Lords Sitting of 2 June 1964

Preamble
Reassembling for Public Business after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon

"NO TURN" ROAD SIGNS
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I beg leave 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 some more distinctive way of indicating No Left Turn and No Right Turn could be devised, as the present signs are indistinguishable one from the other at a distance at which cars should be manœuvring to get into their correct lanes.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I would refer my noble friend to the symbolic signs to indicate No Left and No Right Turns on page 103 of the Worboys Report. They will be prescribed in new Traffic Signs Regulations which are being drafted, and should be clearly distinguishable by drivers some distance in advance of the point at which a change of lane is necessary.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful for my noble friend's reply, which I am sure will receive the welcome of all motorists.

R.A.F. SLEEPING ACCOMMODA TION AT TENGHAH, SINGAPORE
2.36 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in pro-
374
viding air-conditioned sleeping accommodation for air crews at Tenghah, Singapore.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the work is being planned and should be completed by August, 1965.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I hope, if I may put it in this way, that this matter will be expedited, because there is considerable concern among the medical section of the Royal Air Force as to the facilities and accommodation that is available for air crews at Tenghah.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why it should take over a year to put in the necessary instruments or machines, because they can be bought in Singapore and in a large number of other places and installed in 24 hours?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it is a rather more complicated matter than the noble Lord suggests.
LORD OGMORE: Why?
EARL JELLICOE: This is part of another building project and has to be phased in with it. But the noble Lord was kind enough to speak to me some time ago about this particular matter, and I fully understand the need for speed and will see that the comments of both noble Lords are passed on to the appropriate quarters.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this Question deals only with sleeping accommodation. Surely these instruments can be put into a barrack room, bedroom or whatever it may be, without any difficulty at all. They are on sale in a number of places. What is causing the delay?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would assure the noble Lord that this is a far more complicated matter than he suspects. It has to be phased in with another project which is being done and also with the operational requirements of Tenghah itself. I am assured that this is being pushed forward with speed; but I will gladly look into this personally to assure myself of this.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Earl has given this undertaking, I am quite sure that the matter will be proceeded with a good deal more quickly than he has suggested.

PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING AT HURST GREEN
2.38 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose in order to provide safe and secure crossing of the railway line of persons, in particular school children, between two housing estates and schools south of Hurst Green, Surrey.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, responsibility for the altered use of the public footway crossing south of Hurst Green rests with the local authorities, and the onus to improve conditions at the crossing lies with them. The Railways have met their statutory obligations fully and the Minister has no powers to order the installation of additional protection. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the local authorities have asked that a footbridge be erected and that an estimate has been sent to them by the Railways.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I hope that, as with the previous Question, there will be more speed than there has been in the past. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that approximately 1,000 crossings are made each day, many by children, across this completely unguarded footpath. There have already been two people killed at this point. Will the noble Lord use his best endeavours to see that the local authorities proceed with this matter with the British Railways as quickly as possible—certainly before the autumn season sets in, with the consequent dark nights.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course, I sympathise with what the noble Lord has said but, in fact, my right honourable friend has no powers to expedite this matter. At the moment it
376
rests with the speed with which the local authorities concerned decide to accept the estimate. In so far as it lies within my power, anything I can do to help I will do willingly.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right that the Minister has no powers, but there is such a thing as power of persuasion, which we know does rest with the Minister.

FUTURE OF MALTA
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg leave 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 can make a statement about the future of Malta.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, my right honourable friend is at present having talks with the Prime Minister of Malta and will make a full statement as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, in view of the fact that Malta is the first British Colony whose independence has been postponed after a date had been fixed by Her Majesty's Government—the date, in fact, was May 31—whether he does not agree that this was a serious miscalculation on the part of the Government and that regrets should be expressed to the people of Malta for the fact that the Government have been obliged to disappoint their expectations? May I ask also whether a date for independence will be fixed as soon as possible after the approval of a new Constitution? I am not, I think, asking questions which would in any way embarrass him in the course of negotiations he is now conducting. May I further ask him whether, before the new Constitution is approved by Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Mintoff, the Leader of the Labour Party in Malta, will be consulted as well as the Prime Minister of Malta, who is being consulted at the moment? I am sure the noble Marquess agrees that it is vital that the Labour Party should approve of the new Constitution.

377
I apologise for asking so many questions but this is really a very important matter. May I ask him, finally, whether he will make a statement in this House, in view of the fact that he cannot make a statement now, as soon as the new Constitution has been approved?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Earl's omnibus question, the answer is No, I do not agree.
I think your Lordships would appreciate that it would not be proper or wise for me to make any piecemeal announcement of the full statement which my right honourable friend has promised. In regard to the question the noble Earl has put relating to whether or not my right honourable friend will see Mr. Mintoff, as your Lordships are aware, my right honourable friend is now discussing with the Prime Minister of Malta all these delicate problems and, if he considers it necessary, clearly my right honourable friend will consult other political leaders also.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess unable to say whether or not the Secretary of State has made up his mind that it is essential to consult the Leader of the second most important Party in Malta—which has the support, as the noble Marquess is aware, of all the dockers and a very large section of the population—before a new Constitution for Malta as an independent country is finally approved?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with great respect I think I have already answered that point.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Marquess said: if his right honourable friend thinks it necessary. Apart from its being necessary, is it not desirable that we should carry with us on the new Constitution all sections of the community in Malta?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord must allow my right honourable friend to decide whether or not it is necessary.
LORD SILKIN: I am challenging the criterion. I would certainly not challenge his judgment, but the criterion of whether he thinks it necessary. Is not the criterion whether it is desirable in the public interest?

CYPRUS
2.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given notice: whether they will make a statement on the situation in Cyprus?
Before the noble Lord answers that I am sure the House will be glad to see my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough sitting beside me, in good health, and I should myself like to give him a very cordial welcome back to the House.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I will, if I may, with the permission of the House, answer the Question put by the noble Lord as soon as convenient after half-past three.
I would take this opportunity, if I may, of joining him and, speaking on behalf of my noble friends, of saying how very pleased we are to see the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition back again. I think all your Lordships will agree the Opposition has been led with great skill by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but nevertheless we have missed the noble Earl, and I am very glad to see him looking so well, though I fear it bodes ill for Her Majesty's Government.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend and to the Leader of the House how grateful I am for this expression? Also, I am more than grateful, for the help it was to me in recovering in hospital, for that wonderful united message sent to me there from the House as a whole. I deeply appreciated that, and I hope that, in spite of our political differences, we shall maintain the spirit in the House of Lords that we all admire so much.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.48 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, would inform your Lordships that two statements will be made at a suitable moment after 3.30: one on the typhoid position, by my noble friend Lord Lothian, and one on pirate broadcasting, by my noble friend Lord Newton.

MALAWI INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons on the 14th of May last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A; read 1a.
RESALE PRICES BILL
Brought from the Commons on the 14th of May last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A; read 1a.

NURSES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. He is engaged on judicial business at the Privy Council, on a case which was left over from last week, and he has asked me to assure your Lordships that he will be in the House at the earliest possible moment.
My Lords, this is the latest in the series of Statute Law Revision Bills, the first of which was introduced just 100 years ago. Previous Bills during the past dozen years were introduced in 1953, 1958, 1959 and 1960. Both by effluxion of time and for other reasons many statutory provisions become spent or obsolete, and it is desirable that they should be repealed. Your Lordships will not, I am sure, expect me to discuss all the dead provisions which this Bill proposes to remove. These will, of course, have to be examined, in the normal way, by the Joint Select Committee on Con-
380
solidation Bills, whose Report will be laid in due course. After that, your Lordships will have the usual opportunity of considering the Bill as amended by the Joint Committee, if necessary, and it will then be open to your Lordships to comment on any points of detail which may need consideration. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure we all approve of getting rid of dead wood in our legislation. This long series of Acts of Parliament has remained on the Statute Book for many years without having any practical effect or validity, and quite possibly merely with the object of confusing the lawyers. I do not assume that the noble Lord is personally responsible for this, but I should like to ask him how it comes about that some of these Acts have been on the Statute Book for 200 years without their having any effect at all, having long since ceased to have any purpose, having regard to the reason for their enactment. And since we have had a considerable number of Statute Law Revision Acts, how is it that we have not been able to repeal these before now? Are there many others that could be repealed, or are we today making a clean sweep of all the dead wood that exists? I should like an answer on that point; but, subject to that, we support any measure of this kind.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that this examination of the law and what may or may not be dead wood, takes a considerable time, and one has to be most careful not to do away with something that is referred to in another Act and may have some effect in that Act. Although some of these Acts have been in force for 200 years, it is not necessarily the fact that they have been dead wood all that time, or for anything like that time. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking that there will be no more of these Statute Law Revision Bills. This work is continuous and it is going on at a much greater speed than hitherto, if I may put it that way. As I have already said. we have cut out dead

381
wood in 1953, 1958, 1959 and 1960, and I am sure that we are making an impression on the dead wood; but I cannot go further than that at the moment.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [76] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out ("except for") and insert ("for any offence other than—,
(a)")
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(b) any offence of which he could have been convicted at the original trial on an indictment for the first-mentioned offence; or
(c)").
Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert (", and if the appellant is acquitted on the retrial, the costs of the defence which may be ordered to be paid out of local funds under section 1 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 shall include—

(a) any costs which could have been ordered to be so paid under that section by the court by which he was originally tried if he had been acquitted at the original trial; and

(b) if no order was made under section 3(2) or section 4 of that Act in respect of his expenses on appeal, any sums for the payment of which such an order could have been made.")

Clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out from ("but") to end of line 11 and insert ("in computing the term of his sentence or the period for which he may be detained thereunder, as the case may he, there shall be disregarded—

(a) any time before his conviction on retrial which would have been disregarded in computing that term or period if the sentence had been passed at the original
382
trial and the original conviction had not been quashed; and—

(b) any time during which he was at large after being admitted to bail under section 2(2) of this Act.")

Clause 6, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("(4) Any reference in this Act to any other enactment is a reference thereto as amended, and includes a reference thereto as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including this Act.")
Schedule 1, page 4, line 10, leave out ("except for") and insert ("for an offence other than—
(a)")
Schedule 1, page 4, line 12, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(b) any offence of which he could have been convicted at the original trial on a charge of the first-mentioned offence; or
(c)")
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("Admiralty") and insert ("Defence Council")
Page 5, line 50, leave out ("Admiralty") and insert ("Defence Council")
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("Army") and insert ("Defence")
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("Air") and insert ("Defence")
Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("the") to second ("Council") in line 11 and insert ("Defence").
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House I were to outline the broad effect of the various Amendments with which I am about to invite the House to agree. Then perhaps I might move them en bloc, and if, at the end, there are any questions that any noble Lord wishes to raise on the Commons Amendments I will do my best to answer them. I hope that a brief explanation will make sufficiently clear the purpose and effect of the Amendments made in another place.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper make a limited extension in the offences for which an appellant may be retried if a new trial is ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Under Clause 1(2), as originally drafted, the appellant could be tried either for the offence of which he was convicted at the original trial, and in respect of which he was appealing, or for an offence with which he was charged in an alternative count in respect of which the jury, having convicted him on the first count, were discharged from giving a verdict. The Amendments now add a third category of offence—namely, any other offence of

383
which he could have been convicted at the original trial on an indictment for the offence of which he was actually convicted and in respect of which his appeal has been allowed.
Suppose, for example, that the appellant had been indicted and convicted of felonious wounding. On that indictment he could have been convicted of the lesser offence of unlawful wounding. When he appeals it may appear to the Court of Criminal Appeal that, taking into account the fresh evidence, any new trial should be for the lesser offence. The Amendments permit the new indictment to be framed accordingly. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which go with Nos. 1 and 2, make parallel provision in Schedule 1 in respect of new trials by court-martial.
Amendment No. 3, which makes an addition to Clause 2(3), deals with the costs of the appellant in the proceedings leading up to the new trial. The position before the Amendment was as follows. Through the normal operation of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952, the Court of Criminal Appeal could, at its discretion, give the appellant, on ordering a new trial, the costs of his defence at the original trial and at the appeal; and the court of re-trial could, if it acquitted the appellant, give him the costs of that trial. But the court of re-trial had, on acquitting, no power to give him the costs of the earlier proceedings. It seemed to the Government that while the Court of Criminal Appeal might have good reason, before the new trial, to decline to give costs, the matter might appear in a wholly different light after the trial, and that the new court of trial ought therefore to have discretion to give him the costs of all the proceedings, first trial, appeal, and re-trial. This is what this Amendment does.
Amendment No. 4 stops a small gap in Clause 3(3), which deals with the computation of any custodial sentence that may be imposed if the appellant is again convicted on re-trial. The original wording of the clause had the effect of allowing the offender to count towards his second sentence time which would not have counted if the sentence had been imposed at the original trial and the original conviction had not been quashed—for example, time during which he had been unlawfully at large following escape
384
from prison. This would clearly have been wrong and the subsection has been re-drafted to avoid it.
Amendment No. 5 is purely formal. It makes the usual provision for any reference to a Statute to be construed as a reference to that Statute as amended or applied by or under other legislation. It has been added because some of the Statutes referred to in the Bill have been amended since its introduction by or under subsequent legislation, in particular by the Defence (Transfer of Functions) (No. 1) Order, 1964, made under the Deference (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1964. Finally, there are amendments Nos. 8 to 12. These are merely drafting Amendments, consequential upon the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1964. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [62] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out from ("area") to end of line 32 and insert ("to be known as the inner London area, consisting of the inner London boroughs;
(b) an area to be known as the north-east London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Barking, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest;
(c) an area to be known as the south-east London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley and Croydon;
(d) an area to be known as the south-west London area, consisting of the London boroughs of Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Richmond upon Thames and Sutton;

385
(e) an area to be known as the Middlesex area, consisting of the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow;").
Clause 8, page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed a clerk of the peace for a London commission area unless he is a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing.")
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("the general fund of")
Page 7, line 13, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert ("or if the clerk of the peace for a London commission area is aggrieved by any such determination with respect to his salary, the Council or the clerk, as the case may be, may appeal to the Secretary of State.")
Page 7, line 22, leave out from first ("of") to ("as") in line 24 and insert ("section 75 of the London Government Act 1963")
Page 7, line 25, at end insert—
("(7) The Minister of Housing and Local Government may by regulations provide that the Local Government Superannuation Acts 1937 to 1953 and any regulations made thereunder shall apply, subject to such adaptations, modifications, and exceptions as may be prescribed by the regulations, to clerks of the peace and deputy clerks of the peace for a London commission area and other officers of the court of quarter sessions for such an area or to any class of such officers; and any such regulations may make different provision with respect to different classes of officers and may contain such incidental, consequential or supplementary provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient.
(8) Any regulations under subsection (7) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("5(2) and (3) and 12") and insert ("and 5(2) and (3),")
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("thereof") to end of line 32.
Page 7, line 36, leave out subsection (9).
Clause 10, page 9, leave out line 5 and insert ("A metropolitan stipendiary magistrate who")
Clause 10, page 9, leave out line 8, leave out from beginning to first ("be") in line 10 and insert ("shall not by reason only of his being a justice of the peace for that area by virtue of that office—

(a) act as a member of a court of quarter sessions for that area; or

(b)").

Clause 13, page 11, line 40, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) There shall be a chairman, a vice-chairman and a deputy chairman of the committee of magistrates, and the chairman of the court of quarter sessions for the inner London area shall be the chairman of the committee, the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate shall be the vice-chairman and a person chosen from amongst themselves by the lay justices who are members of the committee shall be the deputy chairman.")
Clause 15, Page 13, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
("(6) The following provisions of this subsection shall have effect with respect to determinations under subsection (5) of this section and related matters—

(a) no such determination shall have effect unless confirmed with or without modifications, by the Secretary of State;

(b) the committee of magistrates shall not make or refuse to make any such determination with respect to terms and conditions of employment except after consultation with persons appearing to the committee to represent the interests of the officers affected;

(c) any refusal of the Committee to make any such determination with respect to any terms and conditions of employment may be reviewed by the Secretary of State and on the review the Secretary of State may confirm the refusal or make such determination with respect to those terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

(d) in the case of any matter which falls to be determined under the said subsection (5) and")

Clause 15, Page 13, leave out line 32 after ("under") insert ("paragraphs (a) to (c) of").
Clause 19, page 16, line 1, at end insert ("or the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957").
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
Extension of jurisdiction of magistrates' courts to try offences
(".A magistrates' court for a London commission area by which a person is tried for an offence shall have jurisdiction to try him for any summary offence for which he could be tried by a magistrates' court for any other London commission area.")
Leave out Clause 22.
Clause 27, page 22, line 30, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) any sums payable by him in connection with a reasonable settlement of any such proceedings or claim;")
Clause 27, page 22, line 39, leave out from ("costs") to ("any") in line 45 and insert ("or sums as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section may, if the person claiming to be indemnified so requests, be made in advance before those costs are incurred or the settlement made, as the case may be:
Provided that any such determination in advance for indemnity in respects of costs to be incurred shall be subject to such limitations, if any, as the committee think proper and to the subsequent determination of the amount of the costs reasonably incurred, and shall not affect")
Page 23, line 9, leave out from ("in") to end of line 10 and insert ("advance for indemnity in respect of such costs")
Page 23, line 13, leave out ("principle with respect to") and insert ("advance for indemnity in respect of")
Page 23, leave out line 31 and insert—
("(6) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to the inner London area, but in the application of the other provisions of this section to that area, for any reference to local funds there shall be substituted a reference to the metropolitan police fund;")
Page 23, line 36, leave out ("a deputy chief clerk") and add ("any officer employed by the committee of magistrates.")
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
Functions of, or relating to, quarter sessions
(".—(1) The existing functions of the standing joint committee of the court of quarter sessions and the council of any county, except functions exercisable by the committee as police authority, shall cease to be exercisable by the committee and shall be exercisable in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the county council shall provide such courthouses and other accommodation whether in the county or elsewhere, and such furniture, books and other things, as the council may determine to be proper for the due transaction of the business, and convenient keeping of the records and documents, of the court of quarter sessions for the county or any committee of quarter sessions and the functions of the county council under this subsection shall include the functions of managing, controlling and maintaining any such accommodation which by virtue of section 30(3) of the Local Government Act 1888 were exercisable immediately before the commencement of this Act by the standing joint committee.
(3) The county council shall consult with the court of quarter sessions before making any determination under subsection (2) of this section and, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, shall consider and determine any matter which they have been requested by the court to consider and determine.
(4) If a court of quarter sessions are aggrieved by any determination of a county council under this section they may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(5) Any functions to which subsection (1) of this section applies, other than functions relating to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, shall be exercisable by the court of quarter sessions for the county.
(6) The court of quarter sessions for a county where the offices of clerk of the county council and clerk of the peace are held by different persons shall appoint such officers (in addition to a deputy clerk of the peace) or provide such other assistance as they may, after consultation with the county council, determine to be necessary for the purpose of assisting the clerk of the peace in carrying out his duties as such, and—

(a) the salary and other terms and conditions of service of any officer appointed under this subsection and the terms on which other assistance is provided thereunder shall be such as may from time to time
388
be determined by the court after consultation with the county council; and

(b) section 60 of the Local Government Act 1958 (transfer and compensation of officers) shall apply to officers affected by the fact of the clerk of the county council's becoming or, as the case may be, ceasing to be clerk of the peace for the county as it applies to officers affected by an order under Part II of that Act, subject, however, to the following modifications—

(i) a reference to the aforesaid fact shall be substituted for the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the provisions of any such order; and

(ii) the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) of that section shall, instead of being contained in any such order, be contained in regulations made by such Minister as may be determined by the Treasury to be appropriate in relation to the officers affected and those regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) Section 8(7) and (8) of this Act shall apply to the following officers of a court of quarter sessions as they apply to officers of the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area, that is to say—

(a) a deputy clerk of the peace who is not also clerk of the county council;

(b) a deputy clerk of the peace who does not fall within paragraph C of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Superannuation Act 1937;

(c) an officer appointed under subsection (6) of this section.

