000 tons to Denmark. Is some of this to pack the soft fruit of which we imported over 5,000 tons last year from Europe? Then 11,000 tons have gone to the Argentine. I thought that this was to be cut, but the figure seems to remain fairly constant. Further, there is 1,400 tons to Egypt, and a figure of over 10,000 tons, so far this year, to other foreign countries. I am not criticising in particular any of these allocations, but asking for information about them. As the Minister of Food said, we must earn dollars; but I cannot help feeling that because tinplate is easy to sell anti everyone wants it, the Government are prepared to sell to obtain foreign exchange and so improve the look of the balance of trade, at the expense of the home producer.
I am sure that the noble Earl will say that we cannot afford to make any cuts. The point is, can we afford not to? I
282
hope that the noble Earl will consider seriously whether an increased allotment cannot be made to the canning industry. Since the debate in another place in February the situation has altered. Then, all the normal hazards of spring were to come; but now the picture is clearer, and unless there is an unforeseen calamity there is the prospect of heavy crops and the possibility of a glut. The canning industry can help to mitigate the effect. If my calculations are correct, the average value of the tinplate sold abroad is about £70 a ton. To export one ton of tinplate, which we need here, for £70. and thereby waste £160 worth of our own fruit, taking it at about 6d. per lb., may be sound planning and good economics, but to me, in my ignorance, it sounds crazy. There are times when the fruit in the cans is worth mere than the dollars in the bank. I beg the noble Earl to treat this plea sympathetically and to do what he can to increase the allotment, realising that every extra ton of tinplate means three extra tons of fruit in the can.
4.17 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not intend to take up much of your Lordships' time, but I felt that I might add a few words to the excellent speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. One always remembers that before the war there was a great campaign to persuade people to "Eat more fruit." That campaign, I am sure, had medical support behind it; in fact, I know of no expert on nutrition who would not include a good proportion of fruit in the proper diet for every person. It is obviously right to use as much of our home-grown fruit as we possibly can. I fully realise that if more fruit is grown, or if it is a good fruit year, almost inevitably there is a demand for more sugar; and, if the fruit is going to be canned—which is a good way of preserving it—a demand for more cans. I remember well the demand for sugar when I was at the Ministry of Food. I secured a couple of shipments of oranges from Spain, because I thought people would like some home-made marmalade. In my ignorance, and that of some of my advisers, I sent practically all of them to Scotland, in the belief that the Scots were the people who liked marmalade most, and in view of the fact that they had had less fresh fruit in Scotland that year than we in the south of England. There was

283
an immediate demand from practically every Scottish Member in another place that, having sent the oranges, I should increase the sugar ration of the Scots people as against the English, in order that the oranges should not be wasted. Naturally, an increased fruit crop always brings with it a demand for more sugar.
Before I come to the question: Is it possible to give any more sugar? I should like to make one comment which my noble friend Lord Hawke also made. I believe that the present way of giving the sugar bonus is not so good as giving it in the way it was originally given, as "jam sugar." If they are given a little extra sugar over six months, people do not look upon it as sugar for jam: it goes into the sugar for normal consumption. And so, for psychological reasons, I should like the Ministry of Food to reconsider whether it would not be better to give that bonus as definite jam bonuses, one to catch the summer soft fruits and the other to catch the plum crop later in the year. I know that the trade like it done the present way, because it is easier for them if there is not a big rush on sugar at one particular time. I remember that we were, quite properly, informed by the trade that we should not alter the ration in such a way that their sugar packing filling machines would not work; that it is not practicable, for instance, to add a couple of ounces to the ration each week, because the machines are not set up for filling that type of sugar bag. But the trade can do it if they are told, and they will do it if they are asked, because I know that in my time we never asked the sugar industry to do anything which they did not immediately try to do.
So far as I understood the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hawke, he thought it would be well to give 69,000 tons more to the domestic consumer this year; 19,000 tons to the jam makers; 5,000 tons to the canners and a small amount, say about 1,000 tons, to the people who provide these special fruit juices, so beneficial for infants and young children. That adds up to 94,000 tons. What is the background for this? Our sugar consumption in the United Kingdom is still only 79 per cent. of what it was in pre-war years. World production, however, has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since the war, and there is now no
284
shortage of sugar in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, in the Empire, I am glad to say, we have increased our sugar production over the last four years by 580,000 tons. If we look at ourselves in relation to the rest of the world, we are the only large Power which has sugar rationing. I come to the very modest request of my noble friend, and put forward a suggestion as to where this extra 94,000 tons can be found. Everybody has to do his best to increase our export trade, but as I was looking through the list the name of one country caught my eye. Last year we exported 117,243 tons of sugar to Persia. I suggest a simple swap: that our people here should get this extra amount of sugar, and that as the Persians are not being too tender to us we should not be too tender to them in this matter, and for once help to consume our own fruit crop and help to give more satisfaction and pleasure to the housewives of this country. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Motion so ably proposed by my noble friend.
