Lords Sitting of 15 June 1954

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BEIT TRUST BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed.

ADMIRAL SIR DUDLEY NORTH
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 whether, in view of the fact that the recently published Official History of the War at Sea shows that—in connection with the Dakar expedition of 1940—Admiral Sir Dudley North had no responsibility for permitting the passage of the French cruiser squadron through the Straits of Gibraltar on 11th September, they will state the reasons why Admiral North was relieved of his command following that event and was subsequently placed on the retired list, and why his request for a court-martial or a court of inquiry to investigate his case was refused; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now afford Sir Dudley North an opportunity of publicly clearing his name of an unjust stigma before a tribunal appointed by the Admiralty.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, in view of the wording of the noble Viscount's Question, I should make it clear that Admiral North was not relieved on the grounds that he allowed the French ships to pass through the Straits, nor is there any question of him having been made a scapegoat for Dakar. He was relieved because the
1122
Admiralty had lost confidence in him. There is no doubt whatever that he had forfeited the confidence of the First Lord and of the First Sea Lord of the day. The noble Viscount will also be aware that the Official History reveals that the confidence of Ministers in Admiral North had already been shaken at an earlier date.
Admiral North's request for a court-martial or a board of inquiry was refused because, whatever report might have been made by such a tribunal, this could not then have affected the Admiralty's loss of confidence. That remains true. I must also stress very strongly that it would be contrary to all established practice—a practice which has been especially preserved by Parliament—that the Service Ministers should be unable to relieve senior officers in whom they have lost confidence without setting up an inquiry, either at the time or later.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I desire to thank the noble Marquess for his answer to my question, a great deal of which I will deal with at a later date. May I now ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that it seems astounding—indeed, incredible—that anyone who has read pages 309 to 314 of Volume I of the Official History of the War at Sea, and also the memorandum of the five Admirals of the Fleet which appeared in The Times of June 8, could still hold the view that Admiral North, who was accused of a definite offence, declared guilty without a trial and severely punished, is not as a matter of fair play and justice entitled to a court of inquiry in public? Further, may I ask the noble Marquess this question: Is he aware that the necessity for such an inquiry has become a matter of paramount importance, by reason of the inaccurate and misleading statements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Thomas, in another place on June 2?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, first of all, I would not for one moment accept the last statement of the noble Viscount, which I think is a singularly improper one to make in this House. With regard to the other questions which he has asked, it is perfectly true that certain statements were made and a certain story was told in the Official History of the War at Sea. I am not in the least questioning the account which is given;

1123
but the conclusions which were drawn were the conclusions of the author and must not be regarded as Holy Writ.
In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I think it only fair to the House that I should state exactly what did happen, and what were the grounds for the Admiralty's loss of confidence. The reasons for the Admiralty's loss of confidence were that Admiral North—and here I quote the views of the Admiralty at that time:
"did not, in an emergency, take all prudent precautions without waiting for Admiralty instructions."
On July 12, a signal had been sent to him, reserving the right to take action in regard to French warships proceeding to enemy-controlled ports. At eight minutes after midnight on September 11, 1940, Admiral North received a signal from the naval attaché at Madrid stating that French cruisers had left Toulon and were making for the Straits of Gibraltar. The naval attaché specifically added that the destination of these ships was not known—that is, they might have been making for French Colonial ports or they might have been making for enemy-controlled ports. In spite of this message, Admiral North took no action to get his ships into a state of readiness, although he must have known that time was short and that he might at any moment receive instructions from the Admiralty which involved immediate action. Nor did he inform Admiral Somerville, in command of H Force, of the receipt of the signal till 8 a.m. on the 11th—eight hours after he had received it and when the French ships were already entering the Straits. In fact, Admiral Somerville did receive independent information of the approach of the French ships, at 5.10 a.m. and, very properly, put the "Renown" under one hour's notice for steam. But this was not due to any action taken by Admiral North. These facts were the final cause of the Admiralty's loss of confidence in him. I think the House ought to know that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Marquess whether the statement that he has just made is not only part of what happened, and that the statement which he made was, in fact, answered by
1124
the memorandum of the five Admirals of the Fleet? And, if the noble Marquess says that it is improper for me to say that the statements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty were inaccurate and misleading, may I ask him whether those statements ought not to have been made? I have proof that they were inaccurate and misleading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I meant by saying that it was improper for the noble Viscount to say that, was that he made a statement about a Minister who is in another place and cannot answer for himself in this House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will be aware that I am the person who at that time was the Minister at the head of the Admiralty. The decisions taken then were the decisions of the Board of Admiralty for whom, in a Parliamentary sense, I was then responsible. I fully agree with the answer which the noble Marquess has given. The Admiralty came at that time to a final conclusion on their lack of confidence in the officer in that particular appointment. There should not be a new precedent established regarding a change of officer in those circumstances; and if an inquiry of this sort were now to be granted I do not know how many more requests of a similar kind the Government might receive.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may I make just one observation, in respect of what the noble Marquess said at the end of his reply in animadverting on the remarks of my noble friend Lord Elibank: that it was improper for anyone in this House to comment upon, or criticise, a statement made by a Minister in the other House, since he is not here to reply for himself? That, I venture to submit, is a very proper rule, so far as it applies to non-Ministers, but it is always in order in this House to treat any official statement in the other House as a proper subject for discussion or debate; and such a statement may, indeed, be quoted textually in this House. That does not apply to observations made by private Members in another place, and since the doctrine of ministerial responsibility requires that any Minister in this House is responsible for

1125
what is said officially by a colleague in the other House, I do not think the noble Viscount behind me should have been subjected to that rebuke.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Anything that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, says will, of course, be received with the greatest respect by us here, but I would submit respectfully that for a noble Lord in this House to say that a statement of a Minister was inaccurate and misleading, in a supplementary question, when the whole subject could not be debated, is not a very ordinary procedure. Of course it is true that a subject can be discussed in one House or another, and quotations, or replies to what is said in one Chamber, can be repeated in another; but a personal criticism like that, involving a Minister, was, I should have thought, very unusual.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That, of course, is a question of taste and propriety; but if the noble Marquess says that those observations are not to be made because the Minister is not in this House to defend himself, with that I must disagree.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall be very happy to accept the noble Viscount's emendation with regard to taste and propriety.
LORD AILWYN: Are Her Majesty's Government aware that there is a very considerable disquiet existing in the public mind at this moment? Do they not consider that this is an unhappy and unhealthy state of affairs? Is it wise to depart from that cardinal principle, that justice not only must be done but must be seen to be done. Would they not agree, therefore, that the best and, indeed, the only way of allaying anxiety, and of dispelling this disquiet, is to hold the inquiry which has been urged upon them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would say that this decision was reached by the Admiralty with full knowledge of the facts at the time. At the present time, nearly all the chief actors in this event are unhappily dead. Admiral Sir Dudley Pound is dead; Admiral Phillips is dead, and others. Is it really to be supposed that an inquiry now could conceivably produce results which were not attainable at that time? Moreover, in any case, I believe that in this particular instance an inquiry would not have been
1126
desirable—for this reason. The facts are not in doubt. I have stated them. I have given them to the House. I am not concealing anything.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Only part of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I think not. I gave all the relevant facts. The only thing which I may be said to have omitted, because I thought it was too early—I am quite ready to give it to the House—is the Admiralty's signal of July 4. Is that what the noble Viscount has in mind?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: A statement on September 11, from midnight onwards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:From midnight on September 11? But that was after the event, after the facts which I gave to the House. Those were; the time of the receipt of the signal from Madrid which I gave; the time when the information was passed on by Admiral North; and the fact that he took no steps to put his own ships at one or two hours' steaming orders. Those facts are not in dispute. I do not think, therefore, that any inquiry which could take place now could add anything to what is known. There may be differences of opinion, which will persist, as to the propriety of the action taken, but that will not be because of unknown facts. The facts have been given fully. Therefore I do not believe—and I know this to be the view of Her Majesty's Government—that any further purpose would be served by additional inquiries.
LORD WINSTER: I do not wish to associate myself with any animadversions upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, if I may say so, this is far too complicated a matter to be satisfactorily dealt with by question and answer. I think it must be dealt with at greater length and at another time.
LORD SALTOUN: Order, order!
LORD WINSTER: May I point out that the noble Marquess, in his statement, omitted to mention three very important points? The first is that Force H, Admiral Somerville's force, was a squadron operated independently by the Admiralty. The second is that the Admiralty had this information for a period of at least fourteen hours before they issued any instructions at all although they had been—
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Is the noble Lord in order in making a speech on a Starred Question? I have been twenty years in the House, and I have never known it done before.
LORD WINSTER: I think I am making a very much shorter remark than those which have already been made. I have only one further point to make. The Admiralty had been in possession of this information for fourteen hours without issuing any instructions, and, as a matter of fact, Force H was ready to go to sea at 7.15, whereas the French cruisers did not pass through the Straits until 8.45.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not complain that the noble Lord should have asked this question. Force H, it is quite true, had semi-independent status, but not entirely independent status—Admiral North was the senior officer in the area. Moreover, it is on record that when Admiral Somerville wished, after the passage of the ships, to put Force H back to two hours' notice, he reported to Admiral North, and Admiral North approved—thereby indicating that he certainly felt that he had some responsibility. The point that the Admiralty had information and did not act on it seems to me completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. The suggestion is that there was no responsibility on Admiral North. That is not so. There was a direct responsibility on Admiral North, which was to get his ships ready in case any signal was received from the Admiralty. Supposing the Admiralty had sent a signal ordering immediate action, Admiral North's forces would not have been prepared for it, because he had given no instructions. That was a main reason why the Admiralty had lost confidence in him. I think there was another point mentioned by Lord Winster.
LORD WINSTER: Force H was in a position to go to sea at 7.15 whereas the French squadron did not pass through the Straits till 8.45.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Force H was in a position to go to sea at 7.15, because, independently, Admiral Somerville received a "sighting" message at 5.10. He received no information of the naval attaché's message from Admiral North until 8 o'clock.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not agree. Is it now suggested that Admiral North ought to have gone into action against the French cruiser squadron?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said or suggested such a thing. I said—and this is the view of the Admiralty which I am giving—that Admiral North ought to have been ready to take action on any signal he received from the Admiralty after he had received the message from the naval attaché. In fact he did not take any step to put his ships in a proper condition to take action.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask how in this House we can keep order and prevent speeches from being made in Question Time if we do not get some assistance from our own Front Bench? I have listened with great care to Lord Winster, but in spite of the noble Marquess's tact I could not discern any interrogative at all in what Lord Winster said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I deferred to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, because I felt that this was a rather special occasion, and on such occasions we in this House are always ready to allow as much latitude as possible.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Marquess whether his attention has been drawn to a leading article in The Times of June 3, 1954, headed "Justice Deferred"? The article says:
"Unless he—"
that is Admiral North—
"is given an inquiry, the Admiralty—and the Government which control it—will be widely held guilty of one of those exhibitions of official obstinacy which are never in the public interest and which never, in the long run of history, succeed in keeping dark the truth."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have the highest respect for The Times newspaper; but I think that Governments must come to their own decisions.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I give the noble Marquess notice that at a very early date I shall revive this subject and see that the whole of the facts of the case are put on record in Hansard.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I put a question, arising out of what has been said? I am trying to be as interrogative as I can. I happened to be in Gibraltar just after this