(8) The provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of this section, except such of those provisions as are adopted by a resolution of the county council, shall not apply to any county for which provision for purposes corresponding to any of the purposes of those subsections is made by any local Act passed before, or in the same session as, this Act.
(9) The following expenditure of a court of quarter sessions, that is to say,—

(a) any expenditure incurred by them in exercising their functions under subsection (5) of this section; and

(b) the sums payable by way of salary or expenses to officers appointed under subsection (6) of this section, together with any employer's contributions payable in respect of them under the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1963, and any expenditure on any other assistance provided for the clerk of the peace under that subsection;

shall be defrayed by the county council.
(10) If a county council are aggrieved—

(a) by the incurring of any, expenditure by a court of quarter sessions in the exercise of their functions under subsection (5) of this section; or

389

(b) by any determination of a court of quarter sessions under subsection (6) of this section;

the council may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(11) Any functions of a court of quarter sessions with respect to the appointment of, and other matters relating to, the clerk of the peace, deputy clerk of the peace and other officers of the court shall, except so far as the court otherwise resolves, be exercised by a committee consisting of the chairman of the court and such other justices as may be appointed by the court, and any other administrative functions of a court of quarter sessions may, if the court so resolves, be exercised by a committee so constituted; and section 96 of the Local Government Act 1933 (proceedings of committees) shall apply to any such committee with the substitution of references to the court of quarter sessions for references to a local authority.
(12) The foregoing provisions of this section except subsections (6) to (8) shall apply to a London commission area as they apply to a county with the substitution of references to the Greater London Council for references to a county council.
(13) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of or repeals in any local Act, including an Act confirming a provisional order, or any instrument in the nature of a local enactment made under any Act, as appear to him to be appropriate in consequence of the foregoing provisions of this section or of a resolution under subsection (8) of this section; and any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
Leave out Clause 34 and insert the following new clause—
Application of supplementary provisions of the London Government Act 1963
(".—(1) The following provisions of the London Government Act 1963, that is to say—

(a) section 84 (power to make orders containing consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions);

(b) section 85(1) to (4) (transfer and compensation of officers); and

(c) section 87 (local Acts and instruments); shall, subject to subsections (2) to (4) of this section, have effect as if the provisions of Part I of and Schedule 4 to this Act were provisions of that Act.

(2) The officers to whom the said section 85(1) applies by virtue of subsection (1) of this section shall not include any persons other than clerks of the peace, deputy clerks of the peace and other officers of a court of quarter sessions, members of the staff of metropolitan stipendiary courts, justices' clerks and other members of the staff of magistrates' courts and probation officers and other persons employed by probation committees or the Secretary of Sate in connection with the work of probation officers.
(3) Section 85(2) of the London Government Act 1963 shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) the reference to local authorities who are or include a council to whom section 3(1)(b) of the said Act of 1963 applies and the second reference to local authorities shall include a reference to the following authorities, that is to say—

(i) the Secretary of State;

(ii) the standing joint committees for the counties of London and Middlesex;

(iii) the magistrates' courts committees for the counties of London and Middlesex and the county boroughs of Croydon. East Ham and West Ham;

(iv) the probation committees for the county of Middlesex, the said county boroughs and the petty sessional division of Becontree in the county of Essex;

(b) the authorities to whom any person may be transferred under the subsection shall, in the case of a person affected by Part I of this Act, include such of the following authorities for a London Commission area or a county adjoining any such area as may be specified in or determined under the order, that is to say, the court of quarter sessions, the magistrates' courts committee (or in the case of the inner London area the committee of magistrates) and the probation committee;

(c) the power of making orders under the subsection in the case of persons not employed by a local authority shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State and not by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

(4) For the purposes of section 85(1) to (4) of the London Government Act 1963 and of this section the clerk of the peace, deputy clerk of the peace and justices' clerk for any area shall each be treated as employed by an authority, if that authority appointed him, and as having been transferred to, and thereafter as being in. the employment of an authority, if that authority has power to appoint such a clerk.
(5) Nothing in section 86 of the said Act of 1963 shall be construed as requiring a joint committee established under that section to consider any matters falling to be dealt with under section 84 or 87 of that Act by virtue only of this section.")
Clause 36, page 26, line 28, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 31 and insert ("Greater London Council under section 8(4) of this Act. section 77(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 or section 27(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 shall be placed to the credit of the special London account out of which the relevant expenses of the Council arc payable; and in this subsection 'the relevant expenses' means—

(a) in relation to payments under section 8(4) of this Act, expenses under that section:

(b) in relation to payments under section 77(3)(a) of the said Act of 1948, expenses, under Schedule 5 to that Act;

391

(c) in relation to payments under section 27(2) of the said Act of 1949, expenses under section 25(2) of that Act.")

Clause 39, page 27, line 26, leave out subsection (2)
Clause 39, page 27, line 43, leave out ("subsection (2) of this section)") and insert ("section (Application of supplementary provisions of the London Government Act 1963) of this Act).")
Clause 40, page 28, line 8, leave out ("Part II of this Act") and insert ("The following provisions of this Act, that is to say, Part II (except section 30),")
Clause 40, page 28, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) Any order under this section may make such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into force, including such adaptations of those provisions or any provisions of this Act then in force as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act (whether before or after the day appointed by the order).")
Clause 40, page 28, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("(which include enactments which were already obsolete or unnecessary before the passing of this Act)")
Clause 40, page 28, line 25, leave out subsection (8).
Schedule 1, page 29, line 18, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 22 and insert ("or holding office under Part II of the City of London (Courts) Act 1964.")
Schedule 2, page 32, line 28, at end insert—
("7. Any contribution payable by the Treasury under paragraph 3, or by virtue of paragraph 5, of this Schedule shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.")
Schedule 3, page 32, line 36, at end insert ("a metropolitan magistrates' court")
Page 33, line 4, after ("to") insert ("the county of")
Page 33, line 12, leave out ("referernce") and insert ("references")
Page 33, line 13, leave out ("a reference") and insert ("references")
Page 33, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (1)
Page 33, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (3)
Page 33, line 41, at end insert—
("THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) Act 1931
14.—(1) In sections 3(1), 4 and 7(3) for references to the standing joint committee there shall be substituted references to the court of quarter sessions.
(2) So much of section 3(3) as adapts the enactments relating to fees and costs payable to the clerk of the peace shall cease to have effect.")
Page 34, line 13, at end insert—
("THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT 1937
15. For the purposes of section 4(2), in its application (by virtue of Schedule 3 to the
392
Local Government Superannuation Act 1953) to justices' clerks for an outer London area and staff employed by a magistrates' courts committee for such an area to assist a justices' clerk, Greater London shall be treated as a county and the Greater London Council shall be treated as the council of that county.")
Page 35, line 9, after ("shall") insert ("if the duties are those of a justice for the inner London area out of sessions, be paid by the Receiver and shall in any other case")
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("In section 18(9)(a)") and insert ("Section 18 shall in its application to the outer London areas have effect as if any reference to the council of a county were a reference to the Greater London Council, and in subsection 9(a) of that section")
Page 36, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) Section 12 shall, in its application to the Central Criminal Court, have effect as if for the reference to the end of the assizes there were substituted a reference to the latest date on which, under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to this Act, the trial of the accused must begin or, if the court has under that paragraph ordered that the trial shall begin on some other date, that other date.")
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
("2) In Part III of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the entry relating to clerks and other officers and servants of a metropolitan magistrate's court shall cease to have effect.
(3) In Part IV of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—
(a) after the entry relating to Her Majesty's Commissioner of Lieutenancy in the City of London there shall be inserted the following words—

"Her Majesty's Lieutenant for Greater London.

Any constituency comprising any part of Greater London";

(b) after the entry relating to the Governor of the Isle of Wight there shall be inserted the following words—

"The High Sheriff Greater London.

of Any constituency comprising any part of Greater London".")

Page 37, line 33, at end insert—
("THE LICENSING ACT 1964
29.—(1) In section 2(1) for the words from "(a) in the administrative" to "London" in paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words "the City of London".
(2) In section 25(2) for the words from "and (b)" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words—
"(b) if the licensing district for which the licensing justices acted is in a London commission area, out of the general fund of the Greater London Council;

393
(c) if the licensing district for which the licensing justices acted is the City of London, out of the general rate of the City of London; and
(d) in any other case, out of the county fund of the county in which the licensing district is situated;
and any sum falling to be paid by virtue of this subsection out of the general fund of the Greater London Council shall be chargeable only on the London boroughs."
(3) In section 25(3) for the words from "as if" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "subject however to the following modifications—

(a) for any reference in those provisions to a borough or county borough there shall be substituted a reference to the City of London or to a borough having a separate court of quarter sessions, as the case may require; and

(b) in the application of those provisions to the City of London for any reference to the treasurer there shall be substituted a reference to the Chamberlain".

(4) In section 201(1), for the definition of "the metropolis" there shall be substituted the following definition, that is to say, "'the metropolis' means an area consisting of the inner London area within the meaning of the Administration of Justice Act 1964 and the City of London".
(5) In Part VII and Schedule 11 any reference to the administrative county of London shall be construed as a reference to the metropolis, and any reference in Schedule 11 to the county of London or London shall be construed as a reference to the inner London area.")
Schedule 4, page 38, fine 18, after ("appointments,") insert ("the")
Schedule 4, page 38, leave out lines 36 to 48 and insert—
("4.(1) After the issue of a commission of the peace for a London commission area and before 1st April 1965 the Greater London Council shall make all necessary arrangements for satisfying the initial requirements of the court of quarter sessions for that area as to accommodation and equipment, and subsections (2) to (4) and (7) of section (Functions of, or relating to, quarter sessions) of this Act shall apply for that purpose notwithstanding that that section has not come into force.")
Schedule 4, page 38, line 50, leave out from ("area") to end of line 9 on page 39 and insert ("if the county council of Essex, Kent or Surrey, as the case may be, are requested by the Greater London Council to provide any accommodation or equipment necessary for the purposes of the said arrangements and decline to do so or fail to agree with the Greater London Council about the terms or conditions on which it is to be provided, the dispute shall be referred to the Secretary of
394
State who may give such directions in the matter as he thinks fit, but no county council shall be required by virtue of this sub-paragraph to provide any accommodation or equipment for those purposes after 1st April 1970.")
Page 39, line 22, at end insert—
("(2) Any order made under or by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph may contain transitional and other consequential provisions.")
Page 40, line 25, at end insert ("and
(c) the lay justices elected to the committee under paragraph 6(1) of this Schedule or paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph shall as soon as practicable after being elected choose a person in accordance with section 13(5) of this Act to be deputy chairman of the committee.")
Page 40, line 36, leave out ("by justices of the peace for") and insert ("under paragraph 6 of this Schedule in the case of")
Page 41, line 12, at end insert—
("(5) Any requirements imposed by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect subject to the provisions of any instrument made under any enactment including this Act.")
Page 43, line 8, leave out ("an existing") and insert ("a")
Page 43, line 13, leave out ("Acts 1953 to 1961") and insert ("Act 1964,")
Page 43, line 14, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 14, leave out ("on 1st April 1965") and insert ("by this Act,")
Page 43, line 17, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 20, leave out first ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 20, leave out second ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 21, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 25, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 29, leave out ("division") and insert ("district")
Page 43, line 35, at end insert ("and subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall with necessary modifications apply to things done by any such committee for the purpose of disposing of proceedings in pursuance of this sub-paragraph.")
Page 43, line 40, after ("area") insert ("and")
Page 43, line 41, leave out from ("court") to end of line 42.
Page 44, line 7, at end insert—
("(3) Any expenditure incurred by the Greater London Council under this paragraph in connection with any of the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph shall be chargeable only on the outer London boroughs.")
Page 47, line 7, leave out ("an existing") and insert ("a")
Page 47, line 8, leave out ("an existing") and insert ("a")
Page 47, line 44, leave out from ("to") to ("which") in line 45 and insert ("a petty sessions area, petty sessional division or licensing district")
Page 47, line 46, leave out from ("to") to ("which") in line 47 and insert ("an existing petty sessions area, petty sessional division or licensing district")
Page 47, line 49, after ("by") insert ("or in consequence of").
Schedule 5, page 48, line 20, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Vict. c. 18.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.

Section 148 originally enacted or as incorporated in any other enactment.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 28, at end insert—

("32 & 33 Vict. c. 18.

The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1869.

The whole Act as originally enacted or as incorporated in any other enactment.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 28, column 3, leave out lines 44 to 47 and insert—
("In section 3(iv), the words from "subject" to the end of the paragraph.
Section 30, except so far as relating to the police.")
Schedule 5, page 48, line 53, at end insert ("Section 64(3) and (4).")
Page 49, line 6, at end insert—

("58 & 59 Vict. c. cxxvii.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1895.

Section 43.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 14, leave out ("(1)")
Schedule 5, page 48, line 21, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. xcviii.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1926.

Section 35.")

Schedule 5, page 48, line 25, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 3(3) the words from "and in the enactments" to "this Act".
Section 12.
Section 13(1)(b).")
Schedule 5, page 48, line 58, leave out ("county") and insert ("section ninety")
Page 50, line 19, at end insert—

("11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. liii.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1948.

Section 49.")

Page 50, line 19, leave out lines 26 to 30.
Page 50, line 42, at end insert—
("In section 27(10)(c) the words "a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court".")
Page 51, leave out lines 5 and 6.
Page 51, leave out line 24, at end insert—
("In Part III of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the entry relat-
396
ing to clerks and other officers and servants of a metropolitan magistrate's court.")
Page 51, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Page 51, leave out line 51, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 84(6).")
Page 51, leave out line 54, after ("and") insert ("in")
Page 51, leave out line 58, at end add—

("1964, c.

The Licensing Act 1964.

Section 57(2). In section 60(2) the words "wholly or partly".

In section 60(3), the words "wholly or partly".

Section 201(3).

1964, c. iv.

The City of London (Courts) Act 1964.

Section 8(2).")

LORD DERWENT: My Lords, your Lordships will see that there are a large number of Amendments on the Order Paper—91 in all. However, many of these are minor and I thought it might be convenient to your Lordships if I singled out for particular mention those which substantially add to the Bill as it left this House. The Bill was improved during its passage through this House, and I think your Lordships will agree, when I have described these further Amendments, that they represent a further useful addition to the Bill.
The first Amendment I should like to mention is Amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper, which prescribes the qualifications of a clerk of the peace for a London commission area. There is no statutory provision for the qualifications of clerks of the peace elsewhere in the country, though, so far as I know, and have been able to find out, they all have legal qualifications. However, it was represented in another place that it would nevertheless be desirable to make it clear that in London the clerk of the peace must be a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing, and the Government agreed that this should be done.
Next there are Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which alter the provision in Clause 10(5) that a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, although he is an ex-officio justice of the peace for each of the London commission areas and for the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey, may not sit at quarter sessions for those areas. It was represented to us after the Bill had left this House that it is not really necessary to preserve

397
this absolute ban on metropolitan magistrates sitting at quarter sessions, and that if a metropolitan magistrate were appointed to the commission of any of the areas concerned in his own right he should be allowed to sit insofar as his other duties permitted. We felt able to accept that suggestion and the Amendment provides simply that a stipendiary is not to sit at quarter sessions by reason only of the fact that he is an ex-officio justice.
Amendment No. 12 relates to the Committee of Magistrates for the Inner London area. Clause 13 of the Bill as it left this House provided that the chairman of the Inner London Quarter Sessions should be the chairman of the Committee of Magistrates and that the Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate should be deputy chairman. The effect of the Amendment is that the chief magistrate is designated vice-chairman, and the deputy chairman is to be a person chosen from among themselves by the lay justices on the Committee of Magistrates. The Government were urged in the other place to recognise the joint participation of the stipendiary magistrates and lay justices in the integrated courts of Inner London by providing that there should be two joint deputy chairmen, one a stipendiary magistrate, the other a lay justice. The Government, while appreciating the spirit in which the suggestion was made, did not feel that it would be practicable to have two deputy chairmen of the Committee but proposed instead that there should be a vice-chairman and deputy chairman. This proposal was accepted in another place, and the Amendment provides accordingly.
I come now to two Amendments relating to the staff of the Inner London magistrates' courts, Nos. 13 and 14 on the Order Paper. These are designed to make it clear that if the Committee of Magistrates for the Inner London area rejects a proposal which would vary the terms and conditions of service of the staff of the magistrates' courts in Inner London, the decision is open to review by the Home Secretary, who may confirm the decision or, if he thinks fit, make an alternative decision with regard to the terms and conditions. These Amendments were put forward by the Government following negotiations with the staff associations, and I think I may
398
say that they are acceptable to all the interests concerned.
It might be convenient if I mentioned at this point a later Amendment, No. 25, which is a new clause relating not only to the staff of the Inner London magistrates' courts but also to all other staff affected by the Bill. The new clause adapts Section 85 of the London Government Act, 1963, to provide more specific measures for the protection of the interests of persons affected by the Bill than those contained in Clause 34 of the Bill, which is superseded. The Home Secretary is empowered (and, in the case of authorities which are disappearing, obliged) to transfer officers to new employing authorities on terms of service no less favourable than those enjoyed by them before transfer, and to make regulations for the compensation of persons suffering loss of office or loss of diminution of pay as a result of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore (who is not at the moment in his place), asked at Committee stage in this House whether there could be assurance that existing staff of the metropolitan magistrates' courts and the lay justices' courts who became the staff of the Inner London magistrates' courts would do so on a "no detriment" basis. The new clause gives full assurance on that point and extends not only to those persons but to all officers affected by the Bill.
The next substantial Amendment is No. 16. This is a new clause which allows a magistrates' court for one London commission area, when it is trying a person for an offence committed in that area, to deal at the same time with offences which have been committed in other London commission areas. It is not uncommon for someone to be apprehended for summary offences committed in various parts of the future Greater London area, and the new provision will make for flexibility in dealing with such cases. It is, I think, a useful reform.
Amendment number 24 is also a new clause. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor explained on Second Reading in this House that, after the creation of new police authorities in the Police Bill and the consequent abolition of the police functions of standing joint committees, those committees will be left with only the residual function of dealing with court accommodation for quarter sessions; and,

