Sitting of 26 March 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ARMED FORCES

    Demobilisation
    . Mr. William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the figures of His Majesty's Forces returned to this country and awaiting demobilisation.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson): The numbers fluctuate from day to day with the arrival of shipping in this country and it would be impossible even to estimate the figure at any given date.
    Mr. Shepherd: As the number must be considerable, can the Minister consider letting these men go on leave with their wives so that congestion on the trains may be relieved?
    Mr. Lawson: It depends on what class of men the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. Men in Class A go right to the release centers and arc out within 48 hours; in Class B they go to their units and arc out shortly after 48 hours. The hon. Gentleman may be alluding to Python men. In those cases they would have their six weeks, and after that it may be that it is not necessary for them to go abroad in view of. their early release number.

    Ex-Policemen
    Lieut.-Colonel Byersasked the Secretary of State for War the total number of ex-policemen serving with His
    172
    Majesty's Forces in the home and overseas commands, respectively, at the last convenient date; and the number at home and overseas, respectively, who have so far been offered Class B release for civilian police duties.
    Mr. Lawson: The approximate number of ex-policemen serving in the Army at 28th February, 1946, was 600 in the United Kingdom and 1,200 overseas, a total of 1,800. I understand that about 1,000 are serving in the Navy, but figures are not readily available for the R.A.F. The total numbers of offers of Class B release which have been made are: Navy 2,737, Army 7,299, R.A.F. 3,215. No separate figures are kept for home and overseas. Offers have been made to all regular police who have been asked for by the Home Office and Scottish Office, except those who cannot be spared by the Services.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those at home are not given more favourable treatment in the Class B release offer than those who are overseas, as there is a certain amount of feeling about it?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not aware of that but I will make inquiries.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

    Reconditioned Houses (Rural Workers)
    Mr. McLean Watsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses reconditioned and the amount of grants paid to owner-occupiers and to landlords, separately, under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in Scotland, giving each county separately
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): At 31st December, 1945, the latest date for which information is available, the number of houses reconditioned under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was 5,415 by owner-occupiers and 27,652 by landlords. The total grant paid is £471,523 to owner-occupiers and £2,438,620 to landlords. I am circulating details for each county in the OFFICIAT. REPORT.
    Following are the details:

    HOUSING (RURALWORKERS) ACTS.—Houses reconditioned (i) by owner-occupiers and (ii) by landlords, as at 31st December, 1945, and amounts of grants paid under each head.

    Local Authority.

    Numbers reconditioned

    Amounts of grants paid.

    Totals Houses.

    (i) Houses

    (ii) Houses.

    (i)£

    i.r.o. Houses.

    (ii) £

    i.r.o. Houses.

    Totals £

    COUNTIES—

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    3.307

    597

    2,710

    52,492

    597

    245,960

    2,710

    298,452

    Angus

    …

    …

    1,215

    72

    1,143

    5,639

    72

    83,931

    1,143

    89,570

    Argyll

    …

    …

    935

    423

    512

    38,410

    423

    43,651

    512

    82,041

    Ayr

    …

    …

    2,254

    201

    2,053

    19,887

    201

    188,975

    2,047

    208,862

    Banff

    …

    …

    243

    62

    181

    5,880

    62

    14,407

    181

    20,287

    Berwick

    …

    …

    843

    10

    833

    985

    10

    73,785

    833

    74,770

    Bute

    …

    …

    83

    74

    9

    5,948

    74

    739

    8

    6,687

    Caithness.

    …

    …

    366

    116

    250

    19,523

    116

    21,586

    250

    32,109

    Clackmannan

    …

    …

    207

    22

    185

    1,926

    22

    12,360

    156

    14,286

    Dumfries.

    …

    …

    900

    63

    837

    6,322

    63

    81,596

    837

    87,918

    Dunbarton

    …

    …

    622

    14

    608

    1,350

    14

    52,217

    608

    53,567

    East Lothian

    …

    …

    1,832

    20

    1,8l2

    1,750

    20

    173,816

    1,812

    175,566

    Fife

    …

    …

    2,929

    238

    2,691

    22,848

    238

    258,152

    2,691

    281,000

    Inverness.

    …

    …

    1,776

    1,415

    361

    116,579

    1,414

    27,784

    359

    144,363

    Kincardine

    …

    …

    261

    15

    246

    1,398

    15

    23,677'

    246

    25,075

    Kinross

    …

    …

    128

    10

    118

    911

    10

    11,208

    118

    12,119

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    …

    1,036

    119

    917

    10,431

    119

    84,953

    909

    95,384

    Lanark

    …

    …

    878

    53

    825

    5,173

    53

    70,022

    824

    75,195

    Midlothian

    …

    …

    1,096

    2

    1,094

    200

    2

    107,491

    1,091

    107,691

    Moray

    …

    …

    775

    164

    611

    13,149

    164

    37,370

    611

    50,519

    Nairn

    …

    …

    68

    4

    64

    337

    4

    5,899

    64

    6,236

    Orkney

    …

    …

    221

    107

    114

    6,193

    107

    8,211

    114

    14,404

    Peebles

    …

    …

    515

    22

    493

    1,914

    22

    45,984

    490

    47,898

    Perth

    …

    …

    2,621

    68

    2,553

    6,453

    68

    233,053

    2,553

    239,506

    Renfrew

    …

    …

    222

    2

    220

    200

    2

    16,659

    215

    16,859

    Ross

    …

    …

    987

    682

    305

    59,119

    682

    25,506

    305

    84,625

    Roxburgh

    …

    …

    1,834

    56

    1,778

    4,498

    56

    150,208

    1,778

    154,706

    Selkirk

    …

    …

    433

    13

    420

    1,226

    13

    34,682

    420

    35,08

    Stirling

    …

    …

    1,290

    90

    1,200

    8,428

    90

    95,853

    1,200

    104,281

    Sutherland

    …

    …

    267

    253

    14

    23,903

    253

    549

    14

    24,452

    West Lothian

    …

    …

    453

    15

    438

    1,483

    15

    39,833

    438

    41,316

    Wigtown

    …

    …

    116

    —

    1l6

    —

    —

    11,099

    116

    11,099

    Zetland

    …

    …

    24

    20

    4

    2,034

    24

    391

    4

    2,425

    TOTAL COUNTIES

    …

    …

    30.737

    5,022

    25,715

    437,589

    5,025

    2,281,587

    25,657

    2,719,176

    TOTAL BURGUS

    …

    …

    2,330

    393

    1,937

    33,934

    380

    157,033

    1,921

    190,967

    GRAND TOTAL (SCOTLAND)

    …

    …

    33,067

    5,415

    27,652

    471.523

    5.405

    2,438,620

    27,578

    2,910,143

    Outer Hebrides
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to have discussions with the county councillors from the Outer Isles communities on the housing situation in the islands when he meets the county councils of Inverness-shire and Ross and Cromarty; and when he expects to meet those county councils.
    Mr. Buchanan: I have arranged to meet representatives of the county councils of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty on the 2nd and 3rd May. I am informing the councils that it is my intention at these meetings to discuss the housing position in the counties as a whole, including the Outer Isles, and I have no doubt that they will bear this in mind in selecting the councillors who are to represent them at the meetings.

  SCOTLAND

    Island of Lismore (Memorandum)
    Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered a memorandum from the inhabitants of the Island of Lismore, through the organisation known as the Friends of Lismore., in which great anxiety is expressed regarding the future agricultural and residential prospects for the island; and what steps he proposes to take to bring about an improvement of present conditions.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I received the memorandum a few days ago. It raises questions of some complexity affecting a number of Departments, and these are now under consideration.
    Major McCallum: Will the Minister consult with the other Ministers to whom this memorandum was addressed, and see if something can be done before the ex-Servicemen, who are coming home and are now proposing to settle down there, are driven off by inability to obtain agricultural assistance from the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Westwood: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these consultations are continuing, but the memorandum referred to in the Question raises questions of great complexity. I am giving immediate attention to the points raised in it.
    Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister agree to have the B.B.C. broadcast this information in their Argyllshire programme on Friday night?

    Teachers (Further Education and Training Scheme)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the discontent occasioned among demobilised students, who have resumed their studies under the Further Education and Training Scheme for Teachers, by the delay in paying the grants; and what steps he is taking to expedite payments.
    Mr. Westwood: I am aware that owing to the rush of applicants within the last month it has not been possible to dispose of outstanding cases as quickly as I would have wished The Scottish Education Department are taking all possible steps to expedite payments, and special priority has been given to all urgent cases of hardship brought to their notice. It has, however, to he kept in mind that before the first payment can be made to a student in training as a teacher, he must have passed a medical examination, and this takes time. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases involving hardship which have not yet been dealt with, I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that generally these cases date back to January of this year, not merely one month?.
    Mr. Westwood: As I have already pointed out, it takes time to carry through medical examinations, and I have already admitted that things are not going as speedily as I would desire. I repeat that if there is any particular case of hardship in the mind of the hon. Member, and he brings it to my notice, I will give it immediate attention.
    Mr. Rankin: Thank you, Sir.

    Road Grant. Ross and Cromarty
    Captain MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what prospects there are for the county council of Ross and Cromarty getting a sufficient grant to enable them to proceed with the Applecross Road.
    Mr. Westwood: I discussed the question of a grant for the proposed Applecross Road with representatives of the county council of Ross and Cromarty at a meeting on 25th January last, I then

    177
    promised that, if the county council were prepared to consider a contribution of 15 per cent. of the cost, I would examine the project afresh in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport to see whether Government grants could be offered for the remainder of the cost.
    Captain MacLeod: Does the Minister realise that they had attempted to get a grant for this road some 45 years ago, and that these people are completely cut off?
    Mr. Westwood: I do not know of any grant having been made over 45 years ago; that was a little while before I entered this House. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, however, that there has never been any offer on the part of the county council to pay any contribution towards the cost of the road and I had thought I had made some progress when, at that meeting, I got the representatives to agree to recommend to their own county council a contribution of 15 per cent. I am awaiting the result of their recommendation to the county council.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that this is just one more example of this county council having been offered a relatively generous grant and still penalising its own people by not accepting it?
    Mr. Westwood: I cannot say that at the moment, in view of the fact that the county council in that area meets only every three months I am now awaiting the result of the recommendation to the county council.

    North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
    Mr. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of contracts which have been placed, or will be placed, in the near future by the North Scotland Hydro Board; and what is the relative value of these contracts as between Scottish and English contractors.
    Mr. Westwood: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.
    Mr. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that no member of the North of Scotland Hydro Board has any connection with' any firm or firms who have
    178
    undertaken or will be undertaking contracts for the aforementioned Board.
    Mr. Westwood: The position of members of the Board with regard to contracts is governed by paragraph 6 of the First Schedule to the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, which states that a member of the Board must disclose his interest in any company with which the Board has made or proposes to make a contract and must not take part in any deliberation or decision in regard to such a contract.

    Demobilised Teachers
    Mr. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of teachers returned from the Forces under the Class B release scheme; and if they have all been re-employed by those education authorities in Scotland from which they were taken for the Forces.
    Mr. Westwood: The release under Class B of 623 Scottish teachers has been notified to the Scottish Education Department by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. Those who were employed by Education Authorities before being called up have as a rule been re-employed by their former employers.

    Proposed Pier, Portnaguran, Lewis
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what progress has been made between his Department and the Ross-shire county council in the negotiations in respect of the proposed pier for Portnaguran, Isle of Lewis, for which a 75 per cent. financial grant was offered before the war.
    Mr. Westwood: The Department of Agriculture hope shortly to be in a position to furnish an up to date estimate of the cost of a harbour at Portnaguran. When this has been done it will be for the county council to consider whether they wish to make a fresh application for a grant and what degree of priority to attach to this particular project.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this, like the Applecross Road, is a question which has been threshed out over the last 70 or 80 years, and that before the war considerable progress had been made as a first priority job? Will he see that nothing is allowed to stand in the way of what is an essential project for the local inhabitants?
    Mr. Westwood: I shall certainly see that all reasonable consideration is given for the purpose of making progress insofar as these schemes are concerned.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the Minister take a new line by doing something unreasonable in this particular matter?
    Mr. Westwood: No, Sir.

    Public Works Schemes, Outer Hebrides
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the discussions between the other Government Departments and the Scottish Office for the earlier commencement of public works schemes in the Outer Isles; and what part is to be taken by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in future in connection with road works.
    Mr. Westwood: Discussions are taking place between the Departments concerned regarding the employment position in Lewis and Harris. As recently announced by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of War Transport, road schemes at a total estimated cost of £75,000 have been approved and will be carried out at an early date, and the possibility of undertaking further measures is being examined. As regards the second part of the Question, increased provision is being made on the Vote of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in the forthcoming financial year for grants for public works in the Congested Districts.
    Mr. MacMillan: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his part in these discussions, and in the proposed schemes in certain places, may I ask him to bear in mind also the Islands of Barra and the Uists, as well as Lewis and Harris? There are many other islands in the Hebrides as well as the main Islands.
    Mr. Westwood: I certainly will.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Demobilisation
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War the reason for the delay in the release of other ranks in the R. A. M. C.
    Mr. Lawson: There is no delay in the release of other ranks in the R.A.M.C. Apart from any individual deferments on
    180
    grounds of vital military necessity which may be unavoidable, R.A.M.C. other ranks will be released in accordance with the general programme for the Army as a whole.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War the estimated daily average release from the Army during the months of March, April and May, 1946.
    Mr. Lawson: To achieve the release programme for March, April and May the following daily averages should be attained: March, 6,140 men, 580 women; April, 4,350 men, 310 women; May. 4,490 men, 280 women.
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Secretary of State for War why men of long service do not get 56 days' release leave if they are released in Class C.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) on 16th October. 1945.
    Mr. Allighan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the circumstances which compel many of these men to seek Class C compassionate release also demand that they should be in a financial position to help those circumstances? Does he not think it rather paltry to withhold from them wages they would have got if they were not released because of domestic adversity?
    Mr. Lawson: I must make it plain to the House that these matters look far different to men who have been on service for years at the other end than to people on service at this end. There are other provisions where there is financial need and the commanding officer has power to grant 28 days' leave.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not true that men at the other end do not get the money, while men at this end do not get the compassionate leave, but get the money?
    Mr. Lawson: I was speaking of men under Class A and about the feeling there is among the men at the other end. I have seen very strong examples of that
    Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Surely, the number of cases where resentment is felt because a man is released under Class C must be very small indeed? Is it not a fact that these people are suffering not

    181
    only great financial strain, but mental strain from the fact that they have to apply for Class C release?
    Mr. Lawson: I can assure hon. Members that there are many cases. I stated to the House a fortnight ago that there were no fewer than 20,000 releases under Class C. It does not make the slightest difference whether Class B or Class C are concerned, but I can assure the House that I have observed that there is indignation on this matter.

