Lords Sitting of 6 July 1954

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

  FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals were made to the Councils of Norwich and Kilmarnock to induce them to add fluorides to the public water supplies; what were the extent and terms of the indemnity offered to these local authorities; what financial assistance was offered to them; under what statutory authority were such indemnity and assistance offered, and to what other local authorities have similar proposals been made.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I must apologise in advance for the length of this reply, but the noble Lord's Question raises quite a number of separate points. The Medical Research Council, in a report to the Minister of Health in 1951, recommended that a small mission should visit the United States of America to study the fluoridation of water supplies as a means of reducing the incidence of dental caries. Following this report a Mission was appointed by my right honourable friends the Ministers of Health and Housing and Local Government, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Medical Research Council, and this Mission visited the United States of America in the spring of 1952. In their report, which was published in 1953, the Mission said that
  "the evidence is conclusive that among children in fluoridation areas there is a reduction in the incidence of dental caries to a level comparable with that experienced where fluoride occurs naturally in the water"
  and that there is
  "no scientific evidence that there is any danger to health through the continued consumption of water containing fluoride in low concentration."
  456
  The Mission recommended that before fluoridation was generally adopted in this country certain investigations were desirable. On December 3, 1953, the Minister of Health announced that the Government had accepted the Mission's recommendation.
  The Councils of Norwich and Kilmarnock were referred to the report of the Mission and to the Government's decision thereon. They were informed that for technical reasons their areas were suitable for the studies proposed by the Mission, and they were invited to carry them out. They were also informed that the Minister and the Secretary of State would be prepared to assist them with technical advice, and that at all stages during the course of the study his officers would be glad to work in the closest co-operation with those of the Council. The Minister and the Secretary of State undertook to defray the expenses which the Councils would necessarily incur in connection with the studies. It was added that while the Minister and the Secretary of State were advised that such action on their part would be within their statutory powers, they would be prepared to indemnify the Council for the cost of any legal proceedings in which the Council might be involved should the legality of the Council's action be challenged. The Minister, in making this proposal, was acting under the power conferred on him by Section 16 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the Secretary of State was acting under the power conferred on him by Section 17 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947. Similar invitations have been extended to the Councils of Anglesey, Darlington and Watford. The Councils of Anglesey, Darlington, Kilmarnock and Watford have decided to accept the invitation. The Norwich Council have decided to defer their decision. I think that answers all the points in the noble Lord's Question.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what were the technical reasons why these particular localities were selected for this experiment?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid that I have entered the lists of this controversy so late that I am not able to answer that question without notice, but I will do my best to find out for the noble Lord.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I ask the noble Lord this further question? Is it, then, the intention of the Minister to conduct this compulsory experiment upon human beings and to treat them as if they were no better than guinea pigs? Is that the resolve of the Government?
  LORD MANCROFT: I would not accept either of the implications in the noble Lord's highly provocative supplementary question. There is nothing at all compulsory about this. I used the word "invitation," and it is an invitation that these councils have accepted.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Will the noble Lord then explain how any individual will be able to escape being treated in this fashion when this stuff is put into the public water supplies?
  LORD MANCROFT: If anybody feels as strongly about this matter as the noble Lord does—and the noble Lord is in a minority—he can move to an area which has not accepted the Minister's invitation.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, may I ask if there is any evidence at all that the dilution proposed has any injurious effect on the health of the individuals who consume the water?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, not only is there no evidence that it has injurious effects, but the evidence is to the contrary.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: Exactly.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Will the noble Lord say what beneficial effects are obtained by anybody, let us say, who has no teeth at all?

SOVIET USE OF VETO
2.42 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many times the Soviet Government has now exercised its veto in the Security Council, and what are the records of the other members in this respect.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, according to the information available to me, the Soviet Government have now exercised their veto sixty times in the Security Council, and the French Government once. China, the United States and the United Kingdom have not yet exercised the right of veto.
LORD VANSITTART: I thank my noble friend for these disquieting figures. "Sixty not out" is a large score. I presume that no measures can be devised to prevent it from rising.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If there be any remedy, it would appear to lie not in the hands of Her Majesty's Government but rather in the hands of the Soviet Government.