1129
had occurred. The position to my mind was perfectly clear then, that Admiral Somerville considered himself as under the direct orders of the Admiralty and did not acknowledge that Admiral North was responsible for his squadron in any way. It is true, of course, that the senior officer on the spot could make a signal to Admiral Somerville. There was no discord between the two Admirals. The third party who also agreed with what had happened was the Governor, who naturally had close consultation with the Admirals. It was felt there and in the squadron—and I was there at the inquiry and I saw a great number of the captains—that the Admiral had been unjustly treated. The five Admirals of the Fleet who went to the Admiralty the other day did not go with the slightest intention of questioning in any way the Admiralty's authority to change an officer in whom they had lost confidence. What we tried to represent was that there was a feeling in the mind of every one of us that one of our senior officers had not been justly treated. Our object was to obtain an inquiry. We were perfectly impartial as to the result. We wanted an inquiry which would go into the facts and so reassure officers that justice was done to a senior officer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and gallant Earl said he would put his question interrogatively. It seemed to me that he put one sentence of interrogation and then answered his question himself.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Then I will put another. Would it not be fair and just to give an officer a fair trial to see whether he was treated properly or not?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That really is a question which I have tried to the best of my ability to answer. I do not complain in the least of its being asked.
The question of an inquiry was considered very carefully at the time, when there were all the senior officers at the Admiralty who were in full cognisance of the facts; and, with that cognisance of the facts they did not think there was a case—and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, would agree—for an inquiry. I cannot feel that now, when these vital witnesses have unfortunately died, and so there is
1130
no chance of getting their evidence, an inquiry would do anything for Admiral North's reputation one way or another. But let me make this quite clear. There has never at any moment been the faintest suggestion against Admiral North's honour. Everyone knows that he is a gallant and patriotic officer. The question is, knowing what they did and taking the view that they did in the middle of a war, were the Admiralty justified in leaving him in the post which he held. They thought they were not justified, and I do not believe that anyone but they could come to their decision.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is the noble Marquess aware that there was no general feeling at the time of the Archer Shee case that an inquiry was necessary, but when an inquiry was held Major Archer Shee's son was acquitted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think that the noble Viscount can regard that as an exact analogy—it is not an analogy at all.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have been trying to observe the rules of order on Starred Questions, although I am rather centrally positioned in this matter. Is the noble Marquess aware that probably the greatest amount of loss of confidence occurred prior to this particular incident, and that those who still live and who shared the responsibility are certainly not afraid of any challenge to the decision then made? But they are very jealous, in the interests of our country, if ever—which God forbid!—it should be at war again, of creating a precedent in this case which would be exceedingly dangerous.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.58 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have a further statement to make on the Business of the House, and I should perhaps make it before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor starts on the Business of the day. I have two announcements to make. First, I have to say that, owing to the sudden death of his father-in-law, Lord Camrose, of which I am sure all your Lordships will have heard with deep regret, Lord Birkenhead has asked the noble Viscount,

1131
Lord Hall, whether, without undue inconvenience to his friends and to the House generally, he could postpone his Motion on the Royal Navy which was down for discussion to-morrow and which Lord Birkenhead was to answer. I understand that the noble Viscount, with, if I may say so, characteristic generosity, has expressed his willingness to postpone the debate. If your Lordships agree, therefore, we shall have no more than a formal sitting to-morrow. My second announcement is that my noble friend Lord Carrington proposes, with the leave of the House, to interrupt Business at some convenient time, round about four o'clock, in order to repeat here a statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is to make in another place this afternoon upon Crichel Down.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to trustee savings banks; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave also to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to post office savings banks: and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL
3.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, I now ask your Lordships to accompany me into the calmer and less controversial waters of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, of which we now seek a Third Reading. This is the fifth day upon which the House has devoted its attention to this Bill, a Bill which the Government rightly regard as of major consequence. In the course of these five days we have seen upon the Order Paper something, like seventy Amendments. This Bill has received most careful and expert scrutiny from all quarters of the House. It is now an even better Bill than it was when it first came before your Lordships some weeks ago. Of the seventy Amendments, quite a few have found their way into the final printing of the Bill—although I expect not so many as would have pleased the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, opposite. But if we have not been able to improve the Bill in the way he would have wished, at least I can assure him that the skilful, searching and good-tempered examination which he himself directed to the Bill has done nothing except improve the already high political standing which he holds in your Lordships' House.
Luckily, therefore, there is little left for me to say upon the Bill. There is little of principle which still divides us. Unlike the major nationalisation measures, this Bill is not a measure of which the principles are at fundamental issue. Surely there can be no division of purpose on the Bill—only, perhaps, of method. After all, the purpose behind this Bill is something which I should have thought no man of good will could readily contradict. In one sentence, the object of the Bill is to put more good roofs over more people's heads. I would emphasise that this Bill is not to be taken as an isolated measure; it is not to be regarded by itself. It is part and parcel of the housing policy of Her Majesty's Government; it is part and parcel of the Government's vigorous and, if I may say so, successful drive to put more good roofs over more people's heads. Therefore, surely we are not divided on its

1133
purposes. Surely too we are not divided upon the Government's insistence upon the urgency of this matter.
We have been questioned once or twice upon the matter of redundancy. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his noble friends have asked us more than once, "Why have you put this in the Bill? It is redundant." We maintain the need for insistence upon the urgency of this measure. Surely too we need not quarrel any longer upon the definition of fitness, which caused the House to differ a little, both in Committee and on Report. I think this clause is the first time any attempt has been made to define fitness or unfitness for habitation of a house. The only quarrel I have with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his friends, is that they, in their definition, were building for Utopia, and we are building for something a little more practicable. We think it better to have a standard which can reasonably be attained, rather than their standard, which, ideal and splendid though it may be, is not really capable of practical attainment. Surely we are no longer going to quarrel over the need for provision for modernisation and conversion. We have sought to make the grants more effective. We have reached agreement with noble Lords opposite on the question of minimum life. It is this portion of the Bill that we consider so important, because it seeks to provide for the prohibition of new slums. We seek elsewhere in the Bill the quicker pulling down of existing slums. We also seek to prevent the creation of new slums. That is a most important feature of the Bill. So much for the first Part of the Bill, which, now that we have threshed it out, I think has won more or less the general approval of the House.
Part II has been more controversial, but upon one thing at least we are agreed. We are agreed, surely, that the increased cost of repairs to-day, of which we are all too well aware, has made controlled rents inadequate to keep the nation's stock of houses in good repair. In Part II of the Bill we make a sincere and, I think, courageous attempt to deal with this admittedly difficult problem. When he introduced the Bill, in a masterly speech upon Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed the gentle hope that we should hear not too much talk about a "landlords' ramp" or "mouldy turnips." We
1134
have luckily had no such excursions into the finer aspects of the English language. On the contrary, there has been no accusation—certainly not from this side, nor from the opposite side of the House—that landlords are attempting, or will be enabled, to "make a good thing" out at this Bill. If I may say so, your Lordships have been more "turnip-minded" than "ramp-minded," for many noble Lords, especially those sitting behind me—the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, and those who think like him—have made the point more than once that the incentive is not really such as to encourage the landlord to get on with his job. With respect, we do not agree with that point of view. The Government feel that the incentive here is just enough. They feel that the balance has been neatly struck, to such a degree that the landlord will be encouraged to carry out his responsibilities as a good landlord. Conversely, the tenant's rights have been fully protected under the Bill. Indeed, more protection has been inserted in the Bill in Committee in your Lordships' House.
I must add that it is not intended that houses that demand an enormous amount of money spent upon them should be benefited under this Bill. In that respect, I have considerable sympathy with the views put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, upon the low-rented agricultural cottage. Here I must advance the same argument that I advanced a moment or two ago on Lord Silkin's Utopian standards. Of course, there will be houses which this Bill will not benefit—we fully appreciate that. But we think it better to tackle the position in a practical way, rather than try to produce a plan which will be effective for every house and every condition which can possibly be envisaged. That being so, what are the alternatives that face us, if we desire to solve this problem of increasing decay to our houses?
There are three courses open to us, I submit. We can do nothing; we can sit back and let our slums grow and let existing slums go down into worse decay. Secondly, we can do what the Government have sought to do in this Bill, to do that which I suggest to your Lordships as a practical and sensible solution to this difficult problem. The third solution is one with which we have seen a certain amount of political flirtation,

1135
though not in your Lordships' House. We have seen members of the Party opposite suggest that the correct solution to the whole of this problem is to hand over all houses to municipal ownership. I had hoped to draw the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his friends to give us their views on that question, but fortunately for them, and unfortunately for me, they proved to be too wise politically and too sensible practically to give their views on this extremely tendentious and, I should have thought, extravagant and impracticable scheme. So we are forced back on the only thing possible, the scheme put forward in the Bill of which I am now seeking a Third Reading.
There are only two things left. The first is to make quite certain that everybody concerned—landlords, tenants, local authorities and others—is fully aware of the principles contained in this admittedly complicated Bill. We are, therefore, in response to requests made here and elsewhere, seeing that when the Bill, as we hope, passes into law every effort will be made to explain its provisions to those by whom it will be carried into effect. The last thing needed is the good will of those who genuinely seek to put more houses and more good roofs over more people's heads. In the five days' debates in this House we have been singularly free from political or Party prejudice. The Bill has been threshed out on its merits, and the Government are grateful to noble Lords opposite, and to noble Lords in all parts of the House who have participated in the debates, for the manner in which they have devoted their attention, their skill, their knowledge and their experience to this complex matter. We only hope now that the sensible and unbiased approach which was directed to this Bill in this House may be carried beyond the walls of this House, where perhaps a certain amount of unscrupulous Party political capital may be made out of this Bill—and, indeed, is being made out of this Bill. That, I feel, is not the way in which this Bill should be carried into law, and from law into practice. After all, it seems to me, and has seemed to me throughout the length and breadth of the discussions on this Bill, that roofs and houses are a great deal more important
1136
than votes. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not intended to deal at any length with the merits of this Bill to which we are about to give a Third Reading, but the noble Lord who has just spoken has made every possible attempt to draw me, both by flattery and by challenge, and I feel that to a limited extent I must succumb. I made my speech on Second Reading, and I then pointed out what I thought were the defects of this Bill. I still think that those defects remain. In spite of the charming way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has explained what happened during those five laborious days, this Bill is, in essence, exactly what it was when it came here.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who was in charge of the enemy on his left, was most courteous, friendly and clear in his explanations; and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who dealt with the enemy behind him, was equally friendly and helpful; and, of course, the discussions on this Bill were conducted in a spirit of good temper throughout. But the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who is going to follow me, will speak for the enemy behind the Government, and he may indicate what satisfaction they have derived from the long discussions we have had on this Bill. Speaking from memory, I think that the noble Viscount achieved one minor victory: I believe that now that it is proposed to allow increased rents on account of increasing rates the procedure is going to be a little simpler than it has been in the past. That is a great feather in the noble Viscount's cap, and he can flourish it in those quarters in which he moves as something which he has achieved. But I think that is all.
So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we objected to the reduction from thirty years to ten years of the period for which a house required to have an expected life to justify public money being spent on it, and we have been met by an increase of five years. We have had one word added to the Bill—namely, the word "repair," which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack explained could not matter less.