    Punishments (Statistics)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the punishments imposed for the various offences most commonly committed by men while serving sentences in the Aldershot and other detention barracks; of the most severe punishment that can be imposed for any such offence, with the number of times that it has been imposed ill each year since 1st January, 1939, and during the present year, at Aldershot and elsewhere; and if he is satisfied that conditions at the Aldershot detention barracks conform in every respect with the recommendations of the Oliver Committee.
    Mr. Lawson: As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Particulars of punishments which may be awarded for the offences most commonly committed by soldiers whilst serving sentences in military prisons and detention barracks are as follows
    1.—(a) Punishment Diet No. 1. This may be ordered for a period not exceeding 15 days. Whilst undergoing this punishment the man receives one pound of bread per day with unrestricted water for three days, followed by ordinary diet for three days and so on, until the expiration of the period of punishment. A man undergoing punishment diet No. I does not attend parades, nor is he given any task of work. He forfeits one day's remission for each day of the period of the award. (b) Punishment Diet No. 2 consisting of: eight ounces bread with unrestricted water. One pint of stirabout, containing four ounces oatmeal (or two ounces oatmeal and two ounces Indian meal), salt, eight ounces potatoes, un
    182
    restricted water. Supper—eight ounces bread with unrestricted water.
    When ordered for a period exceeding 21 days, Punishment Diet No. 2 consists of the above for the first, second and third weeks, then ordinary diet for the fourth week, then as for the first three weeks. The entire period of the award must not exceed 42 days. A man undergoing Punishment Diet No. 2 attends parades for inspection only, and is not given work of a heavy nature. He forfeits one half a day's remission for each day of the period of the award. (c) Close confinement. (d) Forfeiture of remission. (c) Extra military instruction.(f) De-
    privation of mattress (not exceeding three days) for idleness.(g) Deprivation of library book.
    2. The most severe punishment which may be imposed by the commandant is: (i) Three days' close confinement (ii) Three days' Punishment Diet No. 1. (iii) 21 days' Punishment Diet No. 2. (iv) Forfeiture of remission for a period not exceeding 14 days.
    3. The most severe punishment which may be imposed by a board of visitors is: (i) 14 days' close confinement. (ii) 15 days' Punishment Diet No. I. (iii) 42 days' Punishment Diet No. 2. (iv) Forfeiture of remission for a period not exceeding 28 days.
    4. The number of times the most severe punishment has been awarded since 1st January, 1939, is as follows:

    Year

    By Commandants.

    By Board of Visitors.

    1939

    Nil

    Nil

    1940

    Nil (a)

    Nil (a)

    1941

    8

    —

    1942

    5

    —

    1943

    8

    3

    1944

    17(b)

    —

    1945

    23(b)

    7

    1946(to 1st march)

    9(b)

    5

    Total

    70

    15

    (a) Does not include military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot where records are not available.
    (b) Does not include military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot where records were destroyed during recent disturbances.
    The figures include all the following establishments:
    Military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot (except as stated above).
    Military prison and detention barrack, Northallerton.
    Military prison and detention barrack, Shepton Mallet.
    Military detention barrack, Chorley.
    Military detention barrack, Colchester.
    Military detention barrack, Fort Darland.
    Military detention barrack. Sowerby Bridge.
    Military detention barrack, Langport.
    So long as it continued in use, conditions at the military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot, conformed to the recommendations of the Oliver Committee in every respect, except that there was not a full-time Medical Officer A part-time medical officer was, however, immediately available at all times.

    Detention Barrack Disturbances (Reports)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement on the report of the court of inquiry into conditions at Stakehill detention barracks and on his intentions in regard to a civilian inquiry in public, with safeguards for the anonymity of witnesses, into conditions at Stakehill and/or in detention barracks generally.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I have recently received the final report of the court of inquiry, and have prepared a statement of the conclusions I have reached which, as it is somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The general conclusion is that the allegations which have been made in the public Press and in letters to the Rev. Urien Evans or to Members of Parliament, are either unfounded or grossly exaggerated. The court of inquiry, which included among the members a K.C. and a psychiatrist, examined every aspect of the problem in great detail. Every effort was made to call as witnesses all those who had made allegations about the treatment of prisoners at Stakehill, and also all soldiers under sentence who had any complaint to make. They examined in all 195 witnesses, including 47 members or ex-members of the staff, 117 who were, or had been, soldiers under sentence, and a number of civilians as many as were willing to attend, who had made written complaints about the treatment of their relations who were serving sentences at Stakehill. The completion of the report
    184
    was considerably delayed by difficulties in obtaining typists, and particularly because the shorthand-typist who had taken down the records of the court of inquiry in shorthand went sick before his notes could be typed. I wish, therefore, to apologise to the House for the delay in giving the further information which I had promised. I see no need for any further inquiry into conditions at Stake-hill. But I am considering whether I ought to take further steps to allay the disquiet of those members of the public and of this House who feel that there is still cause for anxiety about the Army system of detention and the conduct of detention barracks.
    Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say what are those further steps he proposes to take in the last part of his reply?
    Mr. Lawson: I would rather wait to give the matter more consideration, because since the inquiry into conditions at Stakehill there are other matters with which I am going to deal after Questions.
    Mr. Lipson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the court was unanimous in its recommendations?
    Mr. Lawson: I think it was unanimous, but I would not be absolutely certain.
    Following is the statement:
    I have carefully considered the findings of the court of inquiry, and the opinions of my advisers whose duty it is to consider and comment on those findings and I have reached the following conclusions:
    (1) It is quite clear that the allegations which have been made in the public Press and in letters to the Rev. Urien Evans or to Members of Parliament, are either unfounded or grossly exaggerated.
    (2) As regards the two deaths of soldiers at Stakehill, which largely gave rise to this inquiry, I am satisfied that the allegations made were without any foundation.
    In the case of Private Hanlon, it is not in doubt that he committed suicide by hanging, but it was alleged that he had been beaten up before he died. This is quite untrue. There is no reason, in my opinion, to attribute his suicide to any other cause than his domestic worries. I consider, however, that the staff were open to criticism to this extent, that talk of suicide and an alleged attempt on the

    185
    previous evening were not taken seriously enough, but were treated rather as an endeavour to attract sympathy, with the result that the attention of the medical officer was not specifically directed to his case, nor was the soldier deprived—as in the light of what occurred I think he clearly should have been—of the means to do what he did.
    In the other case, the soldier died from sudden and unpredictable heart-failure while practising running in physical training dress of shorts and running shoes, and I do not consider that any blame for his death can be attributed to any Army authority. Among the more serious allegations in connection with his death were suggestions that the death certificate was given without a post mortem, that there was delay in summoning the relatives, and that there was a conspiracy to prevent the relatives properly examining the body. I am satisfied that none of these charges is substantiated.
    (3) Examination of the complaints received from relatives has disclosed nothing which I consider calls for serious attention. Generally speaking, they are all either trivial, untrue or much exaggerated. The explanation of these unfounded complaints is, I think, that soldiers under sentence not infrequently attempt to divert the attention of their parents and friends from their own misdeeds by inviting sympathy for their sufferings, which they invent or exaggerate while undergoing punishment.
    (4) I am satisfied that there is no truth whatever in the allegation that soldiers under sentence were Systematically "beaten up" or that there was habitual and deliberate persecution or victimisation by members of the staff.
    (5) Stakehill, which we had been compelled to take into temporary use as a detention barrack during the war, was admittedly unsatisfactory in many respects. The accommodation, messing (although food was always adequate) and sanitary arrangements were below standard and the buildings gloomy, depressing and inconvenient. The barracks were already scheduled for closing and were, in fact, closed down completely on 7th January.
    (6) Medical, training, education and welfare arrangements were well up to standard.
    (7) I do not consider that any fault can be found with the policy adopted with
    186
    regard to discipline at Stakehill, though I am not prepared to say that its application by the staff was always above criticism in every respect. I am inclined to think that the supervision of discipline may have been left too much in the hands of the Regimental Sergeant Major. There may well have been an undue tendency to check men for slight mistakes without discrimination, and it is probable that orders were sometimes given in a bullying and domineering manner. On the other hand, I think too much can be made of these faults, and too little consideration given to the great forbearance often shown by the staff in very trying circumstances.
    (8) I am satisfied that there is no substance in the allegation that "cleaners" were sometimes ordered, or permitted, by the staff to assault other soldiers under sentence.
    (9) The staff was in accordance with the scale recommended by the Oliver Committee, but its quality in many cases left something to be desired. This was inevitable with manpower shortages, and rapid turnover due to the release programme.
    This difficulty can only be overcome by the provision of the right type of man in sufficient numbers in the Military Provost Staff Corps, and in this connection I would like to make an earnest appeal to hon. Members and to the Press and public to show fairness to these men who are doing a vital and difficult job, the aim of which is not simply to punish a soldier who has committed a military offence, but to train him to be a good soldier. Hon. Members will recollect that the Oliver Committee reported that again and again they came across evidence of the ill-effects that unfounded allegations of brutality and ill-treatment had had upon the lives of the staff of military detention barracks.
    (10) To sum up, I am quite satisfied that there is no cause for any apprehension in the minds of the public that there was any maltreatment of the soldiers under sentence at Stakehill, or that there is anything materially wrong with the general system of detention. A number of detailed recommendations and suggestions with regard to the organisation and administration of detention barracks in general are being examined, and will be implemented where it is practicable to do so.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he has now received a report and will make a statement on the recent disturbances in Aldershot detention barracks and on the conditions there of which complaint was made.
    Mr. Lawson: I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    Mr. Lawson: I have now received a report on the disturbances which took place at the military prison and detention barracks at Aldershot on 23rd and 24th February, 1946. The course of events was as follows: At 4.30 p.m. on 23rd February one soldier under sentence contrived to unlock his cell door. He promptly released another, and the two together overpowered the N.C.O. on duty and locked him in a cell. The alarm was given by another N.C.O. at the Gate Lodge, but by this time a considerable number of additional soldiers under sentence had been released. They started to smash everything that could be broken. Non-participants were intimidated into joining in. The duty officer, with all available staff, concentrated on preventing the men breaking out of the hall, and, quite properly, made no attempt to subdue the soldiers under sentence by force. The Commandant was quickly on the scene and tried to speak to the men over a loudspeaker warning them that they were taking part in a mutiny. This had no effect. Reinforcements soon arrived and were stationed round the block. The District Commander decided to surround the block so as to prevent escapes, in the hope that the men would come to a more reasonable frame of mind.
    Next morning, men were still on the roof of the building throwing missiles but the District Commander addressed them through a loudspeaker asking those who wanted to come out, to do so. About 5o men complied, and were followed soon after by a further 5o. At 10.30 a.m. the District Commander personally got into touch with men who were still on the roof and a deputation came out. They were told that the disturbance must stop and that if they came out, meals would be prepared and grievances gone into. The men agreed, and soon after the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, went into the hall
    188
    and spoke to them. At the very last moment about 40 soldiers under sentence tried to set fire to the hall, but the disturbance was over by 12 noon.
    There seems to be no doubt that the disturbances were a development from a frustrated attempt to escape by six soldiers under sentence recently transferred from Northallerton and were not a general and concerted act of mutiny. The immediate factors which gave opportunity for the outbreak included the faulty design of the door of the cell from which the first soldier under sentence contrived to escape, the fact that only one N.C.O. was on patrol in the hall and that he was unarmed.
    In view of the speed with which and the extent to which the disturbance developed, it is a matter for satisfaction that it was quelled within 20 hours with only a few minor injuries and no escapes. Disciplinary action is being taken against 25 soldiers under sentence.
    While, as I have stated, the outbreak was not the direct result of complaints about conditions at Aldershot or unsatisfied grievances, it is clear that numbers of soldiers under sentence, some of whom have criminal records, were in a mood to take full advantage of the opportunity to join in this act of mass indiscipline, and that this may be attributed, at least in part, to the existence of a sense of grievances, real or imaginary. The men have accordingly been given ample opportunity to put forward any complaints or grievances they have and these are now being examined to see how far there is substance in them. I cannot say more on this point at present, but hon. Members may rest assured that in so far as they have substance, I shall see that the complaints are rectified as soon, and as far, as possible.
    Mr. Driberg: Does not this kind of incident, which has become regrettably frequent, illustrate the necessity for a speedy review of the whole question of detention barracks, and of the sentences imposed during the war on men who have not criminal records but who· have committed technical offences only, and is it not time that the Government themselves started smashing up some of these obsolete and barbarous prisons?
    Mr. Lawson: So far as the detention of prisoners is concerned, the House will

    189
    remember that I have already this afternoon given a very definite promise to review this matter. So far as the review of sentences is concerned, I shall want to have a careful look at that matter. As I have told the House, I have in mind a review of the whole system of detention.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this business would never have spread as it did had not a few been able to intimidate the many, and does that not equally apply to the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act?
    General Sir George Jeffreys: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is required in detention barracks is not a slackening of discipline but a tightening of discipline; and is he further aware that it is not so many years ago since those detention barracks in Aldershot were familiarly known among the worst characters as "The Rest Cure "?
    Mr. Gallacher: Why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman go and take a rest cure?
    Mr. Lawson: I hope the House has rioted that this incident largely arose because there was only one man on duty, and that the men who got out of the cells put the warder into a cell. I think it is rather a serious matter for a man to be on duty by himself, and I am giving very careful attention to it. But I ask the House to remember that there have been very great changes, through demobilisation, among warders as well as among other men, and also that warders are not easily to be had nowadays, not only because of the great changes that are taking place but because of a good deal of publicity that has taken place.
    Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when he is reviewing these sentences, offences like desertion will not be regarded as technical offences?
    Mr. Lawson: I made a very long statement on that matter some months ago, and those who heard it will remember that I did deal with mitigation of sentences to a considerable extent.
    Captain Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there are adequate staffs for detention barracks all over the country, because they are grossly understaffed, and at Aldershot they have been for the last two or three years?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. That is one of the objects of the review that I propose to make, but I told the House—it may be that some hon. Members were not present at the time—that I apprehend considerable disquiet in the public mind about this matter.
    Captain Crowder: Is not that disquiet due to the inadequacy of the staffs?

    Overseas Service
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to reduce the tour of overseas service for men serving in C.M.F.
    Mr. Lawson: As the hon. Member will be aware, I announced on 14th March that the Python period for C.M.F. is being reduced from four years to three years nine months.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, now that land communications are open in this theatre, it is necessary for there to be so large a discrimination between the treatment of troops here and in B.A.O.R.?
    Mr. Lawson: One has to take into consideration the numbers, coining and going, as well as distances.
    Mr. Yorkasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the period of overseas service of the Middle East and Malta Commands is still, in practice, four years; when he anticipates that the period will be reduced to his promised three years and four months; and whether he is aware that the R.A.F. has recently reduced their period of overseas service.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 14th March.