FRANCE AND E.D.C. DISCUSSIONS
2.43 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether M. Mendès-France's abstention from discussion of the European Defence Community by the other countries concerned has been accompanied by the suggestion of any feasible alternative.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, M. Mendès-France has suggested no alternative. M. Mendès-France did indicate on June 30, that in his view it would be useful to have a meeting of the European Defence Community countries as soon as the French Government have made clear their position in the light of the studies which they are at present undertaking.
LORD VANSITTART: May I ask the noble Marquess whether it could be conveyed to the French Government that any alternative which jettisons the safeguards of the European Defence Community would be viewed with considerable apprehension by many of us here?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am sure the noble Lord will remember that more recently President Eisenhower and

459
my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, after their recent meeting in Washington, stated their conviction that further delay in the entry into force of the European Defence Community and the Bonn Treaties would impair the position of the Atlantic Nations.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would the noble Marquess take note of the fact that there is in this country a growing feeling of resentment about the way in which France has been treated? France has been our friend and Ally for over fifty years, and is the pioneer of liberty in Europe; and she is not getting a fair deal in these international interchanges.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I will take note of the fact that that is the noble Viscount's opinion.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Well, that will do.

LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, this Bill, which deals with long leases in Scotland, fulfils the unanimous recommendations of a Committee which sat under the Chairmanship of Lord Guthrie and reported in 1952. The provisions of the Bill are complex but the main purpose is simple. It is to confer upon the occupying lessees the right, under certain conditions which are named in the Bill, to convert their leases into feus. The feu is the traditional form of land tenure in Scotland. I think your Lordships are aware that the feuar receives a grant of land in perpetuity for which he pays an annual sum in feu duty. Traditionally, the bulk of the land has been held under this system of land tenure, but between 1770 and 1860, and less frequently between 1860 and 1900, there grew up the practice in certain areas of granting long leases. The practice sprang not from the fact that the landlords in Scotland wanted to adopt this system, but from the fact that a certain number of them were prohibited by titles from granting feus. This prohibition operated during years of considerable industrial expansion and therefore a certain
460
number of Scottish landlords adopted the device of the long lease in order to develop their land. The leases were, in some cases, for 99 years, and in some cases for as much as 999 years.
Under the law of Scotland, buildings erected by the lessee are the property of the landlord, and when the lease expires the land and buildings therefore revert to the landlord without any obligation upon him to pay compensation. I think it is only fair to say at once that most Scottish landlords have not insisted on this strict legal interpretation of their legal rights, and they have generally been willing, if they could, to convert their long leases into feus, for an increased annual payment or a capital sum, or a combination of both. There would not, I think, have been any social problem here had it not been for the fact that the expiration of these 99-year leases coincided after the war with a period of high property values and housing scarcity, and there was a fear (how real it was I do not know) that persons might be dispossessed of their homes—not only that, but that they might be charged by the landlord exorbitant prices on conversion into a feu.
It was in the light of these considerations that the Guthrie Committee was set up, and as a result of their deliberations this Bill comes forward. Its main provision is that lessees who have occupied their homes under leases granted before 1914 and for not less than fifty years should have a right, under certain conditions, which are set out in the Bill, to convert their long leases into feus. In fact, what the Guthrie Committee recommended, and what this Bill does, is to give statutory recognition to what has been the existing practice of most Scottish landlords for a very long time.
The main provisions of the Bill are as follows. In Part I and in Clause 1 the Bill deals with the grant of feu rights by the landlord. The long lease must have been granted before August 10,1914, and for not less than fifty years. Noble Lords may ask why the date August 10, 1914, was chosen. That was the date on which the last major restrictions on feuing were removed, and so any lease which was entered into after that date must have been entered into by the free will of the tenant and not because there was some legal obstacle which would