399
in the event, he and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decided that it would be anomalous for standing joint committees to continue to exist solely to discharge these residual functions. The new clause makes alternative provision. It transfers to the county council the existing duty of the standing joint committee to determine what buildings and equipment are required by the court of quarter sessions, and obliges the county council to consult quarter sessions before making a determination. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if quarter sessions is dissatisfied with a decision by the county council. That is the main pattern of the clause. Certain other subsidiary matters are also dealt with in the clause, and if any noble Lord wishes to have further details I will do my best to help him.
My Lords, I think that the only other Amendment which I need single out for special mention is Amendment No. 29 which makes it clear that Clause 31, which allows the payment of subsistence allowances to justices, is to come into force on the passing of the Act. This clause was welcomed in both Houses and noble Lords who have expressed an interest in the clause will, I am sure, be glad to know that it is to come into immediate effect. Regulations will need to be made under the clause, and I understand from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that it is his intention that these should be made very soon after the passing of the Act.
The remaining Amendments, as I have said, are comparatively minor changes. Many of them have been made to meet suggestions and criticisms which have been made during the progress of this rather complex and technical Bill through Parliament. I have done my best to point out the salient features of the Amendments of substance on the Order Paper. If it is convenient to the House, I would propose to move all the Amendments en bloc, and if any noble Lords wish to ask questions about any particular Amendment I will be glad to try to help them. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE BILL
3.10 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Police authorities for counties and county boroughs]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to put it beyond doubt that in county boroughs the town clerk is the person to take or defend any legal proceedings on behalf of the watch committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, after ("council") insert ("or town clerk").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Local inquiries]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) Any person attending any inquiry held under this section may be represented by counsel, solicitor or any other person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to one moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Stonham, to which my name was affixed. I believe that when this point was discussed in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, gave an assurance that the matter would be considered.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he was not here. I said that I would have another look at it, which is not quite the same thing.
LORD SILKIN: I think it is a distinction without a difference. All I said was that there was a promise to consider. I should be very glad to have the result of that consideration, or further look, if the noble Lord prefers that expression. The short point is that Clause 32 provides for inquiries to be held into the conduct of certain police officers or others. Such inquiries may have very important consequences to the people concerned. They are asked to come before the inquiry, and questions are put to them. Many of them, however, are unaccustomed to dealing with matters of that kind before tribunals. They may be asked questions which are of great consequence to their future, and may even have consequences

401
on their liberty. It was felt—and the Law Society, in particular, felt very strongly—that such persons should have the opportunity to be represented by counsel, a solicitor or any other person, particularly if their interests were going to be vitally affected. This Amendment seemed to me earlier, and seems to me to-day, a most reasonable Amendment. I do not propose to take up any further time in arguing it, because in my opinion it is self-evident that a person appearing before an inquiry, whose interests may be prejudicially affected, should have the opportunity of being represented before that inquiry. I should be very interested to know what the noble Lord has to say on the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the result of my further consideration is that I hope to be able to explain the position more clearly to your Lordships than I did last time. I think the first thing I should say is that it may not be quite realised how wide are the terms of Clause 32. These inquiries ordered by the Secretary of State can be on any police matter, and will not necessarily be confined to so-called offences by or complaints against the police. The terms are very wide. These inquiries will be similar to those under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and the point here, as I said last time, is that there are no parties to these inquiries.
If it is clear before an inquiry starts—and one must remember that in charge of the inquiry is an experienced barrister or lawyer—that somebody in his personal capacity is going to be involved, he can, as is the case with inquiries under the 1921 Act, apply in advance to be legally represented. I would point out that if during the course of an inquiry somebody is unexpectedly personally involved, not only can he or she apply to be legally represented, but it is the duty of the lawyer in charge of the inquiry to see that anyone who may be adversely affected has pointed out to him there and then that he is entitled to be legally represented, and he may well advise that person that this should in his own interests be done. My Lords, that is how these inquiries work over the whole field at the moment, and the type of inquiry
402
for which this clause provides is really no different. As I say, applications for legal representation are normally made before the inquiry starts, because it is known that somebody is personally involved and may be at risk. But there is nothing to prevent its happening during the inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I stop the noble Lord at this point? The person who thinks he is going to be affected may make an application to the tribunal for permission to be legally represented. Am I to gather that if such an application is made the tribunal is legally bound to grant such an application, or that it is within the discretion of the tribunal?
LORD DERWENT: It is within the discretion of the tribunal, as it is in all inquiries of this sort. But it is the duty of the person in charge of the inquiry to see that permission is given, if there is a possibility of the man's being adversely affected. We feel that it would be quite inappropriate, and I might say unprecedented, to confer an absolute statutory entitlement to legal representation in inquiries of this sort. There are no parties and nobody may be involved, and for every witness to be entitled without applying has really never been done and would be inappropriate.
Where there are parties to proceedings before a statutory tribunal—there can be parties or actual sides—the parties are usually entitled to arrange for legal representation, but at an inquiry under Clause 32 there will be no parties in the ordinary sense of the term. All the persons appearing, whether or not their conduct is in question, will appear as witnesses, so that it is up to the person holding the inquiry to see that the witnesses are protected. Where application is made and he thinks that the applicant's interests are affected, the person in charge must give permission, and he may well decide himself before application is made to advise a witness that he is, perhaps, at risk and should be represented. That is the position, and I think that witnesses will be fully protected in the same way as they would be in the case of an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. I hope, therefore, in view of what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he said at one stage of his speech that if the lawyer holding the inquiry thought that one of the witnesses was at risk of being prejudiced by the course that the inquiry was taking he would be under a duty to advise him that he was entitled to be legally represented. If the procedure is, in fact, going to be that under the 1921 Act—and I have no doubt that my noble friend's words will be read carefully when inquiries of this sort are being set up, in order to see that the procedure is right—then the witness will not be entitled to be legally represented; he will be entitled to ask for legal representation. I hope that, if that is the case, nobody will be misled by what my noble friend has said.
LORD DERWENT: I am very grateful to my noble friend. He is quite right. Perhaps I may repeat, in particular, that the person who is holding the inquiry will at all times take care to see that witnesses are alive to the opportunities for legal representation where he thinks this necessary—that is, where he advises. If somebody applies on his own behalf for legal representation, the person holding the inquiry must consider the point; and if he considers that the person applying is at risk (I am not a lawyer, and perhaps I am using the wrong term, but this is what a layman would call it), then he will give that permission. That is the effect of the working of the present system under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 64 [Interpretation, repeals and transitional provisions]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, there is a mistake on the Order Paper. The extent of the mistake will be immediately apparent when I call the next Amendment: Clause 64, Amendment No. 3, Lord Derwent.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the mistake is that the Amendment is not down under my name—a printer's error. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 go together. They are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision in any local Act, including an Act confirming a provisional order, or in any instrument in the nature of a local enactment under any Act, where it appears to him that that provision is inconsistent with, or has become unnecessary or requires modification in consequence of, any provision of this Act or corresponds to any provision repealed by this Act; and any statutory instrument made under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 17, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Combined police authority constituted as committee of constituent council]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to clear up a doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 34, after ("of") insert ("the council of").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of Police (Scotland) Act 1956]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 really go together. Amendment No. 6 is drafting and No. 10, when we come to it, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 3, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("(4) and (7)").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 go together, and they should be read in conjunction. They are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 15, at end insert—

("The Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960.

In section 2(8), for the words 'a standing joint committee or water committee' there shall be substituted the words 'a police authority which is a committee of the council of a county or borough'.")—

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 63.

(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 31, column 3, leave out ("2(10)") and insert ("2, in subsection (8) the words from 'and any proceedings' to the end, and in subsection (10).").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the repeal of The Special Constables Act, 1914. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 50, at end insert—

("13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 11.

The Special Constables Act 1923.

In section 5 the words from 'and the' to the end.")—

(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 10, column 3, leave out ("and (4)") and insert ("(4) and (7)").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSING BILL
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Suspended improvement notices: effect after five years]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "twelve" and insert "six" [months]. The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill in this House, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the considerable delay which, under various clauses of this Bill, takes place in dealing with the admitted evil of the bad condition of our houses. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that it could take five years before an order became operative and the work was in fact completed. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said three years, but I would challenge him on that. At any rate, it could take a very long time, measured in terms of years; and I have tried, by a series of Amendments, to reduce the period of the various steps which have to be taken.
One of those Amendments is to Clause 16, which provides a period of twelve months in which steps must be taken after an improvement notice has been served on the person having control of the dwelling. It seems to me that he has twelve months in which he may carry out the work specified in the improvement notice. It may well be, of course, that the works are of an extensive nature, and in such a case twelve months would be a reasonable period; but the clause itself provides for an extension of the time in cases where it is thought that a longer time is justified. The work itself may, however, be of a relatively simple kind, especially since a reduced standard has been made possible under this Bill. It may amount merely to putting in hot and cold water, or to something even simpler than that. I should have thought, therefore, that the right

407
thing would be to provide, in the first instance, a period of six months in which the work should be done, and to extend that period if it should be thought desirable—that is, if the work was of an extensive nature. Alternatively, a longer notice could be given to start with if the work was of an extensive nature. But it seemed to me that, in the simple case, there was no justification for giving the person in control twelve months in which to carry out this work. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take a sympathetic view of this Amendment. It must be their desire that this machinery should be expedited, and that persons having control of property should not have a longer time than is absolutely necessary to dally about the carrying out of the work of this improvement. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 28, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): First, I would apologise to the noble Lord opposite that he should have beaten me, as it were, by a short head; but I had not expected the speed at which my noble friend advanced—not to mention the statement which is to follow. This particular Amendment, of course, refers to Clause 18, which deals with the action that may be taken by the local authorities after the five-year period has elapsed and the consent of a tenant to an improvement notice is no longer necessary. It does not refer directly to the completion of works; and I pointed out on a previous occasion that there was a slight difference between this Amendment and the others.
On thinking it over, it seems unnecessary that when, after the end of five years, the local authority wished to serve a final improvement notice they should have to wait for twelve months. Therefore, the Government propose to accept this Amendment on this particular issue, on Clause 18. The local authorities' associations have been consulted about this matter, and three of the four associations are in favour of this reduction in time from twelve to six months. Therefore,
408
I propose to accept this particular Amendment. But I still cannot accept the general inference of the other Amendments which we discussed previously (and I think there are one or two later to this effect), relating to the actual carrying out and completion of works. But the Government accept this particular Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am afraid that my speech was directed to a later Amendment. I had forgotten how far we had got last time; I was using the old Amendment sheet. I will not make exactly the same speech when I come to the right Amendment, but I will make something like it. But I am glad the noble Lord has accepted this Amendment. It curtails the period from 5 years to 4½ years; and that is something.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "of the local authority to", and to insert:
"offer, or arrange for some other authority or person to offer, suitable alternative accommodation to the tenant, so as to afford to the tenant a reasonable opportunity of taking up that alternative accommodation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to meet criticism in another place, where this matter was discussed at considerable length. It refers to the duty of the local authority to find accommodation for a tenant who had hitherto refused to have improvement carried out and now, after five years, is no longer in a position to do so. It was not made perfectly clear that the local authority were actually under a definite obligation to find him accommodation. It stated merely that the authority must give the tenant reasonable opportunity of finding accommodation. After considerable discussion another Amendment was introduced, and that again was withdrawn for further consideration, the criticism being that the obligation of the local authority was not only not put explicitly but was restricted to local authority accommodation. We think that we have now found an Amendment which will satisfy all these criticisms. It makes it clear that the local authority's duty is either to offer accommodation themselves of to make arrangements for some other person or body—for example, a housing association—to offer it. The phrase

409
"afford a reasonable opportunity" is, however, retained as a qualification, because this would prevent the local authority from not giving sufficient notice to the tenant. I hope that this Amendment will meet with the wishes of the Committee here and the criticisms expressed in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 46, leave out from ("to") to end of line 48 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

CYPRUS
3.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will now answer the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked earlier this afternoon, about the present situation in Cyprus. Since the serious incidents in Famagusta three weeks ago, there have been fewer acts of violence in Cyprus. The arrival of further troops from other countries has enabled the British contingent in the United Nations force to be reduced to about 2,000 men, in addition to the important lcgistic support which we continue to provide. Britain is thus still supplying the largest element in the peace-keeping force. Our troops have endeavoured to discharge their difficult task with complete impartiality, but this has not always been appreciated by the two communities who have at different times accused us of favouring the other. At present anti-British feeling among the Greek-Cypriots is, unhappily, running very high and is being actively stimulated by newspapers and speeches.
This situation has recently been aggravated by the case of a British airman, who has been charged by the Greek-Cypriot police with carrying arms to the Turkish-Cypriots. Since the matter is sub judice, I will not comment upon it, except to inform the House that our High Commissioner has protested strongly about the statement made by the Cypriot Minister of the Interior, in which he publicly condemned the accused man, thereby prejudicing the prospect of a fair trial. I do not know whether the charge against this individual is well-founded.
410
But it is not necessary for me to say that the British Government would be deeply distressed at any failure on the part of its Servicemen to live up to the high reputation which they have rightly earned throughout the world.
For some time we have been much disturbed by the build-up of arms and military forces in Cyprus by both sides. As guarantors of the Constitution, the Governments of Britain, Greece and Turkey have made representations to President Makarios about his decision to introduce conscription. At the same time, the British Government and the Governments of other countries which are contributing to the United Nations Force have expressed to the Secretary-General their concern about the reported intention of the Cyprus Government to import substantial quantities of heavy armaments. The three-month mandate given by the Security Council expires in about four weeks' time and will no doubt have to be extended. We remain anxious to do all we can to help the United Nations Force to fulfil its mission. However, before entering into a commitment for a further period, we shall wish to be satisfied that our continued participation is necessary and is generally desired by the other countries concerned.
The sole reason for the presence of our troops in the United Nations Force is our desire to help restore peace in the island and create conditions in which a settlement acceptable to both communities can be negotiated. While they are performing this thankless task, we feel that they and their families have a right to be treated with respect and courtesy by those who, in the crisis of last December, so readily accepted our offer to come to their aid.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful for that statement. The position is a very unsatisfactory one and all of us agree that everything should be done to clear up whatever it is possible to clear up. I should like to ask one or two questions about this statement. The first is: could the noble Lord tell us what has been the result of the representations that have been made to President Makarios about his intention to introduce conscription? Secondly, I think we should all agree that we should continue to participate so long as it is necessary. I hope that we shall continue

411
to remain in occupation while there are British subjects on the island, because they are very much in need of protection. I would say, I am sure on behalf of every noble Lord here, that we very much deplore the action which has been taken as regards individual British subjects on the island and their families, particularly the wives of Servicemen.
We should like to pay a tribute at this stage to the conduct of our Servicemen on the island under extremely difficult conditions. We should not like them to feel that they are in any way open to criticism, in spite of the charges which are made against them. We realise that the situation is a difficult one and we wish to be assured that the Government are doing everything they can to protect British subjects from the indignities from which we are told they have been suffering recently at the hands of the Cypriots.
LORD REA: My Lords—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was asked three questions, and if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the Liberal Party, not the Opposition yet—would speak after I have replied to them, I should be grateful. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has said, and would join with him in saying how much we all admire the restraint with which British troops have carried out their task in Cyprus. He asked me what was the result of the representations to President Makarios about conscription. The President's answer was that while there was a threat of Turkish invasion it was the duty of any sovereign Government to take steps to defend itself.
With regard to the British subjects on the island, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that this will be one of the paramount considerations of Her Majesty's Government in any decisions upon what steps we take with regard to the United Nations Force. I can also assure him that we will be careful to do as much as we can to save British subjects from any further indignities.
LORD REA: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am sorry if I caused him embarrassment, but I hoped to save him trouble by adding one small question, after endorsing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about our
412
troops there in their difficult situation. I understand that the British Forces have been reduced to about 2,000, which still leaves us in the position of having the largest element there. Are arrangements in progress, or is pressure being made, to have these men replaced by the forces of other nations, so that we may take a less prominent part in the armed part of this island?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, not at the moment. The ratio of troops has been fixed to the end of this present mandate, but no doubt this will be one of the questions for discussion when the renewal of the mandate is under consideration in New York.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the reply regarding the proposed or suggested conscription in Cyprus, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will suggest to the United Nations that they should make the strongest possible representations to President Makarios that any such introduction of conscription would very likely lead in itself to a civil war much more acute than we have yet seen, and that, in its turn, would lead to foreign intervention in Cyprus?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the decision of the Cypriot Government to introduce a Bill on conscription is one of the greatest gravity, and I think we must take every possible step we can to bring home the seriousness of the situation to all those interested in peace in that area.

TYPHOID OUTBREAK IN ABERDEEN
3.45 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like, if I may, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day, to repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It runs in these words:
"With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House on the outbreak in Aberdeen of typhoid fever.

413
The number of patients at present in hospital is 249 of whom 241 are confirmed cases. This is in fact the most serious outbreak since 1937. The first indications of an outbreak appeared on May 19, and the probable source of infection, in a supermarket in Aberdeen, was traced on May 20. The speed with which the focal point of infection was established reflects great credit on the Medical Officer of Health of Aberdeen, Dr. MacQueen, and his staff.
"According to the information with which I have been furnished, the cause of this outbreak has not been finally established. There have been suggestions that the organism causing the epidemic was present in canned corned beef, and this cannot be ruled out. However, there is no foundation for the suggestion that the infection originated in canned corned beef from former Government stocks. No canned meat which investigation has shown could have been in the shop, could have come from these stocks.
"Investigations made revealed that some 6 lb. cans of corned beef from a certain establishment—not from Government stocks—were in the shop at the material time. The establishment at which this corned beef was produced did not, for a period of fifteen months, use in the cooling process chlorinated water. This could conceivably have been a source of infection. The Government are therefore advising that 6 lb. cans produced at this establishment during this period should be withdrawn from sale for the time being.
"As an additional protection, we are also advising that corned beef in 6 lb. cans, produced at another establishment where unchlorinated water was used for cooling, should be withdrawn. I should add, however, that there is no evidence that corned beef from this plant could have been involved in the Aberdeen outbreak.
"Medical officers of health are being advised how they can assist in this operation. We are in touch with the trade and I am sure that they will co-operate with us, as they did last year.
"Although we are taking these precautionary measures, there is no
414
positive evidence at present that the brands to be withdrawn were responsible for the infection. And it must be accepted that many doubts remain unresolved. Because these uncertainties exist, the Government have decided to hold an inquiry under an independent chairman to discover the cause of the epidemic. The report of the inquiry will be published in due course. But I should point out that there is no doubt in my mind that the first priority must be to contain the epidemic which is now in Aberdeen.
"Before I sit down, I should like to take this opportunity, and I am sure the House will join with me, of expressing my profound sympathy with the townspeople of Aberdeen in their misfortune and my admiration for the public services of the City for the way in which they are confronting it."
That is the statement.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am quite sure that the whole House will be relieved to hear that the Government intend to institute a public inquiry. Could I ask the noble Marquess two questions? Has he read the report of the proceedings of Aberdeen Town Council yesterday, in which Councillor Mutch drew attention to the depletion in the sanitary services in Aberdeen and urged that they should be brought up to establishment level? In view of this evidence, is the noble Marquess satisfied that the medical officers, who work in the half dozen districts in Scotland where there have been small or large outbreaks, have sufficient help and particularly expertise at their disposal? And what are the Government doing immediately about that?
The other question I want to ask him is this. In view of the fact that we are living in an age in which a great proportion of our food is tinned, are there any regulations which serve to inform distributors of tinned food of what the noble Marquess has just informed the House—namely, that, when cooled, tinned food must be cooled with chlorinated water? Furthermore, after food has been tinned, is any period of time laid down after which that tinned food should not be distributed to the population? I am sorry if my questions have been rather long.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for her acceptance of the statement which I have made. I must confess that I have not seen the report of the proceedings yesterday in the Aberdeen Town Council. I think the noble Lady has raised an important point in connection with the sanitary conditions in Aberdeen and other Scottish cities, and, if I may, I should like to take this matter up with my right honourable friend.
On the noble Lady's second point, about whether distributors of these canned goods know about chlorination, my information is that they are quite aware of this. I will make sure of this and let the noble Lady know, but my information, which I am pretty sure is correct, is that they do know that all canned food should come from plants where chlorinated water is used in cooling. So far as I am aware, there is no period of time after which cans brought into this country cannot be sold to the trade.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that it was a period of fifteen months during which this particular firm, presumably in the Argentine, was using non-chlorinated water for this batch of corned beef. Could he say whether the two outbreaks of typhoid last year, one in Harlow and the other, I think, in Bedford, were cases involving this same batch of corned beef? My second question is this. The Minister speaks of an independent chairman for the inquiry. If I remember rightly, the chairman of the inquiry into the Croydon typhoid epidemic, who was a civil servant, had sitting with him a medical assessor and an engineering inspector. Will the chairman in this case be an engineer, or a doctor, or what kind of person will the chairman chosen to carry out this independent inquiry be?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, to take the last question first, I am afraid I cannot at present tell the noble Lord who the chairman is going to be or to what profession he may belong. My right honourable friend has only recently taken this decision, and I do not think he has made up his mind about this. With regard to the two outbreaks last year, my information is that the meat did not come from the same source, although again I believe it was
416
the use of unchlorinated water which was the cause. The meat did not, however, come from the same place.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, further to the Minister's reply, it appears, then, that several firms have been using non-chlorinated water from the River Plate to cool this corned beef. Is there any kind of step Her Majesty's Government can take to ensure that in future all corned beef coming from the Argentine is cooled by chlorinated water?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. As a result of what happened last year, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture now sends his inspectors out to South America for the precise purpose of checking, not only on whether the water is chlorinated, but on the general hygiene of the plant concerned. That is why we hoped this would not occur again.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's reply, twice he used the word that his Department is "advising" certain action. May I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have any mandatory power to prohibit the marketing of this particular batch of corned beef which has been cooled with unchlorinated water, or is the limit of the Government's powers advising in this matter? If this is so, it does not seem to be a very satisfactory position.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the Government can effect this withdrawal only with the co-operation of the trade concerned. When this happened last year, as I said in my statement, the trades were most co-operative and understanding about it. They are being consulted to-day about the position.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: So the spread of the possible infection relies on the good will of the trade, and not on the power of the Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Government cannot enforce this at the present time.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the last question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referring to the period of turnover of these tins, is it not a fact that