    Toulon Transit Camp (Conditions)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in Toulon transit camp soldiers are required to sleep in tents; that these conditions prevailed throughout the winter months; and what steps he proposes to take to improve these conditions.
    Mr. Lawson: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton

    191
    (Mr. Paget) and North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) on 19th February. Conditions at this camp were made extremely difficult during the winter months by the exceptionally bad weather, which also had the effect of holding up work on the construction of accommodation. With the milder weather, conditions have now improved considerably, and good progress has been made in completing the necessary accommodation. By the beginning of this month the sergeants' messes were complete and in use, 85 per cent. of the dining huts were in use and 230 of the 276 sleeping huts were also in use. Except in a small number of the sleeping huts electric lighting was complete throughout the camp and functioning satisfactorily. I hope that by the beginning of April the work will have been finished.
    Mr. Medland: is my right hon. Friend aware that that is precisely the same reply he gave me two months ago?
    Mr. Lawson: I have said that owing to the physical conditions work had been held up

    Education Scheme (Instructors' Pay)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of. State for War why instructors in formation colleges under the Army Education Scheme do not, like those at Army divisional and higher schools, receive instructors' pay; and whether this anomaly will be removed.
    Mr. Lawson: I am looking into this and I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

    Training Areas
    Wing-Commander Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be able to visit the military training ground in the Isle of Purbeck, as promised to the deputation which saw him on 24th October, 1945; and when he anticipates being able to derequisition this area in order to free the china clay workings and agricultural land from the present restrictions.
    Mr. Lawson: I regret that owing to the pressure of other business, I have not yet been able to visit the Isle of Purbeck, but I intend to do so as soon as I can. It will in any case be necessary to wait until the general review of Army requirements of land, which is being carried out in
    192
    conjunction with the other Departments concerned, has been completed before any final decision as to the future of this area can be reached.
    Wing-Commander Cooper: While I thank him for his reply, could I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the transfer of these training grounds from more productive areas to less productive moorland areas in the North of England, Scotland and Wales, so that we can free productive areas for agricultural purposes?
    Mr. Lawson: That is one of the matters I am considering along with others, but I am awaiting the report. The question in the main deals with the Isle of Purbeck, and I was wanting to visit that on grounds of health.
    Squadron-Leader Emrys Robertsasked the Secretary of State for War why Western Command has issued notices on farmers at Talybont and Dyffryn, Merioneth, empowering an 0.C.T.U. to use a large area of land for training purposes, contrary to the assurance given to the hon. and gallant Member for Merioneth that it was not intended to extend the areas held for training purposes in the county of Merioneth.
    Mr. Lawson: There has been no extension of the area over which training rights are exercised; the notices simply renewed the rights already possessed for a further period of six months.
    Squadron-Leader Robertsasked the Secretary of State for War how many training establishments and how many acres of land were held by his Department in each of the counties of Wales at V J-Day and at 1st March, 1946, respectively.
    Mr. Lawson: I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL
    REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The following table shows for 15th August, 1945, and 1st March, 1946, the training areas owned or leased by the War Department, the training areas requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51, and the land over which training rights have been acquired under Defence Regulation 52 without depriving the owner or occupier of possession. Land used for accommodation purposes by training establishments or other units is not included.

    TRAINING AREAS—WALES.

    COUNTY

    Areas in use for training as at 15th August, 1945

    Areas in use for training as at 1st March, 1946.

    WD.

    DR 51.

    DR52.

    WD

    DR51.

    DR52.

    No. of areas.

    Acres.

    No. of areas.

    Acres.

    No. of areas.

    Acres.

    No. of areas.

    Acres.

    No. of areas.

    Acres.

    No. of areas.

    Acres.

    Radnorshire

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    3

    402

    13

    178,465

    —

    —

    2

    383

    8

    41,494

    Caernarvonshire

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    6

    172

    22

    103.5I5

    —

    —

    6

    172

    8

    71,555

    Denbighshire

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    14

    261

    53

    47,602

    —

    —

    11

    239

    7

    35,867

    Brecknockshire

    …

    …

    …

    2

    28,556

    8

    1,149

    22

    240,463

    2

    28,556

    8

    1,108

    17

    149,271

    Glamorganshire

    …

    …

    …

    1

    420

    5

    918

    51

    70,571

    1

    420

    5

    918

    8

    6,998

    Pembrokeshire

    …

    …

    …

    3

    5,960

    5

    541

    10

    149,538

    3

    5,96o

    4

    431

    3

    86,560

    Carmarthenshire

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    1

    40

    15

    135,513

    —

    —

    1

    40

    8

    41532

    Merionethshire

    …

    …

    …

    2

    8,400

    5

    1,265

    16

    43,069

    2

    8,400

    4

    1,248

    8

    8,538

    Flintshire

    …

    …

    …

    1

    100

    16

    384

    19

    11,269

    1

    100

    13

    202

    5

    8,750

    Cardiganshire

    …

    …

    …

    1

    521

    1

    250

    7

    115,422

    1

    521

    1

    250

    3

    70,797

    Anglesey

    …

    …

    …

    1

    106

    8

    147

    18

    40,780

    1

    106

    6

    127

    10

    16,799

    Montgomeryshire

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    5

    78

    12

    50,051

    —

    —

    3

    68

    5

    25,534

    Totals

    …

    …

    …

    11

    44,063

    77

    5,607

    258

    1,186,258

    11

    44,063

    64

    5,186

    90

    563,695

    African Units (British Personnel)
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to ensure that the best available officers and N.C.Os. are employed to serve with African troops; and whether any revision in the conditions of service and pay for British personnel serving with African troops is contemplated.
    Mr. Lawson: The most suitable officers available are posted to African units. Before any N.C.O. or potential N.C.O. is posted for service with non-European troops, he is inspected by an officer not below the rank of Lieut.-Colonel to ensure that he is suitable for this duty. In the case of the Infantry, potential N.C.Os. attend a course at the School of Infantry and must be accepted by a special selection board. A review is to be carried out in conjunction with the Colonial Office of the conditions of service and pay in the Colonial Forces.

    Students (Posting)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War if arrangements can be made for students to serve in specified units so that they may, in their spare time, continue their studies.
    Mr. Lawson: So far as military students at the Army Formation Colleges are concerned every possible effort is made to ensure that they are not posted away until they have completed the particular course on which they are engaged. Otherwise no special arrangements can be made for the posting of students to specified units.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this procedure was adopted by the French in their conscription system before the war, and would he give this matter further consideration?
    Mr. Lawson1: Yes, Sir. It is one of the matters about which I am much concerned.

    Personal Case
    Mr. George Brownasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now reconsidered the reply of his Department of 4th February to the request of the hon. Member for Belper about Mr. S. A. Daniels; and whether he is now prepared to authorise the payment of Service pay and allowances from date of enlistment to discharge.
    Mr. Lawson: I regret that I can see no grounds for altering the decision which has been reached in this case.
    Mr. Brown: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this man received no pay at all but a gratuity based upon his service in the Forces, and that, in fact, the reasons given in the letters of 4th February and nth March are completely contradictory? Does he not consider it scandalous that a man should serve for a period in the Forces and receive no pay of any kind?
    Mr. Lawson: I am very sorry to have to say that this man never did any effective military service. In the confusion which existed at the beginning of the war his discharge was not carried out until July, 1940, but he was in civilian employment after 1st March, 1940. It was not until 1945 that he made any claim for pay.
    Mr. Brown: Surely, my right hon. Friend would agree that no civilian employer could get out of paying a man because some confusion existed in his records? This man was an attested soldier, claims were made by his wife while he was in the Service, and have been made several times since. Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Lawson: There are many difficulties in the way, which have been created primarily by the fact that the man did not make his claim until very late.
    Mr. Brown: His wife did.
    Mr. Lawson: Had he made his claim at the proper time it might have been considered, and an ex gratia payment made.
    Mr. Brown: In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Courts-Martial (Sentences)
    Mr. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider setting up an independent judicial body to make recommendations for the readjustment of all courts-martial sentences which were imposed during the war and which are still being served.
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. In accordance with the provisions of the Army Act, all sentences awarded by courts-martial are subject to mitigation, remission or commutation, on confirmation and review by the appropriate military authority I am satisfied that these provisions, in conjunc-

    197
    tion with the present more lenient application of the policy of suspension of sentences awarded for military offences, are sufficient to ensure that no individual serves a longer sentence than the requirements of discipline demand.
    Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if many of these cases had passed through a judicial court far less severe sentences would have been imposed, and in view of the great anxiety and resentment being felt by people in this country, which is leading to difficulties in these prisons, will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to this matter?
    Mr. Lawson: I have given much consideration to this matter. The House will remember that I made a statement last year which showed I had considerably mitigated these sentences. I will have a look at the sentences to see whether they are unduly heavy, but as far as I can see up to the present time, I do not agree that they are.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these men are serving long terms of penal servitude, and will he take steps to distinguish between those sentenced for purely military offences and those sentenced for ordinary crimes?
    Mr. Lawson: I am glad my hon. Friend has made the distinction between the two types of sentences I will certainly look into the matter.
    Mr. Walkden: How can my right hon. Friend possibly consider details of all these cases which are tried by courts-martial, which would be comparable to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice considering the details of all cases dealt with by benches of summary jurisdiction? How can he give a fair judgment in comparing evidence, in view of the other jobs he has to do?

    Damaged Trawler, Brighton (Compensation)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that his Department has refused compensation to Mr. Howell, of Brighton, for damage occasioned to his fishing trawler consequent on its removal from the shore in 1940 by Army authorities, on the ground that Mr. Howell should have safeguarded it himself; and whether, as Mr. Howell
    198
    could not safeguard it during the four years he was a prisoner of war, he will reconsider the payment of compensation.
    Mr. Lawson: I have nothing to add to the letter I sent to the hon. and learned Member on 15th March in which I pointed out that the claimant had left his boat in the care of his son.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during six months of correspondence between his Department and myself, the War Office maintained that it was the duty of this man to have looked after his own boat during the time he was a prisoner of war, and it was only after I put this Question down that the War Office, for the first time, switched the responsibility to the man's son? Why is it that, because this man happens to have a son, the War Office should be relieved of responsibility?
    Mr. Lawson: The man himself said that he left the boat in charge of his son

    Military College of Science (Courses)
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for War what courses are at present available for Regular officers at the Military College of Science and its branches; what is the maximum complement for each course; and how many students are actually on these courses at the present time.
    Mr. Lawson: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The two courses which have been available at the School of Tank Technology are a Technical Adjutants Course R.A.C., and an Advanced Gunnery Course, R.A.C. There is no course of the former type in progress at present and the latter has been discontinued. The school is at present in the process of reorganisation. It is hoped to start an advanced course for tank technicians, and courses for instructors tank gunnery and tank technical officers by August. The school's complement of 39 will then be filled from present applicants. Instruction at the Artillery Equipment School and the Fire Control School was suspended on 1st March to allow these schools to move to the new location of the Military College of Science at Shriven-

    199
    ham. At that time the following courses were in progress: War Advanced Class in Artillery Equipments, Small Arms Technical Course, four long Gunnery Staff Courses, Inspecting Ordnance Officers Course, two Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Field Artillery Equipments Courses. One hundred and forty-seven officers were on these courses out of a maximum complement of 195.

    Compassionate Release
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is a minimum age below which military personnel are riot released on compassionate grounds in any circumstances; and if so, what that age is.
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War why a man's compassionate release, either indefinite or temporary, is affected by his age and service group.
    Mr. Lawson: In cases where compassionate release is applied for on other than business grounds there is no minimum age limit for either temporary or indefinite release. Nor is there any minimum age limit for temporary release in cases of one-man businesses. If a man is under 30 or in an age and service group from which postings to the Far East are being made, indefinite release will not, however, normally be granted for business reasons. To grant indefinite release in such cases would be unjustifiable as it would inevitably delay the Class A release of older men and those in early age and service groups.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received from his Department in the last few days two letters, sent by the Noble Lord, the Member for Paisley (Viscount Corvedale) who sits behind him, stating that two men could not be released on purely compassionate grounds because they were below the age at which this could be done? In the light of the answer he has given, will he give immediate reconsideration to these two most urgent cases?
    Mr. Lawson: I will give attention to the point raised.

    Extended Service (Temporary Ranks)
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that men now holding tem-
    200
    porary commissioned or non-commissioned ranks, will, in the event of their signing on for further service, retain their present ranks.
    Mr. Lawson: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to temporary officers and non-commissioned officers who voluntarily defer their release for a period. In such cases the rank held may be retained subject to the normal operation of the wartime promotion codes. Under this code acting or temporary rank may only be held so long as a vacancy in that rank within an establishment is being filled. I cannot, therefore, guarantee that any acting or temporary rank will be retained throughout the period of deferment.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a definite statement to men wishing to serve in the Forces during peace, giving them a guarantee that their commissioned rank will be retained, will ensure that the Army will obtain excellent skilled men who have had experience during the war, and the Army will obtain a number of skilled troops?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir; I am not aware of any such statement and I should be very sorry if men have been misled.

    Personnel, Austria
    Mr. York askedthe Secretary of State for War why soldiers are being sent from Austria to the Middle East for courses in radio, when the same course could be given in this country.
    Mr. Lawson: Men from B.A.O.R., Gibraltar, Italy and Austria, as well as those at Home, are sent on courses in this country so far as the capacity of the Schools permits. In the particular case of one R.A.C. unit in Austria, it is a more satisfactory arrangement to send men on Radio courses in the Middle East, because the personnel and equipment for this and other types of R.A.C. training are available in the Middle East, and because it is desirable to keep together men from the formation of which this unit is a part.
    Mr. York: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is exactly double the distance from Austria to the Middle East as to this country, and is he not further aware that there is an added advantage in giving the men some period of service at home? Will he not increase the accommodation in this country, rather than send the men on these long journeys?
    Mr. Lawson: I will have another look at the point made by the hon. Member, but it is important that units should be kept together.
    Mr. Yorkasked the Secretary of State for War why soldiers from Austria are having their L.I.A.P. postponed in order to send them on courses to the Middle East.
    Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Member will send me details of any case where L.I.A.P. appears to have been postponed without adequate reasons, I will have it investigated.
    Mr. York: Are we to take it that L.I.A.P. will not be postponed in order that men should go on these courses?
    Mr. Lawson: Generally speaking, it is not postponed. There are cases in which, of course, repatriation is made available, but that is another matter altogether.
    Mr. York: In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made and of his answer to the last Question, will he not review the situation in regard to sending men on courses to the Middle
    East rather than allow them to come home?
    Mr. Lawson: I will make inquiries to see whether my intention is not being carried out in this matter.