461
prevent a landlord from giving a feu. The second condition under Clause 1 which must be fulfilled if the tenant is to have the right to convert is that the property must be occupied by the tenant, the lessee, as a private dwelling-house forming his usual residence. This was recommended by the Guthrie Committee because the only evidence of hardship they were able to discover was that it might be difficult for a tenant to find somewhere to live during the period when housing was short and prices were high. The position of the sub-lessee is dealt with; if he has leased his home for a period of at least fifty years, he will have the option to require the principal landlord to grant him a feu right.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 cover certain modifications of the main provision which are thought to be necessary and fair. Under Clause 3, where the lessee has acquired his interest, otherwise than by inheritance, on or after May 10, 1951, he is not entitled automatically to get a conversion. By Clause 4 certain landlords are given the right to refuse the grant of a feu. The landlords whom the Bill names are Government Departments, local authorities and new town corporations; but your Lordships will note that there is a safeguard and that they can refuse a grant of a feu only if the appropriate Minister gives a certificate to the effect that it is in the public interest. Clause 5 provides that if, between January 1, 1939, and May 9, 1951, a landlord has acquired an interest in property for the purpose of residing there or for developing it, he may apply to the sheriff that the occupying lessee shall not be entitled to a feu right. These are modifications which it is thought should be included and which to that extent modify the main purpose of the Bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 deal with the finance of the scheme. The leases are divided into two classes: those with an unexpired period of 100 years, or less, still to run and those which have 100 years, or more, still to run. In the first category the lessee will pay in two ways: first of all, by a feu duty which will be equal to the present ground rent, and secondly, by the payment of an amount equal to the value of the property at the commencement of the Act deferred at 5 per cent. compound interest for the unexpired portion of the lease or for thirty years, whichever is the less. That is a rather complicated
462
statement, and one rather difficult to understand; but what, in practice, it will mean is that a sum will be asked which will normally not exceed a quarter of the value of the house. Following the unanimous recommendation of the Guthrie Committee, the property will be valued on the basis that the lease had expired at the commencement of the Act and that the property was then being sold with vacant possession.
Clause 9 includes some further provisions to safeguard the position of the sub-lessee. The only other provision under Part I which I need mention is in relation to the five-year period during which the lessee may exercise his option to convert, or the landlord his option to terminate, the long lease. If the lease is due to expire within the five-year period it is clearly necessary that the lessee be given a five-year period in which to exercise his option to convert. It is obviously necessary to extend the period so that each may enjoy the full five years of option, and for this contingency the Bill provides. In Part II of the Bill opportunity has been taken to make some amendments to the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857.
I hope it will be agreed that this measure is one which will be useful and will remove a possible abuse. The remedy which is suggested by the Guthrie Committee is one which, as I have explained to your Lordships, is in keeping with our Scottish tradition; it confirms the practice of Scottish landlords over many generations. It so happened that for a good many years in another place I represented a constituency in one village of which this was thought to be rather a burning question. For many years I was urged to take action upon it, so I am glad that it has fallen to my lot to introduce the Second Reading of this Bill to your Lordships, and I hope it will be received with the unanimity with which the Guthrie Report was submitted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
2.57 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I have frequently congratulated the noble Earl, Lord Home, on the competent and felicitous way in which he has introduced Bills to this House, and I do that again to-day most heartily. I am having a new experience to-day; not only am I

