Lords Sitting of 21 May 1957

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

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. As your Lordships will see, it is a Private Bill, and it affects the County Borough of Croydon. As your Lordships are well aware, Croydon is an ancient town, some nine miles to the South of London. It was for long associated with the Archbishops of Canterbury, and one, in particular, Archbishop Whitgift, has left to the modern generation many evidences of his bounty—and a traffic problem. The population is now some quarter of a million souls, and the status of Croydon, as I have said, is that of a county borough, so that, although it lies within the geographical county of Surrey, it is not within the administrative county. My own connection with it, and with this Bill, arises from the fact that I had the honour for some years to be the Member for the Southern half of the borough.
The trouble to-day, as in the case of so many towns and districts near London, is that Croydon is almost completely built up. There is no more land upon which to build anything, and there are no more holes which can be filled up. The urban requirements of the borough to-day include, of course, the disposal of refuse—domestic and other—and I must admit that in my innocence I had thought that the disposal of refuse was a comparatively simple task whereby you persuaded some landowner to provide you with a hole and you filled it up with refuse. After having heard the history of this Bill, I realised that that is by no means the case. In these days, with all their complexities, filling up a hole is a matter of some difficulty, trouble and expense, and the modern method by which local authorities fill up holes with refuse is a technical operation of considerable magnitude.
998
The hole has to be sealed off and treated, and as much as £60,000 may be laid out before the hole is ready to be filled with refuse.
Croydon's desire is for controlled tipping—which is the modern method—and to be able to obtain convenient accommodation, with all proper safeguards, at a reasonable distance from the borough; and, further, having obtained this accommodation and gone to the considerable expense which it entails, not to have it suddenly and arbitrarily withdrawn. This is felt by Croydon to be particularly harsh and dangerous. At the moment Croydon is not in a position to obtain this accommodation, because under Section 94 of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, the deposit of refuse is prohibited in any place within the administrative County of Surrey without the consent of both the Surrey County Council and the district council concerned, either of whom may grant or refuse consent and may attach conditions to their consent, or withdraw at any time any consent which they have previously given. There is no right of appeal to the Minister, either with reference to failure to-grant permission or to the notice to withdraw permission, once given.
Surrey's position is this. Surrey is the only county in England and Wales where the County Council and the local councils have an absolute right of veto. In the case of other similar authorities there is a right of appeal to the Minister. Paradoxically, if Surrey County Council refuses planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there is a right of appeal to the Minister. If it refuses permission to tip, or if any of its local district councils refuses permission to tip, there is no right of appeal to anyone. Conditions have changed very materially since 1931 when this Private Act was passed. Land has become much scarcer near London. The method of controlled tipping has come into use. And, of course, there was formerly no planning control, in the sense which we know it to-day, in this district.
The position has become acute now. Croydon disposes of some 64,000 tons of domestic refuse every year by controlled tipping. Their present facilities come to an end in three years' time. Good work

999
has been done by Croydon, as any of your Lordships who knows Mitcham Common will realise. Playing fields and other amenities have been made there as the result of tipping over the years by Croydon. Croydon has now found a site and has reached agreement with the noble Lord who is the owner of it. The site is a quarry at Merstham, within the area of the Borough Council of Reigate, one of the district councils of Surrey. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have held a planning inquiry and the Surrey County Council has given its consent; but the Reigate Borough Council has refused its consent under the Surrey County Council Act, 1931.
The Bill which I am now moving does not give Croydon any rights to tip refuse at Merstham or anywhere else in Surrey. All it does is to give Croydon, and Croydon only, a right of appeal against the refusal by the Surrey County Council or a district council in Surrey of permission to tip refuse; or, equally important, a right of appeal to an independent arbiter—the Minister—in a case where there has been a withdrawal of such permission. This right of appeal has been recommended by the Government in other local legislation and is included in similar sections in Essex, Middlesex and Hertfordshire Local Acts. The right of appeal is to the Minister, and, of course, normally he would no doubt order an inquiry.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government has reported upon the Bill, and he has said that if the present Bill is passed, Surrey will still be in a privileged position as compared with other counties surrounding London in that the right of appeal will be given only to Croydon County Borough. In the Minister's view, however, the provision of the Bill is right in principle and its acceptance would be a substantial step in the desired direction. He therefore recommends that the Bill should be allowed. The Bill originated in another place, and has been passed by it and sent up to us. I therefore request that your Lordships will be good enough to give it a Second Reading, and that it be referred to a Select Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ogmore.)
2.42 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I would offer a few brief observations contrary to those of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the Croydon Corporation Bill. In view of the amount of business before the Chamber this afternoon, I will be as brief as possible, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I pass rapidly over some of the points. I had thought of asking your Lordships to reject this Bill out of hand, but I am advised that the course most acceptable to your Lordships would be to allow the Bill to go forward to be considered in Committee. But in this case I think I must reserve the right, if necessary, to challenge it on Third Reading if, as I hope it will not, it passes that Committee.
This Bill is a small skirmish in what is an unending war between bureaucracy and independence. I submit that although it is a very small skirmish it is no less an important one. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, the object of the Bill is to give Croydon Corporation a right of appeal against the provision in the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, which requires the consent both of the district council and of the County Council before any person or body can go and dump refuse in a district other than that in which it is collected—a reasonable provision, I should have thought, in all conscience. No evidence whatever has been offered to show that the powers in the Surrey County Council Act have been abused in any way or exercised unfairly, and I submit that such protection as is given to local authorities in the 1931 Act should not be taken away unless those who wish to change the law offer proof.
If the present Government give assistance, as I understand they did in another place, in altering the law as it now stands and as it has stood for nearly thirty years, I submit that surely the onus of proof rests upon those who wish to change the law and not on those who are merely maintaining it. Yet we find no evidence at all offered in another place that the present law is unsatisfactory. On the contrary, the Croydon borough engineer himself is on record, I understand, as stating that the Surrey County Council have never acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in this matter. I have a letter from the Clerk of the Surrey County Council,

1001
received only yesterday, in which he says:
" May I remind you that the relations between the County Borough and the County Council and the District Authorities in Surrey are most happy and whilst the Surrey Authorities believe most strongly that the action taken by the Corporation is not in the best interests of the residents of the County they are however very hopeful … "—
the letter continues—that the friendly relations will continue.
For many years I was Member of another place for an important Surrey constituency. May I say, in passing, that the borough in that constituency deals with its refuse in the right way—it incinerates it. I believe that that is the way that all boroughs in heavily built-up areas should deal with their refuse, and not go dumping it in somebody else's backyard. Not only are the County Council appealing against this Bill, but I understand that thirty out of thirty-four local authorities in Surrey are opposing the Bill also. Surrey obtained these, powers in 1931 in spite of the Government of that time. The Government of that time (it was a Labour Government), recommended against these powers; but, in spite of that, they were granted by Parliament. Now Whitehall, which failed in 1931, see that by a side wind they may recover the position they then lost. I do not blame them. It is natural that the Government machine looks for as much power of control as possible; it makes (heir position easier. But, I submit that it is our duty in Parliament to protect the public against undue encroachment by the Whitehall machine. I would say, in passing, that this is in no way a Party matter, as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would agree. Indeed, we had such eminent authorities as Mr. Chuter Ede and other distinguished Labour leaders speaking strongly for the Surrey County Council against this Bill in another place.
The only real argument adduced for the Bill is that of uniformity. It is argued that Surrey has powers which other counties do not have and therefore they should be taken away from Surrey. I submit that uniformity is one of the curses of our age. Certainly Surrey should not be counted as a uniform, ordinary county, with the same problems as other counties. Surrey is in a unique position. It not only has the enormous population in South London and county
1002
boroughs such as Croydon, but it also has the North Downs, one of the most beautiful districts in the whole of our land, and it is Surrey's duty, which the Surrey County Council have been very active in pursuing, to keep the North Downs unspoiled so far as possible as a recreation area for the teeming population of South London. I believe that locally they do know best sometimes, and that the "gentleman in Whitehall" is not always right in these matters.
The proposed action of the Croydon Corporation to dump their refuse—I think that the noble Lord said 64,000 tons of it every year—in a hole close to one of the most beautiful parts of the Pilgrim's Way in Surrey does not seem to me to be the best possible way of preserving the amenities of this beauty spot. Incidentally, Surrey is a chalk county, and those (certainly I am not one of them) who understand the movement of water and drainage in chalk country consider that there is a distinct danger of typhus and other diseases. Indeed, Croydon Borough Council had a sad experience of that themselves not very long ago.
Mr. Bevins, the Parliamentary Secretary, in another place summed up the Government's attitude to the Bill (I paraphrase his words) by stating that Surrey was the only county council which has now complete control of sewage dumping in its area, and that the Bill would make the Government, rather than the County Council, the final arbiter. Therefore, he thought that the Bill was a good one and should be accepted. Curiously enough, just at the same time the Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Brooke, was making a statement on local government before the local government elections. It so happened that the two statements were issued within a fortnight of one another. Mr. Brooke, in a broadsheet to the home front issued for these local elections, said:
" It is my intense wish that all over England and Wales we shall get the best possible local government."
I do not think anybody would disagree with that. He then went on:
" I have announced to Parliament far-reaching plans to give local authorities greater financial independence and fresh responsibility for deciding how best to allocate and utilise their resources for carrying out necessary services."

1003
Mr. Brooke says that he wishes to give the local authorities fresh responsibility, and at exactly the same time his Ministry is trying to take away the responsibility on which the Surrey County Council have acted, with the complete acceptance of all Parties, for nearly thirty years. I do not know how the Ministry can reconcile those two points of view.
I hope I have said enough to ensure that the Committee will, at any rate, give due weight to these and many other arguments which the County Council will adduce before it allows this Bill to go forward to Third Reading. I myself believe in the principle of decentralisation, wherever possible, and I am confident that the majority of your Lordships agree. I do not like to see an increase in the powers of Ministers in relation to local authorities, much as I respect the Ministers on the Front Bench on this occasion. Generally speaking, I am sure that Ministers wield too much power over local authorities at present, and it is for this reason, above all others, that I hope in due course this Bill will not proceed to the Statute Book.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about this Bill. Until recently, I lived quite close to Merton and Croydon, and I always understood that that area was in the Green Belt. I do not know whether the noble Lord who introduced this Bill is in favour of the Green Belt, or not, but I cannot believe that it is going to increase the amenities of the Green Belt if there is a sewage dump in the middle of it. Anybody who has recently been to Mitcham Common will have seen what has been going on. An enormous rubbish dump, which has to be seen to be believed, has been growing up on Mitcham Common. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has taken a journey from his native heath in Wales down to Mitcham Common; if he has not, I hope he will. I feel it is against all that has been said in favour of the Green Belt in the past, and against the best interests of local government in particular, if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, is not supported.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, may I correct the noble Earl? I am not moving a Motion.
1004
I am not opposing the Bill, but only making a few comments of which I hope the Committee will take note.
LORD REA: My Lords, I suggest that many noble Lords may find themselves much in the same position as I am. Having heard this case argued very ably from both sides, I consider that the decision whether this Bill should or should not be thrown out is hardly one that we can take immediately to-day. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, that he hopes it will be rejected in due course. Therefore, I respectfully submit to your Lordships that the best course now would be to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading and to proceed to a Select Committee, when all these important points can be threshed out in great detail and a proper decision arrived at. For that reason alone, I, personally, would support this Bill on Second Reading.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I do not think that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill the House would wish me to enter into any detailed arguments upon the pros and cons which have been submitted to your Lordships in the course of the discussion this afternoon. I think, therefore, that it is sufficient for me to say that, as the House is well aware, it is the normal practice for a Private Bill to receive a Second Reading in this House, and Her Majesty's Government see no reason whatsoever why your Lordships should depart from that practice on this occasion. We believe that the Bill should be examined by a Select Committee, in accordance with the procedure which has been followed in this House for many years. In passing, I should like to remind your Lordships that all the points which have been mentioned by noble Lords in the course of the discussion to-day will no doubt come before the Select Committee and be argued before that body. If that Committee decides that the Bill should proceed, then noble Lords will have every opportunity to consider the matter again on Third Reading. Our views are quite definitely that it would be wise for your Lordships to let this Bill now go to a Select Committee of this House.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I have nothing further to say at this stage, except

1005
that I hope your Lordships will agree with the suggestion of the noble Earl, and perhaps to say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that two or three years ago I went to Mitcham Common and saw a good rugby match there. I cannot see much wrong with the work that Croydon has been doing on Mitcham Common.
EARL HOWE: Perhaps the noble Lord will go and look again.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.