    Bucklebury Common,Berkshire
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for War what progress -has been made in clearing Bucklebury Common, Berkshire; and when he expects to be able to hand back this land in good order for public use.
    Mr. Lawson: Three thousand vehicles are still held at this depot awaiting repair by the Ministry of Supply. No additional vehicles are being sent there. Steps are being taken to dismantle and remove any hutting which is required by the Army elsewhere. The remainder will be handed over to the Ministry of Works for disposal. The clearance of the site is a task of some magnitude and I cannot yet say when the land is likely to be handed back in good order for public use.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the rate at which the Ministry of Supply take away and repair those vehicles? Is it a week or five weeks?
    Mr. Lawson: That is another question

    Deserters
    Captain Bairdasked the Secretary of State for War if he will discontinue the regulations whereby Servicemen who desert have their demobilisation group number postponed, and are treated for demobilisation as if they had only joined the Service at the time of their desertion.
    Mr. Lawson: The present rules whereby service prior to desertion is forfeited for the purpose of computing the release date of non-Regular Servicemen are under consideration. The position of Regular Servicemen in this regard is also being considered.

    ITALIAN WAR CRIMINALS (EXTRADITION)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War in how many cases and for what reasons have requests by the Yugoslav Government for the extradition of Italian war criminals from Italy been refused by the British authorities
    Mr. Lawson: No such requests have been refused. A number of requests which have been received from the Yugoslav authorities are at present under consideration.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister mean by that reply that no Yugoslavs have been forcibly extradited from Italy to Yugoslavia, after being detained by the Allied forces?
    Mr. Lawson: I do not mean anything of the kind. I mean what the answer says, that no requests have been refused.
    Mr. Popplewell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to arrive at a decision in this matter?

    PRISONERS OF WAR

      Employment
      Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War how many Italian and German prisoners of war are still detained in this country; how many of them are engaged on useful work; and how many are receiving direct payment for their labour and at what rates.
      Mr. Lawson: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      Mr. Stokes: My right hon. Friend cannot get out of it that way. Is it not a fact that whilst these prisoners are paid only a nominal rate for their labour, the Government charge the full rate for the job? If that is the case, when is it proposed to discontinue this practice, which amounts to nothing more or less than slave labour?
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend asked me how many Italian and German prisoners of war are still detained in this country. I am giving him the facts and figures in my reply, and it would take the rest of the day if I were to read it out.
      Mr. Stokes: I asked if my right hon. Friend would state the rates of pay that these prisoners were receiving. That requires no figures at all, because they are paid practically nothing. Why cannot he

      Italians.

      Germans.

      Employed

      …

      84,000

      183,300

      Includes Camp Staffs Italians,10,500

      Germans, 26,300

      who are generally paid from funds contributed by the prisoners who are working, and Germans,2,000

      who are at educational camps and also receive payment from non-public funds.

      Unemployable

      …

      —

      12,700

      Mainly officers and protected personnel.

      Unemployed

      …

      21,000

      29,000

      About 35,000 awaiting repatriation, or recently arrived in this country:remainder mainly sick.

      105,000

      225,000

      Austrians
      Mr. Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for War how many Austrian Prisoners of war are still detained in this country; and why they have not been released at the same time as other nationals of German occupied countries who were forcibly enlisted into the German army.
      Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of state for War how many Austrians are still detained in this country as prisoners of war; and when they will be returned o Austria.
      Mr. Lawson: There are at present;11,500 Austrian prisoners of war in this country. As regards the question of repatriation I would refer the hon. Members o the answer given by my hon. Friend he Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster o my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridge (Major Symonds) on;26th February.
      tell the House? Is it because he is ashamed of it?
      Mr. Lawson: My duty in this matter is limited to such matters as providing guards for the prisoners. This Question deals with rates of pay and of repatriation, in the main. That is a matter for another Department.
      Mr. Stokes: In view of the most unsatisfactory situation, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment tomorrow night.
      Following is the answer:
      The following table gives particulars of the numbers of prisoners and of those working. All who work receive pay either from public or non-public funds (with a few minor exceptions) at the rates I gave in reply to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 5th March.
      Mr. Bartlett: Could my right hon. Friend answer the second part of my Question? Why have not these men been released in view of the fact that Austria is in a special category?
      Mr. Lawson: I must say that certain difficulties are being experienced in carrying out the programme of repatriation for these men. I am not in a position to say what the difficulties are, but they certainly exist.
      Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend in regard to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how soon he expects the forecast of the Chancellor to be fulfilled?
      Mr. Lawson: I think my hon. Friend will have to put that question down.

      Billeting on Farms
      Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether the billeting of

      205
      German prisoners of war has now passed the experimental stage; and what is the number of German and Italian prisoners of war, respectively, at present billeted on farms.
      Mr. Lawson: The billeting of Germans On a limited scale was authorised in November, 1945. The experiment has proved a success. Five thousand, four hundred and sixty - three Germans and 9,155 Italians are at present billeted on farms. The application of the scheme on a wider scale is being considered.
      Mr. Turton: Will the Minister grant all the applications made for billeting, provided the conditions are reasonable?
      Mr. Lawson: I will make a note of that.

    ERITREA

      British Military Administration
      Mr. Tiffanyasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the British military administration of ex-Italian Eritrea has forbidden the formation of political parties and trade unions and the assembly of more than three persons; that permission has been granted to an employee of the British military administration, Mr. Woldab Wolde Mariam, to form a party which is opposed to the reunion of Eritrea to Ethiopia; that leaders of the popular movement of reunion of Eritrea to Ethiopia have also requested permission to form a political party; and whether their request will now be granted.
      Mr. Lawson: I think my hon. Friend has been misinformed. There is no restriction on the free expression of opinion nor on the right of association and assembly in Eritrea. The Chief Administrator is, of course, empowered to intervene should the exercise of these rights lead to a breach of the peace, and an assembly is only prohibited if it is for subversive or illegal purposes.
      Mr. Tiffany: Is not that veto being used extensively and, in fact, preventing the formation of parties and trade unions?
      Mr. Lawson: Well, I should not like to think that it is so. If anybody has any information to that effect, I would be very pleased to examine it.

      Non-fraternisation Order
      Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for War why a rigid non-fraternisation order is still enforced
      206
      in Eritrea, in view of the fact that Italy became a co-belligerent in 1943 and that there is no such non-fraternisation order in Italy.
      Mr. Lawson: The resumption of normal social relations with Italians in Eritrea has not been permitted as in Italy because of its repercussions on native opinion and our desire to preserve our position as impartial administrators in an occupied ex-enemy territory. A certain amount of official and semi-official entertaining is, however, now allowed.
      Squadron-Leader Donner: Will the Minister abolish this order now, as the reasons he has given for its continuation are not really justified?

    EX-PREMIER'S SPEECH (B.B.C. PUBLICATION)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the broadcast in the B.B.C. service, "London Calling," in which support was given to the Fulton speech by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and, in view of the impression likely to be gained abroad, what action he proposes to take.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): There is no broadcast service entitled "London Calling," but I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a paragraph which recently appeared on the subject in the B.B.C.'s overseas journal of that name. I have read the paragraph in question and whilst it drew attention to the importance of any statement of views by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) it expressed no opinion on the merits of his arguments.

    BRITISH COMMONWEALTH

      Married Women (Nationality)
      Mrs. Ganleyasked the Prime Minister whether he will raise the question of the nationality of married women at the Imperial Conference.
      The Prime Minister: The forthcoming meeting will not be a full Imperial Conference, but a personal meeting of Prime Ministers to discuss certain questions of major policy. In these circumstances this

      207
      meeting would not afford a suitable opportunity for raising the question of the nationality of married women.
      Mr. Peter Freeman: Is it not a fact that this matter has already been settled by South Africa, by themselves on their own initiative? Would it not be possible for this country to do the same?
      The Prime Minister: It might be, but it would not be advisable.
      Mr. Erroll: Could not the right hon. Gentleman institute inquiries into the matter and get something moving?
      The Prime Minister: That has been considered. It does need consultation with our Dominions.

      India (Government Declaration)
      Mr. Charles Williamsasked the Prime Minister if the Governments of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were consulted about the recent Government declaration on India; and whether he will give an assurance that their approval will be sought for any change in the relationship between India and the British Commonwealth of Nations.
      The Prime Minister: I informed the Prime Ministers of the Dominions mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, of the statement which I was proposing to make in the House of Commons on 15th March. As regards the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will undoubtedly keep His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions fully informed with regard to any major constitutional changes in India.
      Mr. Williams: Have the Dominions given their assent in any way, or expressed approval?
      The Prime Minister: There is no question of giving assent but I have no reason to doubt that they are in general agreement. If the hon. Gentleman likes to put down a specific question I can give him any detailed replies I have had.
      Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that the relations between India and at least one of the Dominions mentioned are not at present of the happiest and it would cause considerable ill feeling in India if the impression was given that the future of India
      208
      lay in the hands of that particular Dominion?
      The Prime Minister: I quite agree. The constitutional position is as my hon. Friend states.
      Sir Ronald Ross: Are the Dominions mentioned in the Question the only ones which were consulted?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir—four Dominions.

      United States Loan
      Mr. Cookasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement as to what effect the conditions attached to the U.S. loan are likely to have on the colonies.
      The Prime Minister: There are no conditions attached to the United States Loan which specifically affect the Colonies. If my hon. Friend has in mind the proposals for consideration by an International Conference on Trade and Employment, I have at present nothing to add to my statement on 6th December last.
      Mr. Erroll: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for an hon. Member of this House to ask four oral Questions on one day?
      Mr. Cook: May I offer some explanation and apology—
      Mr. Speaker: I am afraid, if four Questions have been asked, the fault is mine.
      Mr. Cook: There is an explanation, Mr. Speaker. I handed in a Question in two parts and, unfortunately, it was put clown as two different Questions.
      Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his answer means that the terms of the Anglo-American loan do not prevent the Colonies from making a loan to us on more favourable terms?
      Mr. Speaker: I think, as the Question should not have been asked, we had better pass on.
      Mr. Stokes: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that you called me to ask a supplementary question on a Question which you yourself have ruled out of Order, am I not to have an answer to that Question?
      Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I have decided not.

    GERMANY

      Control Commission (Establishment)
      Major Guy Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total establishment of officers, N.C.Os. and men of the British Control Commission in Germany; what is the total of pay and the total of allowances, respectively; how many officers of the commission hold a lower rank than that of major; and how many N.C.Os. are below warrant rank.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The military staffs of the British Element of the Control Commission for Germany have a total strength of some 4,500 officers and 13,000 other ranks. Their estimated annual effective cost is —'4,300,000 in pay and insurances and —1,200,000 in allowances. Roughly 2,000 officers hold a rank lower than that of major. I regret that in the time available it has not been possible to isolate the figures for N.C.Os.

      Coal Production (Cost)
      Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the present cost per ton of coal produced by the German coal control; and the price which is being obtained from other European countries to which it is being supplied.
      Mr. J. Hynd: Under present conditions, it is impossible to give a firm figure for the cost per ton of coal produced by the North German Coal Control. The export price of coal is a matter for quadripartite agreement, and has not been finally fixed. In the meantime, provisional f.o.b. prices, averaging approximately nine dollars a ton and varying in accordance with different trades, are being charged.

      World Federation of Trade Unions (Report)
      Mr. John Patonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has given consideration to the Provisional Report of the Commission of the World Federation of Trade Unions, which visited Germany from 30th January to 19th February; and does he propose to take any action with regard to it.
      Mr. J. Hynd: I do not think I can usefully comment on the summarised version of this Provisional Report, which has
      210
      appeared in the Press. I am taking steps to obtain the full text of the Report, and, when it is available, I will consider what action to take on it so far as the British Zone is concerned.
      Mr. Paton: While I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no.']—may I ask him if he will give consideration to the very grave charge made in the Report that ex-Nazi officers and non-commissioned officers of the Wehrmacht are being employed in the German police?
      Mr. Hynd: I will give special consideration to any points raised in the Report when I receive a copy.

    NATIONAL FINANCE

      War Damage Claims
      Captain Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the delay in dealing with war damage claims in the Isle of Wight and elsewhere at the Reading office of the War Damage Commission; and whether letters will be sent without delay to all correspondents who write to the Reading office on this subject, indicating the present position with regard to their claims, and if payment can be expected so that they can make their plans accordingly.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. There is no general delay in the payment of cost of works claims from the Isle of Wight, or elsewhere in the area covered by the Reading office of the War Damage Commission. I shall be glad to look into any particular case in which undue delay is alleged.
      Sir P. Macdonald: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that many people say they cannot get replies or even have their letters of claims acknowledged?
      Mr. Dalton: I have taken the trouble to look into the facts of the case, and I find that there are 260 letters a week and that 260 claims a week are being paid out by this office, and I am informed that they have only four weeks' work in hand at the moment. I think they are pretty quick with it, but I will look into any complaint.
      Mr. Wadsworthasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give consideration to the formulation of a system whereby those who have lost property by

      211
      enemy action and have a claim against the War Damage Commission arid are in financial difficulties due to the loss of returns from such property, can receive a grant to enable them to live, such grant to be set against final settlement.
      Mr. Dalton: Occupiers of war damaged premises can already obtain advances for building purposes or to secure other premises. As regards the release of value payments for other purposes, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) on 5th February last [Column
      1534].
      Mr. Patonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now say when claims outstanding for damage to goods and chattels insured under the War Damage Act will begin to be paid.
      Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The date of payment must depend not only on financial considerations but also on the availablility of supplies.
      Mr. Paton: When reconsideration is possible, will the Chancellor keep specially in mind the claims of old people who are suffering very great hardship in this matter?

      British Interests, Canada (Financing)
      Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications have been received by his Department from British businesses for permits to finance the reconversion or development of their Canadian branches or subsidiaries; what is the total sum represented by these requests, in how many cases have permits been issued; and what is the total sum involved through permits so far issued.
      Mr. Dalton: Of 37 applications since March, 1945, totalling 27 million Canadian dollars, 30 have been approved, totalling 18 million dollars. These figures cover new enterprises as well as reconversion and development of existing concerns, but exclude developments financed from current Canadian profits.
      Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Could the Chancellor give us an assurance that this policy will be pursued, in view of the competition from American firms setting up in Canada at present in competition with our own interests there?

      Food, Drink and Tobacco (Empire Supplies)
      Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make available to Members the estimates which were made by the Government of the amount of food, drink and tobacco which might be obtained from countries of the Overseas Empire.
      Mr. Dalton: About —350 million in value during 1946.
      Vice-Admiral Taylor: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate the various categories of goods?
      Mr. Dalton: That would involve a lot of figures, but, if the hon. and gallant Member would like it, I would be very happy to try to do so, but I would circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. have given the hon. and gallant Member the aggregate figures.
      Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the public would be very interested to have the details?
      Mr. Dalton: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down another Question, I will have the details prepared.

      University Grants
      Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the figures which he has circulated giving the grants approved to particular universities, he will set out in each case the amount for which each university asked in its original application; and by what amount this original request was cut down by the University Grants Committee.
      Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Universities do not generally apply for definite sums as recurrent grants. They put in statements of estimated revenue and expenditure, and, in the light of these, and of the total resources at its disposal, the Committee fixes the grant.
      Mr. Janner: In the light of statements which are being made, does the Chancellor regard the amount that has been allotted as being appropriate to the needs of the respective universities, and does he think the universities regard the amount allotted as being appropriate?
      Mr. Dalton: This is a matter in which I am guided by the University Grants Committee, and, in their judgment, this distribution is the best that can be achieved,

      213
      and Leicester University College, with which the hon. Member may be in touch, has recently expressed gratitude for the amount of the grant given to it.