1137
Other than that, we have had one minor concession. A large number of Government Amendments have been introduced. I make no complaint about that. I have no doubt that those Amendments have improved the Bill, and that when the noble Lord spoke of the great improvement to this Bill he had those Government Amendments in mind—he could not have had in mind the Amendments accepted or introduced as a result of argument in this House. The Amendments which have been made are the sort which every Government introduce in this House when they have not had the opportunity of introducing them in another place; they are the results of undertakings given in another place, of second thoughts, and of the draftsman's polishing up. And I am sure that if the Bill remained in this House for another twelve months it would still be possible to introduced a few further Government Amendments to polish up the Bill in various ways. But I repeat that, in essence, this Bill is still as it was when it came here, and the objections which I and my noble friends raised to it on Second Reading remain.
In deference to the noble Lord who introduced this Motion, I will refer to only two points in what he said. The first is on the question of standards. I give the Government credit—and I gave them credit—for having made an attempt to define "good repair" in this Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancraft, that this is the first time that anybody has attempted this task. But the definition I sought to insert was by no means idealistic; it was based on the Report of a hard-headed body of people, appointed by a former Minister of Health, under the chairmanship of a person who is not a member of my political persuasion, and including members who are not of my political persuasion, who unanimously arrived at a certain definition. If I am idealistic in asking that Her Majesty's Government should accept that definition of "good repair," then we are all idealists—indeed, I hope that we are—and I make no apology for that at all.
The other matter dealt with by the noble Lord was the question of the protection of the tenant. I still feel that the tenant is inadequately protected against improper demands for increase of rent. I am not for a moment suggesting that
1138
increases of rent are not justified; that is not and never has been part of my case. Noble Lords will remember the debate that we had about eighteen months ago, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I expressed my views then, and I adhere to them: that if we can attach an increase of rent to repair, that is the right thing to do. Houses all over the country are getting into a bad state of repair, and I accept the fact that in many cases that is due to the inadequate return that landlords are getting on their property.
I expressed the view in that debate, and I adhere to it, that an increase of rent is justified to enable a landlord to carry out necessary repairs. This Bill, however, does not achieve that. It rewards landlords who have already expended a certain amount of money, and whose property is in a good slate of repair. But I agree with noble Lords opposite who say that the inducements, the incentives, in this Bill are quite inadequate to induce landlords of properties that are in a bad state of repair to put them in a good state of repair. While the motives of Her Majesty's Government may be quite sincere—and I have never challenged people's motives; I think it is far too difficult a proposition to enter into people's minds, hearts and souls and find out what their motives are, and I am prepared to accept that the motives of everybody are excellent until the opposite is proved—nevertheless, I have maintained and still maintain that this Bill will not achieve what noble Lords opposite desire to achieve. It just will not work. If the object is—and I accept it—to provide a good roof over the heads of as many families as possible in this country, then I say that this Bill will not achieve it.
The noble Lord asks: what are the possible alternatives? He says that we can sit back and do nothing. Nobody suggests that. There is this Bill which, in my opinion, does virtually nothing, or very little. I submit that that is not a real alternative. Then there is the alternative to which the noble Lord referred and which he rather travestied—the alternative put forward by my political friends. I submitted on the occasion of the Second Reading, and I submit again, that, whether we wish it or not, events are moving in the direction of public ownership of the type of property which

1139
is under consideration in this Bill. It is an inevitable process. Just as to-day it is recognised that private enterprise cannot economically provide new housing for the general public at rents which they can afford to pay, so I submit that noble Lords opposite sooner or later will have to come to the inevitable conclusion that, by and large, private owners cannot carry out necessary repairs to their properties and let them at rents which people can afford to pay.
Consequently, we shall be driven sooner or later—gradually, if you like—to a process of public ownership of this type of property, and my political friends have all taken the view that this has got to be a very gradual process. And so have noble Lords opposite, because what does this Bill do? Does not this Bill provide for an increasing degree of public ownership of this type of property? It facilitates the acquisition by local authorities of this type of house; it facilitates their acquiring these houses, putting them into repair and retaining them in their ownership. Why does the noble Lord, who has been at such pains to demonstrate how much in agreement we are, want to maximise the difference on this particular issue? I would prophesy that in twenty years' time it is a thing which will be accepted universally as the only way of dealing with the housing problem. However, here we are, and there is the noble Lord. As I said, we have spent five laborious days on this Bill. I have spent more than five laborious days on it, because a certain amount of preparation and consideration of Amendments is involved, however bad they may be—and possibly the worse the Amendment the longer time is needed for consideration and preparation. I am wondering what has been the outcome of these five days that have been taken out of my life. I submit it is exactly nothing, or precious little.
One begins to wonder what is the function of this House. Is this House a revising Chamber, or is it merely a Chamber which registers the decision arrived at in another place by a body of people who come to certain decisions and impose those views on their Ministers, who then impose them on noble Lords in this House? Because, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, they were not in a position to accept any
1140
of the Amendments that we put forward. All they could do was to say that they would consider them without commitment, and then go back to their masters—I say that in no offensive term, because I have been in exactly their position myself—and tell them what had been said in this House. In any case their masters are able to find that out for themselves, because presumably they can read and are in a position to see Hansard. They then come back and say that there is nothing, or very little, which can be done.
The question arises—and I submit this quite seriously—what is to be the function of this House? It is conceivable, of course, that all the twenty-four Amendments that we moved from this side of the House were absurd Amendments which were not worthy of serious argument and could not possibly be accepted. That may be so. I would submit that they were put forward in all seriousness. Having given noble Lords opposite credit for sincerity and for the purity of their motives, I hope they will do the same and accept the fact that we put forward these Amendments not in the sense of trying to frustrate the Government in the work they are doing, but because we genuinely believe that they were improvements on the Bill. They were put forward, and admittedly there was a conflict of view. May I say this—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will not be offended if I remind him of it. However small our numbers in this House may be, we do represent as large a proportion of the population of this country as he does. There may be fractional decimal points of difference from week to week according to the Gallup polls, but, by and large, I would say it is true that we represent—and this can be judged by the General Election—a larger number of people in this country than do noble Lords opposite. Therefore, the views that we put forward are, I submit, entitled to a certain amount of respect. Even if noble Lords cannot see their way to agree entirely with what we put forward, is there not room for some kind of compromise?
At the moment, we are the victims of something which is novel in our political life, and that is of Governments coming in and completely undoing the work of their predecessors. There is a bill totting up to-day of work now being done, which it has been hinted will be undone. I want

1141
to say frankly, speaking for myself, that that is a deplorable state of affairs. We believe in evolution, we do not believe in revolution; and the upsetting by one Government of the work of another is legislation by revolution. But how is it to be avoided? I submit that it can be avoided by due regard being paid by the Government in office to the views of the Opposition. That does not mean that they must accept blindly whatever the Opposition choose to put forward—of course not. But it does mean that they have to take into account the views which the Opposition strongly hold and possibly meet those views half-way. In this case, with all the courtesy, with all the good will and good temper with which the stages of this Bill have been conducted in this House, as stages of Bills generally are, I feel that that has not been the case. We have been met with a reasoned case but with a flat refusal on every Amendment, even when there has been a suggestion that the matter should be looked at again without commitment. I must and do assume, in favour of Her Majesty's Government, that they have looked at it again, but I have no definite knowledge of that. Even the normal courtesy of a discussion between the Committee stage and the Report stage, which sometimes takes place and is, I think, a most profitable thing to happen, and which took place almost invariably when we were in office, was not accorded on this occasion.
I felt it my duty to speak frankly about this matter, because it does make one wonder what is to be one's own position. Of course, I can speak only for myself, but is one really justified in devoting so much of one's time and effort for so little result? Other Bills are coming along and one wonders what is the right thing for one to do if that is going to be the attitude in future. There is a pretty full programme in front of us, and if the result is going to be that we are to be told, "We have considered it somewhere, somehow, sometime, but there is nothing we can do," in however charming terms that refusal is couched, it will not encourage the work which this House is designed to do. I am a believer in the need for this House; I believe it has a great part to play. But that part can be played only if the voice of all sides of the House is listened to and treated with
1142
respect and a genuine effort is made on both sides to arrive at a conciliation. Having said that, I am not going to stand in the way of this Bill's receiving a Third Reading. Let it go forward. I have hardly ever known a Bill which has been received less joyfully by its so-called supporters. I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Viscount has to say in its favour.
3.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I always enjoy the friendly exchanges which I have been fortunate enough to have with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. To-day, I am not quite sure whether he is seeking to disarm me by placing a feather in my cap or my helmet, whether with gentle shafts of irony he is trying to pierce my armour, or whether, as a leader of rebels, he is trying to win me over to his side. Whatever may be his purpose I have greatly enjoyed what he has said. I will attempt to answer, if I may, shortly, one or two of the topics to which he has alluded. He will understand that to those of us who have not his wide knowledge of housing, to answer across the Floor of the House, at a moment's notice, without figures in one's possession, a complex point may not be easy. In any event, I shall he short.
The first thing I think the noble Lord said was that we were passing into a phase of public ownership of, if not all anyhow a large part of rent-restricted property. That involves finance. It involves not merely the capital finance but continuing finance. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will follow me and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that at this moment subsidies on council houses are reaching the £100 million pounds a year mark; and that figure, as all noble Lords who understand the subject appreciate to the full, is not a static figure. It is going up slowly, not at the speed of a jet-propelled rocket but, none the less, at a steady climbing rate; and with the best will in the world I am unable to see how the noble Lord could suggest, first, that the vast sums of capital needed could be found and, secondly, how we could control that ever-rising figure of annual expenditure.
The noble Lord referred to a number of Amendments, and in his usual happy and genial way pointed out the lack of success which has attended my own

1143
efforts. I have no quarrel with that (perhaps I am more fortunate than some people) but what is more important is this—and I know that the noble Lord has always been good enough to accept absolutely what I say as being most sincerely meant. I was, and I make no bones about it, in sympathy with many of the Amendments which the noble Lord put forward. On one occasion, he will recollect, I did not attend a Division, but I applied myself to these Amendments—in particular the one about which he has spoken—and I am going to say frankly that the one with which I had most sympathy was that which placed on the landlord the onus of producing a certificate of good repair. I have been anxious, and I am sure the Minister is anxious, lest small people living in property controlled by these limited resources shall be called upon to pay an increase which they are unwilling to dispute and which cannot, in justice, be demanded. The legislation to-day is the same as it was before. A certificate of disrepair has not always proved effective, but let it not be forgotten that, if it is effective, the landlord loses not only the present increase but also the 25 per cent. granted under the Act of 1920. To come back to the noble Lord's point, I simply do not believe (I went into it very carefully and discussed this with the noble Lord) it to be a practical proposition to ask every landlord to produce such a certificate. Had I felt that it was, I should without hesitation have supported the noble Lord's Amendment.
I have already spoken longer than was my intent, but I felt it would be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I were any shorter. Moreover, I wanted him, and, I hope, others of your Lordships, to feel that the Amendments proposed by him and by other noble Lords opposite have received sincerely careful and conscientious consideration, not merely from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but from those of us who sit behind him and who, whether we were wearing feathers in our caps or not, whether we were rebels or not, would not have hesitated to tell him if we were, on reflection, in disagreement with him. This Bill is a first attempt to deal with that to which no agreed solution can be found. Unfortunately, the Bill is complex. It is a disappointment to me, not in regard to the rewards which it offers but in regard
1144
to the fact that it takes us no nearer to the goal of the revision of the existing law and consolidation, a goal towards which most of us who have applied ourselves to the subject have striven. It is true that in some cases the Bill, unavoidably, may still permit hardship and injustice, though of course it levels out many anomalies. But if the hardships and injustices in some cases still exist noble Lords opposite will agree, as they have done so generously, that it is certainly not the intention of the Minister that that should be so. I should like to add this: should this Bill in any way leave open a door through which the landlord may abuse his position, I trust that it will be speedily closed. It may be so, and there may be flaws in the Bill. I would go even further and say that if, as a result of the passing of this Bill, in exceptional cases the landlord is enabled to impose an increase which inflicts hardship, I hope that in such case the landlord will be temperate.
The main purpose of the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said, is to see that the people of this country have houses in which they can live fitly and for which no unduly expensive rent is charged. If it is to achieve that purpose, all those who are involved, and particularly the local authorities, must be ready to share their responsibility for the task. As I see it, a particular burden rests on the local authorities, not only in the first Part of the Bill but also in the second Part, in seeing that houses are kept in good repair. This Bill must be judged solely as a part of a great constructive plan for rehousing our people; it must not be judged in isolation. Judged in the way I have suggested, and judged also as an attempt made, with no small courage, to accomplish something that no other Government have attempted to achieve, I venture to congratulate the Minister upon the Bill.
3.42 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think that very few noble Lords opposite who know me well and are my friends—I do not see many who are not—will ever accuse me of signing too willingly on the line dotted by the Conservative Party or any other Party. It has always been my contention—and noble Lords behind me know that I am always fighting for it—that this House is not a lit de justice for the Conservative Party; we ought to criticise the Conservative Party when