COMMITTEE ON PROSTITUTION
2.56 p.m.
EARL HOWE: 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 any report has so far been made by the Wolfenden Committee on prostitution, how long the Committee has been sitting, and when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to make a statement.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution have not yet reported. They began work in September, 1954, but while they are believed to be nearing the end of their labours, it is not yet possible to say when the report will be presented.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, does this subject really take three years to discuss? I had the honour of appearing before the Committee and I have heard the police evidence given. Surely something can be done to accelerate the deliberations?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in my experience it is an almost inexhaustible subject of discussion.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that these things take a long time, but this does seem to be rather longer than normal. I wonder whether he would consider asking the Committee to produce an Interim Report, say, by the end of this year.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is a matter on which an Interim Report would be of much value. I should have thought it better to get the right answer than a quick one.

SOVIET HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: 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 they received any approach from the Japanese Government as a result of Mr. Bulganin's offer in March to the director of the Japanese Council for the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen bombs to support a campaign for the suspension of the test of the British hydrogen bomb; whether the Soviet series of hydrogen bomb tests continued immediately after Mr. Bulganin's offer was made; whether the Japanese atmosphere became contaminated by these explosions; and what measures the Soviet Government has taken in order to preserve the life and health of its Siberian citizens and of the citizens of other countries who live within the danger zone of their present series of explosions.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government received no approach from the Japanese Government as a result of Mr. Bulganin's offer of support for a campaign for the suspension of the test of the British hydrogen bomb. Subsequent to Mr. Bulganin's message, the Soviet Government held at least five unannounced nuclear tests in April. I have no doubt that these tests resulted in increased radio-activity over Japan, although not necessarily in dangerous quantities.
Her Majesty's Government have, unfortunately, no knowledge of any safety precautions taken by the Soviet Government, who have not admitted either to us or even to their own people that the tests took place. It may be relevant that during this recent series of Soviet nuclear

1007
weapon tests explosions travel by Western visitors to Soviet Central Asia was forbidden. Though, on the face of it, it seems likely that some evacuation must have taken place in the neighbourhood of the Soviet testing ground, Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a definite statement one way or the other.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his full Answer to my Question. Is it not evident, from the information which the noble Earl has been kind enough to give me this afternoon—and which the noble Earl, the Leader of the House gave me about ten days ago—that the Government of the U.S.S.R. has set the pace in the development of the hydrogen bomb, and that the efforts which they are making by devious channels to bring pressure to bear upon Her Majesty's Government to stop the development of the British bomb are animated not by humanitarian ideals but by a desire to maintain, so far as possible, the belligerent advantage which their lead in hydrogen bomb development has so far given them?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I entirely agree with every word the noble Viscount has spoken.

NEW ZEALAND AND NUCLEAR TEST
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Leader of the House of which I have given Private Notice, namely: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make in regard to the allegation by the Prime Minister of New Zealand that he was not informed in advance of the nuclear test in the Pacific Ocean.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of making a statement on this matter, particularly in view of Press reports which have appeared, both in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom. As your Lordships are aware, it is not the custom to make public the content of communications
1008
passing between the United Kingdom Government and Commonwealth Governments. However, in the particular circumstances, I see no harm in informing your Lordships that the Prime Minister received a message from the Prime Minister of New Zealand expressing regret that he had not been informed in advance of the date on which our first test in the Pacific was to take place. I have the permission of the Prime Minister to tell your Lordships that he sent a message in reply to Mr. Holland, drawing his attention to the facts that the New Zealand Government were told in January that the first explosion was likely to take place as soon as possible after May 10, and that during the weeks before May 10 final arrangements to get New Zealand observers into place at the right time were made through the New Zealand Government.
The precise timing of the test could not be determined more than a few hours in advance because it was dependent upon local meteorological and other factors. For this reason the United Kingdom Prime Minister himself did not know in advance the day or timing of the explosion. But from what I have said, your Lordships will see that the New Zealand Government had as close an indication of the approximate date of the explosion as circumstances permitted.
I should like to take this opportunity to state that the United Kingdom Government are deeply appreciative of the assistance which the New Zealand Government are giving in connection with these tests, and have given from the start.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl what advance information was given to the Australian Government?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the same information was given to the Australian Government. Mr. Beale, the Australian Minister of Supply and for Defence Production, is reported to have stated yesterday that the whole basis for the suggestion that the Australian Government were not properly informed was, to use his own words, "quite false", and that proof of this was that Australian observers were sent to Christmas Island shortly before the explosion and witnessed the test. I very much hope that this will finally dispose of this matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged for the noble Earl's answer. We are all anxious in this country to have no misunderstandings between us and the Dominions, and I should have thought that that is as near as one could possibly get to having last-minute information. Everything seeems to me to have been done that should have been done.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount, because I think it is important to appreciate that we do our best to keep in the closest and most intimate consultation with the Commonwealth Governments. I hope that this reply which I have given will finally dispose of this matter, both here and in New Zealand.

NAVAL AND MARINE RESERVES PAY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL [HA.]
Order of the Day for the Third Pleading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is also a Consolidation Bill, be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RENT BILL
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I think it would be appropriate that I should make some brief observations on various questions which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and I promised to look into during the course of the Committee stage. On the question, That Clause 2 of the Bill stand part, my noble friend Lord Broughshane asked whether the prescribed form would afford an opportunity to the landlord to disclaim responsibility for internal decorative repairs. In point of fact, this Bill works in exactly the opposite way from the 1954 Act. Under the Bill, the landlord will be treated as not responsible for internal decorative repairs in the absence of any specific provision in the contract. He will, however, have an opportunity, if he so wishes, to elect to be responsible under paragraph 2 (1) of Part 1 of the First Schedule. As I have said, the 1954 Act worked the other way round—the landlord was treated as responsible, and had to elect not to be responsible.
Then a question was raised on Clause 17, dealing with the exchange of tenancies, by Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Ridley, who asked whether something could be put into the clause to prevent a landlord from unreasonably withholding consent to an exchange of tenancies. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack undertook to look at this point. There has been consultation

1011
with my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but the Government feel on this occasion that they cannot agree to the suggestion which was made by both noble Lords, which would in fact involve an appeal to the county court.
Now I come to the First Schedule to the Bill, on which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, asked whether the abatement of rent would be retrospective to the date of application for a certificate. I am informed that the abatement of rent comes into force immediately a certificate of disrepair is issued or, if the landlord has given an undertaking, six months after the undertaking was given. Secondly, when the abatement of rent takes place it will be retrospective to the date on which the certificate of disrepair is applied for by the tenant or an undertaking was given by the landlord, whichever is the earlier. It is not retrospective to the date on which the tenant first served his notice of defects on the landlord. Then the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, also asked whether the existing right of the tenant to apply for a certificate whereby he can withhold rent will continue. On this occasion, any certificate obtained by a tenant under previous legislation is treated as a certificate of disrepair under the Bill, but the tenant cannot invoke the right to apply for a certificate under previous legislation once this Bill is in force.
Finally, my noble friends, Lord Ridley and Lord Conesford, asked whether the interpretation of "landlord" in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule would include a previous landlord. Here again, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack undertook to look into this matter. It has been considered, and our advice is that the wording of the proviso could apply only to the landlord at the time when the local authority proposed to issue the certificate. I hope that I have dealt with all the principal points which were raised on Committee stage of the Bill and which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack undertook to look into. I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Munster.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I understood from the noble Earl that he was referring, in part of his remarks, to the proviso in the Bill which deals with exchange of tenancies. He quoted the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and gave them an answer. But, in fact, of course, this puts a rather surprising slant on the matter, because the Amendment of which he spoke was one that I put down; and the only way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, came into it was that they supported me. I make no complaint about the support, but I think it is rather odd now to find the noble Earl, Lord Munster, replying to them and not to the person who moved the Amendment. I suppose it is a classic case of "Save us from our friends "—because they may agree to what he said while I do not.
However that may be, the point is that on an Amendment on the Committee stage, I asked the Government to look at this point, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack promised to look at it—I quote from col. 728 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of May 14. This is what the Lord Chancellor said:
" As I have said, I will certainly look at this point, but I always like to make it clear that, when I say I am going to look at anything and an Amendment is thereupon withdrawn, I cannot give any promise. However, I will certainly look into this very carefully."
Then I said:
" The noble and learned Viscount will realise, of course, that if, after looking at it, he cannot do anything about this matter, we shall put an Amendment down again at the Report stage and, if necessary, divide the House."
The Government have never told us anything about it until this moment. We have been waiting. Time has been very short and we have many other things to do. We have been waiting to hear the result of their consideration on this very important point. We now find that their consideration is that nothing can be done. All I am saying is that we shall put down an Amendment on Third Reading and shall press it to a Division.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is there no answer to that? I suppose we ought to have some apology from the other side.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not know what the necessity for an apology is. All I endeavoured to do was to explain to the House the points raised by my two noble friends and mentioned an Amendment which was, it is quite true, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I think that, if he will recall correctly what transpired on the Committee stage of the Bill, he will remember that the Government did not accept his Amendment or any portion of it. But there was a suggestion made by my two noble friends behind me that something could be put into the clause to prevent a landlord from unreasonably withholding his consent. That was the question which either my noble and learned friend or myself promised to look into. Any idea that we were going to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, does not really make sense, because I think we said so quite definitely on that occasion.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not want unnecessarily to prolong this argument, but the fact is that that was the whole point of the Amendment—to ensure that a landlord or a superior landlord could not unreasonably hold up an exchange of tenancies to which both tenants and the other landlord, and the other superior landlord, if there was one, agreed. That was the whole object of the Amendment. It is quite a common practice in this House for the Lord Chancellor or whoever is replying to say, "I see there is perhaps some force in this; I will look into it, and will consider it. But I cannot make any promise." In Committee, the noble and learned Viscount said, "I cannot make any promise but I will look into it and I will consider this matter", and I should have thought the normal practice was that we hear something about it, giving us time to put down an Amendment on Report stage so that the House, on Report, could consider it. All I am saying is that the first we have heard about this from the Minister is now. We have had no communication from the Government between the Committee stage and now which would enable us to put down an Amendment if we knew that the Government were not going to acept what we proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 5:
Increase for improvements
(3) A tenant on whom a notice specifying an increase authorised by this section is served may, not later than one month after the service of the notice or such longer time as the court may allow, apply to the county court for an order cancelling or reducing the increase on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or that a greater amount was expended on it than was reasonable, and the court may make an order accordingly relating (if it is so provided by the order) not only to future but to past rental periods:
Provided that no application shall be made on the ground that an improvement was unnecessary if an improvement grant has been made in respect of the improvement under section twenty of the Housing Act, 1949, or if a tenant under the controlled tenancy consented in writing to the improvement.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to add to subsection (3):
" and
(b) the consent contained an acknowledgement (however expressed) that the rent could be increased on account of the improvement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage I put down an Amendment in similar terms to this, though not in exactly the same wording. The Government said they felt inclined to accept it, provided that they had an opportunity of looking at it and, perhaps, of altering the wording a little. I understand that they are going to accept it in these words. That meets the point I have in mind. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Release from control under Rent Acts Release from Rent Acts and Furnished Houses Rent Control
11.—(1) The Rent Acts shall not apply to any dwelling-house the rateable value of which on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, exceeded, in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London forty pounds, elsewhere in England or Wales thirty pounds, and in Scotland forty pounds.
(3) The Minister may by order provide that the Rent Acts shall not apply, as from such date as may be specified in the order, to dwelling-houses the rateable value of which, ascertained as on such date as may be specified in the order, exceeds such amount as may