      Per Capita Taxation
      Sir William Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the taxation per head of the population in 1913–14 and in 1944–45.
      Mr. Dalton:£11s. 4d. and £64 3s. 7d.
      Sir W. DarlingIf it would not be anticipating the Chancellor's Budget statement, may I ask if he can give us an indication whether this vast sum of £64 is likely shortly to be reduced?
      Sir Wavell Wakefield: May I ask if the figures which the Chancellor has given include indirect taxation as well as direct taxation?
      Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir; they include all taxes levied by the Central Government.
      Mr. H. Hynd: Could the Chancellor say whether he regards this calculation as an argument for a rise in hon. Members' salaries?
      Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can the Chancellor say what the position will be like in two years' time, if we go on at the present rate?

    CIVIL SERVICE

      Temporary Staff
      Brigadier Lowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether temporary civil servants, who volunteer for service abroad with U.N.R.R.A. on the Control Commissions, will be allowed to leave their present posts.
      Mr. Dalton: This must depend on the circumstances of each individual case.
      Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many temporary civil servants have been in the Civil Service for more than six years; and when it is proposed to take steps to offer the equivalent of demobilisation to those who have served for such long periods and who are now anxious to be released for other employment.
      Mr. Dalton: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available, but Departments deal sympathetically with individual applications for release and take
      214
      length of service into account, together with other considerations.

      Hours, of Duty
      Mr. Sparksasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many staff in Government offices in London are affected by the abandonment of the system of staggered hours of duty in favour of a uniform termination of duty at 5.30 p. m.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): None Sir. The system has not been abandoned.

    AUSTRIA (BRITISH BROADCASTS)
    Mr. Bartlettasked the Assistant Postmaster-General, as representing the Ministry of Information, to what extent he is permitting German subjects to take part in broadcasts to Austria.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): German subjects do not take part in the broadcasts to Austria. Some part of the routine work of translation of English material into the German language is shared between German and Austrian translators.

    MALAYA

      Anti-Japanese Army (Inquiries)
      Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware that Kong Kang of the 4th Regiment of the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army has been detained because he led troops to arrest a Malay collaborator who had killed two English soldiers in 1943; and if he will cause this man to be immediately released;
      (2) if he is aware that Wang Ann and Wang Tong, former members of the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army, have been detained on the allegation that they killed a Malay collaborator in 1945; and if tie will cause these men to be released immediately.
      Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made into the military administration of Malaya and into the trials of members of the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army on charges of murder for killing collaborationists during the period of Japanese

      215
      occupation; and if he will release all members of the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army no held on such charges;
      (2) if he is aware that Chukow, leader of the 4th Regiment, 5th Company of the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army was convicted in Johore State Supreme Court on 26th March, 1946, and sentenced to death after being charged with the murder of a Malay policeman collaborator on 15th September, 1945, on the evidence of former collaborationists; and if he will take immediate steps to cause this sentence to be reviewed and the collaborationists to be tried instead of the members of the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army.
      Mr. Lawson: I am making inquiries into these cases and as soon as they are completed I will write to the hon. Members.
      Mr. Gallacher: Has not the Minister received cables from Malaya as to what is happening over there; is he not aware that a vicious attack has been made on the anti-Japanese Malayans, Chinese and Indians, and is he not prepared to do anything about it? Will he say why the Chinese have been attacked in Malaya while he keeps 50,000 Japanese fully armed in Indonesia?

      Singapore (Detained Persons)
      Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War how many persons were taken into custody in Singapore, on 15th February, for interrogation and not charged with any offence; for how long such persons were detained without trial; and by what authority such detention is permissible.
      Mr. Lawson: The information asked for is not available in the War Office, but as soon as I have obtained it from Malaya I will write to the hon. Member.

      Shooting Incidents
      Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for War if he will cause a public inquiry to be held into the shooting by the police of people assembled at demonstrations in Malaya on 15th February, 1946; and if he has any statement to make thereon.
      Mr. Lawson: As regards incidents which took place at Singapore on 15th February, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the
      216
      Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. George Thomas) on loth February. A similar incident took place at Labis in Johore. In this case a police officer ordered an assembly to disperse, whereupon he and nine police constables were attacked by the crowd and were obliged to open fire. I regret that 14 people were killed and 12 wounded. The police officer and two constables were injured and taken to hospital. An inquiry has already been held, as a result of which the 'General Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered that in view of the attack launched by the crowd on a small body of police there was no alternative for them but to open fire
      Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that any inquiry that has taken place has been conducted by. those involved, and will he not appoint an independent inquiry to make an investigation into the unwarranted attack on the civilian population?
      Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at every court-martial and inquiry the procedure is fair and just?
      Mr. Lawson: I can only give my hon. Friend the information I have at my disposal.
      Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister have an independent investigation made?
      Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister take steps as quickly as possible to provide the Members of this House with the information they want?

    FOOD SUPPLIES (OILS AND FATS)
    Mr. Eden (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Food whether he now has any statement to make as to the position in regard to recent reports emanating from his Department concerning impending reductions in certain items of rationed foods.
    The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): A regrettable error was made, and I have taken suitable steps to see that it is not repeated.

    SUDAN (FUTURE STATUS)
    Mr. Thomas Reid (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view

    217
    of the departure of a Sudanese delegation for Cairo in connection with the forthcoming treaty negotiations, His Majesty's Government are in a position to make any statement in regard to the future status of the Sudan.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government look forward to the day when the Sudanese will be able finally to decide their political future for themselves. It is not proposed by His Majesty's Government to influence their eventual decision in any way. His Majesty's Government have no object in the Sudan other than the true welfare of the Sudanese, and this principle has likewise been proclaimed by the Egyptian Government in the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936. The welfare of the Sudanese cannot be secured unless a stable and disinterested administration is maintained in the Sudan. The objects of such an administration must be to establish organs of self-government as a first step towards eventual independence, to accelerate the process of appointing Sudanese to higher Government posts in consultation with Sudanese representatives, and to raise the capacity of the mass of the people for effective citizenship. These are the objects of the present Sudan Government, and His Majesty's Government fully support them. In the meantime, His Majesty's Government consider that no change should be made in the status of the Sudan as a result of treaty revision until the Sudanese have been consulted through constitutional channels.
    Mr. Reid: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this delegation represents the people of the Sudan or any of the races of the Sudan?
    Mr. Bevin: I could not answer exactly whom they claim to represent. I have stated quite clearly our policy, which we intend to follow.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. This Private Notice Question has resulted in an important statement of policy by a Minister. Should not questions like that always be put on the Order Paper so that hon. -Members may have an opportunity of considering them?
    Mr. Stokes: I cannot hear a word of what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not unusual for a Minister to make a statement of policy after Questions. With regard to the departure of this delegation to Cairo, possibly there is some urgency about it in the mind of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Eden: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the evolution of the Sudan and the position of the Sudanese themselves. I did not hear what the position is about this delegation—from whom it is or to whom it is.Could the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us a little?
    Mr. Bevin: There are to be two delegations, representing two points of view. There is one delegation from the Sudan going down to claim the unity of the Nile Valley. There is another delegation going there, I understand—I do not know whether it has gone yet—which is claiming that the Sudanese must be consulted before anything is dealt with. There is a division of opinion.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (VICE-CHAIRMAN)
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): With the approval of the Prime Minister, Sir Arthur Street, Permanent Secretary of the Control Office for Germany and Austria, has been selected for appointment as Vice-Chairman of the National Coal Board as soon as the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. He will continue as Permanent Secretary of the Control Office until the National Coal Board is formally constituted, but will be available for consultation in the meantime on matters connected with the prospective duties of the Board.
Mr. Tolley: Will my right hon. Friend give the House his reasons for the selection of Sir Arthur Street?
Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir. Sir Arthur Street is an administrator of considerable reputation, and his appointment is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bill which calls for the appointment of certain persons with particular qualifications.
Captain Crookshank: It may be in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, but is it not contrary to the policy

219
enunciated by the Government that they would not employ ex-civil servants?
Mr. Shinwell: No such policy was ever enunciated. The reference to the Civil Service derives from a statement made by myself in the course of the Debate, that it was not intended to run the industry as a Civil Service. That was the reference. In the case of Sir Arthur Street, it is true he is at present a civil servant, but he is precisely the kind of person we want to undertake the administration.
Sir Arthur Salter: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those of us who have been colleagues of Sir Arthur Street for many years regard this as a very good appointment indeed?
Mr. Scollan: Would the Minister tell us what salary will be paid?
Mr. Shinwell: Sir Arthur Street will be paid precisely the salary that is to be paid to other members of the Board.
Mr. Cobb: Presumably this gentleman will now resign from the Civil Service, having been appointed to this position?
Mr. Shinwell: When the Board is definitely constituted, that is to say, when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, Sir Arthur Street will sever his connection with the Civil Service.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Henry George Strauss, esquire, for the University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester and the Universities of Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol and Reading.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business, be exempted, at this day 's sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 145.

Division No. 102.

AYES

[3.33 p.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Foster, W.(Wigan)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Adams,W.T.(Hammersmith, South)

Freeman, Maj. J(Watford)

Mathers, G.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mayhew, C. P.

Allighan, Garry

Gaitskell,H. T. N.

Medland, H. M.

Alpass, J. H.

Gailacher, W.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mikardo, Ian

Attewell, H. C.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Gibbins, J.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Austin, H. L.

Gilzean, A.

Monslow, W.

Ayles, W. H.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Montague, F.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Goodrich, H. E.

Moody, A. S.

Bacon, Miss A.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Balfour, A.

Greenwood, Rt, Hon. A.

Morley, R.

Barstow, P. G.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Bartlelt, V.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Barton, C.

Grierson, E.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Battley, J. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Morrison Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Nally, W.

Benson, G

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Berry, H.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Guy, W. H.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Oldfield, W. H.

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Hale, Leslie

Oliver, G. H.

Blyton, W. R.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Orbach, M.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wenlwortk)

Bowrien, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Bowen, R.

Hastings, Dr. Somervilla

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Haworth, J.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exchage)

Herbison, Miss M

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hicks, G.

Pearson, A.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hobson, C. R.

Peart, Capt. T. F

Brown, George (Belper)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Perrins, W

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

House, G.

Piratin, P.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

Hoy, J.

Popplewell, E.

Buchanan, G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N-)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Burden, T. W.

Hughes, LI. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Pritt, D. N

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Proctor, W. T.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Callaghan, James

Irving, W. J.

Randall, H. E

Champion, A. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon, G. A.

Ranger, J.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

Janner, B.

Rankin, J.

Clitherow, Dr R.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Cluse, W. S.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, 5.E.)

Reeves, J.

Cobb, F. A.

John, W.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Cooks, F. S.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Rhodes, H.

Colliok, P.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitehin)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Collindridge, F.

Key, C. W.

Robens, A.

Collins, V. J.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

Colman, Miss G. M

Kinley, J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Kirby, B. V.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Cook, T. F.

Kirkwood, D.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Lang, G.

Royle, C.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Lavers, S.

Scollan, T.

Corvedafe, Viscount

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

Soott-Elliot, W.

Cove, W. G.

Leonard, W

Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

Daggar, G.

Leslie, J. R.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

Daines, P.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lipson, D L.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Shurmer, P.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Logan, D. G

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughlon)

Longden, F.

Simmons, C. J.

Deer, G

Lyne, A. W.

Skeffington, A. M.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McAdam, W.

Skeffington-Lodge, T C

Diamond, J.

McAllister, G

Skinnard, F. W.

Dobbie, W.

McGhee, H. G

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Dodds, N. N.

McGovern, J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Douglas, F. C. R

Mack, J. D.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Driberg, T. E. N.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dumpleton, C. W

McKinlay, A. S.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Maclean, N, (Govan)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McLeavy, F.

Sparks, J. A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

MacMillan, M. K.

Stamford, W

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Steele, T.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mallalieu, J. P. W

Stephen, C.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Stokes, R. R

Strachey, J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Wilkins, W. A.

Strauss, G. R.

Usborne, Henry

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Stross, Dr B-

Wadsworth, G.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Slubbs, A. E.

Walkden, E.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Walker, G. H.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Swingler, Capt. S.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Willis, E.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Warbey, W. N.

Wilson, J. H

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Watkins, T. E.

Yates, V. F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Watson, W. M.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Zilliacus, K.

Thurtle, E.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Tiffany, S.

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

Timmons, J.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Captain Michael Stewart and Mr. Joseph Henderson.

Titterington, M. F.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Tolley, L.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

NOES

Aitken, Hon. Max

Hollis, M. C.

Peake, Rt. Hon. C.

Baldwin, A. E.

Holmes, Sir Stanley

Pete, Brig. C. H. M

Barlow, Sir J

Hope, Lord J.

Pickthorn, K.

Baxter, A. B.

Howard, Hon. A.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Boles, Lt. Col. D. C. (Wells)

Hurd, A.

Raikes, H. V.

Boothby, R

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Bower, N.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boyd Carpenter, J. A.

Jarvis, Sir J.

Reid, Rt Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Jeffreys, General Sir G

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Jennings, R.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Keeling, E H.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bullock, Capt. M.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Ropner, Col. L.

Buttler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Ross, Sir R.

Challen, c

Lambert, Hon. G.

Sanderson, Sir F

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Savory, Prof. D. L

Cole, T. W.

Langford-Holt, J

Scott, Lord W

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Smithers, Sir W

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

Lennox-Boyd, A. T

Snadden, W. M

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Spence, Maj. H. R

Crowder, Capt. J. F E.

Linstead, H. N.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stewart. J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Digby, maj S W

Low, Brig. A. R. W

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

Donner. Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Studholme, H. G

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

McCallum, Maj.D

Sutcliffe, H.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Duthie, W S.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

McKie, J H (Galloway)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Erroll, F. J.

Maclay, Hon J. S.

Touche, G C

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

MacLeod, Capt. J.

Turton, R. H.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Vano, W. M. T.

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Walker-Smith, D.

Gammans, L. D.

Marples, A. E.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Mellor, Sir J.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Glyn, Sir R.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A G

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Gridley, Sir A.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Grimston, R. V.

Nicholson, G.

York, C.

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V.