417
the contents of the tins must have been contaminated from the time when they were tinned and, therefore, the period of turnover could not affect whether they were originally infected with germs or not?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That is quite true.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Marquess may not be aware of what has come through on the tape in the last hour. I understand that tins in this particular shop have been recognised by the manufacturer as tins of corned beef that had been sold to the Ministry of Food in 1951, arid therefore there may be some connection between those tins and those that the medical officer of health believes were infected. The point I want to make is this. These tins were recognised by the manufacturer by the coding on the tin. Can the Minister undertake to see, if the coding can identify these tins as belonging to this particular period when the meat may have been cooled by non-chlorinated water, that the trade, and particularly the retailers, are informed as to the suspected tins, and that those tins, before they are sold, are inspected by a medical officer of health, so that we can do something to prevent the spread of this particular disease?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is it not a fact that inspection, unfortunately is no use, much as I wish it were? Is it not necessary to have bacteriological tests of any tin that is suspected?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. And, also, even if it were possible—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has pointed out, it is not—there are so many tins in a consignment that it would be a very difficult operation to inspect them all. However, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said. As to his first point, about what came over on the tape just now, I had heard about this. But investigations that we have made at the source from which the shop drew this supply indicate that at no time since it was opened, which is only eight weeks ago, have any supplies
418
been issued which were at any time in the stocks of the Ministry of Agriculture. But this is a matter which will have to be cleared up.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask whether in the stocks of the Ministry of Agriculture there are any tins which have been tinned with the use of non-chlorinated water?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I think I am right in saying that the use of chlorinated water came into general acceptance only in about the year 1955.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, would it not be a wise thing to destroy all tins, wherever they are, which have been produced, if non-chlorinated water has been used?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord suggests. I also think that this is perhaps a matter which the committee of inquiry will be looking into.
LORD SHEPHERD: Speed!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask this final question? If the experts in this matter decide that there is a risk if there is a continuation of the distribution of some of these tins, why is it that the Government have to wait for some firm to give their consent in order to protect the public health of the country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lady says.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to press this, but it is obviously very important indeed. If there are large numbers of tins, either in private stock or in Government stock, which have been prepared with non-chlorinated water, as soon as the knowledge is in the hands of the Government should not the sale of these tins forthwith stop?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly look into this matter.

"PIRATE" RADIO SHIPS
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, may I now repeat a statement on "pirate" radio ships and local sound broadcasting which my right honourable friend the Postmaster General has just made in another place? I will use my right honourable friend's own words:
"In order to ensure good reception both here and on the Continent broadcasting frequencies are agreed by the International Telecommunication Union. 'Pirate' radio ships select their own frequencies. This is an infringement of international agreements. If no action is taken against pirate radio, such transmissions from ships outside territorial waters may increase, with the result that radio communications with ships and aeroplanes would be interfered with and human life endangered. Also, such transmissions could well lead to massive interference with the reception of existing radio programmes both in Britain and Europe. As it is, protests of interference have already been received from Belgium and France.
"The Council of Europe has been studying this problem and a draft Convention is now in an advanced stage of preparation. What is required to deal with the problem is concerted international action. The Government therefore propose to await the conclusion of this Convention and then to consider legislating on lines proposed by the Convention. The Government cannot accept the establishment of 'pirate' radio ships as a reason for making precipitate decisions on local sound broadcasting in this country. To legislate for a national service of local sound broadcasting and to establish the necessary machinery for supervision during the remaining months of this Parliament is clearly not practicable. In the next Parliament the Government will undertake the review of the situation foreshadowed in the White Paper on Broadcasting published in 1962 (Cmnd. 1893)."
That, my Lords, is the statement.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord for the statement he has made. In the first instance, I will deal with the first part of his statement, leaving something over for a subsequent supplementary on the second part. May I say that we are very glad that the Government have accepted in principle the idea of prohibiting by international Convention pirate radio from ships? Obviously, there is great advantage in its being done by international Convention, because it would not work perfectly unless that were done. Could the noble Lord tell us how soon it is likely that the Council of Europe will settle the terms of an international Convention? Then may we take it that the Government will at once bring in legislation to confirm that Convention?
I notice from the noble Lord's statement that this pirate broadcasting is actually endangering life and limb at sea and in the air. I wonder whether he would be good enough to bring this to the attention of his honourable friends in another place who are interested—and when I say "interested", I mean interested—in this matter, and who have been advocating the right of pirate radio to go on until commercial radio is established in this country? It is a very serious thing if Members of Parliament are engaged in any activity which is calculated to endanger life and limb at sea and in the air.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is expected that the Convention will be ratified by the end of this year and, as I said in my statement, when the Convention has been ratified the Government will consider legislating on lines proposed by it. As regards the danger inherent in the broadcasts, there is no evidence at the moment that the "pirate" ships are interfering with the radio communications of other ships and aircraft, but if there is an increase in the number of these ships, then interference is all too likely to happen. If the equipment used by these "pirate" ships is not well maintained, then that could result in interference with the radio communications of ships.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Of course, the argument that has been proceeding contemplates a

421
possible increase in "pirate" ships, and therefore responsibility must be accepted. Could the noble Lord say whether it would be possible for the Council of Europe to hasten the settlement of the terms of the Convention? Because it is a pity if we have to wait until the end of the year—which means waiting for a new Parliament—to get legislation on this matter. Is it possible for them to hurry up?
With regard to the future of sound radio, to which the noble Lord has referred, and particularly local sound radio, may I ask him to keep in mind that there is very strong opposition to the introduction of a commercial element in radio? It is bad enough on television. I have heard it in the United States, and it really is worse on radio. Will the noble Lord convey to the Government that some of us are becoming apprehensive about the nation's and the Government's going television and radio mad? These things involve the use of highly skilled labour, electronics and valuable material, and surely we have enough communications going through the air as it is, without assuming that there is no limit to the amount of this development which should he permitted. I would ask the noble Lord—I do not know whether I am speaking for all my noble friends, but I hope so—to convey to the Government that some of us are very anxious about the nation's losing a sense of proportion as to how much national skilled labour and materials should be diverted into an industry which is already quite ample.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know whether or not the Council of Europe will decide to speed up its deliberations.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Tell the British representative.
LORD NEWTON: I can only repeat, as I said in my statement, that the draft Convention is now, as I understand, in an advanced stage of preparation. I take note of what the noble Lord said about the possibility of the introduction of local commercial sound broadcasting in this country. I know very well that the noble Lord has always been a firm opponent of commercial broadcasting and television in this country. I do not know, any more than he does, the extent to which he
422
reflects the view of his Party on this matter. It may be that there are other people, like the noble Lord, who disapprove of people enjoying commercial television and broadcasting; but, on the other hand, there are undoubtedly many people who would welcome the introduction of local broadcasting.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I say that I have devoted years of my life to making the people happy. I have done more in that direction than the noble Lord or any other of his colleagues in the Government.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider that last point when he is further reflecting on the possible advantages or disadvantages of an extension of commercial broadcasting in this country.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why Her Majesty's Government have passed their responsibilities to the Council of Europe, which has no real power, while at the present moment they are signatories to the International Telecommunications Convention which has power to suppress these stations? Why is not action taken? Why do not the Government jam them? Secondly, why is trespassing allowed on Government property by somebody who rejoices in the name of "Radio Sutch" on the old air-towers on the estuary of the Thames? Why is not action taken there?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if one considers this in a reasonably cool manner one must see the advantage of there being concerted international action on a matter of this kind. As regards Sutch—I do not know whether I should call him the ignoble Lord, Lord Sutch—I am told that the fort is disused and unmanned, and it has been established that he has not done any harm to it. The possibility that he may be prosecuted for broadcasting in territorial waters is under consideration.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I reinforce the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for urgency in this matter? It is extremely serious. What would happen if one of these stations were to start putting out political propaganda before the Election?
LORD NEWTON: One would listen to hear what it was.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: True to his previous manifestation of bias, the noble Lord would not be so worried if it was Tory propaganda, but would be very worried if it was Labour propaganda. May I ask the noble Lord whether the statement of my noble friend Lord Hobson, as to powers existing already under the International Telecommunications Convention, is correct? If the Government have power to prohibit this now (which I should presume the Minister is briefed upon one way or the other, and can therefore answer categorically) why do they not use it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think legislation would be necessary to achieve what the noble Lord would like to see achieved. As regards the content of possible political propaganda, I do not think the noble Lord ought to draw any conclusions as to what I think most beneficial.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would clear up one matter which arises out of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hobson? If another ship went outside the three-mile limit with the sole intention of jamming these existing programmes, would it be acting more or less legally than the ships already there?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know, but I think it would be unfortunate, as I said earlier, if anything were to be done to increase the number of pirate radio broadcasts, whether they were jamming each other or not.

HOUSING BILL
4.11 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "may", where that word occurs the second time, and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with No. 19, and No. 20, a Scottish Amendment, is consequential upon them. They simply clear up some loose ends in subsection (3), which as it stands at the moment could allow a final improvement notice to remain indefinitely in a state of suspended animation. This would occur if the court
424
upheld an appeal by a tenant and the local authority then failed subsequently to satisfy the court that it had complied with the obligation to provide suitable alternative accommodation. It is thought that it is much more satisfactory to bring this procedure to a close in due course, and to impose a time limit of twelve months. The Amendment provides that that should be done by obliging a local authority which fails to satisfy the court that it has complied with the obligation to withdraw the improvement notice.
In Amendment No. 19 the local authority is also obliged to inform the person having control of the dwelling, and every other person with an interest in it, that an appeal has been made by the tenant. If that were not done, a landlord who had received a final improvement notice might, of course, go ahead and carry out the works not realising that the tenant had in fact appealed against the improvement notice, and the appeal might be upheld by the court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move the next Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, leave out from ("operative") to end of line 10 and insert ("unless, within twelve months (or such other period as may be prescribed) from the hearing of the appeal, the local authority satisfy the court that they have complied with those obligations.
If the local authority have not so satisfied the court, they shall at the end of that period from the hearing of the appeal withdraw the improvement notice, and the withdrawal shall be effected by serving notice of the withdrawal on the person having control of the dwelling, and the local authority shall serve a copy of the notice on the occupier of the dwelling and on every person who, to the knowledge of the local authority, is an owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling.
(4) If an appeal is brought under the last foregoing subsection it shall be the duty of the local authority, when served with notice of the appeal, to inform the person having control of the dwelling, and every other person who, to the knowledge of the local authority, is an owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling, or the bringing of the appeal and to draw their attention to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection and the effect which it may have on the improvement notice.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, at end insert—
(" (4) As soon as practicable after service of a withdrawal notice under subsection (3) of this section in Scotland the local authority shall cause to be recorded in the General Register of Sasines a certificate in the precribed form stating that the said notice has been served as aforesaid.")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Dwellings outside improvement areas]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "twelve" and insert "six" [months]. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which I thought I was moving before. This is an Amendment, as I said then, to cut down from twelve months to six months the period of notice to carry out work; and, as I said earlier, it is, of course, possible, where the works are of an extensive nature, to increase the period: six months would be the minimum. It is possible under Clause 19 for local authorities to require works to be carried out to buildings that are sub-standard—for example, to provide hot and cold water, a water closet and satisfactory facilities for storing food. But where a dwelling house is below standard merely because it has not satisfactory facilities for storing food, or a hot and cold water supply at a sink and so on, it ought not to take twelve months for the necessary work to be done.
I suggest that in such a case, where the work required is not to be the full standard work but something below that—that is, work set out in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of Clause 39—then the period within which the work must be done could well be six months. That would be ample. If further time should be required, through circumstances which were not foreseen, there is nothing in Clause 19 that will not enable the local authority to extend the time. But if, as I believe, the noble Lord is concerned, as I am, to reduce this possible period of years before work is carried out, why cannot we say six months in the first instance and a longer period if necessary, instead of saying twelve months and
426
then longer if necessary? The purpose of my Amendment is to cut down the period from twelve months to six months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 28, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: We had a long discussion of this point on our previous Committee day, and I am afraid that on this occasion I have not come to any different conclusion. The real difficulty is the physical possibility, with the shortage of labour, of getting the work done in the time. These programmes must be staggered by the local authorities, but, even so, there is going to be considerable competition for the labour available. It seems to us much more likely that more work would be created for the local authority by making the completion necessary within a period of six months, as a result of which they would have continuously to extend the period and to examine the reasons for the work not being completed, than if we were to leave the period at twelve months, in which case we believe that the work will invariably be completed, and the local authority will not have to bother itself about inquiring why work is not completed and whether or not the period should be extended.
The noble Lord has, of course, made a point here, in respect of Clause 19, that it may be dealing only in this case with improvements to a lower standard and, therefore, presumably the work will take a shorter time. I could look into that particular point, but again I think that administratively it would probably be awkward to prescribe a different time limit for one form of works from that for another. On the whole, we believe that it will be better to keep to this period. As I think I partially explained on the previous occasion, there were consultations with the local authority associations on this matter, and when they were told what period of time was in the Government's mind it was not challenged in any way and no alternatives were suggested.
We have, in fact, modelled some of this Part of the Bill, and the time periods we are using, on the experience of Leeds, who have a pretty comprehensive programme of area improvement and a good deal of experience of these matters. They do in fact accept undertakings from

427
people to carry out improvements within a twelve months' period, and if they are then carried out they do not apply for a compulsory purchase order. Thus we have some practical experience to base our thoughts upon, and we feel, not having had any protests or other suggestions from the local authorities in this matter, that, on the whole, this is the better way, and that we shall create less work for the local authorities by adopting the twelve months' period rather than the six months' period when it is a question of carrying out and completing works.
LORD TAYLOR: May I ask the noble Lord to clear up one point which is not clear to me? After "twelve months" it says, "or such other period as may be prescribed". Is this prescribed in the improvement notice? Because if so, the local authority has to make up its mind every time. Otherwise, how on earth can the local authority exercise any discretion, if it is to be a period longer than twelve months?
LORD HASTINGS: These words in brackets refer to the Minister's powers. It is the Minister who prescribes such other period in the light of practice, as local authorities gain experience in working this Part of the Act, and if we find the time is unnecessarily long the Minister will be able to prescribe a shorter time. It does not refer to the local authority's prescribing another period. They merely have permission to extend the period.
Referring to this question of lower standards, I might elucidate that point a little further. The next Amendment of the noble Lord refers to tenement blocks. The difficulty is that, whereas one tenement could presumably be improved to the lower standard, I think the whole building would obviously be dealt with at the same time, and in this case the twelve months' period would refer to the whole block rather than to one or two dwellings in it.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to pursue this matter much longer. If the noble Lord has promised to consider it again in the light of the possibility that the only work to be done might be work carrying out some of the items in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of Clause 39(1), I should think it would be possible to
428
say, "six months or such longer period as the local authority think necessary, having regard to the circumstances", and leave it to them. They might say straight away, "twelve months". I should be grateful if that point could be looked at. I am most anxious that this provision should not become a dead letter simply because years may go by from the time when the local authorities first consider taking action until work is actually done. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Immediate improvement notices as respects tenement blocks]:
LORD SILKIN: I will move this Amendment quite formally and withdraw it, because the noble Lord has promised that it will be considered in the same way as the Amendment to Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Local authorities may acquire dwellings, &c., in tenements in improvement areas in Scotland]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 23. At present allowances and removal expenses for displacement are payable under Section 131(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, where tenement and other property is acquired for slum clearance and redevelopment. This Amendment extends this power to pay allowances to tenements which are acquired for improvement under this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 19, at end insert—
"(5) The power conferred on a local authority by section 131(1) of the Act of 1950 to pay certain allowances to persons displaced in consequence of the exercise of certain