1145
they are in power just as strongly as we do the Socialist Party when they are in power. In that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But I should like to say that when he stood up and said how many people he represented and how many people we represented, the noble Lord was bringing to this House just that topic which I always hoped and wished would be banished for ever to another place. After all, this House had its origin in the heads of families, and when we in this House criticise Bills it is in accordance with tradition that we should criticise them on how they are likely to work, the political battle having been fought out elsewhere.
But how this Bill will work is another matter. The reason why I voted against a number of Amendments put down by noble Lords opposite was largely because it seemed to me—and your Lordships will pardon me if I am mistaken, or possibly I may be prejudiced—that not only were they Socialist Amendments, but they were argued on the political line and not in relation to the question of how the Bill was going to work and how the matter would pan out in practice. When noble Lords opposite argue on the line of how the Bill will work in practice they will always find me very willing to entertain what they say.
I will say only a word on the Bill, and how it will work out in practice. Noble Lords opposite and on this side of the House say that the inducements in this Bill are not sufficient to lead anybody to invest capital. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said that he is always willing to allow extra rent to compensate for repairs. Probably the difference between the noble Lord and myself on this matter would be that when you allow extra rent for repairs you have also to allow for the amortisation of those repairs, because no repairs last for ever and you must put back the money that the repairs cost as well as pay the interest on the money. That has always seemed to me the weakness of allowing an increase of rent to compensate for repairs. I do not think that the inducements given under this Bill are sufficient to lead anybody to invest money on repairs; it merely means that he will lose less than he would otherwise lose. What I think will happen is that, perhaps in a year's time, the Government will be forced to bring in an amending
1146
Bill, increasing the remuneration in return for repairs which people are induced to make. This seems to me to be the weakness of the Bill; but so far as its machinery is concerned I am wholly in support of it.
3.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT PORTMAN: My Lords, unfortunately, through circumstances outside my control, which included my own house, I was unable to be present during the five days occupied with the passage of this Bill. I should like to assure your Lordships, however, that through the Press, I watched the passage of the Bill with the greatest interest. Three points emerged and they have stuck in my memory. First, the Bill provides for local government possession and clearance of slums, which to my mind is a most important matter to-day. With reference to the question as between landlords and tenants of repairs, I can only say that in my own experience of the last few weeks, smaller tenants have been showing eagerness to acquire their own properties. That is my experience as a result of sales put forward by myself in the past three years. I feel strongly that the question of repairs should be gone into under the following headings: first, there is the actual clearance of present slums. That is going to occupy the attention of local authorities long enough, without their acquiring more properties. Secondly, I think the smaller tenants will during the next four or five years become more keen to acquire their own properties, and, with Government backing, through building societies, will acquire money to do their own repairs, the balance being done by the landlords under conditions agreed with the tenants. There, as shortly as I can make it and as time allows, you have a précis of the possible first steps that this Bill will provide.
I wish to deal with one other point—namely, the conversion into multiple habitations of buildings which in the past have been single habitations. It is not so long ago that the association in your Lordships' House known as the Independent Unionist Peers had a meeting with the right honourable gentleman, the Minister in another pace, at which this subject was discussed. In answer to a question put to him he promised to see that Government help will be vouchsafed

1147
through financial institutions, to enable capital to be acquired for the conversion into flats and maisonettes of houses no longer suitable for single habitations. I can assure your Lordships that the lack of facilities to obtain capital is a great factor in restricting the number of such conversions to-day. It is a fact that the Minister was not aware of this impediment.
Therefore, in spite of the numerous observations made that this Bill is only a beginning and cannot be looked at as anything else, I feel that it is a ray of sunshine where dark clouds have been overhanging the horizon. I feel also that, as time goes on, the Government will find themselves in a position to hand out help more liberally to landlords and tenants alike. I feel we must make this Bill work, in the hope of better things in the not far distant future.
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships very long. I think my first observation must be that this Third Reading of the Bill has displayed once more what a wealth of knowledge and experience on this subject matter there is in this House, and I am sure that your Lordships will regret with me that the noble Viscount, Lord Portman, who has just made such a useful contribution, was not able to be here during the other stages of the Bill.
There are one or two specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his speech with which I should like to deal before I come to the somewhat broad generalisations in which he indulged on the standing duties and functions of this House. The noble Lord commented, in particular, on the fact that Her Majesty's Government had not been able to make the concession which he asked for in regard to the definition of "good repair," and he cited in support of his argument the Report of the Committee—I think it was called the Mitchell Committee—from which the definition of "good repair" emanated. But the noble Lord, if he will forgive me for saying so, repeated once more the error which he had made in Committee upon the Bill, for that Report was careful to add in a paragraph that, while the definition of "good repair" was not definitely laid
1148
down, that could be done and they were looking forward to a distant date. This Bill deals not with a distant date but with to-morrow, and accordingly it was impossible to give full effect to the definition which the Mitchell Committee postulated. That was the answer which I made then and venture to make again to the noble Lord to-day.
Another point he made was in regard to protection of tenants against improper demands. I can only repeat to-day what I said both on Second Reading and in Committee, that this is the aspect of the Bill which has caused us most anxiety and to which we have given most consideration. And I say, with all the emphasis that I have, that, having given it that consideration, Her Majesty's Government believe that they are giving a fair deal both to landlord and tenant in this important matter. I do not believe that in this Bill there will be any loophole for unjust demands to be made by landlords upon tenants. I am very sure of this: that if there is a landlord who is so foolish, so wicked and so reckless as to make demands which the Bill does not ntitle him to make, then he may well find himself the subject of criminal proceedings. That is a safeguard which, to my mind, is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also spoke of increased rent as a reward for landlords who have kept their property in good repair. But it is more than that, for the Bill prescribes that the increased rent can be paid only while the building is maintained in good repair; and therefore if at any time it falls into disrepair, and the landlord does not put it back into good repair, the tenant will have the same remedy. The increased rent is not only a reward for keeping the property in past repair, it is an incentive and a condition that the property shall continue to be kept in good repair.
Then the noble Lord referred to the fact, or he made the suggestion, that nothing would come of this Bill. Well, we have challenged him as to what he would do. He said that he would not sit back and do nothing. Well, the noble Lord sat back and did nothing for six and a half years—but, still, I take it from him that he would not indeed sit back and do nothing. But what would he do? The noble Lord answered Lord Mancroft's challenge, and he nailed his flag securely to this mast: he said that

1149
this kind of property (that is to say, property subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts) should gradually be nationalised and, sooner or later, should be the subject of public ownership. That is far too large a question for me to discuss on the Third Reading of a Bill which does not propose nationalisation, but at least we know that the noble Lord, speaking for his Party, claims that the remedy to-day is public ownership of rent-restricted property. Now we know. That is not, of course, the remedy proposed in this Bill. We hope, on the contrary, that this Bill will enable the system of private ownership and private enterprise to be maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, strayed into a much wider field. He began by complaining that this Bill is, in essence, the same now as when it was brought to this House. Well, how should it be otherwise? Details may indeed be changed, but in essence, surely, the Government are entitled, if they can, to see that it leaves this House in essence in the same condition in which it arrives here. But I think the noble Lord did not really mean the essence of the Bill; he meant that Amendments dealing with details had not been accepted. I do not think the noble Lord was quite fair to us. I accepted more than one Amendment, and many of the Amendments which were brought forward by the Government, and in particular what I regard as a most important safeguard for tenants, were introduced because of suggestions made from the other side in another place. In fact the Bill as it will be read a third time contains many important Amendments, and I say frankly improvements, which we owe to the suggestion and to the industry of noble Lords opposite.
When the noble Lord went into the wider field and spoke generally of the functions of this House as a Revising Chamber I felt that was perhaps rather a matter for the Leader of the House to deal with than for me. But for myself I will say this: so far as this Bill is concerned, there was not one of the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put forward which was not most earnestly considered. I should not like him to think that when I said—as I more than once said—that I could not commit myself but that his point would be considered by my right honourable friend, that was the
1150
end of it. On the contrary, we did consider very carefully every Amendment in regard to which I had made that observation, and I know that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say this: if I had to do the same thing again I should come to just the same conclusion. We cannot give Amendments merely for the sake of giving Amendments. We must be satisfied that the Amendments improve the Bill.
This was a Bill which—although the guillotine fell in another place—was subject: to the closest consideration, and I do not think there is an item which has not been carefully examined. It arrived in this House, as we venture to think, in a pretty perfect condition, as Bills go. Of course it would be possible for us to bring Bills to this House in a condition in which we could make concessions—we could do that deliberately. But that is not the policy we have, and accordingly it is not, I think, fair to say that this House does not exercise its proper function as a Revising Chamber because, in regard to this particular Bill, having given the matter all the consideration it deserves, we were unable to accept more Amendments than in fact we did. I say that all the more because he and I know that this is only the first of several Bills in regard to which we have to play leading parts on one side or the other. Having made those observations—and I think there is nothing else specific to which I need refer—I will conclude by thanking noble Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft did, for the assistance which they have given to us in the framing of this Bill.
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must apologise for detaining your Lordships for a few minutes. I hesitated to intervene previously because I thought that a statement was to be made. That was why I did not rise to speak earlier. We on this side of the House are greatly interested in this Bill. I think my noble friend was right when he gave full credit to both sides of the House for their interest in social questions of this kind, and there has been a real attempt to deal with at least part of the problem which the Bill seeks to cover. Nevertheless, when the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack refers to the Mitchell Committee in relation to the definition of "good repair," I think it should be recollected that the Mitchell

1151
Committee Report has been in existence for ten years, and, in considering what should be done now in this Bill, it is not just to turn and say that in this and other matters the Government to which I belonged did not do anything about it for six and a half years. We had a great many other tasks to perform, but we certainly made a considerable contribution to the remedying of social ills which were affecting us in general, and indeed we made no small contribution to housing the people.
I need detain your Lordships only on one other point, concerning the case which my noble friend has put with regard to the consideration of Bills. As the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has said, this is largely a matter for the Leader of the House. As your Lordships know, the noble Marquess has shown, on more than one occasion in the present Session, his anxiety that the size of the Opposition should not be regarded as indicative of the amount of consideration which should be given to the representations they make. If this House is to be a Revising Chamber it is essential that the fullest consideration should be given to such representations. In the case of this Bill, detailed representations have been made by my noble friend on the matter, but we feel very strongly that there has been practically no move at all. We find ourselves in a very different position with regard to such a Bill from that which we were in in the two previous Governments. We were then a very small minority in the House acting on behalf of a Government with a majority. We have always fully recognised the political wisdom of conferring with the Opposition on those occasions, and on every Bill we did, generally speaking, consult between the stages of the measure with the leading members of the Opposition as to the manner in which Amendments could be dealt with, how far the other side could be accommodated and so on. But so far as I know—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would quite agree with what the noble Viscount is now saying. We had most friendly correspondence as to what steps would be taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to his Amendments, and I should have been most
1152
happy to see him at any time if any useful purpose could have been served by my so doing.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is the essence of what I am putting. I agree with my noble friend that there has been a great deal of courtesy shown in the debates, and in the correspondence which has passed between the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble friend. But, of course, if it is a question of consultation only if you can see any benefit coming from it, that is really saying to us, in effect, that there is a Conservative Government in office; that we are supposed to come here, be good boys and put in a good attendance merely to see a rubber stamp put on the work of the other place. That certainly was not the position when we were, as I have said, in a small minority, acting on behalf of the Government, and noble Lords opposite were able to muster a large attendance of critical Peers. All we want is a reasonable understanding as to what should be the course of Bills of this kind in the future. We acknowledge—I think my noble and learned Leader and all my Party are agreed on this—that on occasion there has been such consultation, and not least when the Bill under consideration has been in the hands of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. That is what we should like to see preserved in the future of the House, because if the House is to continue for any great length of time in the history of this country it is certainly not well that the impression should be given to the very large proportion of the population who happen to agree with our point of view that our representations are not being sufficiently considered in relation to legislation.
4.6 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in view of what the noble Viscount has just said, perhaps I might say a word or two, though I think he will know already pretty well what I am going to say. I have never concealed my view that in this House we should, so far as possible, act as what has been called a Council of State—the noble Viscount has called it a Revising Chamber. I believe that we should pool our wisdom and experience to improve legislation;

1153
and so far as lies in my power I shall continue on that basis. I do not think it would be true to say that since this Government have been in office there have been no Amendments accepted. I remember, in connection with a Bill for which I was responsible only a short time ago, that Lord Silkin put forward a very important point. We discussed the matter, and as a result he put down an Amendment which we were all glad to accept and which I think, if I may say so, was a very great improvement to the Bill. It does, of course, happen that on some Bills we do better in that respect than in the case of others. All I can say is that I will bear very much in mind what has been said, both by Lord Silkin and by Lord Alexander of Hillsborough; and I will try to see that, so far as is in any way practicable, we do get concrete results from all the considerations we give to these measures.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE LORED CHANCELLOR: My Lords, certain Amendments have been put down for Third Reading, but I do not know whether Lord Carrington wishes to make a statement now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I both have statements to make. Would it meet the convenience of your Lordships if we should make them now before the House proceeds further with the Bill?
EARL JOWITT: I certainly think it would be convenient that we should have the statements now.