4.26 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for giving us the chance of discussing this important subject, and of listening to the extremely interesting and well-informed speeches which we have heard this afternoon. The subject is important both to growers and to consumers, and the noble Lord is to be congratulated on timing his Motion so well. Our fruit crop is now ripening. It has not been harvested, and this surely is the moment to discuss what we should do with it, and how we can take the best advantage of the crop we are expecting. I think this discussion has been all the more interesting because several noble Lords have an intimate knowledge of fruit growing, and take a very keen interest in horticulture.
Let me say at once that I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said when he referred to me as an ally in the campaign for supporting the fruit grower. Of course, it is one of my duties in the Ministry of Agriculture to do what I can to help the fruit growers. I always have a special sympathy for the fruit growers

285
because, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, they have a very uncertain and hazardous life. We are unable to give them a guaranteed price for their products, and they do not share this advantage with so many of their colleagues in the agricultural industry.
LORD HAWKE: They do not receive subsidies, either.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is another disadvantage for the fruit grower. I think we should all agree that the fruit grower is a person who deserves our special consideration and sympathy, because he leads this very risky and hazardous life. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said. We are expecting a larger fruit crop this year in many varieties of fruit, as compared with a year ago, and we naturally want to make the best of this crop and see that as little fruit as possible is wasted. The noble Lord will agree that some of our larger fruit crop will be disposed of by a larger consumption of fresh fruit. That is what we all want, and it is quite probable, if fruit is abundant and reasonably cheap in the shops, that people will buy more fruit and more varieties of fruit than they have hitherto been accustomed to buy. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, quoted the old saying about the beneficial effect of an apple a day, so I know he will agree that that is one desirable way of disposing of a larger quantity of fruit this summer and autumn.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, referred at some length to the subject of black currant syrup. He was good enough to give me notice of the fact that he would raise this subject, and I should like to reply to that immediately. The noble Lord suggested that we should provide more sugar for more black currant syrup, in order to make good use of our black currant crop—and we are expecting a very heavy black currant crop this summer. Of course, we appreciate the food value of black currant syrup and, as the noble Lord himself pointed out, this led to its use during the war; and its value as a foodstuff has not in any way diminished. But since 1947 there has in fact been a steady increase in the allocation of sugar to manufacturers of this product. The allocation in 1947 was 840 tons of sugar; last year it was 717 tons, and this year it is 900 tons. I am glad
286
that the noble Lord, otherwise so accurate, has been misinformed on this point, because I think he was under the impression that we were refusing an allocation of sugar this year for black currant syrup.
LORD HAWKE: Freezing it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Not at all. The firm which produces this syrup received 650 tons in 1949, as compared with 900 tons which it will receive this year; it is getting full allocations. I understand that the other two firms which produced the black currant syrup are now out of business. We have a respectable record. At the same time I will give the noble Lord this assurance. My right honourable friend the Minister of Food will be willing to examine any further suggestion that may be made with regard to ways in which the disposal of this year's crop would be assisted by a further allocation of sugar. I will, of course, direct his attention to the noble Lord's remarks.
LORD LLEWELLIN: When the noble Earl speaks of "crop," is he referring to black currants?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, I am talking of black currants. The noble Lord opposite was good enough to give me full notice of what he wanted to ask the Government for. I think I shall not be misrepresenting him if I say that what he is asking for is that the sugar bonus for home jam making for the next four months should be brougat forward and all released at about the same time with the least possible delay. His intention in making that suggestion, I think, is that this would take care of a large part of the soft fruit crop. The noble Lord also suggested that there should be an additional sugar bonus for August, and that a larger allowance of tinplate should be made to jam manufacturers and fruit canners. I am informed that the bonus issues are described as special issues for home jam, and they are labelled "home jam" It is hoped that housewives will appreciate that that is the purpose for which the bonus has been made.