429
powers shall include power to pay allowances to any person displaced from a house or building which, or a part of which, has been acquired by a local authority under this section; and accordingly in the said section 131(1) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"or
(f) which, or a part of which, has been acquired by the local authority under section 23 of the Housing Act 1964'.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Acceptance of undertakings to carry out works]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that the owner of a Scottish tenement dwelling can give to a local authority an undertaking that he will carry out improvement works at any time before an improvement notice is served on the dwelling, and to ensure that if he does so the local authority is not debarred from serving an improvement notice later if the undertaking is not fulfilled. The Amendment adds an improvement notice under Clause 22 (which deals with Scottish tenements) to the list of improvement notices which may be served if an undertaking is not fulfilled, even if the original time limit for serving such a notice has run out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("or section 21(2)") and insert ("section 21(2) or section 22(1) ").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It removes words which on consideration are not thought to be necessary. The opening words of the clause make clear that once an improvement notice of any kind has been served, Clause 24 no longer applies. Accordingly it is not necessary to say so also in the words proposed to be deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 34, leave out from ("modifications") to end of line 38.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Adjustment of relations between lessors and lessees]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) This section shall not authorise the county court to increase the rent payable to the landlord in respect of an agricultural holding as defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948."
The noble Lord said: The next four Amendments can conveniently be taken together. No. 27 is consequential for Scotland on No. 26, and No. 29, the Scottish Amendment, is consequential on No. 28, and Nos. 26 and 28 go together. No. 26 is, in a manner of speaking, a paving Amendment to the new Government clause following Clause 34—that is to say, to Amendment No. 28. This Amendment, No. 26, has the effect of ensuring in respect of an agricultural holding that increases of rent on account of compulsory improvements will be determined under the arrangements of the Agricultural Holdings Act as adopted by the following clause. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as a result of improvements being carried out by a landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding, the rent could of course be increased or terminal compensation given to a tenant, as the case may be. But at present these provisions relate only to improvements which are carried out with the agreement of both landlord and tenant. Here, in Part II of this Bill, we are dealing with compulsory improvement, perhaps forced upon the landlord without his agreement by the tenant. Therefore we must take special account of that fact, and we must allow for an increase in rents after expenditure has been incurred on the compulsory improvements.
This new Clause 34 (Amendment No. 28) makes special provision for that. Subsection (1) enables the landlord of an agricultural holding who incurs such expenditure to obtain an increase of rent under the normal machinery of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Subsection (2) enables the tenant of a holding who incurs such expenditure to claim improvement compensation under the 1948 Act on quitting the holding at the end of his tenancy—in other words, what we know as "tenants' rights". Subsection (3) provides for proportional reduction of compensation where a person other than the tenant has made a contribution to the works. That ensures that

431
these matters are handled by people who understand the technicalities of farming and farming rents, as they are at the moment under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD TAYLOR: I am not quite sure whether this is dealing with the same point as we seek to deal with in our Amendment No. 74 after Clause 97. Are we now dealing with the tenants of tied cottages, with the agricultural workers who are occupying tied cottages, and whose position as such has not been dealt with?
LORD HASTINGS: No. There is a Government Amendment coming shortly which relates to the point that the noble Lord is referring to. This is purely a question of rent as between the landlord and the farm tenant. The ability of service tenants to make applications for improvements is dealt with in an Amendment, upon which I cannot at the moment put my finger, but which is coming quite soon. That Amendment relates to the new clause that the noble Lord has put down.
LORD TAYLOR: Does not this one deal with the problem of the tenant who pays no rent—the agricultural worker occupying a tied cottage? What is to happen if an improvement grant is granted and his notional rent goes up? Is he then charged a rent under this particular clause?
LORD HASTINGS: No; the rent is chargeable under the Agricultural Holdings Act, to the farm tenant and not to the service tenant. If compulsory improvements are carried out on farm service cottages, the landlord would be entitled, if we did not pass this Amendment, to charge that service tenant the rent; but because we bring it under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the matter falls to be settled by the person who is really in control of that dwelling, that is, the farmer and not the occupier. We come to the noble Lord's particular point under an Amendment to be moved soon in regard to the definition of a tenant. That matter will be dealt with then.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
(" (3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to Scotland, but this section shall not authorise the sheriff to increase the rent payable to the landlord in respect of—

(a) an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, or

(b) a croft within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, or

(c) a holding within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is moved formally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Amendments of Agricultural Holdings Act 1948
(".—(1) Section 9 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (increases of rent for improvements carried out by landlord) shall apply as if references in subsection (1) of that section to improvements carried out at the request of the tenant included references to improvements carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act:
Provided that where the tenant has contributed to the cost incurred by the landlord in carrying out the improvement, the increase in rent provided for by the said section 9 shall be reduced proportionately.
(2) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or final impovement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act shall be included among the improvements specified in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (tenant's right to compensation for erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings), but subject to the power conferred by section 78 of that Act to amend the said Schedule 3; and section 49 of that Act (which makes that right to compensation conditional on the landlord consenting to the carrying out of the improvements) shall not apply to any works carried out in compliance with such a notice or undertaking.
(3) Where a person other than the tenant claiming compensation has contributed to the cost of carrying out the works in compliance with any such notice or undertaking, compensation in respect of the works, as assessed under section 48 of the said Act of 1948, shall be reduced proportionately.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is consequential and is moved formally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Adjustment of relations between lessors and lessees of agricultural holdings, etc., in Scotland
(" .—(1) Section 8 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (increases of rent for improvements carried out by landlord) shall apply as if references in subsection (1) of that section to improvements carried out at the request of the tenant included references to improvements carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act:
Provided that where the tenant has contributed to the cost incurred by the landlord in carrying out the improvement, the increase in rent provided for by the said section 8 shall be reduced proportionately.
(2) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Part of this Act shall be included among the improvements specified in paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (tenant's right to compensation for erection, alteration or enlargement of buildings), but subject to the power conferred by section 79 of that Act to vary the said Schedule 1; and sections 51 and 52 of that Act (which make that right to compensation subject to certain conditions) shall not apply to any works carried out in compliance with such a notice or undertaking:
Provided that where a person other than the tenant claiming compensation has contributed to the cost of carrying out the works in compliance with any such notice or undertaking, compensation in respect of the works, as assessed under section 49 of the said Act of 1949, shall be reduced proportionately.
(3) Any works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice or an undertaking accepted under this Past of this Act shall

(a) if carried out on a croft within the meaning of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, be permanent improvements on that croft and be deemed to be suitable to the croft for the purposes of section 14(1)(a) of the said Act of 1955 (crofter's right to compensation for improvements),

(b) if carried out on a holding within the meaning of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931, be permanent improvements on that holding and be deemed to be suitable to the holding for the purposes of section 8(a) of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 (landholder's right to compensation for improvements),

and accordingly, after paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the said Act of 1955, and after paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the said Act of 1886 (both of which Schedules relate to
434
permanent improvements), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
'(1A) Works carried out in compliance with an immediate improvement notice or a final improvement notice served, or an undertaking accepted, under Part II of the Housing Act 1964'.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Compulsory application for standard grant
" .—(1) Where an immediate or a final improvement notice is served in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act on the person having control of any premises to which this section applies requiring him to carry out in those premises the works specified in the notice, that person shall, prior to the carrying out of the works (and notwithstanding that he is not required under the provisions of the section hereinafter referred to so to do) make an application (which shall not be withdrawn) to the local authority for a standard grant in respect of those works in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959.
(2) Where, after an application has been made in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subsection, a standard grant is made available by the local authority but is refused by the person making the application, the rent of the premises the subject of the application shall be assessed in the same manner as it would have been had the grant been accepted.
(3) This section applies to any dwelling let under a controlled tenancy as defined in section 25 of the Rent Act 1957."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is similar in terms to that which was discussed in another place in Committee, but it varies because in another place the Amendment provided for tenancies, whether they were controlled or decontrolled, and this Amendment applies only to controlled premises. The point of the Amendment is that where an improvement notice is served, whether immediate or final, there is provision that a grant shall be made by the local authority. It may suit the landlord not to accept the grant but to carry the whole burden of the cost himself. By this means he can impose an increase in the rent of 12½ per cent. of the total cost. That may be quite considerable, and may impose a heavy burden on the tenant. He may do this either because he is vindictive and wants to get rid of the tenant, or because it suits him to get a higher rate of interest on his outlay.
It was felt—and I think the Minister had some sympathy with this in another

435
place—that the landlord should be compelled to accept the grant or, if he refuses, at any rate that he should be treated as if he had accepted the grant so far as an increase in rent to the tenant is concerned. The simple object of this Amendment is merely to say that if a landlord becomes entitled to a grant, but refuses to accept it and chooses to carry out the work himself (which he is quite entitled to do), he will not thereby be entitled to increase the rent to the tenant beyond what he could have done if he had accepted the grant; in other words, the tenant is not to suffer by way of an increase in rent simply because the landlord refused to accept the grant to which he was entitled under this Bill or under an earlier Act. I hope that this will commend itself to the Government, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, to insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: I know that this was discussed in another place and, so far as I remember, decontrolled dwellings were included at that time. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, refers only to controlled dwellings. We have thought this over carefully, and of course it is extremely unlikely that any landlord would behave in this way—it does not really make sense that he should not take a grant but should spend twice as much as he needs to. It is only a very remote possibility, but, as the noble Lord says, there is just a remote possibility that he might insist on paying the full cost and refuse grant merely in order to victimise, as it were, the tenant, knowing that the tenant would not be able to afford the extra rent, and thus forcing him out. As it is a possibility, the Government propose to accept this Amendment in principle.
As the noble Lord will realise, there is some difficulty in accepting the Amendment in the form in which it is set down. The new clause is defective in one or two particulars, first of all because there are no sanctions. The Amendment says that the landlord should apply for grant. Unless he applies for grant the local authority will not be in a position to offer him or refuse him, as the case may be. One cannot force the man to apply for grant if he says that he is not going to do so.
436
The second point is that one could run into the most interminable difficulties about agreeing the acceptable cost of these improvements which were being carried out entirely at the landlord's expense. This could lead to a great many arguments.
We believe that there might be a better way of bringing out what the noble Lords opposite are aiming at. We could, for example, extend the right of appeal given to the tenants of controlled dwellings by Section 5(3) of the Rent Act, 1957. Under this subsection a tenant may appeal to the county court for an order cancelling an increase of rent on account of improvements carried out to the dwelling, on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or that a greater amount was spent on it than was reasonable. We think that it may be possible to extend this right of appeal to cases where the rent increase, on account of improvements carried out following an improvement notice, is based on the total expenditure on those improvements and where the increase would have been less if the landlord had sought and obtained a standard grant.
I think that achieves what the noble Lords opposite would like. I believe that it could be done better by extending this right of appeal under the Rent Act than by putting it in the words suggested by noble Lords opposite. If they will withdraw their Amendment, I will study this further. It is not altogether easy to frame such a provision as I have outlined, but I think that it can be done. The Government will undertake to produce an Amendment on Report stage as near as possible to fulfil this purpose.
LORD TAYLOR: I am glad to hear what the noble Lord has said, but part of our concern was not with vindictive landlords, but simply that it would be profitable for landlords who had a number of properties. They could get a small extra profit on each one by not taking improvement grant, for the reason that they could borrow the money in toto from the local authority to do the job, and then, as a result of not taking the improvement grant, their permitted increase in rent would be slightly greater than it otherwise would have been. This would represent a profit per house of a few pounds, and therefore if they had a

437
large number of houses it would pay them to do this. We were not thinking purely of vindictiveness.
LORD HASTINGS: It is rather an abstruse point, and I should like to study it more carefully. I am not sure that the economics works out exactly as the noble Lord says. I will have to take his word for it at the moment. I do not know whether we would go so far as to draw a new Amendment particularly in order to prevent what the noble Lord suggests, but we would wish to prevent any sort of victimisation or hardship, and that is what we propose to do. If noble Lords have other ideas as to how this can be done, I should be glad to hear of them.
LORD SILKIN: If we are agreed in principle, then it only becomes a question of the method by which this is to be carried out. On the face of it, it looks as if the suggestion of the noble Lord is a quite reasonable one. I should like to see it on paper, and if the noble Lord will put it down we will give it sympathetic consideration. In the meantime, I am very glad indeed that the Government have seen fit to accept the principle. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Exclusion of dwellings controlled by Crown or a public authority
37.—
(2) No preliminary notice or improvement notice shall be served in respect of any premises if the person having control of the premises is—
(c) a housing association satisfying one of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 33(2) of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954 (exclusion of certain lettings from Rent Acts) or, in Scotland, a housing association satisfying one of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 25(2) of the Scottish Act of 1954 (exclusion of certain lettings from Rent Acts),
4.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete paragraph (c), under
438
which housing associations are to be exempt from the provisions of the Act: they are put in the same position as the Crown or a public authority. I agree that, in general, housing associations are set up without any desire to make profits, and that the individuals who form such associations derive no benefit from them. Therefore, on the face of it a housing association is the same quasi-charitable organisation as a housing trust and bodies of that kind. But if the noble Lord will consider how a housing association can be formed, he will see that there exists the possibility of an abuse of the whole conception of housing associations.
The Industrial and Provident Societies Act, under which they are formed, requires that there must be seven people to form a housing association. These seven people may themselves be owners of land, the housing association having been set up to sell the land to the association at an inflated price. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that, so far as I know. Having done that, they lend the purchase price to the housing association at a rate of interest—5½ per cent., I think, is the maximum. They are thereby getting a rate of interest of 5½ per cent. on a highly inflated selling price. That suits them very well. This is not working without profit, it is not a charity—it is a commercial transaction. Since it is possible for housing associations (though I certainly do not suggest that this applies to a large number of them) to be formed in this way and with this motive, it seems undesirable that they should be exempt from the ordinary provisions of this Act. I would therefore suggest that it is right that paragraph (c) should be deleted and that housing associations should be subject to the ordinary law.
In any event, why should they be exempt, even those which have not been formed in this manner and are merely carrying on in the ordinary legitimate way? Why should they not be subject to the ordinary law which requires them to carry out work that is urgently needed? I can see the ground for exempting a local authority, but I cannot see the ground for exempting a housing association in any case. I therefore beg to move this Amendment with the object of deleting them from the numbers of exempted organisations.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has really put his argument for leaving out housing associations on the basis that they might originally have been formed by certain people who had made a rather good profit out of them. He was tying up his argument with the possibilities under Part I of the Bill. In point of fact, of course, we are dealing with Part II and the serving of improvement notices, which is a different matter. But, to answer the noble Lord's first argument, under Clause 2, the Housing Corporation makes loans to the housing associations, and these loans have to be approved by the Treasury and my right honourable friend, so that housing associations are not likely to be allowed to purchase land at unrealistic prices.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has not quite understood my case. These people do not get a loan from any public body at all; they themselves lend the money to the housing associations. Let me give a concrete case. Suppose that they own 50 houses, and that they sell these to the housing association at an inflated price. They lend the purchase money to the housing association, and the housing association pays them interest. This interest may be more than the normal rate, and they are then entitled to charge a high rent. That is the case I am making. I agree that if they are borrowing money from the Exchequer, or from a local authority, the district valuer comes in and values the land, and it cannot be purchased at an inflated price. But where they are not borrowing money from any public source, they can fix any price they like, and the tenants suffer. I would say that in such a case there is a possibility that it is not a bona fide housing association. But I did not base my argument entirely on that kind of case: I said, "generally". I cannot see why housing associations should be exempt from the provisions of Parts II and III of this Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry that I did not appreciate fully the distinction which the noble Lord is drawing, as regards the housing associations formed without the help of the Housing Cor-
440
poration. I will look into that particular point and see whether there is any case for separating the two sorts. But as regards the housing associations which we have in mind, which will be formed as a result of this Bill and operated under the terms of this Bill, we feel there is no case for excluding them from the same privileges as are given to local authorities, New Town Development Corporations and so on, because in fact they are not building houses to make a profit, and they can be trusted to act as responsible landlords and to improve their dwellings wherever possible. There will be few instances, I think, where it will be necessary to improve their dwellings, as we shall mostly be dealing with new houses. But, of course, they are empowered to buy and manage existing dwellings and, presumably, they would do so only if they were going to improve them.
But these associations will be made up of responsible people, not in the business for profit; and I do not think we should get so far with encouraging the development of these housing associations if they were to be treated in a way that suggested they could not be relied on to manage their own affairs responsibly and fairly, and to do the job properly. I do not think we could allow a Sword of Damocles to hang over their heads and allow them to be interfered with in this way. We do not believe that it would be a good thing, and we do not believe that it would be at all necessary. The noble Lord referred to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, under which these housing associations must be registered, and I should imagine that even the sort of people he was referring to would find it difficult to get away with doing the sort of deal which he suggested. However, I will look into that particular point to see whether there is any form of distinction that can be made. So far as the housing associations to be formed through the Housing Corporation are concerned, we feel most strongly that they must be allowed to take their place in this other list of exemptions from outside interference.
LORD TAYLOR: I still think we have not quite got over to the noble Lord the point we are trying to emphasise

441
here. As I understand it, this clause exempts these bodies from the compulsory improvement provisions of Part II of the Bill. A good housing association will not mind not being exempted, because a good housing association will want to keep itself up to standard. It will not in the slightest mind being improved, as it were. What we are concerned with is not a fraudulent housing association, but a housing association formed for the specific purpose of dodging the compulsory provisions of this Bill; a body which is not, in ethics, a bona fide housing association but is in law a bona fide housing association, Indeed, a perfectly simple way of dodging the duty to be compulsorily improved seems to be simply to form oneself into a housing association and then to go through the manœuvres which my noble friend Lord Silkin has described, thereby getting the same rent, or even more, while not being subject to the compulsory improvement powers. That is the point we are concerned with.
LORD HASTINGS: I think the noble Lord was really talking about a possible gap in the housing association law in general, and I have said I will look into that and see if there is anything in it. But that does not directly concern the question of compulsory improvements, and we feel that the question of compulsory improvements hardly arises with the housing associations to be formed under Part I of the Bill. Therefore, we do not want them to have compulsory notices served on them: first, because I think it would be completely unnecessary; and, secondly, because I think it would discourage public-spirited people from trying to form these associations and running them on the proper lines. As regards the point of this possible gap in housing association law—where other housing associations might as a result of this particular clause escape compulsory improvement notices—I will look into that question again and report to the noble Lords opposite what I find in that respect.
LORD SILKIN: Half a loaf is better that none. On the noble Lord's assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (5)(a), after "includes" to insert "(i)". The noble Lord said: There is a question of definition here. We thought the Bill was wide enough to cover all the police authorities, but it appears that it will not catch watch committees; nor will it catch police committees as provided for in the Police Bill at present before Parliament. It was accepted in principle in another place that dwellings held by police authorities of all kinds should be exempt from the provisions of Part II of the Bill, and this Amendment, together with the next one, Amendment No. 33, which is consequential, completes that coverage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 33, after ("includes") insert ("(i)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 35, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and (ii) any police authority").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Interpretation and construction of Part II]:
5.2 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 go together, and No. 36 is drafting, consequential upon them. This first Amendment is to the definition of the person having control, and is needed mainly to deal with dwellings which are part of agricultural holdings. It is a continuation of the previous discussion I was having with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and concerns the point about which he was asking me. This Amendment ensures that the request of both the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers is carried out—namely, that the farmer, in the case of the farm cottage, and the landlord of the holding, in the case of the farmhouse, are respectively the persons having control for the purposes of this Part of the Bill. This is what Amendment No. 34 is about and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 40, leave out ("the rack-rent") and insert ("any rent including a rack-rent) payable by the tenant (as defined in this section)").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD TAYLOR: I am very pleased to hear what the noble Lord has said. He mentioned the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers. He might also have mentioned Her Majesty's Opposition in another place, who also asked for this same Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("it") and insert ("the rent").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("house") and insert ("premises").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (1) to leave out the definition of "tenant". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a paving Amendment for the main one, No. 38, and I will deal with them together, for the convenience of the Committee. This refers, again, to the definitions, and particularly to those concerning agricultural holdings, The Committee will note that Amendment No. 38 very largely repeats lines 4 to 19 on page 46 which are deleted by Amendment No. 37; but, in addition, by paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 38, there is included in the definition of "tenant",
"a person employed in agriculture … who occupies or resides in the dwelling as part of the terms of his employment"—
in other words, a service occupier.
By this means the Government are giving effect to their pledge, given in another place, to extend the provisions of Part II of the Bill to farm cottages occupied by service occupiers. In fact, the Amendment goes rather wider than the Opposition asked for, because it applies not only the compulsory improvement powers under Clause 19 relating to dwellings outside improvement areas but also the improvement area powers dealt with in Clauses 13 to
444
18: so compulsory improvement can be forced upon the owners of these cottages both inside and outside improvement areas. In fact, they come generally under the Bill as a whole. I think—I hope, certainly—that this will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when it comes to his Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 97, because I think this is doing what that clause is intending, to do—in fact, it goes rather beyond it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, leave out lines 4 to 19.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD TAYLOR: I must confess that this is a very difficult matter to understand. When drafting the new clause after Clause 97, I found it very difficult to know what I was really doing, because I had to refer to other Acts in order to get what I required. If the noble Lord assures us that this Amendment is doing what we want to be done, and is doing it even more effectively, I am delighted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, leave out from ("which") to end of line 24, and insert ("as constructed contained, and which contains, two or more flats;").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 27, at end insert—
(" (2) In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "tenant"—