1015
be so specified; and an order under this subsection may be made so as to relate to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas in England and Wales or in Scotland as may be specified in the order, and so as to apply generally or only to, or except to, such classes or descriptions of dwelling-houses as may be so specified.
The power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall have effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWELmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "forty", where that word first occurs, and to insert "fifty". The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I proposed in a similar Amendment to exempt from decontrol in London dwellings of between £40 and £60 rateable value. The effect of this Amendment, as I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor pointed out, would be to retain this control over about half the 190,000 dwellings in London that would otherwise have been decontrolled under the provisions of the Bill. The Government objected to this because they said—and there was obviously some substance in this argument—that this was too large a number of exemptions to be acceptable and to enable rent decontrol to work in the way the Government intended it to work in the London area. To meet this objection, I have tabled the Amendment which I am asking your Lordships to consider this afternoon. I hope that the much smaller number of dwellings, flats and houses, in the category of £40 to £50 in rateable value which I am proposing to exempt by this Amendment may be more acceptable to the Government.
I am not going to repeat to your Lordships the speech I made only a short while ago in Committee. The arguments in favour of this Amendment are the same as those I used on the Amendment I moved on the Committee stage of the Bill, but there are just two points that I should like to emphasise—and perhaps this will serve to refresh your Lordships' memories about these arguments. The first is this. I cannot conceive how anyone can maintain that there will be an adequate pool of alternative accommodation in London when the
1016
tenants of decontrolled dwellings can be forced to leave their houses, as will be the case, fifteen months from the date when this Bill becomes law. The second point I should like to emphasise is this. It is the people in the lower range of the wage and salary scale who occupy the flats and cottages at low rateable values, so that the raising of the exemption limit by even a matter of only £10 would prevent a great deal of avoidable hardship—hardship which otherwise will be inflicted by this Bill. With those few words I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, leave out (" forty ") and insert (" fifty ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I regret, as no doubt the noble Earl contemplated, that the Amendment which he has put down on this stage of the Bill is no more acceptable to the Government than the one which he promoted on the Committee stage. As he said—and it is quite true—the present rateable value limit of control in the Metropolitan Police District is £100. The new limit of £40 which is inserted in Clause 11 has the effect, as he rightly said, of decontrolling some 190,000 houses in London. This question was dealt with at some considerable length by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who pointed out that that figure represents one in four of the 700,000 houses in this rateable value group in London, and is comparable with the figure for the provinces, where 560,000 houses out of 2,050,000 will be decontrolled. That, again, is approximately one in four. It has been said that there is a justification for a higher limit for London, for the reason that in London the Bill would decontrol 190,000 houses out of 800,000, of all rateable values, which are at present controlled, whereas in the provinces the proportion is somewhat lower.
What I think matters here is the amount of alternative accommodation at the same rateable value group, and not the contrast between the number of houses which remain controlled and the number which are decontrolled. I am advised that if we were to accept this Amendment, and the rateable value were to be raised in London from £40 to £50, it would mean that we should be decontrolling only some 85,000 houses, instead of the 190,000 houses which will

1017
be decontrolled by leaving the word "forty" in this clause. That, I think, the House will see straightaway, would produce a situation which we have always thought it absolutely essential to avoid, it would concentrate the demand for unfurnished accommodation on the far smaller number of houses that would be decontrolled. The Government are sure that by spreading the demand over a large "slice" of houses coming out of control, the transition to a free market can work smoothly, without landlords being able to obtain excessive rents. If, however, the demand were concentrated on the relatively small "slice" which the Amendment would decontrol, there would certainly, in our view, be a danger of a rise in rent, possibly to unreasonable levels.
We also believe—and I think my right honourable friend has stated it before now—that it is in the interest of landlords and tenants alike to return to a free market in unfurnished accommodation for letting as soon as possible. It is only by this means that the drain of houses from the unfurnished letting market will be stopped, and landlords can be encouraged to make the necessary amount of accommodation available for letting unfurnished. If the scope of decontrol were cut down in the way proposed in the Amendment, it would seriously impede the realisation of the aims of Her Majesty's Government, which have been stated on more than one occasion. Although I quite appreciate the purpose for which the noble Earl has moved this Amendment, nevertheless, for the reasons which I have given, and for the reasons which were given on a previous occasion by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I regret that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am a little confused about the figures, because I understand this time from the noble Earl, that if this Amendment were carried there would be 85,000 houses in control.
THE Earl OF MUNSTER: Decontrolled.
LORD OGMORE: Yes. That means that there would be a control in London of 105,000 houses. That is right, is it not? Putting it this way, under the terms of the Bill there are 190,000 houses in London which would be decontrolled—is that right? If our Amendment is now
1018
carried, 85,000 fewer houses will be decontrolled. Is that right?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No.
LORD OGMORE: It is not easy to follow figures when they are given from the other side. I take it that the position is that if our Amendment is carried. 105,000 houses less than the number that the Government proposed in their Bill will be decontrolled. One or the other is bound to be right; I cannot be wrong in both, and I think I am right in the last one. In other words, if this Amendment of ours is carried, it will mean that 105,000 more houses will be controlled?
THE Earl OF MUNSTER: That is right—would remain in control.
LORD OGMORE: They would remain in control; that is to say, it would relieve the unfortunate tenants of the fear of being ejected. I would ask this question, because it is a most important one. In my view, this Bill—at least, this provision of the Bill—has its greatest impact on London. Around London, in areas such as Croydon, Wimbledon, Putney, Hendon, Finchley, Golders Green, Mill Hill and so on, there live the people who have been most heavily affected by inflation and by the trend of the rents of the last few years. As I said on the Committee stage, they are people who have no expense accounts to cushion them from the effect of inflation. They often try to educate their children in independent schools. They try to maintain the standard of living which their fathers had and are unable either to save any quantity of money or to live as some portion of the community—the business portion—can live, by having certain of their expenses and outgoings charged against income tax. They are civil servants, professional people, executives, senior employees in business and local government servants—all people who are a vital portion of the community. These unfortunate people, many thousands of them (for we are not talking of just two or three) who live in and around London, mainly in the outer suburbs (they cannot afford to live in the inner suburbs) with all the difficulties of transit and the troubles of trying to get lunch in the City, scrambling with hundreds of other people who are trying to do the same thing at the same time, are now faced with the possibility of eviction from their houses.

1019
I want to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered what are likely to be the practical effects of this proposal. I am going down to Croydon on Monday. The new Mayor is being installed and I have the honour of proposing or seconding his health, which I shall be very pleased to do. People in Croydon know very well that this matter has been before your Lordships' House, and I am bound to be asked: "What is going to be the effect on us?" These are very law-abiding people and naturally they will want to carry out the law, harsh and oppressive though they believe it to be. What is the position? Here are 190,000 families who, perhaps on the very same day, fifteen months hence or whatever may be the period, may be faced with notice to quit, served by the landlord. They may be asked by their landlord to pay a much higher rent, perhaps four or five times more than they are now paying and which in all probability they cannot pay. Or they may be asked by their landlord either to purchase the house or to get out.
Can your Lordships imagine the position of a large number of these 190,000 families, suddenly faced with the necessity of getting out? Where do they go? There is really no free market such as Her Majesty's Government speak of. All other houses will be in the same position and all landlords will be demanding much higher rents or high prices for their houses. I took the trouble of asking one of the biggest firms of estate agents what was likely to be the effect of all this on rents in London. I was told: "I can only say that it is bound to put them up three or four times as much." That was their opinion. I was not given that opinion because they thought it would please me, because they did not know who I was. I was telephoning on another matter and just shot that question in; so there is no suggestion that I was being given an answer that I wanted.
Can one imagine these unfortunate people with their household goods and effects out on the pavement?—for that is what it will amount to. Who is going to do it? Will it be done by the bailiffs or the police? We may be faced with that situation. We have to face the consequences of our action and we are now to give 190,000 landlords in
1020
London the power to put on the pavement 190,000 families, some of them the most respectable and hard-working families in the country. On the Committee stage I gave what I thought to be the political effect of this Bill. I warned Her Majesty's Government of the effect in places like Croydon. But what of the human effect that I am stressing today? How are the Government to assist landlords to put large numbers of people out on the pavement—because the Government will have to assist them. If landlords are given the legal right to put people on the pavement, the courts have to do it; and I believe county courts and their officials and the police will be put in a most awkward and embarrassing position. For this is no case of people wilfully disobeying a law. These are the most respectable and law-abiding people one can find. They will not be able to go anywhere.
The only other thing that Her Majesty's Government can do is to establish rest houses, and one can imagine the Minister turning up in his Department in the morning and finding that two or three of his senior officials are not in the office because they have had to see their families to rest centres. When we pass these measures in this House we should have some regard to the probable consequences—the grave, harsh and embarrassing consequences—and we should also have from Her Majesty's Government some idea of how they propose to carry out measures which they ask us to approve.
3.36 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I be allowed to say a few words on behalf of landlords? I am intimately concerned with two landlords' associations and I can assure your Lordships, quite clearly, that after this Bill becomes law there will be nothing at all in the nature of wholesale evictions. In fact, I doubt whether there will be any evictions at all. Probably landlords will have a talk with their tenants and come to some new terms on a friendly basis and there will be no extra work for the county courts. On that account I am very sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I might say a few words in reply to the remarks which fell from the noble

1021
Lord, Lord Ogmore. He made a simple mathematical calculation, which was correct: that if this Amendment were accepted 105,000 more houses would remain in control. The noble Lord and others associated with him on that side of the House, throughout this discussion and on the Committee stage of the Bill, have pictured to your Lordships a state of great antagonism between landlords and tenants. In certain circumstances and on certain occasions that situation may arise; but, so far as my knowledge goes, in the great majority of cases landlords and tenants live in the most amicable relations with one another.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, speaking of individuals who might be living in these 190,000 houses, tries to make their flesh creep by saying that they will all be given notice to quit on the same day; that rest centres will be opened, perhaps in parks in the West End, and that individuals may not be able to arrive at their offices, due to the fact that their families have been sent to rest centres. I do not believe a single one of those things will occur after the Bill has become law. The noble Lord asks: what are the practical effects? What will happen after the Bill has received the Royal Assent? I believe I can answer him in one sentence. In our judgment, the effects will be utterly different from those which the noble Lord and the Labour Party believe are likely to occur.
This argument has been going on in another place, and now here again we reach another stage in the Bill when it is intended to try to alter the rateable value. As I said on the previous occasion, this is not an Amendment which is acceptable to us. We believe that the freedom of houses such as I have described—and I need not go into it again—will be more quickly brought about through the action we propose in this clause than by further amending it in the way the noble Lord asks. I would therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment at this stage.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say I fail to understand the basis upon which the noble Earl has just made that speech. Since the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, I have received numerous
1022
communications from still other associations of tenants who are not by any means as complacent about the future as the Government appear to be. One organisation which has written to me is entirely a Conservative association of tenants, and one which would normally support a Conservative Government. They are exceedingly apprehensive as to what is going to happen to them. It is most significant that when one looks at communications such as those that I have been getting in the last few days one notes that they are nearly all from specially organised associations representing the occupiers of whole blocks of flats which are affected by this delineation in the Bill as to what is to be controlled and what is not to be controlled. They know very well that the kind of easy passage with the tenants which Lord Meston foresees with regard to this Bill is unlikely. It is not what they, as tenants, anticipate at all.
Many of them have already found themselves gravely handicapped by the revaluations of the last few years. Many of them have been having their rents increased constantly, equivalent to the increase of rates, an agreement to that effect being usually a part of a tenancy agreement in the case of a flat. They know that, having regard to the shortage of these dwellings which exists at the present time in the London area, the landlords, once they have got this class of flat decontrolled, and unless there is a very great addition to the alternative accommodation, will demand very much larger rents. What is the use of thinking that you are going to be able to get easy new agreements with the landlords?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Why not.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Why do you think so? But I will tell you why not: it is because of the amounts that are going to be asked. The provisions of this Bill, as it seems to me, provide even in the case of controlled houses for quite considerable additions to the rents, and this makes it clear to me that when it comes to settling the variation of the rents of houses and flats which are to be decontrolled they will run into considerable figures. I should say that a very large number of these tenants will be quite unable to afford these rents. What will they do? Either leave or be evicted. If they leave they will probably help to

1023
cause overcrowding somewhere. If they are evicted, then I think my noble friend Lord Ogmore is entitled to ask what sort of plans the Government have made, either on their own initiative or with the help of local authorities, to provide accommodation for them.
I think this is an iniquitous Bill, born out of breach of faith. It is a direct contradiction to the declaration issued by the Conservative Party Headquarters during the course of the last Election, and the Party are now breaking their pledges. I do not wonder that tenants' associations should be writing asking us to do all we can, even at the last moment in this House, to get them some relief. I, therefore, propose to divide the House on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL: My Lords, I regret as much as my noble friends the fact that the Government have shown no disposition at all to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. If I were not afraid of mixing metaphors I should be tempted to say that sometimes shorn lambs come home to roost. But I anticipate a possible answer to that statement, so I will not make it. I think the Government underestimate public opinion in the London area. May I tell the noble Earl
this story, to illustrate what I have just said? During the passage of this Bill through another place we had two meetings in the Town Hall of Battersea—the constituency I represent on the London County Council. One meeting was on Suez; the other was on the Rent Bill. The attendance at the meeting on Suez was very thin. It was a case of absolutely "Full house" at the meeting on the Rent Bill. Battersea is a mixed area—North Battersea is predominantly what you might call working class; South Battersea is predominantly middle or lower middle class—so it affords a cross-section of opinion in London. We, on these Benches, are few in number, but I am certain that on this Amendment we represent a large volume of public opinion in London. On that ground alone we are entitled to register our protest by asking your Lordships to vote on this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
LORD MESTON: Has the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, forgotten the fifteen months' standstill?
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor)

Crookshank, V.