Let me deal now with the noble Lord's suggestion that we should bring forward the balance of this year's sugar bonus for jam making. I am sure he will agree that, even if we did this, there would be no guarantee that the public would take up the extra quantity of sugar or use it,

287
as he hopes, for jam making. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, seemed to want the bonuses distributed in a lump.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I did not say that, though I thought that that would be more likely. They were given in a lump for jam.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is possible to argue either way, but I think the noble Lord's view is a perfectly fair view to take, and I am not basing my reply on the assumption that it is not a legitimate one. Let us assume that it is desirable to advance this year's bonus. If we make that assumption, we have to consider the very great difficulties that would arise. They are practical difficulties, which Lord Llewellin particularly will appreciate, because he was once in charge of the Ministry of Food.
In the first place, I am informed that we have not sufficient stocks of refined sugar to be able to distribute an additional 104,000 tons in such a short time. That would bring the level of stocks well below the danger level. We have to keep a minimum level of stocks to ensure a regular flow of distribution. Secondly, it would be exceedingly difficult to find transport to handle an additional load of from 70 to 80 per cent. above the normal during a short period of four or five weeks. It is also doubtful whether the grocers themselves would have storage space for the extra sugar.
I will turn from that subject to the noble Lord's request that we should bring forward the present bonus for home jam making and increase the allocation of sugar to industry. The first suggestion would not involve any increased allocation of sugar to consumers or to industry, but merely a rearrangement of the existing allocation. The second suggestion would involve more sugar for the consumer and for industry. It would mean larger quantities of sugar for making jam this year than we have decided to provide at present for the housewife and the manufacturer. But where is the extra sugar to come from? Where can we find the additional amount? If the problem is to be tackled in a realistic way we have to ascertain whether there is more sugar available or whether there is not; and we shall have to base our line of action on the answer
288
to this question. Here, I must give a few figures. I feel sure that they will be accepted as perfectly fair figures, and that the noble Lord will find himself able to agree with them.
Our total supply of raw sugar for the current year has been estimated at 2,226,000 tons. This has already been earmarked for a number of different uses which are equally essential from the standpoint of domestic requirements. It has to meet the needs of the domestic ration and rations for the Services, the catering trade, jam manufacturers and all other users, as well as the bonus issue.
LORD HAWKE: I think the noble Earl is referring to raw sugar, translated into refined sugar for the United Kingdom market. Will he make it clear that it is not the total output of all our refineries?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am referring to the home market. I do not think anyone would suggest that we should divert sugar from one of the uses I have mentioned to another. It would mean "robbing Peter to pay Paul." The additional quantity of sugar asked for by the noble Lord opposite amounted to approximately 100,000 tons for the year. But we have no reserves of this size upon which we can draw. The estimated consumption for 1951 will amount to 2,174,000 tons of raw sugar as compared with our total supply for the year of 2,226,000 tons, a figure which I have already mentioned. This leaves only a small margin of 52,000 tons of raw sugar, which, of course, in refined sugar means a still smaller quantity, as a margin between supply and demand.
LORD HAWKE: This 52,000 tons of raw sugar which, translated into refined, means perhaps 45,000 or 46,000 tons, would be an increase in the closing stock, would it not?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is the balance of supply over demand calculated over the whole year.
LORD HAWKE: Yes, in addition to stock.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The demand varies from time to time, and this is a figure which tries to average out supply and demand over the whole year. I do not want to dwell on this narrow margin because, as your Lordships will

289
appreciate, a margin of this kind must be maintained. Cane sugar is exposed to many hazards of climate and labour relations. Although the supply figure makes allowance for losses due to these hazards, it is not possible to estimate such losses to the last ton, and a margin of 50,000 tons seems none too large, from that point of view. In addition to the quantity of 1,636,000 tons of imported sugar from the Commonwealth, we are expecting 590,000 tons of sugar from our home beet crop this year. That is how it is made up—partly from home beet sugar and partly from imported cane sugar. Here again, although we have made allowance for a fair crop, it will be less good than last year's. Owing to the late sowing, it is even more difficult than usual to forecast exactly what we shall get. The estimate I have given in precise figures may not he reached. It is possible that there may be a slight falling off in the a mount of sugar that we get from our own beet crop.
It may be suggested that we should buy more sugar from overseas. Your Lordships will remember that we have already agreed to purchase the entire exportable surplus from Commonwealth countries until 1952. We can, therefore, import more sugar only by paying dollars for sugar from Cuba, and paying an extremely high price. But our share of the dollar pool is already earmarked for more essential foodstuffs and raw materials, and we have none to spare for extra sugar. Another difficulty is this. I am told that stocks in Cuba have been considerably reduced by recent purchases by the United States and other countries, and it is doubtful whether much extra sugar would be available even if we were in a position to pay for it. I think, therefore, it is fair to say that our total supply figure for this calendar year of 2,226,000 tons is a figure that may have to be reduced, but cannot possibly be increased.