(a) includes a sub-tenant and a tenant (as defined in section 12(1)(g) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920) who retains possession by virtue of the Rent Acts and not as being entitled to a tenancy, but does not include—

(i) in relation to England and Wales, a tenant holding under a lease granted for a term certain of more than twenty-one years at a rent of less than two-thirds of the full net annual value of the demised premises, or a mortgagee in possession,

(ii) in relation to Scotland, a tenant holding under a lease granted for a period of more than twenty-one years at a rent of less than two-thirds of the net annual value for rating purposes of the leased premises, or a heritable creditor in possession, and

445

(b) includes, in relation to a dwelling, a person employed in agriculture (as defined in section 17(1) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, or in relation to Scotland, section 17 of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949) who occupies or resides in the dwelling as part of the terms of his employment,

and "tenancy" shall be construed accordingly.
References in this Part of this Act to a tenant occupying a dwelling include, in the case of a tenant within paragraph (b) of this definition, a tenant residing in the dwelling and "occupation" and "occupied" and related expressions shall be construed accordingly; and in relation to a dwelling occupied by such a tenant "the person having control" of the dwelling means, in this Part of this Act, the employer or other person by whose authority the tenant occupies the dwelling.")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Amount of standard grant]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in column 2 of the Table in subsection (3), to leave out "the local authority are satisfied" and insert:
"before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been".
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 39 to 54 inclusive can be dealt with as a whole, but they are split into three groups and one subsequent Amendment. Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 are one group; Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 are the second group; Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 form the third group—and we can take them together, because they all do exactly the same things; Amendment No. 53 is a condition attached to all three groups; and Amendment No. 54 is consequential. This is merely to improve the position, and to make sure that the intentions of the Government in respect of standard grants are carried out. With the introduction in this clause of a special upper limit applicable to certain cases of standard grant—that is to say, where a septic tank is put in, where an additional building at the back is put up, where an out-building is converted to take a bathroom or where a cold water supply is being piped for the first time—then in such cases an extra amount will be allowed upon the standard grant. But, of course, an applicant will need to know whether or not he is going to qualify for that extra, and, if so, by how much.
For this reason, local authorities will have to determine what the upper limit will be and when it is going to apply. They will have to study the application, consider the reasonable cost and then—and this is one of the things the Amendment does—having ascertained that reasonable cost, they will be obliged to pay half of it. As drafted at the moment the clause merely says "not more than half". Of course, the intention is that once there is going to be extra cost, half should be paid in the same way as the statutory obligation to pay half of the normal standard grant. Therefore, I think it would help if I were to read out in respect of the first group of Amendments what the full wording will be, so that the Committee may appreciate the sense of it.
The second column will read in this way:
"£25, or, if the bathroom is being provided by the building of a new structure or the conversion of outbuildings attached to the dwelling (or to the building of which the dwelling forms part)"—
and this is the first piece of the Amendment:
"and before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide the bathroom in any other way, such higher amount"—
and this is the second piece of the Amendment:
"as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion one half of the part of the cost to be reasonably incurred in executing the works being the part of the cost attributable to the provision of the fixed bath or shower."
That ensures that everything is carried out in the order in which it should be carried out: prior consideration is given and then the local authority are bound to pay half. And by Amendment No. 53, when they approve the application they then must inform the applicant of the decision taken by them and of the amount he is going to receive. By this procedure we shall avoid any misunderstandings and difficulties, everybody will know where he is and the intentions of the provision will be carried out properly, without any argument and without the possibility that people may go ahead with work before they get approval, thinking they are going to get half the extra cost and then finding it is not going to be

447
allowed. It is really a clarification and ties both sides in this bargain down to a clear procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 22, column 2, leave out from ("and") to ("satisfied") in line 23 and insert ("before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the Committee agrees, I think I could put a single Question as to the remainder of the Amendments in this group.
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 26, column 2, leave out ("not being more than") and insert ("as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion").
Page 48, line 27, column 2, leave out second ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").
Page 48, line 28, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").
Page 48, line 29, column 2, leave out from ("shower") to end of line 30.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Again, with the Committee's leave, I will put Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 inclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 41, column 2, leave out from ("and") to ("satisfied") in line 42 and insert ("before the time when the local authority approve the application they have been").
Page 48, line 45, column 2, leave out ("not being more than") and insert ("as the local authority shall fix at that time as being in their opinion").
Page 48, line 46, column 2, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").
Page 48, line 47, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").
Page 48, line 48, column 2, leave out from ("closet") to end of line 49.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEES: Now, I will take the group of Amendments Nos. 49 to 54.
Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 3, column 2, leave out from ("amount") to end of line and insert ("as the
448
local authority shall fix at the time when they approve the application as being in their opinion").
Page 49, line 4, column 2, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to be reasonably incurred in").
Page 49, line 5, column 2, leave out ("which is") and insert ("being the part of the cost").
Page 49, line 7, column 2, leave out from ("dwelling") to end of line 8.
Page 49, line 10, at end insert—
(" (3A) The local authority shall, when they approve the application, inform the applicant of any decision taken by them under the Table fixing a higher amount in respect of the cost attributable to the provision of a fixed bath or shower, or of a water closet, or fixing any amount in respect of the cost of bringing a piped supply of cold water into the dwelling.").
Page 49, line 26, after ("(3)")insert ("(3A)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44:
Standard grants excluded for certain houses and other buildings in multiple occupation
44.—(1) Section 4 of the Act of 1959 shall apply to an application made after the coming into force of this section in respect of a dwelling which is or forms part of a house or building in respect of which the local authority are satisfied that they have power to serve a notice under section 15 of the Act of 1961 (which, as extended by section 21 of that Act, relates to the execution of works in houses and buildings in a state not suitable for multiple occupation).
5.15 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to a dwelling as respects which the local authority are so satisfied if the person having control of the dwelling undertakes in writing to carry out therein within a time to be agreed between him and the local authority such works as may be required to provide, for the exclusive use of its occupants. the standard amenities referred to in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act of 1959."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a somewhat complicated matter, even for this Bill. I understand that the subject matter of the Amendment has been under discussion, and, indeed, under correspondence, between the London County Council and the Ministry. It is designed to avoid placing certain properties at a disadvantage, as will happen as the Bill is at present drawn. As we

449
know, there are in the London area at the present time many thousands of Victorian properties, consisting of two floors, originally constructed for occupation by one family but since adapted as two dwellings. It would seem that under the terms of the Bill the landlord, and also the tenant, will be at some disadvantage. The landlord will not be entitled to any financial aid, and will therefore be in a position to pass on to the tenant, by way of increased rent, the cost of the improvements.
It is felt that cases could well arise, as has been indicated, where the landlord, faced with the knowledge of the local authority's powers under Section 15 of the 1961 Act, would prefer, where the premises are defective with respect to the amenities referred to in Section 4 of the Act of 1959, to accept a standard grant and provide these full amenities, thus making each of the premises virtually self-contained. The operation of Clause 44 of the Bill, by excluding payment of standard grant, will deny most landlords in these circumstances this opportunity, as it will the tenant. If the local authority has to rely solely on the service of a notice under Section 15 of the 1961 Act both the landlord and the tenant will be denied the opportunity of obtaining the exclusive use of the amenities. The point, it is submitted, would be met by excluding from the provisions of the clause a dwelling in respect of which a landlord agrees to provide for the exclusive use of its occupants the five standard amenities; and that is the object of the proposed Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HASTINGS: As the noble Lord said, this is a rather complicated matter. Clause 41 and Clause 44 (the one that we are dealing with here) are complementary to each other. Clause 41 makes it possible to accept for grant a standard lower than the full five amenities. That is why the tenements, the multi-occupied houses, are excluded under Clause 44: because the intention of creating the lower standard was that it should be applicable only in complete dwelling houses which were otherwise too small to have the full five amenities put into
450
them. It had not occurred to Her Majesty's Government that there would be tenements where it would be possible to put in less than the five standard amenities. Because if we began allowing in all tenements the three amenities for the lower standard it would mean that in a house which perhaps originally had been one house, but had been broken up into multi-occupied dwellings, there would be a number of lower standard improvements which would also qualify for grant from the Exchequer. Obviously, that is not the intention of the Bill.
At the same time, because we realise that there may be some borderline cases in these multi-occupied houses or tenement blocks where it will be possible and desirable to provide all the five standard amenities in parts, we accept this Amendment in principle. There are, however, some difficulties about the drafting. For example, there is the point, which may only be a technical one, that approval to a standard grant must be given on an application made before the work commences, and once an approval is given the local authority would be bound to pay the grant, regardless of the length of time which may elapse before the work is carried out. The noble Lord's Amendment puts in a time factor. There are one or two points like that. I should like to look at this matter again, and I undertake to introduce on Report stage an Amendment in the Government's own words to take care of this point.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause:
"Partial Grants
.—(1) Where a dwelling would have qualified for a grant if it provided accommodation for fifteen years but in fact provides accommodation for less than fifteen years, the local authority may make a partial grant.
(2) The amount of such partial grant shall be the standard grant less one fifteenth for each year under fifteen in the expected life of the dwelling.
(3) The Minister's contribution shall be proportional with the size of the grant made."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause. Here we come to something which would make a substantial difference to the Bill. It is not concerned with a small detail of working, but with something of great importance to a great number of people. What we are seeking to do here is to make it possible for people to get a grant when the expected life of the finished building is less than fifteen years. We propose that the grant shall be proportionately smaller to the length of the expected life of the building. We have drafted this in a much simpler way than a similar Amendment which was discussed in another place. We have tried to put simply what is proposed, so that its purpose can be seen exactly.
We feel that there has been a move forward in this Bill, in that it is not absolutely necessary all the time to have everything provided in terms of facilities. Equally, why should it be necessary all the time to have an absolute standard in time? There may be many cases where a dwelling will have to be lived in for 14, 13, 12 or 11 years, perhaps for what may be the whole of the tenant's life, and yet, because it cannot be improved and expected to last for fifteen years, he will not be able to have it improved.
The argument the other way is that we should not dissipate our scarce resources. I think that the local authorities are themselves probably the best judges of the available resources in their area and are unlikely to dissipate these building resources unduly. I have here a report of a debate in the Blackburn Town Council when both Conservative and Labour Councillors argued that this fifteen-years rule is too long. For example, the leader of the Conservatives said:
"If a house is going to be up for twelve or thirteen years, it is ridiculous that people cannot enjoy a bath in their own homes".
I also think that that sort of thing is ridiculous.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, quoted the experience of Leeds, because Leeds has done a great deal in this respect, as a model to be followed, when dealing with an earlier clause in the
452
Bill. The Chairman of Leeds Housing Committee says that eight years is a reasonable time. I think that eight years may be a perfectly reasonable time, but why not leave it flexible?—because if we draw a hard and fast line there are bound to be hard cases just below the line.
The situation in this respect is probably much worse in the North of England than in the South. The city planning officer of Newcastle-on-Tyne has pointed out the difficult situation there. It was found that of 87,000 houses, 29,000 were without baths, inside lavatories or hot water systems, and that, of these, 11,000 should be dealt with by what is called long-term revitalisation and the balance should be dealt with either by demolition or by short-term revitalisation. This is what we want to make possible—short-term revitalisation.
The planning officer of Newcastle-on-Tyne has said that there is a need for some way of dealing with a dwelling which is still sound but which is not going to have the expected life of fifteen years. He suggested that we should try to find improvement units—for example, standard bathroom, kitchen and toilet units—that were either so cheap that they could be thrown away, or so durable and so good that they could be re-used when the house was rebuilt. These seem to me to be two reasonable and sensible suggestions. I hope that the Minister will look at this Amendment in the kindly way he has looked at so many Amendments this afternoon and will be able to give us some encouragement. We do not say that our approach, particularly our drafting approach, is correct, but we hope that he will feel that here more discretion ought to be given to local authorities to do the best they can for people who would otherwise be in great hardship, often for the rest of their lives.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 48, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept, or at least seriously to consider, the principle of this Amendment, even if they cannot accept it in its present form, which I agree they cannot do. In the past, I have

453
known of several instances where local authorities have refused grants on the ground that the time of the future life of the house would not be sufficient to justify one. One particular case I remember was where it was proposed to put a by-pass round a town somewhere between ten to fifteen years ahead. The result was that a man of limited means who owned a couple of cottages, which were situated where it meant that they would eventually be removed when the by-pass was built, felt himself unable to face the expense of modernising them, because he was told that he would get no grant from the local authority.
As the noble Lord opposite has said, there is a period of anything from ten to fifteen years during which houses cannot be put in such a condition that they can be occupied by a tenant with reasonable comfort, just because there is a fixed term which is to be regarded as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. The Amendment in its present form would not, I submit, be very satisfactory, because it gives no minimum time, and I think if it were accepted it would be necessary to say that the minimum life would have to be perhaps ten, and certainly not less than eight, years from the time of the giving of the grant. However, I feel that the principle is one that is worthy of acceptance.
LORD HASTINGS: I realise that this is a difficult matter, and I shall try to treat it sympathetically. I must say, however, at the outset that we regard this very much as a question of priorities. We know that we have a tremendous housing programme ahead of us to cope with, and that will be the task of either or any political Party which happens to be in power. We have to clear all the slums; we have to keep up with the increase of population; we have to improve all the improvable houses to the highest standard possible, and a few of them to a lower standard. That is going to take up both the physical and financial resources of the nation. We should be very chary of making it possible to get any Government money for repairing or improving houses which should not be repaired or improved.
We know that, apart from the slums, there are what we call "twilight" areas which must be completely redeveloped
454
after the first priorities have been dealt with. It may well be that the sort of houses to which the noble Lord is referring fall within either slum or "twilight" areas. I would remind the noble Lord that there are the patching grants. Local authorities have power to acquire houses which are considered unfit or will shortly become unfit and to patch them up in such a way that they are habitable until such time as they will be demolished. Under a later clause in the miscellaneous section of Part V (Clause 93, I think it is) we are in fact increasing the patching grant from £3 to £8 a house in England and Wales and from £7 10s. to £12 10s. a house in Scotland over the fifteen year period. There is, therefore, that possibility open to local authorities, and we should prefer to recommend that course rather than accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
To turn to a more detailed examination of the Amendment, it seems that it would be difficult to work. In the first place, scaling down the amount of grant in proportion to the reduction in expected life does not alter the actual cost of the improvements, which would be the same as it would be for a house lasting longer. But the consequence would be—and here I am dealing with tenanted dwellings—that the owner would always have to pay more than half the cost when the life of the dwelling was less than fifteen years, and much more if it came down to as low as eight years, as was suggested; and the shorter the life, the higher his share of the cost. It hardly seems likely that an owner would voluntarily seek grant on that basis.
It must be remembered that we are dealing here with Part III (assistance grants) and not with Part II (compulsory improvement areas) and there will be no compulsion to improve these houses. It is simply the possibility of offering grant to those willing to improve their houses. I suggest that landlords could hardly be expected to make an improvement voluntarily on this basis, because, to continue the argument, they will still be limited in the rent that they can charge if they accept a grant. This would be 12½ per cent. of the owner's share of the cost. On a sinking fund basis this would involve the landlord in a loss of 1 per cent. per annum on his expenditure on improvements over a ten-year period,

455
and he would not make ends meet until after twelve years. It does not therefore seem likely that this sort of thing will be done voluntarily. It could affect some owner-occupied houses and people who might wish to improve them to live in them for the rest of their lives, but were not allowed to do so because of an instance such as my noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned, of some proposed development which was expected to take place in the near future.
There is one final argument, apart from the main one I have used—of, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, dispersing our resources both physical and financial—and apart from the extreme difficulties of getting any owner-occupier or landlord to agree with the local authority the precise number of years for which his house was going to stand, which could lead to a lot of argument. The clause could—I do not say would—give a chance for any rather reluctant local authorities to drag their feet in respect of assistance grants and evade the full mandatory powers of the standard grants scheme simply by assessing houses at a reduced life. It would be, as I think the noble Lord will see, a temptation in some respects.
So there are quite a number of difficulties. In view of the possibility of patching these houses if the local authorities think it right, and the extra grant to be given them to do so, and in view of the difficulties I have outlined and the Government's strong feeling that we must concentrate on the priorities, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, because I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.
LORD TAYLOR: I think the noble Lord has made a number of reasonable points and reasonable criticisms about this, but, at the same time, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out, there is real hardship wherever one draws the line. Here I must confess that I am in great difficulty to know how local authorities decide that the precise life of a house may be expected to be exactly fifteen years. I do not see how it can be done. The noble Lord spoke of the local authority varying its estimate of the life in order to dodge the full grant under my Amendment. Well, equally they could vary the estimate of the life
456
by one year, or even one month, at present and dodge the whole of the improvement grant. One has to assume that local authorities are not going to dodge their responsibility, otherwise their assessments in terms of years are meaningless.
I can imagine a situation where the officers of a local authority might be strongly pressed by the members to assess as generously as possible in respect of the expected life in order to achieve what I want to do. I personally should have preferred to see the figure of perhaps ten years or eight years rather than fifteen years. I still think it is a very hard thing that a person who has lived all his life to, say, the age of 58 or so in a home, which is not a bad home, but lacks the standard amenities, cannot get a grant to help him over the last period because the expected life of the house is only twelve years, for the sort of reasons which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has given. I hope that the Minister will have another look at the difficulty, although I appreciate his difficulties and accept at once that our clause would produce an impossible situation. I wonder whether he would look once again at the margin around which this operates, to see whether there is any further concession that could be made to give greater flexibility to local authorities.
LORD HASTINGS: I am glad the noble Lord is not going to press his Amendment and that he appreciates the difficulties. It is very difficult to be precise. I do not think we can alter the figure of 15 years as a general principle. It is rather easier to be precise about that sort of figure than about a much shorter period, because if a house is going to stand 15 years the odds are that it is good enough to stand a good deal longer, but when one comes to consider a really short time, such as 10 years, one sees that a house must be in a pretty ricketty condition for one to come to that opinion. I would not quibble on that. It is extremely difficult, and I would gladly consider particular cases, such as owner-occupiers and one or two cases suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to see whether there is anything at all that can be done. But I will not hold out a lot of hope. I will consider it and discuss