MINISTERS' FORTHCOMING VISIT TO WASHINGTON
4.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I interrupt the Business of the House to make a short statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It is one of some importance and I think it is right that the House should have it. I give verbatim the statement of the Prime Minister:
"Some weeks ago the President of the United States invited the Foreign Secretary and myself to spend a weekend
1154
as his guests in Washington. The invitation was cordially accepted, and it has been arranged for the visit to take place during the week-end beginning June 25."
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I say, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, that we are very glad to hear that statement. We have always felt that a full understanding between ourselves and the United States of America is of the first importance, and I can only hope that the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will succeed in dispelling some misunderstandings and doubts which seem to have been arising in recent weeks. If they do so succeed, I am sure it will be to the good of everyone.

CRICHEL DOWN INQUIRY
4.10 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with your permission, I should like to make a statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in another place on the Crichel Down Inquiry. These are his words:
"Sir Andrew Clark's Report on the Crichel Down Inquiry is published today and is now available in the Vote Office."
—in your Lordships' House, the Printed Paper Office.
"Sir Andrew Clark states in Conclusion 25 of his Report that there was no trace in this case of anything in the nature of bribery, corruption or personal dishonesty. The Inquiry has thus achieved my main purpose, which was to deal with any rumours and suggestions of this kind.
"The Report contains criticisms of the actions and conduct of the Agricultural Land Commission and of a number of individuals. So far as those criticised are persons (and most of them are) for whose conduct I am answerable as a Minister of the Crown, the responsibility rests with me. That responsibility I wholly accept.
"I have naturally given to those who are criticised an opportunity of making to me such observations as they wished

1155
on those parts of the Report which referred to them. Having considered the observations and explanations I have received, I must in fairness say that I have formed a less unfavourable view of many of the actions taken by those concerned than appears in the Report. Mistakes and errors of judgment were made which those concerned regret as much as I do; and steps are being taken, so far as possible, to see that these do not happen again. In view of the nature of the errors themselves and of the public way in which they have been exposed, I am satisfied that no further action by me in relation to them is necessary. I consider that the Agricultural Land Commission are fulfilling a useful function.
"In view of the circumstances of this particular case, and in view of Sir Andrew Clark's statement in his report that Commander Marten was fully justified in pressing for an inquiry, the Government have decided to reimburse Commander Marten for reasonable costs incurred in being represented at the Inquiry.
"I will make a statement, on behalf of the Government, on the general policy relating to the disposal of land purchased compulsorily for public purposes as soon as a debate can be arranged.
"The Government are most grateful to Sir Andrew Clark for his valuable services in conducting the Inquiry, without fee."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should merely like to say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for losing no time in making a full statement about a matter which has aroused a great deal of public interest. I am sure that most of us will wish to reserve our comments until we have had time to consider more carefully the statement and the White Paper which has been published to-day. If we desire a debate in this House—I understand from the noble Lord that there will be a debate in another place —I hope that he will be willing to facilitate a debate at an early opportunity if we try to arrange it through the usual channels.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask this question, by way of supplement? I gather that certain of the people criticised have made their observations to the Minister. When we have the papers published, either as a White Paper or in some other form, shall we be enabled to see the replies which those persons have made to the Minister, because it occurs to me that if we do not, we shall not really be able to judge the Minister's action, whether he is right or wrong, in the line he has taken.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the publication is not a White Paper; it is merely the Report of Sir Andrew Clark on his Inquiry. It is not proposed to publish the observations on his Report of the persons concerned. As the noble and learned Earl knows, there is to be a debate on the Report in another place, so I imagine that all this will come out. However, I will certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord would do so, because he will appreciate that, if there is a debate, the person criticised may be the Minister; and if anybody is going to criticise the Minister for taking this, that or the other line, it is only right that he should know what representations were made to the Minister which caused him to draw rather less harsh conclusions than those which have appeared in the Report.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I supplement what my noble and learned friend has said? During the war there was a Select Committee on National Estimates which published a large number of Reports about the activities of various Government Departments. Invariably the heads of Departments made observations on the recommendations and on the Reports, and these were made public, so that the public had not only the Report but the Minister's observations on the Report. The noble Lord may regard that as a precedent which might be followed in this case.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to the noble Lord's remarks.

HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL
4.18 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Clause 28 [Passing on of repairs increase to sub-tenant]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first Amendment in my name on the Order Paper is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 37, leave out ("tenant") and insert ("sub-tenant").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Date for permitted increases for increases in rates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an Amendment to Clause 44 which was introduced to meet suggestions made by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and its effect is little more than drafting. There is no reason why the existing law should be altered, and the purpose of the Amendment is to restore the position of the landlord in respect of a contractual tenancy: it gives him the right to make certain additions to the rent in respect of rates, in like manner as if it were a statutory tenancy. I do not think the matter needs any further explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) Where under any tenancy the amount of any such permitted increase for rates as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is recoverable without a notice to terminate the tenancy being necessary in order to make the increase effective, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply as they apply where at the time when the notice of increase is served the tenant is a statutory tenant, but with the substitution of references to the tenancy for references to the statutory tenancy.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I confess that I do not understand this Amendment and I should be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord if he could explain it a little more. It appears to relate to a tenancy in which lawfully, under the terms of contract, the landlord is enabled to pass on an increase in local rates to the tenant. If that is, in fact, the position, why is it necessary to have any legislation at all dealing with the matter? The Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts are based upon the fundamental principle that
1158
the increase of rent which they permit can be brought into effect only if the tenancy is determined and instead of being a contractual tenancy it becomes what is called a statutory tenancy. If that is so, it is very difficult for me, at any rate, to understand what is the effect of this new subsection. It says that the references in the two preceding subsections to a statutory tenancy are to be regarded simply as references to a tenancy. I do not know whether that is intended to mean, also, that the references to a "statutory tenant" are to be read as if they were references to a "tenant"—the Amendment does not say so. It appears to draw a distinction between the two forms of reference. If that is so, I find it difficult to construe Clause 44 (1) and (2), making that alteration. For example, I do not understand how subsection (2) can be read at all in this connection. Paragraph (a) of that subsection says:
"where at the time of service of the notice of increase the tenant is a statutory tenant.…"
Those words, apparently, remain, and the only alteration is at the end of the paragraph where, instead of "statutory tenancy," you read "tenancy." If that is the interpretation of this Amendment, then it seems to involve a contradiction in terms. I feel that there will be a great deal of difficulty in understanding what the effect of this subsection is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to try again. I am bound to say that if the noble Lord did not entirely follow me, I had some difficulty in entirely following him. The point is that Clause 44, which was introduced to meet the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, in its terms requires the landlord of a contractual tenant, if he wishes to increase the rent on account of increased rates, to serve a notice which will have the effect of bringing the contractual tenancy to an end at the earliest date on which it could be determined by notice to quit. That is something that is quite unnecessary, for there are many contractual tenancies which themselves include provision for enabling the landlord to increase the rent on account of increased rates at any time. Where there is such a provision in a contractual tenancy, the landlord is entitled to his increased rent by giving a week's notice under Section 2 (3) of the Act of 1920, with which the noble Lord is no

1159
doubt familiar. But that does not determine the contractual tenancy
In drafting Clause 44 of the Bill, the landlord in that position was inadvertently overlooked, and accordingly it is necessary to put in a subsection to take him out again. There is no reason why the existing law in regard to him should be altered, and the purpose of this Amendment is to restore the existing law as respects him, for otherwise he would be excluded by the earlier subsections. It is true—I do not know whether the noble Lord has this in mind—that the Amendment does a little more than restore the existing law, inasmuch as it puts the contractual tenancy and the type of tenancy in question into the same position as that of the statutory tenant; that means that not only can the rent be increased on account of increased rates on the very next rent day, but a maximum of six weeks' arrears can also be claimed. As the noble Lord has probably observed, I have been reading that out, which is something I do not often do. I have read it because it states in the clearest way, by those who are familiar with and expert in these branches of the law, what is the intention and effect of this subsection. I can only hope that the noble Lord now understands it, because if he does not I know of no other words which can bring it more clearly to his mind.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Proof of Past Repairs by Landlord
8. For the purposes of this Schedule work shall be disregarded—
(b) if or in so far as the cost thereof has been or will be reimbursed under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1943.
4.25 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, in Paragraph 8, to omit sub-paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, and in doing so I would ask your Lordships' indulgence for putting forward this Amendment at so late a stage. My explanation is that in the concluding moments of the Report stage of the Bill a certain discussion took place which
1160
prompted me to put forward this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is simply to entitle the landlord, who is at present disentitled, to include in proving past repairs work the cost of which has been met by payments made under the War Damage Act, 1943. A landlord is already permitted to include in proof of past repairs work the cost of which has been defrayed or met by an insurance company with whom he may have insured. I find it difficult to understand how these two circumstances can be differentiated. The only essential difference that I can see between war damage contributions and ordinary insurance premiums is the fact that whereas the first were compulsory, the latter are not. In explaining, on the Report stage, why it had been thought necessary to include paragraph 8 (b) of the Second Schedule, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack used these words.—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 187 (No. 78), col. 1099):
"Although the landlord may have paid some premium, the cost was substantially paid by the Exchequer."
I do not know if I have misunderstood the words "some premium," but they seem to me to indicate a degree of diminution, and to suggest that the premium was not a very large one. It is difficult, if not impossible, to make an accurate comparison between war damage contributions and ordinary fire insurance premiums, inasmuch as the former were calculated on the rateable value of property, and the latter are, of course, calculated on the capital or replacement value.
If I may take as an example certain properties with which I am familiar, which are, I think, typical, at any rate of urban properties, I would say this. I have ascertained that, whereas the annual fire insurance premiums during the war years were of the order of £1,700, war damage contributions were about £11,000, which is nearly six times as much, an amount which I venture to say is "some premium" more in the Transatlantic sense of the word "some" than that in which I understood the noble and learned Lord to use it. As to the noble and learned Lord's further words, it is true that the cost of war damage claims exceeded war damage contributions to a considerable extent, and that the difference between these two amounts was made good by the Exchequer; but I