463
commending the noble Earl for the way in which he has introduced this Bill, and for the information he has given your Lordships' House regarding it, but I will note in my diary that I am welcoming a Bill without qualification. I have been unable to find anyone who can advise me in any competent way as to complaints to make about this Bill; so that truly this is a red letter day. I have not had much experience in your Lordships' House, but it is quite a pleasant experience to have some share in the bringing in of a Bill which I am certain will be widely welcomed in Scotland and universally agreed as a good measure. The noble Earl has made reference to the fact that he represented in another place a constituency which is affected by what is being done in this Bill. It is the fact that in the districts of Stonehouse and Larkhall, in Lanarkshire, what is done by this Bill has been strongly urged upon Governments for a very long time; and the Guthrie Report, a Report by an all-Party Committee, was unanimous in the recommendations it made for putting right this particular grievance and for removing apprehension on the part of dwellers in Stone-house and Larkhall. So it is with real appreciation that I concur in the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that it will have a speedy passage into law, and that it will be found in operation that it has no flaws in it at all but will be entirely for the benefit of those who are affected by it. And if I may say so to those who have not the privilege of being Scottish Members here in this House, I am certain that if they could manage, from the South of the Border, to go and do likewise, they would be doing themselves a good turn.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reception of the Bill. I thought it might be a red letter day for him, and we put it first on the Order Paper, so that when we returned to normal on the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill he would not get such a shock. I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor wishes that he had at his disposal the tradition which we have behind us in respect of this particular subject.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Exchequer contributions toward expenses of local authorities under ss. 2 and 3 of Act or under s. 17 of principal Act
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the contributions payable by the Secretary of State in respect of any house shall be as follows, that is to say,—
(a) in the case of a house purchased by the local authority an annual payment equal to one-half of the annual loan charges referable to the cost of the purchase, payable for each financial year during the whole or part of which the house or any part of the house is used for housing purposes with the approval of the Secretary of State; and
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "one-half" and insert "three-fifths." The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greenhill regrets that he is unable to be here to-day, and I am taking the responsibility of moving the Amendments which appear in our joint names. The first one embodies a simple proposition. It is that in respect of certain payments that are to be made, a responsibility, financially, that is to be accepted by the Government, it is desired that the expenses should not be met simply on a fifty-fifty basis but that the Government should take, as they usually do, a greater amount of responsibility. That is the reason for this Amendment. I think it would help to commend the Bill to those who have to bear the responsibility of working it (I am thinking more particularly of the local authorities) if they could see that there was a recognition by Her Majesty's Government that the representations which the local authorities have made in respect of the financial provisions had been given some favourable consideration. I am sure the amount involved is not great. I am certain that the psychological effect of giving effect to these two Amendments—they deal with the same point—would be most beneficial. So at this penultimate appearance of the Bill in your Lordships' House, after a new effort has been made, after there has been full opportunity of considering the position, I do appeal to the Government to say that these Amendments may be given effect to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("one-half") and insert ("three-fifths").—(Lord Mathers.)
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should have liked to respond to the reasonableness of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, who has reduced his odds from three to one to six to four in the hope that I will respond. On the face of it, what he asks seems extremely reasonable if one looks at this particular aspect of the housing subsidies in isolation. But this is part of a wider picture, in which we have tried to balance the subsidies given to local authorities between the amount which is contributed by the taxpayer and the amount which is contributed by the ratepayer. So far as the subsidy for the building of new houses is concerned, the Government have been giving a most generous subsidy, while the subsidy for the clearance of slums is more generous still. As I think I said at an earlier stage of this Bill, those are two aspects of housing on which noble Lords opposite, just as much as I am, are anxious to see action. We look forward to seeing this clearing of slums, this building of new houses, and this patching up of houses in the slums.
The first thing we want the local authority to be able to do is to patch, if they can see a chance of doing it, in order to make conditions more comfortable in the slums for the tenants who have to stay there for a few years longer. But we do not want to lay the emphasis on it too strongly. So we think we had better begin by fixing a proportion of fifty-fifty as between the taxpayer and the ratepayer. I must resist this Amendment, but if it is any comfort to the noble Lord he will notice that we have put into Clause 5 (2) a provision which will enable the ratio to be varied without further legislation—that is to say, the Secretary of State can make an order, if, after further experience, he thinks that the ratio should be varied. I am afraid that it will not go far to meet the noble Lord's request, but nevertheless it is something.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5:
Local authorities' contributions
5.—(1) A local authority to whom contributions are payable by the Secretary of State in respect of a house under the last foregoing section shall make for each financial year a contribution of an amount equal to the contributions so payable by the Secretary of State for that year in respect of the house.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (1), after "equal to" to insert "two-thirds of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with precisely the same point as the first one. In the circumstances, having allowed the first Amendment to be negatived, I will do the same with this, as I do not wish to take it upon myself to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("to") insert ("two-thirds of").—(Lord Mathers.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.