We are, of course, doing our best gradually to provide the housewife and the manufacturer with more sugar, and we want to return, as soon as supply permits, to the pre-war level of sugar consumption in this country, which is an aim shared. I am sure, by both sides of this House. The position is steadily improving. Both industry and the domestic consumer will get more sugar this
290
year than they had last year. The jam manufacturers will receive 206,000 tons of refined sugar in 1951 as compared with 197,250 tons in 1950. So the jam manufacturers are already getting a bit more. The fruit and vegetable canners will have 18,050 tons of sugar as compared with 17,145 tons last year. I understand that the jam manufacturers are in fact receiving almost all the sugar they can use for the time being. Again, my information does not tally completely with the information provided for the use of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. Nevertheless, I can assure noble Lords opposite that, as and when a more plentiful supply of sugar becomes available, the fruit-using industries will get a fair share of whatever additional quantity we are able to obtain. The domestic consumer, too, is already doing better than he did a year ago. The recent increase in the sugar ration will give him 4 lb. a year more sugar in 1951, and if there is another Christmas bonus the increase will be correspondingly larger.
Noble Lords—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, whose speech. I am sure will be read in Hansard with great interest by the Minister of Supply—also want us to provide more tinplate for canning home-grown fruit and vegetables, and for other means of making good use of our fruit and vegetable products. But here, unfortunately, we are faced by the present shortage in the supply of tinplate. We can give fruit and vegetable packers more tins only in one of three ways; one, by cutting down our exports of tinplate; two, by diverting from other canned foods; or, three, by increasing home production. Diversion will not help, because the other tinned foodstuffs, such as meat and milk, are just as important as fruit and vegetables.
The objections to reducing our exports of tinplate seem to me, I must confess, extremely strong. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, thought we should make a cut, but, when I have given him the particulars for which he has asked, I hope he will agree with me that we cannot reduce our exports. We are faced by the present position of our balance of payments. Our balance of payments is already in danger owing to the rising price of our imports, and we cannot afford to export less than we are now doing. As your Lordships

291
are aware, it is a most acute economic problem of the moment and, far from being able to reduce our level of exports, we have to increase our exports if we are to be able to maintain the present level of our imports. In the second place, about 58 per cent. of our whole export trade in tinplate goes to the Commonwealth and the British Colonies. If we were to stop sending tinplate to Australia and South Africa, there is little doubt that many canning factories would be obliged to close down, thus causing serious unemployment. There is no other means of getting tinplate for these Commonwealth countries.
LORD HAWKE: Is the noble Earl suggesting that it would be very wicked for an Australian factory to close down and cause unemployment because we cannot supply it with tinplate, but it is perfectly all right for our factories to close down for the lack of tinplate?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not suggesting for a moment that our factories should close down. It is, in fact, a question of adequacy of supplies, and we are hoping to start fresh production of tinplate. However that may be, I am certain that, if we can possibly avoid it, we do not want to cause unemployment in a Commonwealth country. Obviously, that is something that we all want to avoid. So far as the Colonies are concerned, we could not stop the export of tinplate for them without making nonsense of our plans for their economic development. There are, indeed, many tropical and sub-tropical Colonies who depend on our tinplate for the processing of their citrus and other fruit crops which often represent a basic industry in the Colony concerned. Those of your Lordships who have been to the West Indies, as I have had the privilege of doing recently, will realise how dependent some of these West Indian Islands are on their citrus fruit crop.
The biggest share of the balance of our tinplate exports, the 42 per cent. left over which goes to foreign countries, will go to Argentina. We have agreed to try to make available 27,000 tons of tinplate during the twelve months from April, 1951. This was part of the recent trade agreement with Argentina, which among other advantages, assured us of a
292
renewed supply of Argentine meat, including canned meat. Your Lordships will appreciate that that involves an advantage sufficiently great to warrant the sacrifice of so large a quantity of tinplate. Many of our exports to foreign countries are bound up in this way with trade agreements which give us essential foodstuffs and raw materials in return. When your Lordships refer to European countries to whom we are sending tinplate, and ask why we are sending them tinplate with apparently no corresponding advantage, as a rule the quantity of tinplate exported to those countries is bound up with trade agreements. Furthermore, about one-fifth of our total exports of tinplate comes back to us in the form of tinned food.