1161
find it difficult to understand why this fact should have any special significance in this context. Indeed, in the sentence immediately preceding that to which I have referred in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, he said this:
"It is wholly irrelevant to that main aspect of the Bill whether the landlord or somebody else has paid for the repairs."
Earlier, speaking of the Amendment with which he was then dealing, he had said:
"It loses sight of the fundamental point that it is the condition of good repair which is the prerequisite of the claim for increased rent. That is the thing that really matters. …"
The noble and learned Lord also said that it was perhaps illogical that war damage payments should be excluded
I ask him now to go a little further. I say that the exclusion of war damage payments is not only illogical, but inconsistent and inexpedient. I use the word "inexpedient" deliberately, because what we are here concerned with, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, is not so much landlords and tenants as houses. The increase of rent which is permitted to the landlord is not put forward as some bonus or prize for having passed certain tests it is put forward by the scheme of the Bill, as I understand it, rather to give him a certain increased income which will enable him to serve the Government's purpose by keeping his property thereafter in good repair. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 46, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Broughshane.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should have left this Amendment to the tender mercies of the noble and learned Lard who sits on the Woolsack, but it would be an odd result of the Amendments which I and my noble and learned Leader moved on this matter on Committee and Report stages if, as a result of our being turned down on those Amendments, the noble Lord had his Amendment accepted. There must be a great difference between repairs which have been carried out substantially at the public expense, such as war damage repairs, even though the landlord has paid some contribution, and repairs carried out under ordinary insurance. I did not accept the argument that where a landlord had his work done by an insurance company arising out of a fire, that was
1162
equivalent to expenditure by him. Nevertheless, I could see that there was something to be said for that point of view. In this case, however, the noble Lord must know that a large part of the expenditure on war damage was met out of public funds, and even though the premium was a large one, so was the risk of war damage in London—I presume this was London—and quite incomparable with the risk of fire in normal circumstances.
Substantially the greater part of the work done on war damage was done out of public moneys, and it would remove any pretence that the landlord has done something in respect of keeping his place in repair if he could pray in aid money spent by the War Damage Commission. I imagine it is for that reason that this provision has been inserted in the Second Schedule. This case is differentiated from every other kind of case to which, in the Amendments on Committee and Report stages, we tried to extend it. This does stand out as a separate, special case, and for that reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not accept the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for coming to my support on this penultimate Amendment to the Bill. I see great force in what the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, has said. If one wanted to be strictly logical, and to exclude from the expenditure which the landlord claims to have been spent upon the premises everything except that which he himself has spent, then this and other expenditure is rightly excluded. If you take the other course, which is equally logical, and say that you are going to include in the expenditure everything except that which the tenant has spent, then, as I say, that would be strictly logical, too. But it is impossible in a matter of this complexity to be strictly logical, and I do not think it would have been acceptable to the great majority, either in this House or in another place, if we had allowed the landlord, in effect, to obtain credit for money obtained by him at the public expense. Although it is quite true that he has paid a premium, and a considerable premium—more justly called a contribution or a tax—towards the War Damage Fund, yet the sum which he has received and which other persons who have suffered war damage have received, in aggregate,

1163
makes the amount of premiums paid appear quite negligible. Therefore, the position is this: he has received large sums at the public expense. I do not think it would have been possible to reconcile that fact with allowing him to get credit for the expenditure in making a demand upon his tenant. Accordingly, with some little regret but not a great deal of regret, I am unable to advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I have no more to say.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Fifth Schedule [Repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the final Amendment is substantially drafting. As your Lordships remember, Clause 9 provides a new standard of fitness for human habitation which may result in a house being considered fit for human habitation, which is not an absolute standard fit in all respects. There is no intention that the house in respect of which an improvement is made under the Act of 1949 shall be maintained to a higher standard than that which could be required under Clause 9. Therefore, the omission of the words "in all respects" which appeared in the earlier Act is consequential on Clause 9. It was a mere error in drafting that those words were omitted from this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 59, column 3, at end insert ("In section twenty-three, in paragraph (d) of subsection (1), the words 'in all respects'.").— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill be now passed.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have listened to a most interesting Starred Question and to the Third Reading of a most interesting but, to a layman, abstruse and perhaps controversial Bill. I hope that this little Bill which I am moving will not meet with such controversy. I will not trouble your Lordships with the reasons for the development of the practice of hire purchase, which we all know is expanding personal consumption, increasing home ownership and the like. Between 1918 and 1939 there were many reputable firms transacting business scrupulously fairly but there were, unfortunately, a few who brought this type of trade into bad repute and indulged in a form of legalised robbery—what I believe is called "the snatch-back." The late Miss Ellen Wilkinson introduced a Private Member's Bill which gave protection to hire purchase buyers. That Bill was supported by all Parties both in this House and in another place. Two noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Waleran and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. spoke in 1938 in this House when the Act of that year was debated, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, also took an active part as a Member of another place.
Experience has shown that the 1938 Act has fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, there is a steady increase in hire purchase trade, and there is also a much greater variety of goods now being sold on this plan—which, in the bad old days, used to be called by many the "Never-never." Why, then, has this amending Bill been brought before Parliament? Its purpose is to raise the money limits to bring 1938 money values into line with their 1954 counterparts, and at the same time to carry out certain other amendments considered, as a result of the working of the Act, to be desirable. Your Lordships will note that this Private Member's Bill, which has already passed through another place, and which, like the 1938 Act, was supported by members of all Parties, amends the Hire Purchase

1165
Act, 1938, which is applicable only to England and Wales, and the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, which applies to Scotland. The Hire Purchase Act, 1938, applies to certain hire purchase and credit sales agreements, and the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, applies to certain hire purchase and conditional sale agreements. Credit sale agreements are agreements for the sale of goods on credit where the property in the goods passes to the buyer immediately, while conditional sale agreements are similar agreements except that the property in the goods does not pass until the whole of the purchase price has been paid. I apologise for interrupting with these technicalities, but they were not clear to me and I venture to think that they might not be clear to some of your Lordships.
The Act of 1938 and the Scottish Act of 1932 are both limited in scope by reference to the amount payable under the relevant agreements. In the Act of 1938, the limit is £100, except in the case of motor vehicles and railway rolling stock, where it is £50, and of livestock, where it is £500. In the Scottish Act of 1932, the limit is £20 for all classes of goods. The principal object of this Bill is to extend the application of the Act of 1938 arid the Scottish Act of 1932 by raising the money limits, and thus increasing the number of agreements required to comply with the provisions of the Acts. The usefulness of the Acts has been materially affected by the fall in the value of money. The Bill will bring monetary limits in the Act of 1938 more into line with current prices and will remove the special lower limits for motor vehicles et cetera, which are no longer thought to be necessary. The adoption of the same limits in the Scottish Act will bring that Act into line with the Act of 1938.
Clause 1 of the Bill refers only to England and Wales and does not affect Scotland. Subsection (1) of that clause abolishes the separate limit of £50 provided in the 1938 Act for motor vehicles and railway rolling stock, raises the limit for livestock from £500 to £1,000 and the £100 for other goods to £300. Regarding railway wagons, the position, in my submission, is obvious: the nationalisation of the railways has rendered any special provisions which may have been considered necessary in the 1938 Act entirely unnecessary in 1954. Regarding livestock,
1166
the reason for a separate limit for livestock is that, apart from livestock, no other goods sold on hire purchase are likely to appreciate in value during the course of the agreement; seizure of livestock for default in payment by the hirer could mean that the hirer lost goods of a greater value than the original hire purchase price, and on this group it was thought reasonable that a wider limit should be fixed. In 1938, the £500 limit covered virtually all hire purchase agreements for livestock; the increase in prices since 1938 fully justifies the increase to £1,000, and I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture have agreed that £1,000 is an appropriate figure. As I have already said, the main effect of this subsection will be to raise the limit for other goods from £100 to £300—I will deal with the question of the proposed abolition of the separate limit for motor cars in a moment or two.
First of all, I want to deal with the general position. The general idea of the Bill is to raise the limits to the appropriate actual price level. Taking the figure for 1938 as 100, the index number of wholesale prices for 1953 is 323·5. The Board of Trade Statistics Division has calculated that the price level of durable household goods—the principal but, I admit, not the only items sold on hire purchase—was 286 last December, the latest month for which figures are available. I apologise again for introducing statistics provided by economists, among whom I cannot count myself, but I feel that they are material. We who support this Bill have also taken into account, in deciding on our figure of £300, the recommendation of the Evershed Committee that the limit of county court jurisdiction should be raised from £100 to £300. It has been suggested that prices might be falling and that £300 is too high a limit, but I submit to your Lordships that any limits fixed in Parliament should be based on current price levels and not on suppositions as to what may happen in the future.
The principal reasons put forward for the retention of the special limit for motor vehicles are rapid depreciation and the incidence of purchase tax. It is suggested that the rapid rate of depreciation of motor vehicles should exclude them from the Bill entirely, or at least that the separate category should be retained.

1167
Without wearying your Lordships with figures, I believe that I can say that the fall in values of radio and television sets is much more rapid than that of motor vehicles. If I may now deal with purchase tax, this argument could be used about almost all articles, other than livestock, and in all probability would apply more strongly to articles such as television sets or refrigerators where the effect of a tax reduction would be more direct. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 provides that certain provisions of this Bill should apply to hire purchase agreements entered into before the Bill comes into force. The 1938 Act contained, in Section 20, a similar provision, so we are merely following precedent there.
Clause 2 amends the provisions of the Act of 1938 which relates to actions for the recovery of possession by the owner of goods subject to hire purchase agreements within the Act. These minor amendments are such as experience has shown to be necessary. Under the Act of 1938, where one-third of the hire purchase price has been paid by the hirer the owner cannot enforce his right to recover possession of the goods except by bringing an action in the county court against the hirer. Any guarantor who has guaranteed that the hirer will comply with his obligations under the agreement must also be made a party to the action. Subsection (1) gives the court power to vary a "postponed order" or substitute a "transfer of title" order at any time before the goods are actually returned to the owner in accordance with the delivery warrant. As the law now stands, once the hirer has failed to comply with the conditions of the postponed order and the owner has obtained a delivery warrant, the court has no further power to vary its original order. Many cases have come to the knowledge of the proposers of this Bill of hirers who have fallen behind on payments because of illness or other valid reasons, and it may not be practicable—in fact, they may even have a fear of the law and lawyers and therefore would not apply—for them to apply to the court for a variation of the order before defaulting. Apart from that, the hirer may have paid off so much of his debt that it would be quite inequitable for him to lose all his goods.
Subsection (2) gives the hirer the right, which he does not at present possess, to
1168
pay the outstanding balance of the hire purchase price instead of handing over the goods in compliance with a delivery warrant issued under the court's order. Corresponding provision in relation to reservists called up for active service with the Forces is contained in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951, and a similar provision in the Courts (Emergency Powers), 1943, was found most valuable.
Subsection (3) is intended to give effect to a recommendation by the Committee on County Court Practice and Procedure. In an ordinary county court action, if the defendant admits the plaintiff's claim and makes an offer of payment which the plaintiff accepts, judgment is entered in the court office without any hearing and without attendance of the parties. This cannot be done under the 1938 Act, which provides that a "postponed order" may be made only at the hearing of the action after the court has had regard to the means of the hirer and any guarantor, and has satisfied itself that the goods are still in the possession or control of the hirer. Where the owner has accepted the hirer's offer of payment these precautions are not needed, and this subsection empowers the court to enter judgment forthwith. The position of any guarantor is safeguarded by the proviso to the subsection, which provides that, where a guarantor is involved, no order may be made before he has had an opportunity of appearing before the court and of being heard. This should speed up procedure and reduce expense, to the benefit of both hirer and owner.
Clause 3 increases the money limit in the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, from £20 to £300. That may seem to be a pretty large jump, but I will not weary your Lordships with the reasons, which I have already given for the raising of the limit in England from £100 to £300. These reasons apply equally to Scotland and it is further considered desirable that the limits should be the same in both kingdoms. Clause 4 is the clause under which it is specified that the Act comes into operation within one month after it has passed. In my submission, this provides a reasonable time for traders to adjust themselves to the changes made by the Bill. I will say only one more thing—I have already wearied your Lordships much too long on this small, Private Member's Bill. I propose