Nutting, Anthony

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

Orr-Ewing, I. L

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborne, C

Commander Agnew and Mr. Drewe.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh arrangements for the making of contributions, grants and loans in connection with the provision of housing accommodation; to provide for matters subordinate to that purpose; to amend the enactments which relate to the making of contributions in respect of housing accommodation; to amend the law relating to the housing accounts of local authorities; and to facilitate the provision of housing accommodation in the Isles of Scilly, it is expedient—
A. To authorise, subject to the limitation hereinafter mentioned, the payment out of moneys provided by Parlament of any expenses of the Minister of Health in making to a local authority in respect of each new house provided by the authority, not more than sixty annual contributions, each of them not to exceed:—

(1) sixteen pounds ten shillings; or

(2) in the case of a house provided for the agricultural population, or a house provided by or in the exercise of the powers of the council of a county district which fulfils the conditions laid down by the said Act of the present Session with reference both to the rents obtainable from houses in the district and to the financial resources of the district, twenty-five pounds ten shillings, or

(3) in the case of a house on a site (that is to say, a site as determined in accordance with the said Act of the present Session) the cost of which as developed exceeds fifteen hundred pounds per acre, a sum rising from twenty-eight pounds ten shillings where that cost is not more than four thousand pounds to thirty-five pounds five shillings where that cost is not more than twelve thousand pounds, and then increasing by one pound ten shillings for each additional two thousand pounds or part thereof; or

(4) in the case of a flat in a block of flats which, as to the whole or any part thereof, is at least four storeys high and which has had a lift installed therein, a sum determined in accordance with the last preceding paragraph plus seven pounds;

each of the said contributions to be capable of being increased—

(a) in the case of a house the cost of which is increased by expenses attributable to the acquisition of rights of support, or otherwise attributable to measures taken for securing protection against the consequences of a subsidence of the site, by not more than two pounds;

(b) if the authority by whom or in the exercise of whose powers the house is provided fulfils the conditions laid down in the said Act with reference to the high level of
226
the general rate and the financial burden of the authority in respect of housing, by not more than one-half of the contribution which the authority would otherwise be liable to make under the said Act in respect of the house.

The said limitation is that no such contribution shall be payable in respect of any such house unless the house has been approved by the Minister for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session or has, on or after the third day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-four, been approved by the Minister for the purposes of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, or, if not so approved, is a house completed after the end of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
B. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister in making, in respect of any house provided by a housing association otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made under Section ninety-four of the Housing Act, 1936, being a house for the construction of which building operations began between the end of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and the passing of the said Act of the present Session?—

(a) the same contributions as would in the opinion of the Minister have been payable by him if the house had been provided by the local authority of the area; and

(b) in the case of a house likely to cause loss to the association, such additional annual contributions as may be provided by the said Act of the present Session.

C. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(1) relating to the provision of housing accommodation in government war buildings;

(2) increasing to fifteen pounds the contributions which may be paid by the Minister in respect of a house under Section three of the said Act of 1938, and varying the conditions with which arrangements under that Section are required to comply;

(3) empowering the Minister to make contributions in respect of houses which have become vested in local authorities;

(4) providing for grants by the Minister in respect of houses constructed otherwise than by traditional methods;

(5) providing for grants by the Minister to housing associations established in pursuance of arrangements made by the Minister; and

(6) providing for the making of contributions by the Minister in respect of housing accommodation in the Isles of Scilly.

D. To authorise the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make loans to housing associations, so, however, that the total amount so issued, less any sums which have been repaid, shall not at any time exceed fifteen million pounds, and to extend the purposes for which advances may be made out to the said Fund under Section one of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945.

227
E. To authorise the Treasury, in order to provide money to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make such loans as aforesaid, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and for that purpose to create and issue securities which shall be deemed for all purposes to have been created and issued under that Act.
F. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of all sums received by the Minister under the said Act of the present Session and any sums received by the Minister by way of interest on or repayment of any loan made out of money issued to him by the Treasury under the said Act and to provide that any sums received by the Minister by way of interest on or repayment of any such loan and paid into the Exchequer shall he issued out of the Consolidated Fund at such times as the Treasury may direct and be applied, in so far as they represent principal, in redemption, or repayment of debt, and, in so far as they represent interest, in the payment of interest which would otherwise be payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
In this Resolution the expression "house" includes any part of a building, being a part which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, and, in particular, includes a flat."

HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
CLAUSE 1.—(Exchequer contributions in respect of housing accommodation provided by local authorities.)
3.46 p.m.
Mr. Sparks (Acton): I beg to move, in page I, line 7, after "authority ", to insert:
" or as a result of joint action by local authorities."
I do not propose to detain the Committee long on this Amendment. I think it is most important that we should have included in this Bill a definite encouragement to local authorities, in certain areas, to promote joint action among themselves to develop housing schemes. There are local authorities, particularly within the Greater London region, who may be well advised to act in a joint capacity, in developing housing schemes. As the Committee is aware, provision is already made for joint action under Section 151 of the Housing Act, 1936. As this Clause of the Bill stands it would appear to me to rule
228
out joint action by local authorities from the benefit of subsidy. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to accept this Amendment because, as the Clause is now drafted, it would appear that only a local authority—that is, one local authority—will receive the benefit of subsidy proposed in the Bill. It would be a definite encouragement to broaden the scope of the provision if we include joint action by local authorities, or action by any joint housing authority they may establish to promote housing. I ask the Minister to make it clear that local authorities may act jointly in developing housing schemes and that in so doing they will receive the benefit of subsidy.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth): This is one of the few Amendments proposed from the other side of the Committee that I feel inclined to support. I know that in my own part of the country there are housing authorities whose problems are very similar and it would be much better if they were able to tackle a scheme together, in a joint way.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The Amendment is unnecessary. It merely repeats what is in the principal Act. The authority for doing this, as the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) explained is contained in Section 151 of the Housing Act, 1936. Therefore, the additional Amendments proposed are not necessary. If local authorities wish to act jointly, they have the right to put up proposals to me; if the proposals are acceptable, they will be adopted, and the ordinary housing subsidy will apply.
Mr. Sparks: In that case I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page r, line 8, after "accommodation," to insert:
" and in respect of each new house provided by a housing association under arrangements made with such housing association under Section ninety-four of the principal Act."
This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper deal with the same point. I am not indeed certain whether it is necessary at all to have this Amendment. The position, as we see it, in regard to housing associations is that Clause 18 of the Bill gives the Minister certain powers with regard to special

229
housing associations to be set up by himself; but what we are not quite certain of is the position of the existing housing associations? This Amendment seeks to make that matter clear. That will ensure that houses provided by housing associations, under arrangements with the local authorities, will be in all respects on the same footing as houses provided by the local authorities direct. It is not quite clear to me whether the words, "provided by a local authority," are sufficiently embracing to cover arrangements with housing associations. I am further prompted to raise this question, because, in the course of a Debate, in another place, on 13th March, the spokesman for the Government was asked whether existing housing associations were to be used by the Minister under this legislation, and he replied that he had not been advised on that matter. I presume that the Minister is advised now, and that he will be able now to advise us. If this Amendment is unnecessary, there is no point in pursuing the matter further, but perhaps the Minister will let us know what the position is.
Mr. Bevan: The position concerning housing associations has been explained by me on several occasions. These housing associations are established under the principal Act, and the Bill now before the Committee in no way qualifies what was stated in the principal Act. Housing associations can be formed, and can be adopted by local authorities. If the local authorities adopt them, then the housing associations will attract Exchequer grants in any circumstances, but they will attract the rate subsidy only if the local authority so wish. If it be the purpose of the Amendment to make it obligatory on the local authority, having adopted a housing association, to make the rate contribution, as well as to enable the Exchequer subsidy to be conveyed to the association, then the obvious effect would be to discourage the local authority from adopting the association in the first place.
At present a substantial number of housing associations exist, and new housing associations may be called into being. Where a local housing association was formed for the purpose of supplementing the housing exertions of the local authorities, we would very favourably consider them, but the local authorities
230
are not always anxious to give rate subsidies to the associations. As the permission and the adoption by the local authority are prerequisites for the establishment of the housing association, if we made it obligatory on the local authority which has done so, to make the rate contribution, the local authority would say, "No, we are not going to adopt any housing association." If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind that the housing associations are being hampered by the present Bill, I can give him an assurance that that is not the case. If the intention of the Amendment is to secure that the housing associations should be able to receive, without the consent of the local authority, the housing rate subsidy as well as the Exchequer subsidy, I shall have to resist it, because I am certain that hon. Members opposite do not wish to discourage the formation of housing associations.
Captain Crookshank: is it not the case that this Clause deals only with Exchequer contributions, and therefore the other issues which the right hon. Gentleman has raised do not arise at the moment?
Mr. Bevan: I was trying to cover the whole ground in one statement.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Before we part with this Clause, there are three points I should like briefly to bring to the attention of the Committee First, I wish to ask what is intended by the word "provided ", which is to be found in line 6:
" in respect of each new house provided by a local authority…"
Taken in conjunction with the word "new ", it would appear that the intention is to equate provision of houses with construction of houses in this context, and for the purposes of this Bill. If this is so, it is a departure from the principle of the Housing Act, 1936, where the provision of houses by a local authority is somewhat more generously and exhaustively defined. Section 72 reads:
(1) A local authority may provide housing accommodation for the working classes—
(a) by the erection of houses on any land acquired or appropriated by them;

231
(b) by the conversion of any buildings into houses for the working classes;
(c) by acquiring houses suitable for the purpose;
(d) by altering, enlarging, repairing, or improving any houses or buildings which have, or an estate or interest in which has, been acquired by the local authority."
It is clear that the definition of the provision of houses in Section 72 of the Housing Act, 1936, is considerably wider than the apparent intention of this Bill, when reading the word "provided" in conjunction with the word "new." It may be that the sort of provisions specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 72 (r), which I have just read, are comparable with the principle here intended, but as regards paragraph (d) it would be difficult to say that the alteration of a house could be construed as being a new house provided by the local authority. I would ask the Minister to deal with this point, because there are many of us in this Committee, not confined to any one Party, who are anxious that additional housing accommodation provided by adaptation, conversion, alteration and the like, should rank for this subsidy. That is the first point to which I would ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration.
Secondly, I ask whether it is right, as appears to be contemplated by this Clause, that we should completely standardise the subsidy and standardise the type of house for which it is to be provided, because in the Scottish Bill a variety is given, and the scale of subsidy is varied in respect of the size of house to be provided. I think there will be a good deal of feeling in all quarters of the Committee that it is unwise to peg down a standard subsidy to one specific standard of house, to the three-bedroom house, of which it has been said that it is too large for the childless couple, or the couple whose children have grown up, and too small for the couple with an expanding family. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this point when he replies.
4.00 p.m.
The last point which I wish to make is this: Are the subsidies under this Clause to be paid in respect of the provision only of houses for the accommodation of the working classes, or is it to be a wider provision of accommodation than that? I speak subject to correction, but, so far
232
as I am aware, there is no statutory authority for the provision of housing accommodation by local authorities other than for the housing of the working classes, or for slum clearance. Unfortunately, the term "working class" is not statutorily defined except in the Eleventh Schedule to the 1936 Act, which provides a definition, for the purposes only of that Schedule, namely, the rehousing of persons of the working class displaced by statutory undertakings. We have here a real problem, concerning not only local authorities but people in the country generally. Now that it is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to make the local authorities almost the sole agency for the provision of houses, it is most important to know whether their powers are limited to the provision of houses for the working classes and, if so, to know who are the working classes. If the definition given in the Eleventh Schedule of the 1936 Act is to be taken, that is a narrow definition and would exclude a great many people of the lower income groups, not normally considered to be members of the working classes. If they are not eligible for housing accommodation from the local authorities with the aid of this subsidy, I suggest that, as a categorical fact, they will not be able to obtain any accommodation at all
This is not a party point. It is a matter which affects the constituents of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with it, and to say whether, in his view, the local authorities are empowered to provide houses for people other than the working classes and, if not, who are to be excluded under the 1936 definition of the term "working
class." I believe that hon. Members opposite adopted as a definition of that term, "toilers by hand and brain." I think that, in want of any statutory definition, if I am right in believing that this subsidy can only be given for the accommodation of the working classes, we should have some pretty generous definition such as that, which will prevent people of comparatively small incomes, being excluded from the benefits of the subsidy, by reason of the fact that they do not belong to what is normally termed the "working class."
Mr. Dumpleton (St. Albans): Will the hon. Gentleman say where he gets the

233
impression that the subsidy is limited necessarily to three-bedroom houses? As far as I can see. there is no warrant for such an assumption
Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps I did not put my point very clearly. It is this: There is one unified standard subsidy under this Bill, and the logical consequence of giving a unified standard subsidy is that you have a unified standardised house.
Mr. Lipson: I hope that the Minister will deal with the matters which have been raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) because they are of considerable importance. I think it is a very great pity, if it is a fact, that this Clause is to be confined 10 new houses, as that term can be interpreted in a very narrow sense. If that is so, it is quite clear that the country would be deprived of opportunities for increasing accommodation of a good type, which can be obtained very much more quickly by means of conversion. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something today which will encourage local authorities who are proceeding with conversion to continue doing so. I hope that he will not say anything, on the other hand, which is likely to limit the class of people who can be given accommodation under this Bill. I do not know if it is a fact that at present local authorities are necessarily confined to providing houses for those who are called the working class, but it is not the procedure of local authorities which I know to institute any kind of means test.
Local authorities are receiving application for houses from all classes and conditions of people—bank managers and other people holding important professional posts, who find it just as difficult as the so-called working class to obtain accommodation. I think that they have a right to accommodation. Therefore, I hope that nothing will be said which will, in any way, limit the action of local authorities, and that they will be able to use their own discretion in this matter. The only guide is the need for accommodation and, subject to that test, I hope that they will be given full discretion to provide houses where they think they are most urgently required.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I add my plea to what has already been said to the effect
234
that conversion is not receiving as much attention as it should be receiving. I believe that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has an Amendment on the Paper on this point. Is this, Major Milner, the only occasion on which we can discuss the question of whether conversion and reconstruction of houses will attract subsidies under this Bill? If so, and if this is the only chance which the right hon. Gentleman has of dealing with the subject. I hope that the Committee will be given an answer on this very important matter. Before I came to the House today, I inquired about the number of people who are living in Victorian houses—
The Chairman (Major Milner): I am sorry but discussion of existing houses would be out of Order.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Am I then to understand that the question of conversion is out of Order?
The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member may say that Clause r does not include that particular type of house, but if he proceeds further than that, he will be out of Order.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I most emphatically regret that no provision is made for this type of house.
Captain Crookshank: Is it certain that a reconstructed house is not a new house? If we take off the top floor of a house, and make it into something different, it would not be an old house, but a new house as compared with the old structure which previously existed upon that site It would be transformed. It certainly would not be entirely new from the ground upwards, but some part of it would be new and, to that extent, would it not be in Order to bring that type of house under discussion.
The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Member is asking me to allow the thin end of the wedge—or house.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The point which I wish to make is that I regret that in this Clause no provision is made on the lines of the question which has been raised. From information which I have received, I think that, on the average, if conversion were included in this Clause that it would be possible to rehouse three times the number of people.
The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is out of Order in going into that question.
Mr. Bevan: Obviously, I cannot reply to a number of the points which have been made as I also would be out of Order in doing so. Only two points have been raised to which it would be in Order to reply. One is that concerning the flat rate subsidy per house. That has been found by local housing authorities to be the most convenient way of paying a subsidy, because if it were sought to define the type of house which would attract a subsidy, that would limit the provisions of the housing authority, and would have the unfortunate effect of stereotyping the kind
of house to be built. By having a flat rate subsidy for any type of house, the local authority can diversify its types. By giving a higher subsidy for one type or design of house against another, the differentiation in the amount of subsidy
would influence the kind of house. It would be a financial influence upon the type of building which would be
extremely undesirable. At present the local authority can build a small house for old people, and for young married couples, a medium house for small growing families and a larger house for large grown up families. Therefore, every type of house can be provided under the flat rate subsidy, and if the subsidy is too large, or rather too generous for the small house, it helps towards the large house for which it would be too small. So, in that way, we meet the requirements of the local housing authority.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Before the Minister leaves that point, would he say what are the circumstances which differentiate our case from the Scottish case, where the principle I have mentioned does apply?
Mr. Bevan: Scotland has different traditions from England and Wales and if the hon. Member wishes to pursue that point with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I am certain he will get a practical and detailed reply. I am only called upon, at the moment, to deal with the provision in this Bill and not what is or is not in the Scottish Bill. There are different housing conditions in the two countries, and therefore, different practices apply.
236
I should like to remove the anxieties of hon. Members who fear that the words "housing the working classes "are limited, and will have a limiting effect upon the type of house that is constructed. On the contrary, we in the Ministry take a most generous definition of the working classes. Indeed, some hon. Members opposite might quality for inclusion in that definition. There is no limit whatever. I think I said on 17th October that it was part of the housing policy of the Government, to try to prevent the creation after this war, of the kind of villages and housing estates that grew up between the wars, where people of a certain kind of income, were confined together. We want diversified communities, and we are trying to create, in the modern estates, some of the agreeable features of the loveliest villages of England in the i7th and 18th centuries, where people of different income-groups all lived together almost in the same street. We want to get rid of the "stockbrokers' paradise," that grew up between the wars. Therefore, there is no limitation other than the one which the local authority imposes upon itself in the type of house which it provides or the kind of income-group for which it makes provision.
I should like to add one qualification. In the meantime, the important need is to provide a large number of houses as quickly as possible, and, therefore, we ought not to spend our precious labour and materials on the provision of large houses. Local authorities have been asked in a circular, which I sent out recently, to leave room in the layout of their estates for larger houses, so that, later, they can return to them and build the larger type of house to which reference has been made. I hope that these explanations are satisfactory to the Committee.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 4.—(Standard amount of Exchequer contributions for flats, etc., on expensive sites.)
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Braddock: I beg to move, in page 3, line I, after "For," to insert "a house or."