Erskine, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Home, E. (L. President)

Goschen, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Hailsham, V.

Freyberg, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Leathers, V.

Gisborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Monsell, V.

Hawke, L.

Reading, M.

Ruffside, V.

Leconfield, L.

Templewood, V.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Thurso, V.

Mancroft, L.

Bathurst, E.

Wimborne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Meston, L.

Gosford, E.

Addington, L.

Milverton, L.

Grey, E.

Amulree, L.

Newall, L.

Howe, E.

Birdwood, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Munster, E.

Broughshane, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Sinha, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Teviot, L.

Digby, L.

Waleran, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dynevor, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, at the beginning of subsection (3) to insert:
" Subject to the next following subsection,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments No. 5 and No. 7 together, because they are both the same point. Subsection (3) gives the Minister power to do as he likes with the Rent Bill. He can put it in cold storage; he can apply it to whatever part of the country he likes, or he can remove from its scope any part of the country. Of course, he must have an Affirmative Resolution, but, as your Lordships know, that cannot be amended in either House and can only be accepted or rejected in toto; therefore this provision is of immense scope. It nullifies to a large extent the work of Parliament, if the Minister cares to make use of this provision.
I do not propose to go into the lengthy and I should have thought unanswerable—at any rate they were not answered—arguments we on this side put up on Committee stage. This provision goes completely against the Report dealing with delegated legislation. In this Amendment we have tried to make the Minister less of a dictator than he will otherwise be able to be. We suggest that before making an order under this clause, the Minister should appoint a departmental committee to take evidence and report upon matters which would be affected by the order, such as the sufficiency and adequacy of housing in the area to which the proposed order was to relate, and so on. Then the Minister has to consult the local authorities. Only if, after the reports of such a committee and of the local authorities have been received, the Minister is satisfied, can he make an order under this clause.
I have no doubt that when the noble Earl comes to reply, he will say that, of course, the Minister will be satisfied before he makes an order; but we do not know how he has been satisfied and we do not know what evidence he will require before he makes up his mind. The Amendment provides certain steps which the Minister has to take before he makes up his mind, and I cannot think that your Lordships will feel that these steps that we have suggested are other than reasonable and common sense, and those which a reasonable Minister would want to take in any case. If he would want
1026
to take them in any case, why not put it in the Bill? Without more ado, I beg to move Amendment No. 5, and I ask for your Lordships' support.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, who spoke on this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 together will, I am sure, forgive me if I say at the beginning of my reply that the provision which he is endeavouring to have inserted in the Bill is something Which I could not contemplate, nor indeed could any Minister of the Crown contemplate it. What it would mean is that my right honourable friend would have to set up a Departmental Committee, which would have to take evidence and report on the housing conditions in areas which would have to be covered by the decontrol order. Then the report would have to be published, and a period of three months would have to elapse before the Minister decided to bring an order forward for Affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. In addition, my right honourable friend would be required to hold statutory consultations with all the local authorities for the areas which might be covered by the order. To inflict such a burden upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whoever he may be, is something which, as I say, I could not contemplate. It is obvious, and your Lordships know it well, that my right honourable friend, before he makes an order requiring this Affirmative Resolution, would have obtained all the available information about the housing problems generally in the areas which are likely to be affected by the order. If he can do that with the existing machinery—and there is no doubt that the existing machinery is adequate for, the purpose—then I venture to suggest that there is no need to have this Departmental Committee procedure, or to require these statutory consultations.
I think the only point which is germane to this discussion is that the policy decision must be arrived at by the Minister himself; and before he arrives at that decision he will naturally have all the evidence which is available to him, which should be amply sufficient for finally deciding upon the order to be made. It is

1027
one thing to leave the Minister, whoever he may be, with discretion to appoint a committee to advise him, as, indeed, my right honourable friend, or any other Minister who follows him hereafter, may decide to do under the Bill as it now stands; but it is quite another thing to require him by Statute to do so, even though the course of action may be clear. I would suggest to your Lordships that there is ample provision in the Bill already for seeing that the functions of Parliament are maintained, because every order which is made by my right honourable friend requires an Affirmative Resolution not only of this House but of another place, and there will be ample opportunity, if the situation should warrant it, for this matter to be discussed at length on those occasions. As I say, I could not possibly accept in the name of my right honourable friend a provision such as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, wishes to insert, to set up a Departmental Committee and all the paraphernalia which is associated with that body. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment and Amendment No. 7.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as I surmised, the contention of the noble Earl is that the Minister would do this, in any case, so why put this provision in the Bill? For the reasons that I have given, I think it ought to be in the Bill. I think that this is far too wide and important a power to give any Minister without laying down some principles upon which he should act. Then the noble Earl says it has to come to Parliament. Of course it has to come to Parliament under an Affirmative Resolution; but we cannot do anything about that order except accept it or reject it, and, from the point of view of the Opposition, especially in this House, it completely withdraws any power that we have. If every Bill in this House were simply a matter of an Affirmative Resolution, then we might as well go home, because the only thing we can do now is to try to get Amendments carried—I am speaking about this House, but, to a lesser extent, it applies also in the other place. To say that Parliament has full power because of the Affirmative Resolution is all moonshine; in fact, it means that the Opposition in Parliament is silenced by the provisions of this Bill.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I should like to ask one question to see whether I read this subsection aright. I conclude from this subsection that, having decontrolled the 800,000 houses, the Minister would have power by one single order to decontrol the remaining 4 million or 5 million houses which would still be controlled at that time. In other words, one order would be sufficient to decontrol the remainder of the houses not included in the first part of the clause. That would, in my opinion, and possibly in the opinion of the noble Earl opposite, be a tremendous power in the hands of the Minister.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thought this subsection was quite clear. The Minister may, subject to an Affirmative Resolution, make an order which relates to the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas of the three countries concerned as may be specified in the order. I should imagine, although I have not discussed this with my right honourable friend, that if he intended to make an order which was to refer to the whole of England, then the order would refer to the whole of England. But as he has this right to do it for the whole country, or for smaller areas, I think it depends entirely on the line which he might adopt, given the special circumstances of a particular case. I should not like to dogmatise now as to exactly what sort of order my right honourable friend would bring in, or when he would bring it in, but, as I say, he has power under the subsection to make an order relating to the whole of England and Wales, the whole of Scotland, or such area or areas in the three countries concerned. I think it is wise to leave the matter flexible, as it is in the subsection, and not to try to tie it down to some specific order.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.10 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of the Scotland, or". The noble Lord said: This is another attempt by us to limit the scope of Clause 11. As we have just heard from the reply of the Minister to my noble friend Lord Wise, under the present subsection the Minister, if he so desires, can make an order which will

1029
affect the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland, or either of them. That seems to us to be a very bad constitutional principle indeed. I am sorry that no noble Lords on the other side have spoken on this matter, but it seems to us a serious infringement of the Constitution that a Minister can completely upset an Act of Parliament and make an order which will affect the whole of the country.
When the noble Earl, Lord Munster, spoke on the Committee stage, he quoted with approval from a Report made by the Ridley Committee before the war. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who had obviously not had notice of it, got up and said that, so far as he could remember, his Committee suggested that the Minister should have power to make orders in cases where there was overcrowding. There were certain areas in those days—Glasgow comes to mind; and no doubt there were others—where there was serious overcrowding. The Ridley Committee thought that it would be a good thing if the Minister could make special orders relating to that class of overcrowding. One can see that there might be a case for that, although personally I do not think so: I believe that any amendment of the Rent Acts should come before Parliament. But that is a different proposition from this, whereby the Minister can completely upset the whole of the Rent Acts and can, in fact, if he wishes, by a simple order, decontrol every house in the country.
Therefore, what we do in this Amendment is to limit the power of the Minister to make orders to the sort of cases which the Ridley Committee had in mind, and no longer to permit the making of orders affecting the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland. I should have thought that this was all the Minister would need. The Bill, as amended, would give him tremendous power—far more power than we think he should have, but, at all events, it would mean that he would no longer be able to make an order affecting the whole of England, Wales and Scotland, and thus put in jeopardy the Rent Acts and the work of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 6, leave out from (" relate ") to second (" to "). in line 7.—(Lord Ogmore.) Vol. 203
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is quite true, as the noble Lord stated in moving his Amendment, that the Ridley Committee, which reported in 1937, recommended a scheme for future decontrol by order, area by area, according to the overcrowding position in each particular area. The Government of that day considered that an operation of this sort for an overcrowding formula would be too inflexible a test. They therefore announced in the debate in March, 1938, that the exact method and time at which such local control could be brought about were matters for further examination in due course. This Amendment goes somewhat further than the provision which was suggested by Lord Ridley's Committee, which was to deal entirely with a matter relating to overcrowding. This Amendment would prevent a decontrol order from applying to the whole of England and Wales or, for that matter, to the whole of Scotland as well.
Clause 11 (3) enables an order to be made to apply to the whole of England and Wales, and the whole of Scotland, or to such areas as may be specified in the order. It therefore gives the Minister what was mentioned on the Committee stage of this Bill—the necessary flexibility to enable him, when decontrolling, to apply the different rateable value limits for London, the provinces and, perhaps, the large provincial towns. If I accepted this Amendment—and I see the noble Lord's point very well—it would mean that your Lordships' House and another place might have a multiplication of small orders coming up for an Affirmative Resolution. The Amendment, as the noble Lord probably intended, introduces rigidity into the whole of subsection (3), whereas what my right honourable friend is desirous of having is flexibility. So long as he is anxious to maintain flexibility, and so long as the noble Lord wants rigidity, I am afraid that these two opposite poles could never meet.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think the words "flexibility" and "rigidity" are purely abstract, and have no relation at all to the realities of the housing situation. It is these realities that we must bear in mind in considering the application of measures for further decontrol under this Bill. The Government have said (the noble Earl will correct me if I am mistaken) that decontrol

1031
would proceed step by step. If that is so, what can be the ground for taking a power to decontrol the whole of England and Wales, or the whole of Scotland? I think it is an important constitutional principle that the Executive should not ask Parliament for more power than it can justify by argument, and none of the arguments that has been raised by the noble Earl justifies the demand for this sweeping power.
Look at the realities of the situation. Housing conditions are bound to continue to vary enormously in different parts of the country. The large cities like London, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester will continue to be grossly overcrowded and to have an acute housing problem for many years to come, whereas the new towns in the Home Counties, and the expanded towns that are to be enlarged under the provisions
Clause 16 [Minimum length of notice to quit]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment No. 8 meets a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Broughshane on the Committee stage of this Bill It now makes clear that this clause relates to notices to quit whether served by the landlord or by the tenant. I beg to move.
of the Town Development Act, will all have a much larger amount of fresh accommodation. These variations are quite obvious to anyone who considers what the situation is likely to be over the next ten years in different parts of the country. If this is so, and if the Government stick to what they said, and intend to proceed step by step, I can see no justification at all for this sweeping and drastic power to make an order which will decontrol all the remaining houses in England and Wales, or in Scotland, that are subject to rent control. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships on its merits, and I hope that it will be considered apart from Party considerations.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Jowitt, E.

Lawson, L.

Listowel, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bledisloe, V.