1169
to introduce at the Committee stage an Amendment which will for the purposes of the Act of 1938 and this Bill, redefine the term "hire purchase price." The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has cast considerable doubt as to whether the deposit paid to a dealer is part of the hire purchase price. He has been good enough to inform me privately that he remembers the case which was heard in 1941, and he is quite satisfied that the Amendment which I propose to introduce at a later stage, covers the point. In conclusion, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and his advisers at the Board of Trade, for their help and advice. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Furness.)
4.52 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene at this stage, just to let your Lordships know what the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is towards this Bill. Before I do so I am certain that your Lordships would wish me, on behalf of noble Lords who sit in all quarters of the House, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Furness upon the extremely practical and businesslike way in which he has put forward this Private Member's Bill—and, indeed, upon the fact that he has brought it forward at all. It is for me a particularly pleasant task to congratulate him, because by happy coincidence it was I who followed directly after him when he made his maiden speech in this House. I had the honour of congratulating him upon his maiden speech and of expressing the hope that he would speak frequently and in the not too distant future. I think it is nearly four years since the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, last addressed your Lordships' House, and it is a bare hour and twenty minutes since I last addressed your Lordships; so I will keep my remarks as brief as I possibly can. Another matter of coincidence, however, that I cannot help noticing, is that the first Private Bill on the Order Paper to-day is the London County Council (Money) Bill, which has received its Second Reading, and on the Order Paper in 1938, when your Lordships last considered hire-purchase and the Second Reading of Miss Ellen Wilkinson's Bill,
1170
the first Private Bill was also a London County Council (Money) Bill which then received its Second Reading. Whether there is any link between the finances of our great county council and the hire-purchase system I do not know; but it is at least a happy coincidence.
The Government's attitude towards this Bill, is, quite shortly, one of wholehearted approval. It seems to us to be a necessary and useful measure. There was no need for the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, to apologise for having gone into detail. This is a complex measure, although it covers a simple point, and it is one which, through circumstances with which we are not concerned did not receive a full discussion in another place. It appears to us to fulfil a badly needed social want. Your Lordships will, of course, take advice in this matter from the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, and I very much hope that the House will see fit to give him the Second Reading which he asks for his Bill.
It is not without interest to go back to the 1938 debates on Miss Ellen Wilkinson's Bill. There has been a considerable change of outlook since those days, as well as a considerable change in the value of money. In those days doubt used to be cast upon the whole propriety of hire purchase, although I should have thought that even then it had become a familiar part of our social structure. Hire purchase was not invented yesterday; it even occurs in the Bible. Jacob attempted to acquire Rachel on hire purchase terms, under a contract which I think would not have met with approval by Lard Furness and those who support him. But in 1938 people still suggested that it was encouraging inflation, a reckless expenditure of capital, and that it encouraged thriftlessness. That view may still be held, but I think the opinion most probably held now is that it is better to pay for something gradually out of income—in that way to pay for things which, by modern standards of life, have become accepted as part of the ordinary home needs of every family, but which must of necessity be beyond the means of any family to purchase in the early clays of married life. Hire purchase has now become not only thoroughly respectable but an increasing part of our social fabric. We have only to look at some of the more discreet

1171
advertisements in the papers to-day to see how the hire purchase system is increasing, not only in the range of goods but in the type of manufacturer and retailer who encourages it. That being so, if it is accepted as part of our social fabric, then surely the law appertaining to hire purchase should be brought into line with what we feel to-day is right and proper; and that is what the noble Viscount's Bill seeks to do. In some ways it is a consumers' protection Bill, but it is also, of course, a suppliers' protection Bill. It is a protection to those who regard this part of our social set-up as increasing, and likely to increase still further. In those terms I commend it to your Lordships' House.
I remember a story by the late Edgar Wallace. I think it occurs either in Keepers of the King's Peace or in Sanders of the River. I forget which book it is, and I am not able to check it because, unfortunately, the only novels we have in the House of Lords Library are novels by Prime Ministers. The story concerns a West African gentleman who purchased a bride on the hire purchase system, for so many bags of salt down and a regular payment of so many bags of salt per month. After a short time it became clear that the goods were not giving satisfaction and the purchaser desired to rescind the contract and to restore the status quo. Unfortunately, when the court tried to do it it was discovered that white ants had eaten the salt and the bride's in-laws had eaten the bride. I think it would be unfair to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, to tell us how his present Bill would cope with that situation, but it copes, I think, with most situations which are liable to arise with us as he has told us in his explicit and careful introduction to the Bill to which I very much hope your Lordships will see your way to give a Second Reading.
4.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I hope not to detain your Lordships long. First, may I declare an interest; I am a director of a public company which arranges to finance machinery. Next, may I say that I speak in support of the Bill. In that context I was glad to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that later on, at an appropriate stage,
1172
certain amendments might be possible. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, remarked that when this matter was before another place there was not much opportunity for a general discussion, and following those words I should be glad if your Lordships would bear with me for a minute or two while I sketch some of the background of this story. As I see it (and in this I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and, indeed, with the noble Viscount, Lord Furness), matters have progressed considerably since the 1938 Bill, and the public appreciation of the proper or improper use of hire-purchase is much greater than it used to be. However, I think many of us are aware that there still persists too little appreciation of certain facets of hire purchase finance which should, perhaps, be even more closely related in the national interests, and other circumstances in which existing controls, although well meant, have not panned out in the public interest or as the framers of those controls obviously intended they should.
First, to pick up this question of the place of hire purchase in our national activities, may I take very roughly the time-sequence of financing operations, starting with bill operations, through acceptance houses and the discount market, for movement of goods, going on to banking advances, moving on to short-term obligations and ending up, of course, with fixed capital. I have omitted in that category the place which I suggest it is proper to assign to hire purchase, which is intermediate between banking advances (which, historically, as noble Lords who are bankers will agree, are supposed to be limited to, say, six months) and the next step. Here, then, is a flexible control which, in my submission, should be used almost entirely, perhaps entirely, for the financing of those goods which lead to greater production in the widest sense—but certainly not to consumable goods. I would suggest that the use of credit for consumer goods sales is bad socially and is a wrong use of credit. I suggest, therefore, that in a proper use of credit for the purchase of capital goods, what we are really doing is not to put a hirer in a wrong position in any way but to allow a hirer to anticipate his earning capacity. It may be that a young engineer with a good idea, with drive, with capacity, with character, but without

1173
capital, can start a business; and that, I would submit, is a proper case where hire purchase could be invoked to provide him with the tools of his trade and increase the nation's productivity. I think that this Bill will help in its realistic approach to the new values arising from changes in currency, to bring the law into line with reality; and I welcome it in that way.
I welcome it also as giving us an opportunity to consider this wider field for the proper use of hire purchase and to suggest that there are certain aspects which might well be reconsidered. We know that it was thought right to limit by Treasury directive those public companies which are doing this work in the amounts of credit which they might properly obtain from the banks. It was thought right to limit them in two stages: first, to their pre-war limit, despite the change in currency, thereby limiting the volume of goods which could be so moved by these credits; and secondly, by a 10 per cent. cut even in that permitted volume. The effect of this was unfortunate. As many of your Lordships know, when restrictions become onerous people set about to see if they can get round the law. Now a number of companies have been formed within the Capital Issues Committee's limit of £50,000. These companies are not known to me, but 150 of them are known to have registered with the appropriate trade organisation. A well informed article in the public Press a few days back give it as the opinion of the writer that the number of such companies exceeded 600. That, of itself, does not signify anything, but what I think is significant is this: that it is known that some of these companies are formed as subsidiary companies of greater organisations and that those greater organisations use the general body of their credit to help their own wholly-owned hire purchase company. That, I suggest, is an undesirable facet of the present restrictions and of their effects.
Although to my knowledge representations have been made to the Treasury but have not received their approval yet, I hope that the time is not far distant when they may consider restriction by category of goods rather than by volume of credit. I think that would allow those large, well-known companies who, through their own trade organisation with which I am also concerned, are in constant touch with the
1174
Treasury, to introduce, where required, and maintain where it exists, a much better control in the public interest than exists at this day. Your Lordships will forgive me if I have ranged a little widely in this matter, but there was not such an opportunity for consideration in the other place, and I am concerned very much that the good, helpful financing of productive goods should be better known by the public than it has been in the past, so that it may take a proper and useful part in the financial structure of the activities of the nation.
5.7 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I rise this afternoon to support this Bill in the main, but with one or two reservations. There is, I think, a real danger if we consider the term "hire purchase" as relating only to furniture, television and domestic articles of that kind. I think that is the way a great many people—one might almost say everybody—think of the words "hire purchase." I fear that we shall be wrong if we fail to recognise the very great increase in the hire purchase of industrial, commercial and agricultural equipment that has taken place in the last ten years. I go so far as to believe quite firmly that the rata at which this category of hire purchase to-day is running is of the order of something like £70 million a year; and I do not believe that this kind of legislation, this limit, is good for commercial and industrial equipment.
After all, as the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, has said, it may be a young engineer who requires the tools of his trade; it may be a small shopkeeper who wants a bacon slicer in order gradually to expand his business; or a small manufacturer who wishes to acquire two extra lathes but does not want to upset his equity in his small company and probably cannot get a loan from the bank. I suggest that those engaged in commercial transactions are usually outside the classes for whom protection was intended, and quite rightly intended, by the 1938 Act. I think that statutory protection should not be extended so as to operate in restraint of freely negotiated commercial trading transactions. I should like to discuss with the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, and with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who spoke on behalf of Her

1175
Majesty's Government, some Amendment for creating a separate category for hire purchase agreements relating to commercial transactions. I know that it may be extremely difficult to define precisely what is a commercial transaction, but I have in mind the definition that has already been used, apparently with success, in the Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Agreement (Control) Order, 1952.
The second point I wish to make is that I question the wisdom of doing away with a separate category for motor vehicles, such as exists under the 1938 Act. What were the reasons why motor vehicles were placed in a separate category in the 1938 Act? They were, I think, three. First, a motor vehicle suffers exceptionally from neglect and bad maintenance; secondly, even with proper maintenance a motor vehicle could suffer heavy depreciation by reason of periodic changes of design or styling; and, thirdly, being a dated article, and subject to rapid depreciation unless properly protected, it is wholly unsuitable for purely arbitrary depreciation, and could not stand the impact of what became Section 4 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1948, which, in effect, says that a person acquiring a motor vehicle on hire purchase under an agreement subject to the Act secures limitation of depreciation, although a buyer for cash has to face the full measure of depreciation. A fourth reason, I think, is that a motor vehicle is more liable to wear and tear and physical deterioration than a stationary article, and by its very mobility the difficulties of enforcing rights of owners are materially increased, making tracing of the article, as well as the hirer, more difficult and subject to undue delay.
These factors still exist, and there is a new factor which can cause unforeseeable depreciation and which did not arise in 1938—namely, purchase tax. The effect of a downward change in the purchase tax must be to render all cars on hire purchase worth less. A hire purchaser could find that he owed more on a car than it was worth, and if the agreement was covered by the Act he would be within his rights in taking advantage of Section 4. I do not think that is right. In so far as any comparison can be made between pre-war and post-war prices—and I think it is almost impossible to
1176
make an exact comparison—taking purchase tax into account, 1954 prices for new cars are about three times what they were in 1938; or, if purchase tax is ignored, about two and a half times. I believe that the proper criterion of values is not a comparison of 1938 second-hand values—if you prefer that word to prices—with to-day's second-hand values, but rather with respective values of new motor vehicles of to-day.
So far as second-hand values themselves are concerned, they are falling, and a serious fall could take place overnight. Acts of Parliament are apt to last a very long time, but it may not be long before used vehicle values will drop very considerably, and they may soon bear a similar relationship to new vehicle values to that which existed before the war. I think that hire purchase facilities will be needed more and more to absorb the larger numbers of new motor vehicles which are expected to be available and any fettering of that facility might have most unfortunate consequences. In particular, I think that a flourishing secondhand market in motor vehicles is necessary to support the manufacture and the buying of new motor vehicles, and one should remember that numerically there are more hire purchase agreements in relation to second-hand vehicles than there are in relation to new ones. I do not say that in relation to total value there are more, but there are certainly more in relation to the numbers of transactions. For these reasons I think that there is a very good case for retaining a separate category for motor vehicles. I conclude by saying that, with these few reservations, I support the Bill.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILL-SBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, for introducing this Bill, and of saying that, so far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, the main provisions of the measure are quite acceptable to us. We know that they passed through another place without very much criticism. That may have been a pity, because it is possible that some wider questions might have been raised. There is no doubt about the extent to which the use of hire purchase has grown in this country, or about the great necessity for bringing the