237
This is a very modest Amendment, and I do not propose to go into its financial implications, because I think those are reasonably well known. This matter arose on the Second Reading of the Bill, when it was suggested that the proposals in this Clause would, in certain cases, lead to excessive costs in the provision of housing accommodation. This Amendment merely seeks to safeguard certain principles in connection with town and country planning. The Committee will agree that those principles are now well recognised and generally accepted. We take the view that this Clause, as it stands, is going to force local authorities to undertake expensive plans, disregarding reasonable town planning proposals. It that were unavoidable at present we should not grumble. We agree with what the MMinister has just said, that the all-important thing is to provide housing accommodation, but, as he wisely pointed out, we are planning for something different in development to anything we have ever known before in this country. We want to give our architects and designers opportunities of not only producing accommodation, but of producing accommodation which will present an inspiring and decent appearance in our towns and countryside. The result of this Clause, we think, will be to force the housing authorities to put up on these sites, the same sort of flat and the same sort of house, with the same sort of appearance. It seems to us that what the Minister is giving with one hand, he is immediately taking away with the other. We suggest that, if this very moderate Amendment were accepted, it would enable local authorities to make provision for building a certain number of flats on land of this sort and also to provide single houses, thus enabling our planners and architects to produce the accommodation that is necessary and at the same time enabling them to make plan; in accordance with up-to-date town planning ideas.
This is a moderate Amendment. We accept in this Bill the view that the Government are taking with regard to these expensive sites, though, personally, I should have preferred to see the subsidies operate in the reverse order—as the site gets more expensive, the subsidy should be dropped, in order to prevent building on this high-priced land. Why
238
is land such a terrific price? Because it is in over developed and fully developed areas. Surely all modern town planning ideals tend to disperse the populations from such areas. In our opinion, there is another fallacy involved in this matter. We accept, in this Bill, the idea that flats should necessarily cost more than houses. I cannot see the slightest justification for that. I know that the financial sections of the building industry are, at the moment, pushing up the price of flats as against houses, and that the estimates which are being obtained have no real connection with the actual cost of flats We have seen the building industry, in recent years, bedevil and ruin the cost plus system, which was a very good system for providing housing accommodation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We also know that in connection with war damage repairs, owing to lack of supervision and absolute disregard of the public good, on the part of builders, the cost-plus system has been absolutely ruined in the eyes of the Ministry and the general public.
The Government must not think that the forces which have acted in that way are not capable of doing the same thing in regard to estimated work. They are in process of doing it now, and, in our opinion, the granting of these subsidies will not prevent the financial interests in the building trade from continually pushing up the price of flats and houses. We have put down this Amendment to safeguard the future of our towns, and to make it possible to adopt a reasonable and decent standard of town planning conditions. After all, such conditions are the foundation of a good housing policy. Local authorities will not be able to provide decent and proper housing conditions unless they are based on reasonable town planning conditions.
Mr. McAllister: I would like to support the appeal which has been made to the Minister to accept this Amendment. I can appeal to my right hon. Friend with some degree of confidence, because this Amendment will not limit his power. On the contrary, it will extend it. The Bill provides for a special subsidy for flats on sites costing £1,500 or more, and the object of the Clause is to see that the price paid for dearer land does not mean dearer rent. This Amendment does not alter that principle in the slightest degree. It still means

239
that dearer land will not mean dearer rent, but it gives the Minister, and the local authorities, an opportunity to make up their minds whether they will build houses or flats and, if so, in what proportion. As the Bill stands, local authorities are virtually compelled to build flats on all sites costing £1,500 or more. That is despite the fact that on all land up to £16,000 an acre it would be cheaper to build houses and flats at an overall density of 20 to the acre, instead of flats at 36 to the acre. The effect of the Amendment would be to give a free choice to local authorities to choose between houses and flats, according to the needs and requirements of the local community.
During the Second Reading Debate, I put these points forward, but the Minister was then unable to give a reply. I understand that my right hon. Friend claims to be a follower of the great American planner and expert, Lewis Mumford. would like to quote one passage from a book by Mr. Mumford, which deals with this issue, because I believe that the Minister is not only anxious to provide houses, but wants to provide the very best he can. If he would accept the well-founded advice of that great American, whose views are in line with our greatest Scottish and English town planners, such as Geddes, Unwin, Osborn and Abercrombie, then I believe his Bill would be a much better Bill. Mr. Mumford in his book, "Faith for Living," says:
" The family's basic need is for space; garden space and house space. Space for living; commodious rooms, well equipped for rest, conversation, relaxation, social intercourse; space for infants to toddle in and for runabout children to romp in; space for solitude as well as for sociability, the boudoir, or ' sulking ' room, and the quiet study for reading and writing … Life succeeds only in an environment of life, the sterile felicity of the urban apartment house—even a model apartment house, with open areas around it and plenty of sunlight—is not and never can be a substitute for living space. Here again we have reversed the order of human needs. As the number of mechanical utilities has increased within the house, its space has shrunken. So in some of our desperate efforts to repair the evils of the old slums we have created new ones. One would think that the designers of our metropolitan projects hated the family; and without being conscious of the bias, they probably do. How otherwise could they be so ignorant of its requirements; so unable imaginatively to interpret them."
I appeal to the Minister to accept that philosophy, and the Amendment. It does not restrict his power; it adds to the
240
choice given to local authorities and my right hon. Friend himself, and will bring the Bill into line with the highest conception of modern housing, thereby adding lustre to his name, and the name of the Government.
Mrs. Nichol: I want to add a word or two to the excellent speeches which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister). I think their speeches were irresistible, but in case the Minister's heart is still hardened I would like to try to soften it. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment, because by so doing he would be acting in accordance with the known wishes of the people of this country. It is true that about 80 per cent. of our population want houses, and for very good reasons. They have a natural instinct for houses, and that instinct is right. I have lectured and spoken at meetings and debates for young men and women in the Forces, and the subject of houses was the one thing upon which all the girls were particularly and very articulate. and on which they had made up their minds very definitely. They became dreamy-eyed at the very thought of the little houses they might get some time; but it was always a house and a garden, never a flat. That is a natural instinct. Flats are no use for bringing up families, no use for living a normal healthy life.
4.30 p.m.
I, therefore, hope the Minister will amend the Clause so that there shall be a widening of his powers. Parliament has made many mistakes about housing in the past, mistakes which are costing us dear in mental and physical misery, ill-health and general inconvenience. Now we have a grand opportunity. We do not want to make similar mistakes again, and I am certain that this Bill will go down as one of the finest housing Measures we have ever put through Parliament. If we can, we must avoid some of the bad mistakes made between the two wars, mistakes which cut down the amenities and the size. of Government houses until they are the most miserable things imaginable. These mistakes gave us terrible uniformity, and the dreariness of it all is enough to strike terror into the soul. I

241
can think of estates in some towns in England with hundreds and hundreds of houses where there is not even a distinction in the letter boxes, never mind in anything else. This terrible uniformity drove people to buy the jerrybuilt rubbish put tip by speculative builders where at least they could grow a privet hedge and name the house "The Poplars," or brighten up the door knocker and call it "Chez Nous." It was the Geddes Axe which cut down the size and amenities of the houses and led to dreary uniformity.
Now we have, as previous speakers have said, an opportunity to make interesting developments—varied arrangement of houses, broken rooflines and all sorts of experiments in houses which are going to be magnificent and not just anything which will contain people. We want houses which are a joy and a pleasure, and which people can really call their homes. The general wish and natural instinct being for houses, I beg the Minister to widen his discretion in this matter. Give us some flats, certainly, for those who want them, but alter this Clause so that there is not a bias in favour of flats, with houses having to take a back seat. let us have as many splendid houses as is possible under this very generous and good Bill—for I am not carping at the Bill, I am only asking the Minister to amend this Clause, so that his style shall not he cramped in any way, and so that we can have a large number of houses which shall be a joy for years to come for those who live in them.
Lieutenant Herbert Hughes (Wolver-hampton, West): I do not want to enter into the general controversy of flats versus houses—I live in a flat myself but I am in favour of mixed development—but would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the kind of difficulty in which we in the Black Country are placed under this Clause. I believe the Minister has in mind generally, under this Clause, the high cost of land in completely urban development, but we are faced with a somewhat different problem. We have sites consisting of slag heaps and undermined land.
The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member began by saying that he did not want to enter into the controversy but that he would keep- to the subject of the Amendment and I hope that he will do so. The question of slag
242
heaps hardly comes within the scope of the Amendment.
Lieutenant Hughes: I accept your Ruling, Major Milner. My purpose in rising was to show my sympathy for the Amendment, on the grounds not so much of general principle, as of the very practical difficulty in which we are placed in one particular area. The difficulty is that where, for general town planning reasons, houses rather than flats are a far more natural form of development, we are faced with the fact that the cost of the land is approaching the figure mentioned in this Clause by the time we have purchased it, levelled it, and developed it, and we are in the position that we cannot get an extra subsidy because—
The Chairman: This is a subject which the hon. and gallant Member might—I do not say would—be in Order to discuss on the Question "That the Clause stand part," but it would not appear to be one that he can discuss on this particular Amendment which refers to the question of houses as well as flats.
Lieutenant Hughes: The point of my remarks, to which I am coming, is that if this Amendment were carried, it would assist us to deal with the problem with which we are faced in that area. We desire to build houses on this land which, although not a highly built-up area, will come within the range of the cost level fixed in the Clause, by the time it has been levelled and developed. The town planning consideration in this part of the Black Country makes the building of fiats unsuitable. We are anxious to proceed with the building of houses, but we are finding now that the costs involved in clearing the land are running into £1,350, although a great deal was done even before the war. Now, after the war, when costs have increased, the clearing and developing of this land will bring the costs above £1,5oo per acre. If the Amendment were carried, it would assist us because we could then build houses on the sites when they have been cleared, levelled and developed.
The cost of these sites should never fall on the shoulders of a local authority because the local authority is not the body responsible for the tremendous industrial difficulty, chaos and devastation which obtain in many of the Black Country areas today, and which are a hangover

243
from the Industrial Revolution. The industrialists paid no attention to the needs of the population in the area, and we are now faced with the problem that the local authority is the body which has to clear these slag heaps. Anyone who has travelled from Birmingham to Wolverhampton will know the very desolate area I have in mind. The local authority want to clear it and to build houses on it, but the costs are prohibitive. So far from their being able to build houses to let at anything like the 1os. a week rent that the Minister has indicated should be the average rent in the country, the net rent figure would work out at something more like 15s. a week. If this Amendment were carried it would greatly assist us in dealing with our problem. The building of flats on' sites like these where subsidence is extremely probable—though not for mining reasons—is not a practical proposition. I support the Amendment on the grounds that if it were carried we could clear this land, do some town planning in an area where it is very badly needed, and build houses to take the place of the waste and desolation which exist today.
Mr. Sparks: I hope the Minister will resist the Amendment because I think it is based upon a misconception and, if I may say so, a complete misunderstanding of the problems which face great cities like London and others throughout the country. As I understand it, the Clause relates specifically to the problem of built-up areas of that kind. It does not attempt to prevent the development of houses, or the mixed development of houses and flats; it provides for a mixed form of development provided there is a minimum of three storey blocks of flats within the scheme. If the Amendment is carried it will considerably accentuate the housing problem in London and the Greater London area. It is all very well to talk about expensive sites, and about placing houses on them rather than building flats, but first I would say that we have an appalling housing problem in all of the London and Greater London boroughs. It is a problem that cannot be solved by placing houses on expensive sites.
To illustrate what I mean, let me take the London area. In the London region, to say nothing of the Greater London
244
area, we have 118 sq. miles, forming the most important centre of the nation. Situated in that area are the most important docks of the country, bringing vast volumes of goods and traffic to London. Built around them are commercial houses and warehouses. London is the centre of our transport system, and around this great industrial centre has grown up a large population, dependent for its livelihood on these great economic activities. In the Greater London area there are other industrial developments as well. In the centre of this great economic concentration there is a very difficult housing problem. Land is scarce and very difficult to get, and the high cost of land indicates its scarcity. I am talking now of the built-up area in London. Land is dear because there is not much of it in the locality, and the law of supply and demand operates in regard to the price of land as it does with other things. Therefore, land being scarce and difficult to get, when once it is acquired, the maximum possible use must be made of it for housing purposes.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Would the hon. Gentleman insist that on sites of one acre or less, flats only should be erected, because I know of many sites in London of smaller size than one acre, where it would be impossible to put up a block of flats?
Mr. Sparks: It depends of course upon the site. We have in Acton a piece of land of 10 acres, on which we propose to put up 320 flats. If this proposal is carried, and it is suggested that we should build houses on this land instead of flats, we shall only be able to build 120 houses, at the rate of 12 to the acre, as against 320 flats. We have 3,500 people on our register who want accommodation. There is very little land in Acton, and this is about the last hit of land we can use for housing development. The problem then is, that those who support this Amendment say 120 houses, while those who are in favour of the Clause as it stands say 32o flats. If we are to build houses, what shall we say to the people who want accommodation in Acton? They work in Acton, their livelihoods are in that vicinity. It is all very well to say that they should go outside 20 or 3o miles, but it is far easier said than done. It is a very difficult job to uproot people from urban areas and tell them to go outside