Dynevor, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Home, E. (L. President.)

Crookshank, V.

Freyberg, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gifford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Reading, M.

Hailsham, V.

Lloyd, L.

Salisbury, M.

Mersey, V.

Mancroft, L.

Monsell, V.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ruffside, V.

Merthyr, L.

Bathurst, E.

Thurso, V.

Meston, L.

Bessborough, E.

Wimborne, V.

Newall, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Gosford, E.

Amulree, L.

Rea, L.

Limerick, E.

Birdwood, L.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Broughshane, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Sinha, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Conesford, L.

Teviot, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, after (" notice ") insert (" by a landlord or a tenant ").—(Earl of Munster.)
4.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that the intention of the Government in making this Amendment is that this should apply, whether it is in accordance with any existing agreement or not: that is to say, that this Amendment now makes a four weeks' notice compulsory on either landlord or

1033
tenant. In some cases it will be the landlord who has to give it—I quite see that. In other cases, perhaps not so often, it will be the tenant, who may be asked to pay an increase of 150 per cent. or 200 per cent. on the rent of his flat and who is not at present bound by a four weeks' notice. Why should he have to give the four weeks' notice to quit premises that he can no longer afford to rent? Has anybody considered that?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think that is the most hypothetical case that I have ever heard in my life. The whole purpose of this clause, as inserted in another place, was to give to the tenant the benefit that he could not be thrown out under a period of four weeks. I have always understood, ever since the day that this clause was inserted, that it was accepted almost unanimously by all political Parties in the country. I cannot see that these fears which the noble Viscount is constantly expressing—these terribly grave fears—will ever mature. But a great deal is said in order to make the blood of the electors curdle in the hope of gaining a little political advantage. I maintain that this particular clause, Clause 16, is a great asset to both landlord and tenant, and I personally should regret seeing it altered or amended in any way other than that which I have moved this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, this complacency is quite astonishing and astounding. One would think that landlords are all of such saintly character and that experience has been such that there has never in the past been need for any rent control at all. To hear these statements being made no-one would ever believe that, as recently as 1930, an additional restriction had to be imposed upon landlords. There just is not any sense at all in this sudden advocacy of the fine and good intentions and good will of landlords. It has never been so proved. It is not what the tenants think. I have here a communication from the South Anerley Tenants' Association. They say:
" May we point to the part of the Bill which, to the rent-paying tenant, is nothing less than horrifying? "—
I quote this simply to show their view of landlords—
" First, no security of tenure; secondly, no ceiling of rents on decontrol "—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Order, order! May I interrupt the noble Viscount? We are here discussing an Amendment. We are not here discussing the main parts of the Bill again. Do let us keep to the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am replying to the argument of the noble Earl, that landlords are going to be so wonderful to the tenants that none of our fears will be realised. That is not the view of the tenants on the general aspects of the Bill. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to quote them in support of my argument.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It has nothing to do with the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am quite sure it is most unpleasant to the noble Earl to hear these things said about a Government which is running away, fast and furiously, from its pledges.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am only anxious to maintain some sort of order in this House. Here we are discussing an Amendment. Let us keep to the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Keep to the iniquities!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.32 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Private street works to count as improvements
" .—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of section five of this Act or, in Scotland, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920.
(2) Where works have been carried out on a street under—

(a) section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1875, or

(b) the Private Street Works Act, 1892, or

(c) any of the enactments referred to in section one of the Local Government (Street Works) (Scotland) Act, 1956, or

(d) the corresponding provisions of any local Act,

and any dwelling having access to the street is the subject of a controlled tenancy, the amount of any expenditure incurred after the commencement of this Act by the landlord or a superior landlord in the carrying out of the works, or of any liability so incurred by the landlord or a superior landlord in respect of the works to the authority by whom they were

1035
carried out (whether the liability is dischargeable in a lump sum or by instalments, but in the case of instalments exclusive of interest) shall (whether or not apart from this section it would be so treated) be treated as expenditure incurred by the landlord or superior landlord on improvement as mentioned in subsection (1) of section five of this Act or, as the case may be, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920:
Provided that if benefit accrues from the carrying out of the works not only to the dwelling but also to other premises of the landlord or superior landlord, the amount to be treated as aforesaid Shall be so much only of the expenditure or liability as may be determined, by agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant or by the county court, or in Scotland the sheriff, to be properly apportionable to the dwelling, having regard to the benefit accruing, from the carrying out of the works, to the dwelling and to the other premises.
(3) For the purposes of this section the amount of any expenditure shall be treated as diminished by the amount of any contribution made in respect thereof under any enactment.
(4) Subsection (3) of section five of this Act and the proviso to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 shall not apply to any increase authorised by virtue of this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Munster, and the Government, for kindly considering this matter which I mentioned on the Committee stage. The short point is that at present the amount of any expenditure incurred by a landlord in carrying out what are generally known as "street works" does not count as expenditure on an improvement, within the meaning of that term in the Rent Act. This Amendment reverses the position, and states, in effect, that after the commencement of this Act the amount of any expenditure incurred by the landlord in carrying out street works shall be treated as expenditure incurred by the landlord on an improvement, as mentioned in this Act and in the Rent Act, 1920. I do not feel that I can expand upon it any further. It is entirely a matter of opinion as to whether this should rank as an improvement or not. In my respectful submission, it should rank as an improvement, and for that reason I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords my noble friend has correctly interpreted the purpose of the Amendment which stands in his name and which I told him on the Committee stage of the Bill, as I think he will recall, we should be prepared to accept.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I must say that after the debate we had on Committee I had no idea at all that the Government were going to accept this Amendment. I am most surprised to hear it, because I cannot believe that they have considered the serious effect that this Amendment may have on tenants. The works which can be comprised under this Amendment may be of great magnitude. I do not know, because we have had no explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is very quick to throw out allegations at other people, quite out of all context, but does not seem very quick at explaining the Amendment that he puts down. We have had no explanation from him as to the exact financial impact that it is going to have on the tenants, and we are entitled to know that. This may be a very serious matter.
This Amendment deals with works carried out under-the Private Street Works Act, for instance. I should like to know exactly what that means. Have the Government considered that? Does that mean the making up of a road? If it does, it might mean a charge of hundreds of pounds on the property. I do not know. I had no idea that the Government were going to accept this Amendment. But if they are going to accept it, and if it includes works such as that under the Private Street Works Act, where roads are dedicated, hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds might be involved in making up the road between a block of houses. It is quite common to have hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds involved, and the impact on an individual house may be several hundred pounds.
If that work is done it is going to mature to the benefit of the property. When the landlord bought that property, he bought it knowing that it might have to be done, and the price of the property would be reduced by the approximate or possible charge on the property which the Street Works Act might involve. Now you are going to have the position that the tenant will have to pay interest at

1037
8 per cent. on money which the landlord has, in fact, never had to pay in the past. He has never had to pay it at all because, when he bought the property, it was bought subject to this possible claim. Before an important measure of this kind is passed through your Lordships' House I think we ought to have, either from the mover or from the Government an approximate assessment of the financial burden that is likely to be put on the tenant.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I want to be as fair as possible about this matter. Suppose, for example, that the frontage of the demised premises is twenty feet. In this connection street works charges used to work out at about £1 per foot, but to-day I think they work out at about £3 15s. per foot. So, if you multiply £3 15s. by twenty, the answer is, I think, £75. "Eight per cent. of that would be about six pounds a year, that being about 2s., or just over 2s., a week added to the rent by way of an improvement: that is to say, the landlord is entitled to charge 8 per cent. of the cost of the improvement against the tenant. I think that when these properties were purchased and let to the tenant years ago, neither party had in mind at all the likelihood that street works might have to be done, and I doubt whether in fact the presence or the absence of that idea had any effect upon the cost of the property.
LORD OGMORE: But it has.
LORD MESTON: I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore that it certainly has to-day. But in the past I doubt very much whether it had the same effect on the mind either of the vendor or of the purchaser of property. At all events, that is the position. I want to be as fair as possible about it. I submit that it is a great improvement to the property, and a landlord should be entitled to the benefit of that improvement, just as much as he is entitled to the benefit of the cost of adding a new room on to an existing building.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to add a few words, although I thought it would save time if I reminded your Lordships that I dealt with this matter at some length on a previous stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord win refer to Clause 5 of the Bill, he will see that it
1038
re-enacts Section 2 (1) of the Rent Act, 1920, which already covers the case in which a landlord himself incurs expenditure in improving a road which forms part of a dwelling let to a controlled tenant. Thus, for nearly forty years the landlord who makes up the private road adjoining his property has been enabled to recover from the tenant expenditure up to 8 per cent. What this Amendment mainly does is to make clear that the law passed in 1920 will function after this Bill becomes an Act. There is nothing sinister about it: it mainly re-enacts Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1920.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like an explanation from the noble Earl on the position of cost mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. From my recent experience, I should have thought that the charge, if it is for complete road making, paving and channelling, would be a good deal more than £3 15s. 0d. per foot, so that the 8 per cent. likely to fall on the tenant might be in some cases much more than has been suggested. The noble Earl says that we discussed this matter previously, but my recollection is that he did not then seem to be very greatly in favour of it. Now here is a complete volte face, and Her Majesty's Government accept this Amendment. Perhaps I may know from the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, as I am just a layman in these matters, whether this is one of the matters that can be the subject of appeal by the tenant to the county court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to help the noble Viscount, but I am not sure what he has in mind as to the stage at which this matter would go to the county court. Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain his doubts to me further. I will then certainly look into the matter and let him know the position before the Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Rents of subsidised private houses
19.—(1) In so far as the conditions mentioned in any of the following enactments, that is to say,—
(e) section three of the Housing Act, 1952, relate to the rent to be charged in respect of any dwelling they shall limit that rent, and if

1039
imposed before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if they limited that rent, to the amount of the rent limit; but if the conditions were imposed before the commencement of this Act and then limited the rent to an amount exceeding what would be the rent limit if ascertained under subsection (1) of section one of this Act, the rent limit shall be that amount, subject however to the provisions of subsection (2) of that section.
4.43 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "In so far as" and insert "Nothing in this Act shall affect". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, if the noble Earl is agreeable, perhaps we might take Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together—they really deal with the same point, which is that they preserve the rent limits fixed for private houses to which improvements or additions have been made under the statutory provisions with the aid of housing subsidies. It is suggested that in cases where the landlord has had from public funds, by way of housing subsidies, some amount in order either to repair his house or to add to it, there is no earthly reason why the tenant should be expected to pay an additional rent. We therefore suggest that in that particular class of case the rents fixed should not be increased, for the special reasons that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 23, leave out (" In so far as ") and insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It is quite true, as the noble Lord says, that this and his next Amendment are linked together. Here I find myself in something of a
difficulty. As I understand this clause, the effect of the noble Lord's two Amendments would be to prevent the Clause 1 rent limit from being substituted in accordance with the provisions of the clause for the rent condition applicable under the enactments which are mentioned in Clause 19 (1). This means that in existing cases the maximum rent chargeable under the rent condition applicable under any of these enactments could not be exceeded, even though it was below the Clause 1 rate limit.
The noble Lord further goes on to say that, where the house was subsidised in future under any of these enactments mentioned in the clause, the local authority will have power to fix a rent under the rent condition and it would be possible for them to fix a rent exceeding the Clause 1 rent limit. On the other hand, they might fix a rent considerably lower. So far as I can understand it, that is the case. Are the local authority to fix it higher, or are they to fix it lower? Or will your Lordships accept the view of Her Majesty's Government that it would be better for the rent to be fixed under Clause 1 of this Bill? I am quite prepared to admit that possibly this matter can be argued both ways, and in many others, but I beileve that, on the whole, it would be better to maintain the proposals which are found in Clause 1 of the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10: Not-Contents. 50.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lawson, L.

Listowel, E.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson, L.

Wise. L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Devonport, V.

Munster, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hailsham, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Selkirk, E.

Mersey, V.

Reading, M.

Swinton, E.

Monsell, V.

Salisbury, M.

Ruffside, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Wimborne, V.

Albemarle, E.

Crookshank, V.

Bathurst, E.

Davidson, V.

Addington, L.

Amulree, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Rathcavan, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Rea, L.

Broughshane, L.

Hawke, L.

Remnant, L.

Chesham, L.