1177
provisions of the 1938 Act and subsequent measures up to date so as to bring them into relation with the facts of prices and markets to-day. From that point of view we welcome the Bill warmly.
The general extension of hire purchase is something which makes me feel that whilst, no doubt, these facilities are in a great way a stimulus to trade we ought to keep a careful watch lest the market is oversold, whether the commodity concerned is one like the motor car, to which the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, referred just now, or more expensive types of furniture than some people can afford, or even articles of absolute luxury. My experience in government in 1929 and 1931, and the recognition of what the crash in Wall Street meant to us from a financial point of view, led me to study the real mainsprings of the financial crisis in the United States. There is not the slightest doubt that the internal market was very largely oversold in relation to that section which was covered by hire purchase. So it is something which wants careful watching. The Bill introduced by Miss Wilkinson before the war was a great safeguard and brought a good deal more confidence to the minds of the people. My own experience in the movement from which I have now retired, the Co-operative movement, showed clearly that the very large business they do through mutuality clubs and the hire purchase system greatly facilitates the ability of many poorer paid workers to buy and enjoy earlier than they would otherwise do some of the amenities they desire.
On the other hand, we feel strongly that it is a pity that a Bill of this kind, desirable though it is, has not introduced some amendment which will secure better control of the charges which are made. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, mentioned the case of expensive second-hand motor cars which in the course of two or three years might depreciate so rapidly as to leave in the hands of the borrower an article of much lower value than the price he still has to pay. A good deal of that, of course, is contributed by the rate of interest charged. While sitting on the Bench with the noble Lord, I have seen illustrations of how heavy some of these charges are. I do not know how far the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, can give us further enlightenment from his knowledge of mutual finance. It means
1178
that if one buys an article of, say, £68 in value, over two years one might be charged another £33 to £34 by the time it is paid. Even if the £68 were always outstanding during the whole of that period, that would be an interest rate of over I5 per cent. If it were a loan, perhaps 15 per cent. might not be regarded as too high, particularly in the case of an article sold under hire purchase which has a quick rate of depreciation. But when we consider that the person making the contract is paying money towards the £68 the whole time, then the average rate of interest is much higher than 15 per cent. I think the time has come when that aspect of the case requires some further examination.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, will the noble Viscount forgive me? I cannot follow him in a hypothetical case which I am afraid means nothing to me. I would only remark that among those companies which conduct this business the competition is extremely keen, and I would not for a moment accept the suggestion that in that atmosphere of keen competition undue rates exist. I cannot speak for the smaller companies, of which I have no knowledge.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I do not know what the exact rates are in particular companies, but I have heard of one or two rates which run from 6 to 7 per cent., or more. That seems to me a fairly heavy rate of interest if the money is being advanced to sound trading concerns. Of course, it depends on the borrower, but it seems to me to be a high rate of interest—much higher than one could get through a building society. I think the time is rapidly corning, with the enormous increase in the number of hire purchase contracts, when this factor has to be taken into account, particularly in regard to the disturbing effect which might occur on the market in the case of a slump. Such an effect would be much worse if the actual cost to the consumer were so high that he was more likely to break down quickly in his repayments and involve those with capital in the business in greater loss. It cuts both ways: first of all, it is too heavy a charge upon the buyer by hire purchase and, secondly, in the long run it means a greater risk for the people who capitalise the financing of these purchases. While we shall raise no

1179
objection to the Second Reading of the Bill as it is, we shall not lose sight of the fact that further amendments to the law relating to hire purchase contracts are urgently needed.
5.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I should like to thank most sincerely the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for their kind remarks on the way in which I moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Mancroft, in regard to his quotation from Edgar Wallace, that I sat in fear and trembling that it was going to be a quotation from The Frog, but it was not. As regards his West African example, he is right; I cannot answer the question regarding the bag of salt or the hire purchase of wives, and I have to give him the answer which we have heard so many times from the Bench on which he sits, "I must have advance notice of the question." To my noble friend Lord Waleran, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who dealt with points regarding motor vehicles, I would say that I am aware that this matter has been raised, and I will give it further consideration. I hope that we can have consultations between now and the next stage. Regarding Lord Waleran's point on commercial transactions. I would say briefly that I think it is as important to protect small business men, farmers and professional men as it is to protect home buyers. There again we can consider the matter between now and the Committee stage. I need detain your Lordships for only ten seconds more, to thank noble Lords on both sides of the House who have supported this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POSTMASTERS' HOUSING PROBLEMS
5.28 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, if the Post Office is to be regarded as a business, whose staffs are expected to share in the local life on even terms with the staffs of other businesses, it would not be possible to provide houses for local postmasters in appropriate cases as is done by banks, insurance companies, et cetera, especially seeing that postmasters as such have no claim for special concession upon the housing authority. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I must apologise to my noble friend Lord De La Warr for keeping him so long in the House. After this afternoon I shall have the sense to put down such matters as this as Starred Questions. In the meantime, this is a matter which I have been pursuing for a long time, for almost a dozen years in fact.
My attention was drawn to it by a postmaster who asked me if I did not think he had been hardly treated by the local authority because they had done nothing to provide a house for him, who was such an important public servant. He painted the hardship of a postmaster being compelled to house his family in such lodgings as were available, very often insufficient for a growing family, and very expensive. Of course, when a man reaches the degree of postmaster he is likely to have a growing family. My reply was very simple. I pointed out that the local authority were straining their whole resources in providing houses for the people who were natives to the place and passed their whole lives there, and they had great difficulty in doing so. I said that I thought they were under no obligation to provide a house for one who might be moved away from it in the course of two or three months. That, I think, was quite a fair answer, and it is certainly the way in which the local housing authority looked on the matter.
In a small municipality—and my remarks apply equally to England and Scotland, although this is particularly so in Scotland where municipal life is so much more closely knit—a man's standing is determined very little by his wealth. I have known cases, sometimes rather

1181
funny cases, where a man has been at pains to disguise his wealth in order not to put himself outside the general community of his friends. A man's standing is determined very much more by his own personal character, and still more by the estimation in which he is held by his employers, which I believe to be the vital fact. Those who manage businesses, nation-wide concerns like our banks, almost invariably provide houses, not only for their local branch managers but also even for their accountants; and one concern with which I am connected takes a particular pride in the way in which it does this. What, in any community, can be thought of a business of nationwide scope, which is not altogether unconnected with banking, where the employers have no concern whatever about these matters, and whose representatives are in difficulties over their families—difficulties which are patent to the whole community? It must affect the standing of the Post Office in any locality, and to my own personal knowledge it does so affect it. Most of these well-established local bank branches have a great deal of goodwill attached to them; but the Post Office, so far as I can see, has no goodwill, or very little, and what good will it has is due entirely to the personal character of any particular postmaster and his staff.
As I have no right of reply, I must to some extent anticipate what my noble friend may say. He may say that postmasters are given a choice of district, and are sent only to places where they can find houses for their families. If that is so, I submit that the public are worse served than they ought to be, because if a man proves unsuitable—and quite a good man may prove unsuitable in a particular locality—the Post Office is in this quandary: it can either keep him on, injuring his own prospects and not benefiting the locality to which it has sent him, or it can compel him to sell the house he may have had to buy because he is moving from that locality. The only other answer that I can anticipate is that the Post Office is not strictly a business but a branch of the Civil Service, and that it is the dark policy of the powers-that-be so to order thing; that there is a division between the Service and the general population. I certainly hope that that is not the case. With
1182
those few remarks, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
5.34 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising this Question and for the manner in which he has raised it. I know that he has been pursuing this matter for a long time, and he has certainly been pursuing me for a long time with regard to it; I cannot help but feel a certain amount of relief that he has now got it off his chest. I naturally appreciate the interest of the noble Lord in members of the Post Office staff, and particularly such valued members as postmasters. I would say straight away that certainly in the past the provision of houses has not been entirely ruled out, but we have provided them only in exceptional cases. I believe the last case was in 1947, when in the isolated community of Stornoway we did purchase a house for the postmaster. That was an exceptional case, and I must say that, in my view, it should be done only in exceptional cases.
The noble Lord asked whether we are a business, or merely part of the Civil Service. The answer, of course is that even though we are part of the Civil Service technically, the Post Office must be run as a business. It is my duty to provide not only the best but the cheapest postal service possible, and therefore my answer is that we do run the Post Office as a business. I feel that the noble Lord would be the first to admit that the purchase of houses on the basis he suggests could not be recommended on business grounds; I do not think that any of us who own house property would say that it is one of the best investments that can be visualised. But that is not really the point, because the sum in question with regard to the Post Office is not an enormous one.
We are part of the Civil Service, in the sense that we have to realise that what we do has wide repercussions, and not only throughout the whole of our staff. Undoubtedly, if we bought houses for our postmasters there would be a strong case for providing houses for many of the rest of the staff. How can we draw a distinction? I have to speak as a member of the Government and not merely as a Departmental Minister. There are many other civil servants who might be

1183
affected: there are a number of Government Departments with their regional and local officers; there are Customs men, Inland Revenue men, and Ministry of Labour men. Therefore, I confess with a considerable amount of regret—because looking at this as an isolated question I cannot but feel sympathy with what the noble Lord wants—and again saying that I appreciate deeply that the noble Lord's suggestion is made only because of his extremely friendly interest in and sympathy with valued members of my staff, I should find it hard to make a case to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the additional expenditure.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Earl sits down, would he be willing to say why what is businesslike for banks is not businesslike for the Post Office?
EARL DE LA WARR: That would take in a wide subject. I can certainly think of one difference between private and public enterprise—namely, that we do not pay income tax, and do not get the benefit of tax concessions.
5.38 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down, in answering the Question took refuge in the fact that only one voice had been raised on this matter, and apparently concluded from that that there was little support for the idea of housing postmasters. I do not think he should run away with that idea, because I am certain that there would be a great deal of support for putting a postmaster in the same
1184
position as a bank manager, a gas manager, someone in charge of an electricity station, the police and many other public servants. There would be a great deal of support for that suggestion, particularly in these days when it is so difficult for individuals going to new positions in other parts of the country to secure houses for themselves and their families. In many cases they have to purchase a house in order to get the accommodation which they require. The noble Earl, in making his reply, claimed that house property was not a very lucrative or remunerative property in which to be interested. That is perfectly true, but what he is doing by his attitude is saying that the Post Office will not take any responsibility in providing the individual postmaster with a house, and it is left for the postmaster himself—it may be in difficult circumstances—to incur the responsibility and carry the burden that he has so lightly refused to consider.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, as your Lordships already know, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has postponed his Motion which is down for to-morrow to a future date. I can now inform your Lordships that it has been possible to postpone the two other Bills to a future date, and so we shall not meet to-morrow at all. We shall adjourn to-day until 2.30 p.m. on Thursday.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before six o'clock.