457
it again with the Department, and see whether there is anything that can be done in an extremely limited number of cases. It certainly would not take in a great many people. That is all I can say at the moment.
LORD TAYLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so accommodating, and in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 49 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56:
Amount of improvement grant for dwellings provided by conversion of houses of three or more storeys in England and Wales
56.—(1) Section 32(1)(b) of the Act of 1958 (which limits the amount of an improvement grant under Part II of that Act for each dwelling provided by the improvement works to four hundred pounds or such other amount as may be prescribed) shall have effect in relation to a dwelling provided by a conversion of a house which consists of three or more storeys as if for the words "four hundred pounds" there were substituted the words "five hundred pounds".
(2) The reference in the foregoing subsection to the number of storeys shall, if any of the dwellings provided by the improvement works is a dwelling all or part of which is in the basement, include the basement as one of the number of storeys of the house.
(3) The Minister's power under the said section 32(1)(b) to vary the amount specified in that paragraph shall be exercisable separately as respects the amount of four hundred pounds mentioned in that section and as respects the amount of five hundred pounds substituted by this section in the cases specified in this section.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in relation to a dwelling provided by a conversion of a house which consists of three or more storeys". The noble Viscount said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to the three Amendments to this clause which stand in my name, because they all raise the same point. If one wishes to convert an existing building and provide dwellings by that conversion, or to improve a house that one has, there is a provision in the 1958 Act by which one can get a grant from the local authority for this purpose. The grant is half the cost of the works, provided that that half does not exceed £400. The discretion is given to the local
458
authority whether to give the grant at all and, if so, how much, up to the limit of £400.
This clause in this Bill has slightly modified that provision in the 1958 Act by providing for a larger grant of £500 in the case of conversion—not improvement—of houses of three storeys or more in height. The three Amendments which I have put down have the effect of increasing, not that small part of the grant under Section 32 of the 1958 Act, but the whole of the discretionary grant system for improvements and conversions, and by placing a top limit of £600 on the amount that the local authority can contribute.
It is Government policy, and has been for a long time, that old houses if possible should be converted or improved so as to provide proper dwellings. The Minister said in 1954, in one of his circulars, that he was
"convinced that all local authorities will recognise that houses which lack modern services and amenities are well on the way to permanent unfitness The owners have less and less incentive to maintain them properly as they fall steadily behind modern standards. It is a question of time only—not a long time—before they become slums and a statutory responsibility to the local authority."
He goes on:
"If this process can be arrested by timely improvement or conversion at a charge to rates and taxes appreciably less than that imposed by building a new house to replace a slum, it is only elementary prudence to encourage the owners to do the necessary work."
The Government have continued with that policy, and rightly so. I understand that, whereas the number of houses that were improved with grant-aid in 1960 was 135,000, and in 1962 it was only 115,000, the Government have now set a target of between 150,000 and 200,000 houses a year to be improved in this way. So the Government are stepping up the target. The situation now is that the number of houses being improved seems to be falling. I think this will be a particularly bad year because, of course, everybody will have waited for the provisions of this Bill before they put in for a grant at all. So it may be that this year will not be representative.
In addition to avoiding houses being turned into slums by neglect, another

459
great advantage of improving or converting old buildings to provide up-to-date dwellings is that this needs no extra land. I am sure my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will not be slow to see the advantage of that. The 1958 Act provided this figure of £400. It was not new then. It was fixed at that figure in 1954, and it was put up in that year from the £300 limit which had been set, I think, in 1949. I am now suggesting that the top limit should be £600. It is fairly obvious to see why I am suggesting that. I am told that since 1954 the costs of building have gone up by between 40 and 50 per cent., and I have no doubt that they will not go down in the future but will continue to go up. Of course, it is mostly the easier houses, the more obvious ones, that have been converted and improved already, and in many cases it is the difficult ones, or the ones far out in the countryside, far away from the builder and all the services required, which are left. So these will be more expensive, quite apart from the rise in the cost of building.
When this point was raised in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Housing resisted the Amendments on the grounds that the average of both the improvement and the conversion grants had not yet reached the £400 limit. In fact, he said they were nowhere near it. They were higher in the case of conversion than they were in the case of improvement. This seems to me to be a curiously bad piece of logic, because if, quite regardless of what the improvement job costs, you take into account only £400 of it, of course the average will be well below £400. Therefore I hope my noble friend Lord Jellicoe is not going to put that argument forward this afternoon. I have a certain amount of information, although I am afraid it will not be as full as that in the possession of the Ministry, and this information suggests to me that in a very large number of cases in some rural districts (it seems to be about half, over the last year or so) the jobs which come to them for improvement or conversion grant cost over £800 to carry out. That is over the maximum for which one can get half at the moment; and perhaps about one quarter of these cases cost over £1,000.
That is the present situation, or the situation that can be gleaned from the last
460
figures that are available. It is possibly a representative thing to say, as I was told by the clerk of a rural district council in the West Midlands, that even a fairly small job by way of improvement or conversion nowadays will cost about £1,200. That is not altogether surprising, when we look at the standards required by the Minister after a house has been improved or converted in order to warrant the grant at all. It must be in a good state of repair and substantially free from damp—that envisages damp courses, which are very expensive; each room must be properly lighted and ventilated—which sometimes means raising ceilings and increasing the size of windows. It must have an adequate supply of wholesome water laid on inside the dwelling; must be provided with efficient and adequate means of supplying hot water for domestic purposes; must have an internal or otherwise readily accessible water closet. Then it must have a fixed bath, or shower, preferably in a separate room; it must be provided with a sink, or sinks, and with suitable arrangements for the disposal of waste water; it must have a proper drainage system; it must be provided in each room with adequate points for gas or electric lighting (where reasonably available); it must be provided with adequate facilities for heating; it must have satisfactory facilities for storing, preparing and cooking food; and have proper provision for the storage of fuel, where required.
Will all these things be obtained for £800? Not all these things will necessarily be required in each case; but some may be. Is it surprising that on an average the cost of conversion or improvement seems to be in the region of £1,200? I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be able to see his way to putting up this ceiling of the grant. I feel certain that it will be a false economy if he does not, because the incentive which his own Minister has said in his circular is required to get owners to improve these houses is just not going to be there if the Statute does not provide a proper proportion of the money to come from the local authority, and if the Minister is tied to a sum which is now ten years old.
There are only two other points that I should like to make. In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said

461
that the Act provides for two things. First, it allows a local authority, at its discretion, and with the Minister's consent, to give a higher grant in certain individual cases. I do not think this is of much comfort, because this is obtainable in practice only if the building to be improved or converted is one of, say, historic nature or one where very special treatment has to be given—because perhaps the material of which it is made is very expensive. The other thing the Act of 1958 provides is that the Minister can himself at any time, by regulation, put up the ceiling. I move this Amendment because he has not done so, and therefore I hope that, my noble friend will not say that he has powers and can in the future do so. The reason why I am asking your Lordships to accept this Amendment this afternoon is that I believe it is necessary as there has been no sign whatever from the Ministry that they seem to recognise this situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 18, leave out from ("effect") to ("as") in line 19.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: There has been only one thing wrong with the noble Viscount's presentation of his case. He has badly under-stated it; because I know from my own county council experience that not in any single instance in the last few years has a house requiring complete modernisation been able to get it done for £800. In each case the cost has exceeded £1,000, and very often £1,200, or even considerably more. And that has usually been for a one-storey house. Therefore, where a two-storey house, and still more a three-storey house, is concerned, surely it is obvious that the Government's proposals, to put it very mildly, do not err on the side of generosity. I hope very much that at least they will accept my noble friend's Amendments, and that, for the future, they will look once, twice and again at the grants which are being given for modernisation. Unless they are greatly enlarged in the near future, many buildings which could be modernised at a lower cost than that of erecting new houses, will not be modernised, because of the excessive cost. These buildings are often in excellent condition and only
462
require this modernisation to be made habitable for perhaps another fifty years.
LORD SILKIN: I should not like it to be thought from the silence on this side of the House that we are not in complete sympathy with the objects of this Amendment; we are. We do not speak at any length about it, because the case has been so adequately presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and we are content to rest our case on what he has said. I hope very much that the Amendment will receive sympathetic consideration.
5.56 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I think we are all agreed on the need for making progress with improvements, either by way of standard grants or by discretionary grants in the manner which we are now discussing. I should like to express myself at one with noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment. Not only are we anxious to make progress with improvements, but it is, of course, as 1 sought to explain on Second Reading, a cardinal aspect of our housing policy That is why, in various ways in this Bill, we are embodying measures designed to improve the rate of improvement.
Perhaps I should add, by way of introduction, that I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was a little pessimistic about the way improvement is going at the present time. I think he indicated that it might be dropping off. It is not going nearly as fast as we should like it to go, but in fact there is at present no sign of the rate of improvement dropping off. Indeed, the reverse is the case. For the first quarter of this year the figure of improvements was about 5,000 up on the equivalent for the first quarter of 1963. But I say that merely in passing, and by no means do I wish to put a gloss on what my noble friend has said about the need for an increased rate of improvement.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I interrupt my friend at this point? I do not suppose that the building rate in the first quarter of 1963 is the highest in history.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that is a perfectly reasonable point. I doubt

463
whether the figures for the second quarter will show this pessimistic trend which my noble friend was suggesting is to be seen at the present time.
The background, of course, my noble friend has explained. I should like just to make one thing clear. The Government have never taken an inflexible stand on this question of improvement rate. Your Lordships will remember that when the grants scheme was first introduced in 1949 no application could be entertained if the cost of improvement exceeded £600. In 1952, that limit was raised to £800; schemes costing more than that sum of £800 did not rank for grant purposes. But, again, under the Act of 1954, that ceiling of £800 was abolished, and schemes which cost more than £800 are now eligible for grants. In this very clause, as my noble friend explained, we are raising the level for three-storey houses and above. I feel, therefore, that the record suggests that the Government have been willing to make sensible relaxations in the scheme where the case has been made crystal clear. Unlike my noble friend and those noble Lords who supported him, I am not myself convinced that the case has yet been made for a general relaxation, apart from the particular relaxation written into this Bill, such as is suggested by my noble friend. My reasons for this are as follows.
In the first place, I would suggest that £800 still remains a substantial sum to expend on improving old buildings. As my noble friend Lord Hastings was saying, in a slightly different context, I believe, when there is so much to be done we have to be very careful about our priorities. Again, I am doubtful whether expenditure of the order which is envisaged in my noble friend's Amendment, total expenditure of, say, £1,200, would be attractive to tenants, in view of the amount of likely rent increase of 12½ per cent. of the expenditure less grant; that would amount to £75.
I do not wish to dwell on it, as my noble friend has put a shot across my bows in advance, but there are the average figures. I should like to mention what they are at the present time. In 1963, for conversion under discretionary grant the average grants have been run-
464
ping at £291 in urban areas and £338 in rural areas, and for improvement £232 in urban areas and £298 in rural areas. My noble friend said these average figures are of course misleading if a great deal of work is going on above the present limit of £800, and I would agree with him entirely that they are misleading if a great deal of work is going on above that level.
The real point is whether or not this is the case, and here I think the figures and the evidence available to the Government are at present rather incomplete, A good deal of evidence on this point has been submitted recently to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, following discussion of it in another place, and that evidence has been pretty carefully sifted and analysed. In this initial analysis of the figures which have been submitted I think two curious facts tend to emerge at the present time. The first is the enormous disparity in the cost of similar improvements undertaken by different people and apparently in similar conditions; the margin is enormously wide. The second disparity which emerges is the very great difference between the cost of improvement undertaken by people on their own initiative, subject to discretionary grant, and that undertaken by local authorities.
Since my noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned the experience of his local authority I would just mention the figures which I have been given and which I have got, of course, from the Ministry. There were four cases in Cornwall, for example (these were by the County Council) approved in July, 1963, which involved a very substantial amount of work—the provision of bathrooms, w.c.s, hot water supplies, septic tank, drainage and so on—and the highest total cost figure was £340, which is very low. Very similar work was undertaken in Surrey, Wiltshire and Kent; where work of this kind has been undertaken by county councils the costs in those areas were well below the figure of £800. I do not wish to draw any firm conclusions from the figures I am mentioning at this stage. The only tentative conclusion which one could draw at this stage is that we are without sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a case at this moment for increasing the limit of grant. And the only firm evidence available to the Ministry at

465
present is that the cost of improvements undertaken by local authorities tend to confirm that the existing limit of grant is adequate, even in rural areas.
I have said that that is our present conclusion. I should like to say this to my noble friend my right honourable friend is very willing to look at this evidence again, and I understand that fresh evidence may be submitted to the Ministry. He is very willing to look at any such fresh evidence, and he has by no means closed his mind on what conclusions will then be drawn from that evidence. All I have said is that present evidence and the present facts available to the Ministry produced the tentative conclusions they have formed.
Moreover, having said that, I would remind your Lordships—although I need not remind my noble friend, because he is perfectly well aware of this—of two other things. First, the Minister already has power in certain special and individual cases to permit payment of grant at a higher figure than the present £400. Secondly—and this is perhaps more to the point—he has power to raise the general limit without coming back to Parliament; that is under Section 32 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1953. Thus the position is that, should it appear on further examination of further evidence which may be submitted to him that the general level should be raised and that a real case has been made out for that, then my right honourable friend has power to do that under existing legislation by order. I would therefore suggest that there is no need to write into the Bill the specific figure for which my noble friend is pressing, and indeed, on the present evidence available to the Ministry, it would be undesirable to do so. For these reasons, given the fact that I have sought to demonstrate to your Lordships that my right honourable friend's attitude on this matter is by no means inflexible, I hope my noble friend will not at this stage wish to press this Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: There is one thing which the Minister said which I found rather difficult to follow. I understood him to say that there was some difficulty in collecting evidence of the number of conversion schemes which cost £800
466
or more. I do not see that there need be any difficulty in collecting that evidence. Surely all you need to do is add up the total of grants of £400 each and that gives the total number of conversion schemes which are costing £800 or more. I did not understand that part of the Minister's speech.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that process of mathematics is far too simple. One thing it would not show is how much more than £800 and how many over £800 are wrapped up within these figures, or what sort of special factors are at play. I think there is a case for looking at the figures and making a detailed investigation of them, and my right honourable friend is ready to do that.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am sorry if I did not make it clear, when I spoke of figures checked by county councils, that they were not mainly for work by county councils themselves but figures they themselves had to check from private persons whose figures were being submitted to them with the schedules for the carrying out of the work. I can assure my noble friend that what I said is absolutely accurate. Furthermore, I have had painful experience, having modernised many houses myself. These figures are again correct, and they have been mostly, but not all, for houses for which, being agricultural cottages, no rent is payable.
EARL JELLICOE: I misunderstood my noble friend. I thought he was speaking of work undertaken by local authorities. I would remind him that one fact which seems to emerge is that similar work by local authorities is undertaken less expensively than by private individuals. My own experience—this is limited to one particular instance—was not totally dissimilar from his.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Local authorities have lower standards than private owners.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend pr taking so much trouble. May I make two points on the arguments he adduced before he came to the figures? First of all, he said that £800 is a substantial sum to spend on any one house. This may very well be so, but there is no requirement that the local authority

467
should pay half, or even any, of the money that is claimed by the person improving the house. Secondly, I know as a fact that there are certain local authorities who, as a matter of policy, do not pay the full amount in any case. Therefore I do not think this is a very good argument against raising the ceiling, because there is no requirement for them to give grants up to that ceiling, in any case. Secondly, so far as the attractiveness to tenants is concerned, it remains a perfectly clear fact that houses are being improved, and have been improved for some time, to the tune of about £1,000 or £1,200 each, without apparently creating any difficulty; and I do not see that this provides any substantial argument against putting up the ceiling.
Now to turn to these figures. When we are discussing this Bill we have a golden opportunity to deal with this matter, at any rate for the moment, in a concrete way. I do not underestimate my noble friend's promise that his right honourable friend the Minister will consider these figures again. But here we have an opportunity to do something concrete and substantive. If we miss this opportunity there will not be another, and it will not be possible for this House, or any House, so far as I know, to make the Minister raise the ceiling under the powers which admittedly he has in the 1958 Act. So I do not think this opportunity should be lightly missed; and if my noble friend is inviting me to miss it, I would ask him, first of all, what are the figures that the Minister is looking at? Is he making a serious effort to get a wide cross-section of the sums that have been paid, both by the private owner and by local authorities for improvements of this sort? If he has not got enough figures, will he have enough, and will he have studied them, by the Report stage, so that he can come to us with some conclusion about them?
If there is this extraordinary discrepancy between the £300 paid by the local authority, and perhaps double or three times that amount by the private individual, is this not in itself something that my noble friend ought to have looked into? Because it seems to me that it is certainly possible, either that
468
the local authorities are not improving the houses up to the proper standard or that there is something which is militating against the private owner to make him pay more, and therefore of course, claiming more public money, or more ratepayers' money, in the process. It seems to me to be a most serious situation, and I hope that by the Report stage my noble friend will be able to produce some more facts to explain this extraordinary discrepancy. If I withdraw this Amendment to-day, it will be only on the undertaking that something will be said before we leave this Bill altogether.
EARL JELLICOE: On the question of where this information, at which my right honourable friend the Minister will look, has come from, I can tell my noble friend that it was sent in by one of the sponsors of a similar Amendment in another place. I can assure my noble friend straight away that the sort of points which he suggested should be looked into are precisely the sort of points which the Ministry themselves are anxious to look into, and I certainly hope that I may be able to bring more information to bear on this matter at the Report stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In those circumstances, I think I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But I hope that I may keep in touch with my noble friend in order to see how this is going on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 64 agreed to.
6.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 64 to insert the following new clause:
Request for Action by a Local Authority
".—(1) On the request in writing by any person who is or has been within the last three months a tenant or lodger in a house to which Part II of the Act of 1961 applies, the local authority shall forthwith cause the house to be inspected, and shall take any appropriate action under the Act of 1961 which the condition of the house or the circumstances of its occupation make desirable
(2) The local authority shall within three months inform the person making the request of the action it has taken.
(3) If the person is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority, he may apply to the Minister, who may take any appropriate action he thinks fit, on behalf of the local authority.
(4) Any action taken by the Minister shall be deemed to have been taken by the local authority on the date on which it was taken by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. This Bill throughout provides that action is to be taken on the initiative of the local authority. Nowhere does it provide for a tenant, or, as I describe him, a lodger, to take the initiative in requiring action to be taken. I think that there ought to be the opportunity for tenants or lodgers to draw the attention of the local authority to defects in their premises which require attention under this Bill or under the Act of 1961. There ought to be provision for the tenant to be able to carry the matter further, where the local authority does not take action, or does not take action satisfactory to the tenant.
I say at once that the noble Lord may quarrel with the language of this Amendment. It may be that it is too strong. It may be that it is imposing too great a burden to say that the authority must immediately take action. It may even be said that to enable a person aggrieved to apply to the Minister, with the possibility of a public inquiry, is going a little too far. But I feel that there ought to be provision for two things: first, for a tenant or a lodger to take the initiative and ask the local authority to have a look at his premises. He ought to have the right to get the decision of the local authority somehow, and within a reasonable time. Secondly, he ought to have the right to make representations to the Minister if he is not satisfied. If the noble Lord would give me those things, then he can improve this new clause in any way which may be satisfactory to him. I believe that this Amendment was moved in another place. I myself find it a little too strong; but I feel that the particular requirements that I have specified ought to be met in this Bill. So far as I can see, they are nowhere met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 64 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord has rather surmised that the occupier or tenant of the dwelling has no rights in the matter; that he cannot take the
470
initiative. But there is nothing in the Bill to say that. Such a person has the normal right to bring the condition of the house to the knowledge of the local authority. The noble Lord's first subsection refers to a request in writing. But, I should think it quite likely that any aggrieved tenant would write in any case, whether or not we state in the Bill that he can do so. And, of course, local authorities, their housing committees and their health committees and so on know pretty well what is going on in their areas: they keep an eye on these houses, through their welfare officers; and they get to hear of bad conditions. There is nothing in the world to stop any tenant who is not satisfied with the condition of his house from saying so, and making that known to the authorities. I do not think there is any curb on his normal citizen's right in that respect. To that extent he can perfectly well take the initiative; and in many cases I dare say he will do so, if the local authority is slow in getting round to his house. But to take the matter a step beyond that, and as far as the noble Lord does in his Amendment, is, I suggest, a very different thing.
If any member of the public who feels he is not housed as well as he should be is enabled to oblige the local authority to inspect his house and take action within three months, he could throw into disarray the whole of the organisation of the council concerned. After all, the local authority public health and surveyors' departments are going to have extra work to do as the result of Parts II, III and IV of this Bill in regard to compulsory improvement areas, assistance grants and the compulsory orders made to take over houses and manage them for up to a period of five years. There is going to be a great deal of work entailed in these matters. The local authorities are bound to phase their policy and to allocate their limited resources of manpower. To have the whole of this machinery upset at the demand of somebody who might be quite an eccentric person, not to say a frivolous one, or somebody who is never satisfied with his conditions, and to force the local authority to put the whole phasing out of gear to deal with his particular case, is really asking too much. Any genuine case, of