Lloyd, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sinha, L.

Conesford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Merthyr, L.

Teviot, L.

Dynevor, L.

Meston, L.

Waleran, L.

Erskine, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

. Clause 21 [Statutory tenancies of requisitioned houses]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment and the one immediately following it are drafting, and they go together. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 7, after (" increase ") insert (" applying to rent for any rental period beginning before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-five, ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, at end insert (" for any such rental period as aforesaid. ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
Clause 24 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3) (a) (ii), to leave out "fifteenth day of March," and to insert "first day of April ". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is of some importance: noble Lords will recall that it was a matter which was raised in the course of the Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are associated, and they alter from March 15 to April 1, 1957, the date before which a proposal must have been made in order to affect the rateable value or gross value for the purposes of the Bill. An alteration in the rateable value will have effect for deciding whether or not a house stays in control; an alteration in the gross value will have effect, if the house remains in control, for determining the controlled rent. The date at present in the Bill is March 15 for both purposes. That was put in because it was the date on which the relevant Amendment was put down in another place. It was considered essential to pick a date already in the past at the
1042
time the Amendment was put down, otherwise proposals might have been made, not because the ratepayers were genuinely concerned about their assessments for rating purposes but because, as tenants, they wished to get their assessments reduced for the purposes of the Bill. Landlords, on the other hand, might have wished to get them increased. As was explained to your Lordships at the Committee stage of the Bill, these proposals, whether genuine or not, would all have had to go through the valuation appeal machinery and would have put an intolerable burden and strain upon it.
This Amendment extends the period by a further fortnight, and it means that there will be a complete year from April 1, 1956, when the new assessments came into force, during which there would have been an opportunity to make proposals to get the lists altered, which might result in the alteration of values for the purposes of the Bill. This Amendment brings the Bill into line with the existing valuation law under which an alteration in value resulting from a proposal made on the ground that the value assigned to a hereditament is wrong during the first year of the new lists relates back to April 1, 1956. The importance of seeing that the year for making proposals for altering the list for the purposes of the Bill should correspond with that for rating purposes was put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who drew attention to this point on Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 44, leave out (" fifteenth day of March. ") and insert (" first day of April, ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I think that we can welcome this Amendment by the Government, because it removes the anomaly of having different dates applied to alterations in rateable value and to claims under this Bill. I should like to take up one thing which the noble Earl said. He spoke as if there were something reprehensible in a

1043
tenant's applying for the review of his rateable value in the light of the effect that it would have on his position under this Bill. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in a tenant claiming his rights under this Bill, and it was for this reason that on Committee stage I moved that a long period should be allowed after the introduction of the Bill—I suggested six months—in order to allow every tenant ample time to size up his position under the Bill and, if necessary, to claim if he thought that he had grounds for complaint. The Government did not go so far as to meet us, but this small concession is something that we can welcome.
First Schedule:
Adjustment of rent in respect of repairs
(2) Where an application under this paragraph is made to a local authority and the local authority are satisfied that the dwelling or any part thereof is in disrepair by reason of defects specified in the said notice and that all or any of those defects ought reasonably to be remedied, having due regard to the age, character and locality of the dwelling, they shall issue to the tenant a certificate of disrepair accordingly and any such certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the defects as to which the local authority are satisfied as aforesaid, stating that the local authority are so satisfied.
8.—(1) If on the expiration of six months from the giving of such an undertaking as is mentioned in paragraph 4 or 5 of this Schedule any defects to which the undertaking relates remain unremedied the same consequences shall follow as if a certificate of disrepair had then been issued and had continued in force until the remedying of the defects, and (where the undertaking was given before any application for such a certificate had been made) as if such an application had been made when the undertaking was given.
5.2 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved in paragraph 4 (2), after "defects," where that word first occurs, to insert "whether or not." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important Amendment. Under the First Schedule, where premises are in disrepair the tenant has a right to give notice of disrepair to the landlord, and if the landlord does not remedy these defects, on the expiration of six weeks from the service of the notice of disrepair the tenant has the right to appeal to the local authority. Under the Bill as it stands, if
1044
the local authority are satisfied that the dwelling or any part thereof is in disrepair by reason of the defects specified in the notice and feel that they ought to be remedied, they can issue a certificate specifying the defects which have to be made good.
Our Amendment extends that power to allow the local authority to list defects which do not appear in the notice. We feel that this is reasonable. In the normal way tenants will not have the benefit of professional people like surveyors and architects, because they cannot afford it, and in all possibility the notice they give will be in their own handwriting, brief and by no means a comprehensive or accurate description of the defects of which they complain. If the local authority surveyor finds other defects or the real defect which is the cause of the trouble and which the tenant may not have specified, these could not be included in the certificate, because the only certificate which can be given is in respect of the defects of which the tenant has given notice. This is a simple point but I think that it is important. If the Government could meet us on this matter, I think that it would satisfy the real objective which they have in mind. I cannot think that the Government mean to bind tenants, who possibly do not really understand the technical meaning of the words which have to be used, by prohibiting a local authority from specifying certain other defects which may be the cause of the trouble. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, after (" defects ") insert (" whether or not ").—(Lord Ogmore)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly said that this Amendment is of some importance. He has explained that its purpose is to allow a local authority, in issuing a certificate of disrepair, to add any items which they see fit to a tenant's list of defects. I think it is utterly wrong to put the local authority in that position. I am well aware that it may be argued that a tenant may not appreciate all the defects in his house, and therefore if we could insert in the Schedule the power to the local authority inspector, who is probably trained in appreciating the hidden defects which might be found in the house, it would be a good thing. What we have done in the Schedule is this. The tenant

1045
himself specifies the defects that are apparent to him and which interfere with his enjoyment of the house. If he is not satisfied, he has an unlimited right to draw the landlord's attention to additional defects and, if the landlord declines to do anything about them, to put in motion the disrepair procedure.
On the other hand, it might be argued—I do not think that the noble Lord argued on this basis to-day—that there might be something in the house not complained of by the tenant which is detrimental to public health. I am advised that there is nothing to prevent a local authority whose inspector discovers anything seriously wrong with a house, about which the tenant has not complained, from putting in force their statutory powers. If what is wrong is so injurious as to justify the application of the nuisance provisions of the Public Health Acts, then it is their duty to put those provisions into operation. On the other hand, if what is wrong is something less than can justify the exercise of those powers, the local authority can revert to the powers they have under the Housing Act, 1936. Your Lordships will see that the law to-day enables a local authority to enter on to premises if they are concerned about the public health aspect of a house. On the point of whether a local authority should visit a house and draw up a list of defects which they think should be put in order, after having discussed the matter with a tenant, that seems to us To put the local authority into an impossible position.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl takes that view. He has
said, confirming what my noble friend said, that the matter is of considerable importance, and indeed it is. You have to remember that there will be all classes of tenants in the houses referred to, in different occupations, different stages of education and with a different appreciation of what is disrepair and what is not. I should have thought that whether a tenant got a certificate of disrepair might sometimes well turn on whether the actual representations he made were sufficiently impressive to justify a certificate. But the local authority inspector, under the procedure, has to go and look at the places complained of. He may see with a trained eye, not something which is hidden, but something which is not observed by the tenant but which is equally a part of the disrepair. With the aid of his observation, plus the items mentioned by the tenant in his application for a certificate, there may then emerge a true justification for the issue of the certificate of disrepair. As the Schedule stands, it is apt to put tenants of different standards of education into a position in Which they would not be able to take advantage of the view of the local authority inspector, who was coming in quite rightly and normally under the procedure regarding an application for a certificate of disrepair. I should hope that the noble Earl would think about this matter again, but if he cannot promise to do that, we shall have to divide.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment Shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Listowel, E.

Haden-Guest, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Margesson, V.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Home, E. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Monsell, V.

Selkirk, E.

Ruffside, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Swinton, E.

Salisbury, M.

Broughshane, L.

Davidson, V.

Chesham, L.

Albemarle, E.

Devonport, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Bathurst, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Conesford, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Goschen, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Morley, E.

Hailsham, V.

Dynevor, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Sinha, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Merthyr, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Meston, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hawke, L.

Newall, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Lloyd, L.

Remnant, L.

Waleran, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Oswald

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.19 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in paragraph 8 (1), to leave out "six months" and insert "one month". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also enshrines an important principle. As your Lordships will remember, the landlord can, if he so desires, when a certificate of disrepair has been served upon him, give an undertaking that he will remedy the defects complained of, and provided he serves a notice of the undertaking on the local authority, then the local authority shall not issue a certificate. That is the situation. It is the right of the landlord to say, "All right, I will do this."
Now this provision in the Bill in those circumstances says that
" If on the expiration of six months from the giving of such an undertaking … any defects … remain unremedied the same consequences shall follow as if a certificate of disrepair had then been issued and had continued in force until the remedying of the defects."
In other words, it means that if he does not carry out his undertaking it is as if there had never been an undertaking, and the certificate relates back to the original date before the undertaking was given. We think that six months is too much, and that one month is enough for him to carry out the undertaking that he has given. It may be said, of course, that this is obviously unfair, because in certain cases the landlord could not possibly do it in a month. There now comes Amendment No. 17 which, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak upon at the same time as this Amendment. In that case, Amendment No. 17 comes into play, and if there is an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant made at any time during this period of one month, then that period may be extended to the period stated in the agreement, not exceeding six months.
This provides that the good landlord, the reasonable landlord, can agree with the tenant and can obtain an extension if he so desires. It also means that the landlord who is dilatory or does not want
1048
to carry out the work anyway, cannot spin the matter out for six months before the tenant can have anything done about it. These defects may be serious. They may be of considerable nuisance value to the tenant, and it seems hard to us that a landlord can arbitrarily spin out the period for six months before he is required to do anything about it. We think that the one month which I propose to substitute for six months, together with the proviso in Amendment No. 17, will adequately meet the case and will, in fact, give justice to both landlord and tenant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 1, leave out (" six months ") and insert (" one month ").—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord took this and the next Amendment standing in his name together, for they are dependent upon one another. The proposal here is that, instead of the six months for the carrying out of a landlord's undertaking, there should be substituted a period of one month which could, under the proviso, be extended by agreement between the landlord and the tenant to a period not exceeding six months. There is no proviso here to say what might happen if the tenant disagrees with the landlord and declines to reach any agreement whatever about extending the period of one month to a period of six months.
We have put in this period of six months so as to allow what we thought would be a reasonable time for the landlord to complete the necessary work. In our judgment, we think the period of one month would be far and away too short—too short, in fact, at any stage of the proceedings, but particularly at the beginning, when the landlord has to get the work surveyed, estimates prepared and accepted, and the actual repairs carried out. I feel somewhat between the devil and the deep blue sea. The noble Lord has said that six months is too long. Various supporters of Her Majesty's Government, as the noble Lord will well remember, have suggested that the period is too short and should be extended to a

1049
period of fifteen months. The Government in their wisdom, have decided that six months would be the better period and would, they hope, suit everyone who might be affected by this particular Schedule of the Bill.
There is little more that I can say. The proviso, as I have mentioned, does not say what should occur in the event of disagreement between landlord and tenant. The tenant might indeed frustrate the object of the whole of the procedure by refusing the landlord more than one month, even knowing perfectly well that the landlord could not possibly get the work done in that particular period. As I have said, we have tried here to meet all parties, not only those who oppose Her Majesty's Government, but those who support them. I would therefore suggest to the House that the period of six months should remain in the Schedule to the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think the noble Earl is overstressing this point. Most of the defects to which the tenants are likely to take exception are defects of a sanitary nature, or maybe a window pane out or something of that kind. They are not likely to be major structural defects at all, but small defects which cause a considerable nuisance. In these days, the average jobbing builder ought to be able to deal with the work well within the month. If he cannot, and there is good reason for it, one believes that the tenants would agree with the landlord. Once you start putting periods in the Bill, as the Government have done, then to some extent you take away the bargaining power of landlord and tenant.
I am a landlord in a small way—much smaller than I was, I am glad to say—and I occasionally get notices from the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board. They do not give me six months; they give me forty-eight hours. Very often, by the time I get the notice the period is up. There is no question of six months, and if I had notice of one month from the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board—a rather "sticky" authority, I may say, in my experience—I should think I was very well off. But in fact it frequently happens that the time has almost run out, and if I want to get in touch with them I have to do it by telegram. As I say, I do not think there will be the difficulties that the noble Earl expects. In most cases, the month will be sufficient for the landlord to complete the work.
May I point out that this is not one month from the day when the landlord knows about it; it is one month from the time that the notice is served. It is one month after he has had the notice of disrepair. He has been aware that the tenant is claiming a notice of disrepair from the local authority, so that in all probability he will have known for a considerable period before this that the defect is present in the premises. I should have thought that a good landlord, where there was a defect of that kind, would want to remedy the defect at the earliest possible opportunity.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L.