Of course, if we cannot cut down our exports of tinplate (and we really do not feel that this is possible), there is the other alternative of producing more tinplate at home. The position at the moment is that we are not producing as much as we produced before the war, but we are doing what we can to overcome the very real difficulties of increased production. The lower output after the war was entirely due to the loss of skilled labour, and unfortunately, since the war we have not been able to recruit the skilled men we need for this industry The present shortage of raw material for steel making may prove another obstacle to tinplate production. We do not yet know, and we cannot estimate, its effect upon the production of tinplate, but we do know that there is this general shortage of raw material. In spite of all these difficulties, we intend to start a new continuous mill at Trostre in South Wales in October. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, referred to this new and up-to-date tinplate mill; but, as he rightly said, whatever increase we may get from this source will not affect the supply of tinplate for fruit and vegetable canning this summer and autumn. I mention that only to show that we are doing our best to produce more tinplate. We have been doing what we can to obtain a better allocation of tinplate for the home user as compared with the amount that is allocated to export, and we shall continue to help the home user as much as we can.
I should like to give some figures to show how much the position of the home

293
user has improved since the war. Just before the war the average yearly exports of tinplate amounted to 388,000 tons, while 385,000 tons were retained for the home market. In 1950, 267,000 tons of tinplate were exported, while 479,000 tons were delivered to the home market. So noble Lords will see that home users are already getting more tinplate than they had before the war, as well as a much higher proportion of our total production, although the amount we are producing is, of course, less than the pre-war figure. I am sorry to have been so discouraging. I am sure noble Lords opposite will not attribute it to any lack of good will. I can only say that I will certainly ask my right honourable friend the Minister of Food, and the other Ministers concerned, to reconsider their present views very carefully, in the light of the thoughtful speeches which we have heard from the Benches opposite this afternoon.
LORD WOLVERTON: May I ask the noble Earl one question? Up to Christmas of last year, I think, 750,000 tons of home-produced sugar was harvested. The noble Earl put the figure for this year at a very much lower one than that: his estimate was 590,000 tons. He said that last year was an exceptionally good year. Is the figure for this year's harvest going to be as low as he has said?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The reason that we are estimating for a lower crop is mainly owing to the late sowing. Last year all the factors were favourable. This year we knew that the bad weather in the spring held up the sowing, and therefore there will not be such a good crop as there was a year ago.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Will the noble Earl particularly ask the Minister of Food whether it is really necessary to send this sugar to the destination I indicated?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, I will.
4.56 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must first thank those of your Lordships who have supported me in this Motion and the noble Earl for his detailed reply, though I admit that it was rather less helpful than I had hoped for. I should like first to say just one thing. By inadvertence, I slightly misrepresented the case of the black currant juice manufacturers. They have been in the habit of getting enough sugar to match the yield
294
from their various plantations, and this is the first year when they have not been able to get the amount of sugar to match their yield.
When we were given so many detailed reasons why what I have asked for cannot be done, it reminded me very much of Lord Ogmore's story yesterday about the gentleman with the duck in his pocket and seven defences. I should very much like to know upon which defence the Minister really relies. I just do not believe the transport difficulty. It is absurd to say that 100,000 tons of sugar cannot be transported in this country. I also just do not believe that between them the grocers and wholesalers cannot stock up a little extra. From the experience of my noble friend Lord Llewellin during the war, they were always able to stock a pound or two extra per ration book when they were asked to do so. When the noble Earl backs his case with the availability of sugar, then, of course, we get into the fog of statistics that I have already mentioned. It is quite impossible to disentangle what the sugar situation really is. I understood the noble Lord to say that during the coming year there is in sight a bigger supply of raws than will be consumed. He presumably starts with a stock in the pipeline, and therefore he is going to close the year with a larger stock in the pipeline. The experts are always extremely cautious in their figures, and I should have thought it quite possible to squeeze some little extra. Even if they cannot do that, would it not be possible to bring forward these bonuses, so that the total amount to the consumer remains the same as at present, but is more strategically located, from the point of view of the fruit coming on the market? However, the point on which I pin the greatest hope and faith is the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, that if certain people take our oil we should see that they get no sugar in their tea.
I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Amherst to remind the House that he made no suggestion whatsoever about cutting the Commonwealth tinplate supplies. He wanted to cut only the supplies to foreigners—the supplies to the Continent which come back to us as tinned fruit and various other tinned Products. In the matter of tinplate, I know that a lot of these exports are tied up with inter-State bargains, but surely the proper answer is

295
to give the fellow who bargains on our side the right figure with which to bargain. We should not tell him that he has the world to play with, but that he has very little to play with after our own canning factories have got what they want. I hope that very soon we shall hear that we have been able to achieve some success for the consumer and the horticulturist, based on the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Llewellin. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MIDWIVES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.