471
course, will be inspected by the local authorities as soon as they can arrange it.
I am sure that, knowing their areas as well as they do, they are not going to be far behind any complaint which they hear about and will make the inspection within a reasonable period; but to give a private citizen the power to force them to do something within a limited period and thereby perhaps to put out a carefully phased programme, would be going too far. After all, the Minister has got default powers which he can exercise in extreme circumstances against a local authority which breaks down completely in performance of a statutory duty. But it is asking too much to allow a citizen not only to put the machine out of gear but to go over the head of the local authority and appeal direct to the Minister and thus put him in a position of constantly breathing down the neck of an authority which is struggling under many difficulties to do its best. I do not think that the noble Lord himself would really wish to put the local authorities in such a position.
Finally, if the Minister were appealed to and should by any circumstance make an order, which could happen in only the most extreme circumstances, then an anomalous position would be created in the court. If that decision were appealed against in court, the local authority would be in a position of having to defend something which both the judge and the appellant knew perfectly well they did not want to do in the first place. With all respect to the noble Lord, I think that he is making a mountain out of a molehill in this matter, that the private citizen will be able to make his complaints known perfectly well and that the local authorities will be only too anxious to inspect the dwellings and to take action under Part IV. Let us remember that they are having some drastic new powers put into their hands. I do not think that we need worry that they will fall down on the job in this respect. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. This is something the Government could not accept, and, in parenthesis, I feel on quite safe ground in saying that the local authorities themselves would not welcome this at all.
LORD AIREDALE: I feel that the Minister is painting rather an unrealistic
472
picture here. He seems to suggest there would not be any difficulty in a tenant's seizing the initiative and taking up the matter with his local authority. I dare say the Minister himself would easily be able to go and have a straight talk with his local authority surveyor, but there must be a great many tenants who could easily be fought off by a busy local authority surveyor saying, "We are very busy, and as soon as we can we will come round and look at your house"—and it may be several years before they have time to do so. When eventually they do look at it, they may well find that it is in a condition which makes them wish that they had known about it earlier and given it greater priority.
As to the eccentric people mentioned by the noble Lord, one might introduce a clause which said that once inspected no further complaint should be entertained from that tenant for two or three years or something of that kind; but this Amendment is only enabling a tenant to require the council to come and have a look. I should have thought that there is a great deal to be said for it, and that the picture painted by the Minister is in some respects not realistic.
LORD HASTINGS: I must say that I feel my picture is more realistic than the noble Lord's, which I should call somewhat impressionistic. His picture is painted in unduly sombre colours. These powers have been given to the local authorities, they want to operate them, and are going to do so. They know their areas and will inspect them as soon as they can. I am sure the procedure will work perfectly well in the way it is laid down in the Bill at the moment. I do not think that we can put any more onerous burdens on the local authorities than we are doing and make them run at the beck and call of everybody. I do not think that we can suggest, as the noble Lord has suggested, that local authorities are not going to inspect a bad house for a matter even of years. I doubt very much if it would amount even to months, and in fact it will probably be only weeks before they get round to look at the case. I do not feel that we can put an absolute statutory obligation on them to do something and then involve the Minister personally if the complainant is not satisfied. This would be

473
adding altogether too many difficulties to the procedure, and in any event it will be quite unnecessary.
LORD AIREDALE: I wish that a clause of this kind were introduced to require the local authority simply to go and inspect when requested. I think then they would get their priorities right; they would deal with the houses in the proper order of priority. There is a danger that without a provision of this kind the local authority will not get its priorities right.
LORD TAYLOR: I would agree with the Minister that we were wrong in this clause to suggest that the tenant should invoke the Minister and also to stress the word "action" so much. The local authority will have to take its action as and when it can, and we would agree about that. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that it is rather a different matter for the ordinary citizen in a big borough—for example, in the borough of Islington, where I happen to live, in which there are 300,000 people living and where our relations with the town hall are very distant affairs. I can remember trying to get permission to put up a garage, and this required a number of personal visits before we could get anything to happen. I think it is not unreasonable to specify the tenant's or lodger's right to notify, and the duty then to inspect and report the result of the inspection.
The public health inspectors are inspecting all the time, surely, when a tenant reports a nuisance, that there is a smell coming up from the drains, or whatever it may be. In many cases they will know where houses are grossly defective, but where 60,000 or 70,000 or even more premises are involved, as in Islington, I think they cannot know the details. It is not unreasonable, I think, that we should ask that the ordinary citizen should have the right of inspection and the right to know the result of inspection. If we could get those two points established I would feel that was very reasonable, although I would agree with the Minister that we have asked for too much here.
LORD HASTINGS: I would just say that I am willing to consider subsections (1) and (2) of the Amendment, which cover the points which the noble Lord,
474
Lord Taylor, was raising about inspection and the report of information, but certainly excluding subsections (3) and (4). Whether one can come to any conclusion about that before Report stage, I am not sure. Even if it were acceptable that these subsections should find a place in the Bill, the period of three months might have to be changed and it might become six months. However, I will look into that particular aspect, which of course from my point of view is a much more minor one than the whole Amendment taken together.
LORD SILKIN: I myself did not put the case too strongly. I felt that the language was not such that I could justify on a Division, but I felt that the principle ought to be accepted. I know that anybody can write a letter to the town hall, and that the town hall can file it or lose it and is under no obligation even to reply. My noble friend pointed to Islington, but he did not make the case as strong as he could, because under the London Government Act Islington is being merged with other authorities.
We are now getting colossal housing authorities with populations which might run up to a million in extreme cases. It is quite obvious that they cannot know the condition of all the houses in their area, so we must accept that a person should have written into the Bill the right to ask the local authority to look at his house, and he should be entitled to a reply—we can discuss in what time—and he ought to have some action taken if he is not satisfied. If the noble Lord will really look at that—and I do not even ask him to give any assurances—I am quite willing to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I have said that I will look at subsections (1) and (2)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 65 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Restriction on recovery of possession after making of compulsory purchase order];
6.34 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment concerns the period of time which limits the possibilities of eviction of a tenant by a landlord, if a compulsory purchase

475
order has been made but not confirmed, without applying to the county court. It means that the landlord must apply to the county court. He is barred from using either his right at Common Law to evict by direct action, which might already be an offence if carried out with undue force, or by means of a specially endorsed writ of the High Court. The clause already says that he must apply to the county court, but the period he was given to do that was after nine months. After discussion in another place my right honourable friend undertook to extend that period to twelve months, so as to give more time for the compulsory purchase order to be completed and confirmed and to give more time to the tenant. That has now been done by this Amendment which alters the period from nine to twelve months, as a result of that undertaking given in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 32, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 34, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Making of control order]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1)(b) to leave out "those sections". The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 go together. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is running away, but I want to refer to what he said on Second Reading. On Second Reading I dealt with the question of what is becoming known as Rachmanism; that is, the action of certain unscrupulous landlords in intimidating tenants to such an extent as to force them to give up possession. This would apply to tenants who are subject to rent control, and when they give up possession the premises become decontrolled and the landlord can then charge whatever rents he can obtain.
In the course of discussion on Second Reading the noble Lord sympathised
476
with what I said. I pointed out that this Bill does not deal satisfactorily with this particular question. I was referred then to Clause 69 and was told—this is on record in the debate on the Second Reading—that the meaning of Clause 69 was that the landlord who was proved to have intimidated his tenant would be liable to have a control order made against him, with everything that that involved, and it did involve protecting the tenant against eviction. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the expression,
"safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house."
He thought that those words meant that, if anyone evicted persons living in the house or threatened their safety, welfare or health by intimidation, then such a case was covered. I then said that I presumed that we were in agreement that such a case ought to be covered under this Bill, and that if the language were not adequate to cover it then the Government would be prepared to look at the language again, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to say that that was the position.
I still do not think that the language in this clause covers the case of intimidation, and, together with my noble friends, I have tried to incorporate in this Amendment words which would cover the case of intimidation. Without my trying to explain the details exactly, I think the noble Lord who is going to deal with the Amendment will see how this clause will look if it is amended. But the purpose of the Amendment is to secure that any threat to the safety, welfare or health of persons living in the house shall be as much the subject of a control order as are the other matters, (a) and (b), mentioned in the clause. It does not involve any great amendment of the clause, and if it is really the Government's intention that a physical threat to the tenant, or intimidation, should be subject to a control order, then I think that this series of Amendments carries out that intention, whereas the words in the clause as it stands do not. I hope that the Government will assure me that it is their intention to cover the case of intimidation, and that since the language of my Amendment covers it they will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 6, after ("sections,") insert ("or").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MOLSON: I understood that one of the main purposes of this Bill was to deal with the abuses which had been disclosed in what are normally known as the "Rachman cases" of last year, and I had certainly understood that this control order would be at the service of the local authority if it could be shown that abuses such as are associated with the name "Rachman" were taking place. It appeared on Second Reading that the inclusion of the words "living conditions" might mean that the control could be applied only if the structural condition of the building itself was unsatisfactory, whereas I had certainly understood that the intention of the Bill was to deal with cases where menaces, violence and pressure were brought to bear. I hope that the Government will be willing either to accept this Amendment or to make it plain that the present words are not as limiting as they appear to be. I have very great sympathy with the general line that has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I hope that, if it is the case that a control order can be applied only where the structural conditions of the house are unsatisfactory, the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment.
6.43 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like very briefly to remind the Committee of some of the background to this clause. I think that for some time past many of us, both inside and outside this House, and of all shades of Party opinion, have been worried about the squalid conditions, in some of our larger towns and cities, of houses, especially what are called multi-occupation houses, in which a number of families live, sharing certain common facilities. Part II of the Housing Act, 1961, was, of course, designed to help local authorities to strengthen their powers in dealing with these problem houses, and these provisions have, I think, worked and been useful. However, it became clear as a result of the Rachman revelations last year, and as a result of my right honourable friend's consultations with local authorities, that still stronger powers were required. That is why, as I tried to explain on Second Reading, we are taking powers in this Bill to strengthen the existing machinery of Part II of the 1961 Act, and to introduce this new pro-
478
cedure for control orders. In the Bill as it stands at present the local authority must be satisfied of two things: first, that the house is subject to action under Part II of the 1961 Act, or is susceptible to that action; and, secondly (and this is one of the points at which the noble Lord's Amendment drives), that the living conditions in the house are such as to make a control order necessary for the protection of the residents' safety, health or welfare.
As I understand it, the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken to would have the following effect. The first two of his Amendments would mean that a control order could be made even when a house was not subject to Part II of the 1961 Act, or not liable to be so subject. The third Amendment would remove from the local authority the obligation to base its judgment on the need for a control order on the living conditions which could actually be observed in the house. Taken together, as these Amendments are being taken, they would enable a local authority to make a control order, in the first place, if in any respect, however minor, the house was subject or susceptible to action under Part II of the 1961 Act. A control order could, therefore, at least in theory, be justified by the mere fact of a leaky washbasin, or a chance accumulation of litter, or anything else which could trigger off the management code of the 1961 Act. Alternatively, a control order could be made if it appeared to the authority, for any reason whatsoever, that it was necessary to protect the residents' safety, health or welfare. Thus, an order could be made—I am not saying that it would be so made; but it could be made—on the basis of an unsubstantiated complaint from a tenant or lodger, or simply because the council did not like the "cut of the jib" (if your Lordships will forgive a nautical expression) of a particular landlord.
I am sure that we in this House are all anxious to cut at the root of what is sometimes, I think, loosely termed "Rachmanism". The Government believe that the Part II powers of the 1961 Act, strengthened as they will be by this Bill, and reinforced where necessary by this new control order procedure and by the compulsory purchase

479
order machinery, give local authorities the means to do so. But the Amendment which the noble Lords opposite have tabled goes a good deal further; and, sympathetic though I am to their objectives, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it. My reasons, which I will seek to explain—I am sorry to be speaking at some little length on this Amendment, but it deals with a very important point—are as follows.
In the first place, if the Amendments were carried a control order could be made, as I have shown, where there was nothing in the situation that in any way endangered the safety, welfare or health of the persons living in the house, but where there had been merely a very minor or technical breakdown, bringing the house, at least in theory, within the ambit of Part II of the 1961 Act.
LORD AIREDALE: May I interrupt the noble Earl a moment? Is it not fair to say that under subsection (4) there is the right of appeal against a control order? Surely, that would act as an insurance against control orders being made for trivial reasons.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, I think that is so; but it would go into effect straight away. It is, of course, a very severe sanction, and even where there is a right of appeal I think one should be very cautious about making severe sanctions possible in a case where the offence may be very trivial. I cannot believe that this very severe sanction—and this control order is severe—should be available for the sort of minor breakdown which I have described, which could trigger it off, even though there is this right of appeal.
Secondly, a control order could be made even where the living conditions in the house were perfectly good and the house was well managed, and the house was therefore not subject to Part II of the 1961 Housing Act machinery. I myself strongly suspect that where we find Rachmanism—and I think this has probably been the case in London; it certainly gives that impression—we should also find conditions bringing the house within the orbit of Part II of the 1961 Act. I think that is what my noble friend Lord Hastings had in mind
480
in his exchange with the noble Lord at Second Reading.
But, even admitting that the tenants could be intimidated by "Rachmanesque" methods in a house which is well-run, well-maintained and well-managed, then the tenants, if an attempt is being made to evict them either through victimisation or some trick or jiggery-pokery, already have existing remedies. The individual has his legal rights and the local authorities can also go for a compulsory purchase order. I mentioned at Second Reading that my right honourable friend has clearly indicated that he is prepared to endorse a compulsory purchase order where threats of homelessness result from this type of eviction.
LORD MOLSON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? The trouble is that in many cases the tenants are not sufficiently intelligent or educated to know what are their rights at law. That is the great disadvantage in relying exclusively on the courts for enforcing those rights.
EARL JELLICOE: I was saying that the compulsory purchase order operated at the instance of the local authority just as this control order would be operated if applicable. I also mentioned at Second Reading that there was already written into Clause 68 in another place a strengthening of the compulsory purchase order machinery.
I would put two further considerations to the Committee. The first is the need in legislation of this sort to try to establish really objective criteria. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Hastings explained at Second Reading, we think it desirable to attach the control order power firmly to physical and living conditions. Living conditions can go wider than the purely physical. These are the sort of conditions on which local authority officials, by their experience of day-to-day work, are accustomed to pass judgment, Noble Lords opposite, in their Amendments, by whittling away the objective tests to which I have referred, would make it possible for a control order to be made by reference to purely subjective criteria. They would open this possibility. The result would be that local authorities could formally dispossess an owner of any multi-occupied house—I am not saying that they would; but they could legally do so—on the basis of a passing

481
whim or fancy or purely subjective consideration.
In making my second point, I am not in any way suggesting that we do not trust the local authorities to act reasonably. That is not my point at all. All I am saying is that where we have strong powers we need very strong safeguards. I think in this control order we are introducing very strong powers indeed. Because of that, I think it is all the more necessary, when this Bill enables us to vest the powers of dispossession in some 1,500 local authorities whose judgment and discretion are bound to vary in 1,500 different ways, to keep our safeguards strong. I am sure we must try to maintain a balance here.
We all wish to strike at Rachmanism where possible; but at the same time I think we must, wherever possible, safeguard the liberties of the subject. Speaking from memory, I think that The Times said in a leader when this Bill was published that the powers in this part of it were drastic, if not ruthless. Since then these powers have been sharpened in another place, and this control order machinery is a very sharp weapon indeed. I feel, therefore, that we must put it into the hands of the local authorities with all due and adequate safeguards. I believe that these Amendments would unduly diminish the safeguards that are written in the Bill and I hope that noble Lords opposite will not press them.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to continue this discussion because, in my view, although the noble Earl has discussed this subject with his usual ability, he has really concentrated on the language of the Amendment rather than on the content. I still adhere to what I said in moving the Amendment. There was never any difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and myself on Second Reading as to the intention. The noble Lord actually gave examples of savage dogs being put on to tenants. I gather he wanted to deal with cases of that kind and to enable the control order to be made. Now, as I understand him, the noble Earl is going back on that. Rather cleverly, he is dealing with what is admittedly a
482
defect in my Amendment, as it is equally a defect in the clause itself, because I take it the word "or" ought to be "and" in all cases. Even in the clause itself you can get a control order either on (a) or (b). That is one of the defects to which he drew attention. I say "or on (c)." But if we had the word "and" it would make it clear.
I would suggest that we all think about this matter. We have sat on this Bill now, with the greatest concentration, for a good many hours. I suggest that we defer consideration until Thursday and do not try to dispose of this clause at the moment. That is my suggestion, because I have by no means finished, and some of my friends would like to say something on it. It is probably the most important of the matters that remain to be dealt with, and I would remind the noble Earl that on Third Reading my friends in another place complained that the one matter about which they were dissatisfied was that this Bill failed to deal with Rachmanism. We still think that it fails in that respect. When we talk about Rachmanism, I would define it particularly as the evil of intimidation of tenants by one means or another so as to get them out. I think it is worth a discussion, and I think we could continue this discussion on Thursday. I suggest, therefore, that we might adjourn now and continue this discussion on Thursday. I believe that this is almost the only outstanding important question which remains on the Committee stage.
EARL JELLICOE: I had hoped that we could deal with these particular Amendments this evening; but we have been going for quite a long time and we have made very good progress at this Committee stage of the Bill. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the importance of these Amendments, and indeed of this clause, and of this Part of the Bill, and of the evils with which it deals. I do not wish in any way to curtail our discussion of these important areas of the Bill although, as I have said, I had hoped that we could get through, and if this is the wish of your Lordships, we shall be willing to fall in with it. In these circumstances, I beg to move that

483
the debate on Amendment No. 62 be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate on Amendment No. 62 be adjourned.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

HAVEN MARINE TERMINAL COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
House adjourned at one minute past seven o'clock.