Lawson, L.

Listowel, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Perth, E.

Broughshane, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chesham, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Cholmondeley M.

Swinton, E.

Coleraine, L.

Salisbury, M.

Colyton, L.

Davidson, V.

Conesford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Devonport, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Bathurst, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Dynevor, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Goschen, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Morley, E.

Hailsham, V.

Gifford, L.

Munster, E.

Margesson, V.

Gridley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

Hawke, L.

Lloyd, L.

Remnant, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rennell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Newall, L.

Sinha, L.

Waleran, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Transitional provisions on decontrol]:
5.38 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment, which is a very simple one, is merely to pass on to the tenant any increase or decrease of-rent which may occur during the transitional fifteen months following decontrol. The Amendment remedies what I think must have been an oversight in the original drafting of the Bill. It places both landlord and tenant in the same position as they would have been before the passing of the Bill. I am indebted to the noble Earl for the wording of this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 1, leave out from ("as") to end of line 3 and insert "would have been recoverable if section one of this Act had provided in all cases for a rent limit equal to the rent recoverable from the tenant for the last rental period beginning before the time of decontrol, that rent limit being subject to adjustment under section three of this Act but not to any other alteration ".—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is an Amendment to implement a promise which I gave to the noble Lord on the previous stage of the Bill, that we could meet him on the question which he raised then and which he has aptly described in the course of moving the Amendment. I may add that Amendment No. 20, in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, is the Scottish adaptation and deals with the same point. As I say, we are quite prepared to accept this Amendment in the name of the noble Lord.
THE Earl OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
(" (3) In the case of a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the rent shall not in any case be increased under the terms of the tenancy as respects a rental period beginning before the expiration of three months
1052
after the time of decontrol.").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, this is essentially a drafting Amendment- Its object is to retain for Scotland the present wording of paragraph 3 of the Schedule, since the Amendment of paragraph 3 by Amendment No. 18 on the Marshalled List, which my noble friend has just accepted, is not appropriate for Scotland against a different background. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 20, at end insert—
(" (a) in paragraph 3 for the words from ' be the same as' to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words ' be the same as was recoverable from him for the last rental period beginning before that time '; ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Fifth Schedule [Modifications, in special cases, of 1956 gross value]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 14 on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 38, leave out (" fifteenth day of March,") and insert (" first day of April,").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, leave out (" fifteenth day of March,") and insert (" first day of April,").—(The Earl of Munster.)
Sixth Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments and application of enactments]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next three Amendments in my name deal with the same point. They give effect to a promise made at the Committee stage by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when he promised to consider the point raised by my noble friend Lord Conesford about

1053
the application of Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1936, to contracts entered into before the commencement of the Act. The effect of the Amendment is that the revised rental figures inserted in Section 2 of the Act of 1936 by paragraph 22 of the Schedule will apply to a house to which Section 2 does not already apply, where the contract is entered into after the commencement of the Act. The matter is a little complicated, but I have endeavoured to explain it to the House as best I can. I therefore beg to move the first of these three Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 22, leave out from (" effect ") to (" in ") in line 23.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, these three Amendments completely meet the criticism of paragraph 22 of the Schedule which I ventured to make on the Committee stage, and I thank the Government for them.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 25, leave out ("' twenty-six pounds ' and ' sixteen pounds ' ") and insert (" and ' twenty-six pounds ' ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 26, leave out from ("' eighty pounds' ") to end of line 30 and insert (" and ' fifty-two pounds. ' ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
Seventh Schedule [General transitional provisions]:
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1, which your Lordships have already agreed to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 7, at end insert "and that paragraph (b) of the proviso to the said subsection (3) shall not apply."—(Lord Ogmore.)

THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL DESIGNATE OF THE WEST INDIES
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether political leaders in the West Indies were consulted before the decision to recommend the appointment of the Governor-General designate of the West Indies Federation. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to explain briefly my reasons for asking this Question. The appointment of the Governor-General designate of the West Indies Federation has occasioned, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, both in the Press and in another place, much more criticism than is usual in the making of similar appointments. I am therefore anxious to give the Government an opportunity, of which I am sure the noble Earl opposite will take advantage, to answer these criticisms, and to allay the anxiety that is felt by many people, both here and in the British West Indies, about this particular appointment, and the manner in which it has been made. This, I think, could hardly be done without a considerably fuller statement than the Prime Minister was able to make last week in another place in reply to a number of questions.
I should like first to deal with the constitutional issue raised by the procedure followed by the Government in this case. I realise that we are breaking relatively new ground in Commonwealth constitutional procedure. We are dealing with appointments of Crown representatives to territories which are half way, or more than half way, between colonial status and independence. There are few precedents. That makes it all the more important that decisions taken now should set firm and reliable precedents for the future.
The constitutional issue here is the nature and extent of consultation with political leaders before an appointment is made. In my view—I should like to support this view by citing a precedent in a moment—there should always be prior consultation with local leaders about the persons as well as the desirable qualifications for the post. It seems to me that the fullest possible consultation is essential, both for a satisfactory relationship between this country

1055
and the dependent territory in question, whatever it may be, and also for mutual confidence between the Governor or Governor-General, after appointment, and the Ministers with whom he is going to work. I have no access, of course, to the sort of information that reaches the Government, and the knowledge of the public as to the procedure followed in this particular case is limited to what the Prime Minister said last week in another place. I hope that on this occasion the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to give us rather more information, because only in that way will it be possible to form a satisfactory judgment.
What the Prime Minister has already indicated in his remarks was that some of the West Indian political leaders were consulted about the "type of qualifications" (I am using the actual words of the Prime Minister) required by a Governor-General for the area, but not about the "individual" (again, that is the word used by the Prime Minister) proposed for this post. This reply, apart from its omissions, is, I think, somewhat unsatisfactory in two respects. In the first place, whatever informal consultations took place in the West Indies, they should surely have included the political leaders or representatives of all the five territorial units. Perhaps the noble Earl could say which of the West Indian leaders were, in fact, consulted—for instance, were any of the leaders of the Windward and Leeward Islands included in these consultations? If they were not included, perhaps we could be told the reason. That is a comparatively minor point, although I think it is a reasonable point.
The second and far more important objection to this procedure is that it is surely impossible to separate the individual from his qualifications—what he is supposed to do and the particular qualifications he requires in order to do a particular job. After all, the suitability of a proposed appointment obviously depends on a candidate's having the required qualifications, whether he is an engine driver or a Governor-General; and it is impossible to judge of that unless you know the person proposed for the post. A genuine and full consultation must, therefore, involve consideration of an individual as well as discussion of the
1056
qualifications required in regard to what he is expected to do.
It may be argued by the Government—I do not know whether the noble Earl will take this line—that the obligation to consult in this full sense does not arise in the West Indies, because the Federation, when it comes into being, will not be an independent Commonwealth country. Alternatively (this is another line of argument) it may be said that full consultation was impracticable because no Federal Government is in being at the present time, and, therefore, there was no one to consult
There is, however, a very close parallel between this case and the circumstances under which the first Governor-General of the Central African Federation was appointed. The Central African Federation is not, of course, an independent Commonwealth country. That characteristic it shares with what will be the new West African Federation. Moreover at the time of the appointment of the late Lord Llewellin, there was no Federal Government in existence. I believe (perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will correct me if I am wrong) that Lord Llewellin was appointed on August 2, 1953, and that the Central Government was not set up until the beginning of September—about six weeks later. But the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who was at the Commonwealth Relations Office at that time, was, I believe, visiting the Territory shortly before the appointment was made; and I have no doubt that he had talks with Sir Godfrey Huggins (the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, as he now is) and other political leaders who were given an opportunity of expressing their views about the Governor-General's general qualifications and, I have little doubt, about the person whom Her Majesty's Government then had in mind. As I think everyone will agree, the result was a choice entirely acceptable to everyone concerned, one which was a brilliant and conspicuous success and brought both great honour to the occupant of the post and great benefit to the Central African Federation.
I wish that this excellent precedent had been followed in the case of the West Indies Federation. Surely there was no reason why informal soundings of this kind could not have been taken in advance with all the political leaders there. As I have said, the establishment of some

1057
accepted procedure of consultation with overseas territories that are almost, but not completely, sovereign is particularly important for the future. This method of making an appointment to territories at this stage of constitutional development is bound to set a precedent for the many small Colonies which in the nature of things cannot become independent Commonwealth countries.
May I give your Lordships one example, because it is topical? When Singapore becomes a State within the Commonwealth with its own Head—and that is the proposal in the new Constitution—the Head of State will be appointed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; and of course Singapore will no longer be a Colony. It will have an entirely new status in the Commonwealth. I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate for our relations with Singapore than failure to consult the Government of Singapore about the appointment of the first Governor-General. I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government have set a bad precedent for this type of dependency by their inadequate consultation before making this appointment to the West Indies Federation.
Another major criticism directed against this appointment is that the person chosen lacks some of the qualifications required for the post, qualifications which, it is said, others possess. This view was expressed in a leader in The Times of May 10. I cannot remember any other case in which The Times has published a leader condemning the appointment of a Governor-General. It would be interesting to be told by Her Majesty's Government what qualifications they regard as essential for this post. We do not know. The type of qualification to which the Prime Minister referred last week has never been explained. Perhaps in his reply the noble Earl will be able to throw more light on this matter.
I believe that we should all agree that the responsibilities of the first Governor-General of the West Indies Federation will be most exacting and that their successful discharge is vital to a smooth and rapid transition of the Territory to full membership of the Commonwealth. The extensive powers of the Governor-General under the new Constitution will demand a relationship of special intimacy
1058
and confidence between him and his Ministers. He will be much more than a constitutional figurehead, and I am sure we all hope that this relationship will be formed. The Prime Minister has said—and again I think we shall all agree—that a task of this nature will require political as well as administrative competence. A third qualification, which the Prime Minister did not mention—I do not know whether or not it has been in his mind—is one which I should have thought no less desirable; that is, some knowledge of the British West Indies or, if not of that Territory, at least of the penultimate stages of constitutional development elsewhere in the Colonies. It is unfortunate that the Governor-General designate has had no experience, ministerial or otherwise, of the problems of constitutional advance in the West Indies or elsewhere. He does not even appear to have shown any special interest in the Colonies during his long Parliamentary career.
The West Indian leaders have asked for his arrival to be deferred from September of this year until January, 1958. I hope that this request is due only to difficulty about accommodation. That may be the explanation. Of course. I do not know the views of West Indian leaders about this appointment. I have no idea at all of the view they take, and I am perfectly certain that they will co-operate in the right spirit with whomever Her Majesty's Government may decide to appoint. But it has been reported, again in the Press, that they would have preferred someone with experience of the West Indies; and from what I know of them, though I have not discussed this particular matter with any of them, and have not seen them for some time, I do not think this is unlikely.
I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government could not have found someone with all three of the qualifications I have mentioned, political, administrative and colonial, if more careful consideration had been given before this appointment was made. I cannot help wondering whether they have overlooked the Colonial Service. It is a fallacy—and one which I hope Her Majesty's Government do not entertain—to suppose that there are no officials who understand politics as well as administration. A successful Governor of any Colony nearing self-government must be a politician as well

1059
as an administrator. It was a very successful appointment to send, as Governor-General in Nigeria, someone who had been in the Sudan. I do not think that officials should be ruled out; because in my experience, which has been mainly of colonial government, any colonial Governor who has to deal with a functioning Parliament must have the personal touch that enables him to get things done by consent and without authority; and he must be able to grasp the Cabinet and Party system and all the workings of parliamentary government.
I can think of at least one Colonial Governor with all the qualifications needed for this post. I can think also of a person in the same class outside the Colonial Service but with a distinguished career in public service overseas, which has included the West Indies. I am not mentioning a single name in the course of my remarks, because we are not discussing personalities: we are discussing qualifications and procedure for making appointments of immense importance to the Commonwealth. Names are invidious and quite unnecessary when we are trying to establish accepted principles on which this and future similar appointments will be made. It seems to me—and I hope the noble Earl can convince me that I am wrong—that on this occasion two essential principles have been overlooked. The first is the principle of full consultation and the second the principle of maximum efficiency. In the first place, there should have been the fullest possible prior consultation with leaders in the West Indies. I am not satisfied that that was done. In the second place, the person chosen should, and could, have had the wide range of qualifications needed for the enormous responsibility of guiding a British Dependency through the last stage of its journey to independence within the Commonwealth. I should like your Lordships to consider those few words as an explanation for the Question which I have put down this afternoon, and which I now beg to ask.
6.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Earl has put this Question down and I believe it is very desirable that if there is any question in any quarter about an appointment of this importance it
1060
should be discussed where all the questions can be fully ventilated. No-one could complain of the tone, method and manner in which the noble Earl has raised this question. The noble Earl referred in his speech to myself, and cited my action over the Central African Federation as a precedent which he was good enough to say he thought it would be wise always to follow.
It is quite true that, with my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury, I was—following on negotiations started by our predecessors—responsible for the later stages of the negotiations over the establishment of the Federation. And I was responsible for recommending Lord Llewellin as the first Governor-General. It is also quite true that before I made that recommendation I took the opportunity of discussing the matter with Lord Malvern. I think it is common ground that consultation is always desirable, though the noble Earl has rather stressed consultation on the personality as well as on the qualifications. Everyone would agree that it is essential to get the right man for the job; that is what matters. The position is really not quite parallel between the Central African Federation and the West Indies Federation. Lord Malvern had been Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for twenty years. Everyone knew Lord Malvern was going to be the first Prime Minister of the Federation. I do not know and I do not suppose anyone knows to-day (the Government, of course, may recently have had confidential information on the subject) who is going to be the actual Prime Minister of the Caribbean Federation when it comes into being.
Consultation to try to get the best man for the job, I agree, is right. But let me make this perfectly plain: constitutionally, whether in the case of the Central African Federation or this new Federation which is to come into being, there is no doubt at all that the responsibility is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government in this country. As I have said, the really important thing, it seems to me (and I do not at all underrate the part the first Governor-General of the new Federation has to play; I think it is a tremendously important part) is to get the right man. I have as keen sympathy and hope for the future of this

1061
new Federation as I had for the one I devoted so much time to bringing into being. But the important thing is to get the right man, and I would agree that if there is any doubt or criticism the matter should be debated. I do not think we need hesitate to mention names—in fact, the debate is unreal unless we do.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said that The Times had not hesitated (it is not the first time I have seen silly leaders in that great organ) to criticise this appointment. If the matter is to be debated, I think it is no reflection on another place to say that there is at least as much Colonial and Commonwealth administrative experience in this House as there is elsewhere, and, possibly, we regard and discuss these matters more impartially, though I sincerely hope that in both Houses Commonwealth affairs and Commonwealth relations will always transcend Pary politics. It is in that spirit that I approach this whole question.
In that spirit I should like, an a word or two, to say why I think this is a wise and sound appointment. In selecting a Governor-General there is no sealed pattern—I am sure the noble Earl would agree with that. What is important is to get the best man for the particular job in the particular circumstances with which he has to deal. When you come to this Caribbean Federation, the chief problem for the new Prime Minister of the Federation, whoever he may be, and his Cabinet or Council of Ministers, will be to make a Government and a Parliament drawn from all those constituent territories which have not always been in complete agreement; to make that Parliament and those Ministers work as a homogeneous team.
In these circumstances, when that is the most important and the most difficult thing, I would respectfully suggest that long Parliamentary experience is even more important than long administrative experience—although do not let us forget that the Governor-General designate, Lord Hailes, is not devoid of administrative experience; he was for some years Minister of Works, and the Ministry of Works to-day covers a lot of ground; it is not just what it used to be when I was a young Minister—an agreeable Department looking after a Palace or two and
1062
the public parks. It now does a tremendous amount of practical business, and it is concerned with labour relations and all sorts of things. The Governor-General has certain functions but he has not got to administer these territories. Indeed, that is the job of the Federal Government in their sphere and the local Governments in their spheres, and nothing could be a greater mistake than for the Governor-General to try to do the administrative job for the Federal or Territorial Governments, though, of course, his administrative knowledge and experience, which is not inconsiderable, will be at the disposal of his Ministers.
I want to emphasise that I have come to this debate entirely impartially. I do not know what consultations have taken place. I had not the least idea who was going to be appointed Governor-General. I am looking at the matter purely objectively, as a late Secretary of State for both Commonwealth Relations and Colonial Relations. The problems that are new to the Federation as a Federation will be essentially political. In those circumstances I suggest most strongly to the House that it would be difficult to find a better guide, counsellor and friend than a man with a generation of Parliamentary experience who, as a Chief Whip, has enjoyed the full confidence of more than one Prime Minister. A successful Chief Whip knows more than any Minister, and certainly much more than any civil servant, how Members of Parliament feel, how they react, and how to manage Parliamentary business. In fact, he develops a sort of sixth sense which is invaluable alike to Members of Parliament and to Ministers. And when a Chief Whip is the intimate adviser of a Prime Minister and his colleagues he acquires an experience which is perhaps unique. The noble Lord, Lord Margesson, inappropriately sitting on the Bishops' Bench, knows how true that is, and we know how much we owed to him.
Anyone who has served with the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, or who has sat in Parliament with him, knows that he has just those qualities, and the same is true of my noble friend Lord Margesson. What is more, the noble Lord never knew it all; he had the great quality of going on learning all the time. I am sure that these qualities will be invaluable to a new Prime Minister and that the Federal Prime Minister, whoever he may be, will

1063
find in Lord Hailes, as other Prime Ministers have found here, a counsellor and friend whose experience is equalled by his discretion. I am sure that as this interesting constitutional experiment develops, a very happy partnership will ensue between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General.
What I have said in no way detracts from the admirable work which Sir Hugh Foot has done in Jamaica. I have known Sir Hugh as long as I have known the noble Lord, Lord Hailes. When I first knew Sir Hugh Foot he was a young district officer in Palestine in charge of a particularly troublesome district, Tul-Karram, between the hills and the sea, where Jews and Arabs were always at loggerheads—and not only at loggerheads; they shot at one another and both of them shot at poor Mr. Foot. I am glad to say that his critics were pretty poor shots and he came through unscathed. In Palestine I saw this man's work at first hand and formed as high an opinion of his courage as of his competence, and I marked him down for rapid promotion. He got it, I am glad to say. He was Chief Secretary in a number of places, acting Governor, then Governor. He has gone from strength to strength. Nobody has a higher regard for His Excellency than I have. Both men have deserved well of the State. Both, I doubt not, in whatever lies before them will put us still deeper in their debt.
My Lords, I ventured to think, particularly as the noble Earl had referred to me, that I might intervene to put my experience at the disposal of the House and to say sincerely why I think this is a sound appointment which I believe will be of great benefit to the West Indies.
6.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, your Lordships are aware, of course, that another similar Question was asked in another place last week. The reply then given was that naturally we had been in touch with certain West Indian leaders regarding the qualifications desirable in the first holder of this important appointment. I think that this reply is suitable as a formal Answer to the Question tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
1064
In his interesting speech, of which he very courteously gave me warning, he has raised a number of wider and important questions, and I will try to deal with most of them. I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, about the importance of raising an issue like this and the value of a debate at such a time. In particular, Lord Listowel appeared to wish to establish a set of principles on which this and similar appointments of vital importance to the Commonwealth should in future be made. Let me say at once that we agree wholeheartedly that consultation with local leaders regarding the filling of such posts is most important, but let it also be remembered that when making an appointment of Governor-General to a territory which is not yet independent, it is, as noble Lords will realise, the constitutional duty of United Kingdom Ministers to advise Her Majesty The Queen on who should fill the post. To them and to them alone falls this responsibility, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton has emphasised.
In practice, this advice is given after full consultation with local leaders on the qualifications needed for the post in question, and such consultations ordinarily would and should extend beyond the qualifications of experience for the post to the question of the type of personality which an occupant of the post should possess. But I cannot go along with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his wish to lay down a definite constitutional rule that in all these cases the names of actual individuals should be revealed to local leaders and be the subject of consultation with them. I fear that such a rigid method of working would be harmful and impracticable. I think that any Government faced with a request of this sort must reject it. It seems to me that the exact nature of the consultation should be allowed to depend upon the circumstances prevailing in each given case.
Let me take the present instance of the appointment of the Governor-General designate of the West Indies Federation. I cannot agree that the consultation was inadequate and therefore that it was a bad precedent. First of all, Her Majesty's Government took note of a resolution of the Standing Federation Committee. This resolution asked the Premier of Barbados (Mr. Grantley Adams) and the Chief Ministers of

1065
Jamaica (Mr. Manley) and Trinidad (Mr. Williams) to act on their behalf for the purpose of consultation with Her Majesty's Government on the appointment. This, I hope, will make clear to the noble Earl why representatives of the Leeward and Windward Islands were not specifically consulted. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government did consult these three West Indian leaders, and most careful consideration was given to their views. But this illustrates the difficulties that arise and why circumstances must dictate procedure to be followed in any one case. While my right honourable friend had the opportunity personally to meet one of the three leaders, the other opinions had to be sought individually by telegram, all being kept informed. It was not even possible for the three of them, despite the resolution of the Standing Federation Committee, to get together.
The noble Earl has referred to what happened in Central Africa before the appointment of Lord Llewellin. In my view, this is just one more example of how exact circumstances of consultation must depend on the conditions ruling at the time. Incidentally, the noble Earl refers to West Indian leaders having asked for the deferment of the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, to September, 1958. I think that there is a misunderstanding here.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think the noble Earl will agree that I said that this was a report in the Press and asked him to correct me if the report was not accurate.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, that is quite right and that is why I was saying that there is a misunderstanding here. The reasons for deferment—and I wish to stress this—are strictly practical ones; and while no date has yet been made public, it will not be for nearly so long as September of next year.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that the date mentioned was January of next year. The noble Earl said September: did he mean to say that?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am sorry; I thought that the noble Earl said September of next year. While it will be deferred, it will not be deferred for very long. May I leave it at that? In the later part of his remarks the noble
1066
Earl discussed the qualifications of the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, as opposed to others mentioned for the post. We all may have our favourite candidates and I feel that this is just one more illustration of how difficult it is to satisfy everybody and how great is the ultimate responsibility of the United Kingdom Minister who is making the choice. I do not think noble Lords would expect me to enlarge on this subject. We have all heard the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, with all his great experience in such questions. I would only remark that Her Majesty's Government, in making this appointment, have expressed in the clearest possible way, and after consultation, their belief and confidence that Lord Hailes is the right man, and that he has the right qualities, including political experience, which is so important at this time in Caribbean history. A Trinidad newspaper remarked:
" The common sense thing to do is to wait until we see the man, until we see how he tackles his job."
Surely, that is right. I feel confident that I am echoing the sentiments of noble Lords on all sides of the House when I say that we all wish Lord Hailes success and good fortune in the tackling of it.
6.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this has been a rather unusual debate, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has initiated, and I thought I would only add a postcript by saying that I am glad that it has taken the form it has and that we have examined the processes which precede the appointment of a Governor-General and the qualities with which a post of such distinction should be filled. My noble friend Lord Swinton has said, quite rightly, from the point of view of Commonwealth relations, that what we need to do is to try to get the right man in the right place. That is the important thing. I add a postcript to what my noble friend Lord Perth said only because I think that, now that the air has been cleared by this debate, the Government should say, clearly and firmly, that they have complete confidence in Lord Hailes. We feel that he will fill this post with great distinction and with that sympathy and understanding Which is so necessary in the West Indies during their political transition before they obtain full independence within the Commonwealth.

1067
We believe that when Lord Hailes has taken up his post in the West Indies the people will immediately recognise his qualities. Therefore, I only echo what my noble friend has said. I am sure that, now that the air has been cleared after this debate, we shall all wish him and Lady Hailes the best of good fortune and hope that their time there will be very happy.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on February 6 last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past six o'clock.