245
and live somewhere else. When I was speaking to the Minister of Town and Country Planning some time ago about this problem, he told me that there had been a survey in a certain area in London to find out from London people which they would prefer, a house and a garden some distance out in the Greater London area, or a flat in London itself, and nine people out of 10 opted for a flat in London rather than a house and garden miles outside
Mr. McAllister: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any record of this survey, who carried it out and whether it was ever published, because the figures which he gives are in flat contradiction to those produced by every other survey on the subject?
Mr. Sparks: I do not know what survey the right hon. Gentleman was referring to. I said I had discussed the matter with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who is, as I am, interested in the subject, and he gave me that information. I did not ask him for precise data, but I am prepared to accept it from the right hon. Gentleman as being somewhere near the truth. Not only that, but I have had considerable experience of this problem in my own locality in Acton, and I know it is easier said than done to tell people to go 20 or 3o miles away from where they live and work. You may get a few to do it, but the bulk of the people are attracted to the area in which they live and work.
4.45 P.m.
London City is a centre which has grown up over centuries. Queen Elizabeth tried to prevent the growth and development of London, but was never able to accomplish it. London has grown as a result of centuries of economic activity centred in the area, and if we arc to disperse our populations to the wide open spaces, we must disperse our industries too. But we cannot disperse the docks, commercial houses and warehouses, we cannot disperse the transport concentration. Here it is in London, and we have the problem to face in London of providing the maximum of accommodation for the people who need houses. This Clause is designed specifically to help London and the Greater London area, which have a serious housing problem to face, and it also affects the other large towns and cities of our country. It is a means to
246
enable them to make the maximum use of the land at their disposal, to accommodate the largest possible number of families within a town planning scheme.
The hon. Gentleman behind me, when he was moving his Amendment, said that if the Clause is carried as it stands it will encourage local authorities to disregard town planning proposals. It will do nothing of the kind. The Minister of Town and Country Planning decides whether there shall be a housing scheme or not, and he has regard for town planning standards. He will not agree to housing schemes or blocks of flats which are contrary to good planning: In the London area the density is laid down as 100 per acre. It seems to be high, but definite densities are given in accordance with the characteristics of the area and the needs of the people, and regard is had to these conditions whenever the Minister gives his consent or otherwise; he bases his decision upon town planning standards. Therefore, to say that to leave the Clause as it is will encourage local authorities to crowd all their areas with blocks of flats is not true. The Minister of Town and Country Planning will see to it that whatever plans are put forward conform to general town planning standards.
I feel strongly about this Clause because I feel sure, despite the good intentions of those who support the Amendment, that their proposal would make it very much more difficult for us in London, and in the Greater London area, to deal with our housing problem. We must have accommodation as quickly as we can get it. We must make the maximum use of the little land available in accordance with recognised planning standards, knowing that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is the authority who will decide, yes or no, on any scheme that is put forward. He will pot act detrimentally to any town planning scheme, and it is something we need badly in the London area. If this generous subsidy for the development of blocks of flats is to be compromised, it will make the solution of the London housing problem much more difficult than it already is.
Captain Crookshank: The Minister seems to be getting a good deal of contrary advice from behind him. This subject of flats versus houses has been discussed many times in this House and

247
indeed, I have no doubt, in every debating society throughout the country. It is a most fascinating topic, on which one can come to no precise conclusion because it depends so much upon the circumstances. There were, however, two questions I wanted to put to the Minister arising out of what has been said. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) said that under this Clause local authorities must build flats if they acquire expensive sites. That is what he says, but that is not my reading of the Clause at all, and I would like the Minister to say which of us is right. I had thought that this Clause enabled, in certain circumstances, a measure of mixed development, and, therefore, I asked in my speech on the Second Reading, though it was not convenient for the Minister to answer, how far in these areas there could be an admixture of flats and houses because, if I was right in thinking that there could be a certain measure of mixed development, then pro tanto it demolishes the anti-flat argument put up by the hon. Member for Rutherglen.
Mr. McAllister: It is true that Subsection (2) provides for a certain number of houses in proportion to flats, but it is very rigorously restricted by the Subsection itself, so that the most optimistic estimate can provide only one house for every four flats. The reason I said that local authorities have to build flats and not houses is that the subsidy which is intended to cover the cost of the site also has to take into consideration the fact that flats are very much dearer.
Captain Crookshank: I am very much interested in what the hon. Member has said, because he definitely said before that local authorities, under this Bill, have to build flats on expensive sites. I questioned that, and he now agrees that does not necessarily follow. The first statement was uncalled for, wrong and inaccurate, and I am glad he has now retracted in the cloud of words with which he has now interrupted my speech. I gather I shall probably be confirmed in my opinion as to the first point. The second point was a surprise to me, and I do not think it can be right, although it may be in some areas. The hon. and gallant Member for West Wolverhampton (Lieutenant Herbert Hughes) was speaking about the necessity in his part
248
of the country of clearing areas, slag heaps and so forth, which was going to be very expensive, in order that housing developments could take place on those sites. I agree that if slag heaps and so on are to be removed, it will be a very expensive affair, but I did not understand anything of that kind came within this Clause, and I shall be glad to know whether it does. I thought that what was referred to here, on a site the cost of which as developed exceeds £1,500 was to be read in the same sense as in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, where it says:
" Where blocks of flats are provided on sites, the cost of which as developed with roads, and sewers, etc., exceeds £1,500 per acre."
Development with roads and sewers is a different matter from removing a slag heap and doing something to the resulting levelled area. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me whether my interpretation of this Clause or that of his hon. and gallant Friend is right. Subject to that, I do not propose to go into this argument of whether flats or houses are better. The real answer is that in some areas there must be flats. As the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. sparks) pointed out, there is no option. In other areas houses are wanted. I was very worried at the Minister's apparent desire to build blocks of flats in rural areas, because I should not have thought that was so necessary; but in congested urban areas with sites at high costs it is necessary. It is also necessary to save the workers long journeys. It is a point to which insufficient attention has been paid for years. There is great wear and tear on the human frame as a result of morning and evening journeys. However comfortable the means of conveyance may be, one has to keep one's eye on the clock and be sure one will get a particular bus or train. That is what wears people out. The answer is that you must have flats and you must have houses, and I think you can, in certain circumstances, have both
Mr. Bevan: I do not propose to enter at any length into the relative merits of houses as o aganist flats or flats as against houses. Some very seductive speeches were made in moving the Amendment to prevail upon me to accept it, but I must tell the Committee it would be impossible for me to accept it. I could not permit

249
the local authority to be able to attract a Treasury grant in such circumstances as would arise if the Amendment were accepted, because then the amount of money provided by the Treasury would be determined solely by the caprice of the local authority, and we would be in the difficulty of having to provide the money wherever the local authority decides they are going to put up a house on an expensive piece of land. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) quoted against me an author for whom I have very great respect—Lewis Mumford—but my hon. Friend will recall that that distinguished author, in the book "The Culture of Cities," specifically says that cities should be organised on the basis of their function and not on an a priori consideration. The cities of mediaeval times, and many of our modern cities, obey purely functional considerations.
The difficulty is that many of our towns arc organised derivatorily—not on the basis of the functions of the population, but upon some conceptions people have formed about what is tasteful, what is leisurely and what expresses the success of individuals who live in them. That is why we have this suburban sprawl. That is why we have people living out in the wilds in some of these cottages on the assumption that having a cottage means having a love nest. It very often happens that many of these urban cottages simply result in domestic slavery for many of the women who have to work in them. The whole thing is wrongly conceived. We push the sites out on the assumption that people always want to live in a small house, and then we have to dig tunnels to reach them when they have got there, and they must be brought to their work much more quickly. We have a complex and diversified society and we must provide complex and diversified amenities. There are large numbers of people who want to live in flats in the centres of cities and who find these flats supplying all their needs. In our society there are often, for example, men and women who are professional workers, husband and wife, who go out to work and go back home to service flats, but who cannot afford a house in the suburbs.
Mr. Kinley: If they can, they go out.
Mr. Bevan: But they do not always go out. It is not true. It often happens that they spend some years in a service flat, and when they want a family they go out. It is not the service flat which makes them want to go out. Common services will be provided in many of these London flats. My hon. Friends, far from wanting to supply amenities that are necessary for the modern population, want a 'population stereotyped in accordance with some preconception which they consider to be awn planning, and want to make the individuals fit into the houses. What we are supplying in this Clause is a financial instrument by which the local authority, particularly in the London area, can meet the real needs of the population, and not the academic needs that some people construct on the basis of their prejudices. I wish that some of my hon. Friends would lot regard their own idiosyncrasies as town planning inspirations
5.0 p.m.
May I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Lieutenant Herbert Hughes) that the difficulty here is that if the local authority has a great deal of. expensive clearing to do, unfortunately this Bill cannot deal with it? As the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) said, that is an entirely different matter. The Bill starts to subsidise only when the land has been cleared, but where there is subsidence, there is an additional subsidy provided in another part of the Bill. In this case, however, if an authority has very expensive sites, and in consequence of developing those expensive sites its housing rate goes above the
average rate for that class of local authority, there is another provision in the Bill which enables it to attract additional help. The local authority is not entitled to disregard expensive development on that account, since if its rates are raised, additional subsidy is obtained. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friends on this side will not regard me as the enemy of effective town planning, merely because I do not share some of the suppositions that have been advanced. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), these schemes accord with the town planning principles

251
as laid down by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. These schemes have to be approved by that Ministry. I believe we are making more generous provision in this Bill for effective town planning than has ever before been made in the history of this country.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I enthusiastically support his practical wish to construct flats, but there are places in which, if one constructed a flat, it would be as unseemly as it would be for the right hon. Gentleman to wear one brown shoe and one black shoe. In those places, would it not be quite unreasonable to force the local authorities to build flats?
Mr. Bevan: The local authority is not forced to build flats; it is free to do what it wishes. If it desires to attract the subsidy for flat construction, it has to build a certain proportion of flats. I cannot answer the hypothetical cases which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind, but if he will tell me about them, I will look into them.
Mr. Charles Williams: I had never expected to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health standing before us in the guise which he has assumed this afternoon. In the earlier part of his speech, he gave money as one of the reasons for resisting this very excellent Amendment. Surely, that shows how quickly almost any one of us can change, although I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman, even as a Minister, would show some little independence of character. He is, however, absolutely and entirely under the heel of the Treasury. I have no doubt that, although his resistance to this Amendment may cause unhappiness and sadness to many, he gave the Patronage Secretary a good deal of happiness in the earlier part of his speech. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was not as fair as he might have been in some of his references to prejudices about the town versus the countryside. I did not hear the first speech that was made in favour of the Amendment, but I had the good fortune to come into the Chamber in the middle of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for North Bradford (Mrs. Nichol). I have no reason to attack people simply because they wish
252
to live in a flat or because they wish to live in a cottage. I would prefer to live in the country always, but that is not a prejudice. Nor is it a prejudice if I want to live in a flat. It is a difference of opinion, which has nothing to do with prejudice. All of us have our likes and dislikes. The Minister is going a bit too far when he labels as prejudices those differences of opinion.
The Amendment is a very reasonable one, and the only thing which the Minister had against it was the question of money. Of course, there are areas in the centre of London where there must be flats. I think the hon. Members who brought forward the Amendment might have carried it a little further, and said that money should be no hindrance whatever towards getting houses wherever it is possible to do so. In certain areas in big cities there must be flats, but the Clause which it is now sought to amend does not apply only to London. It applies to the whole country. We ought to have a very much better reply from the Minister, and he ought to tell us whether, if the Amendment is withdrawn, there is some other means whereby he can meet the obvious wish of many Members who do not wish to encourage the building of
flats only. The Minister spoke about town and country planning. It is essential that there should be reorganised planning, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman met the point that, although many people wish to live close to their work and find it better and easier to do so, there is no reason why, in these days of cheap travel and easy means of transport, when the supplies are available, people who wish to live in a comparatively rural area should not have the same facilities as those who desire to live huddled up in a series of flats one above the other. I have great sympathy with the Amendment.
Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious travel problem in London at the present time? To encourage people to live outside London and come to London to work would be to accentuate the traffic problem, which it is now beyond the possibilities of the London Passenger Transport Board system to cope with adequately.
Mr. Williams: I support the proposal in the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will carry on

253
his argument with his own friends. I listened to his speech about London with great interest, and if I had not known about the problem long before, his very interesting speech would have made me thoroughly aware of it. I was not speaking only about London, but of the whole of the country, with which the Bill tries to deal. We have put forward our various points of view. The Minister has clearly told us that he will not meet us. I know he does not like me to remind him, but it is very easy for him to get into trouble and difficulty. We ought to have rather more consideration from him. He ought to be persuaded by his own back benchers to look further into this matter and see whether he cannot find the Chancellor ' the Exchequer in an amenable frame of mind and willing to give a little more money for cottages such as are wanted by many happy families, including those of many Socialist Members of Parliament.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I support the Amendment. I am one of those whose idiosyncrasies take the form of town planning. I have been joined by a goodly company at conference after conference of the Labour Party, where we have been told that many surveys have shown the common man's desire for a house. We have been told that there would be decentralisation, and that instead of people being dragged behind wagons to work, their work would be taken to the pleasant places where the people would in future live and work. In fact, we have had painted before our eyes a vision of decentralisation. I was rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) say how anxious people are to live near their work, so anxious that they are willing to be placed 320 to the acre instead of 12o; in other words, that they are willing to die—
Mr. Sparks: On a point of Order. I did riot say that at all. I said that we were developing a housing scheme in Acton—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not a point of Order."]—No, but in view of the fact that the hon. Lady has misquoted what I said, I surely I am entitled to put her right.
Mrs. Mann: I understood my hon. Friend to say that his locality could get 32o flats to the acre, and were going to get them, rather than 120.
Mr. Sparks: I did not say that at all. I said that we were developing a housing scheme in Acton to provide for 320 flats, and that if we were to build houses instead of flats we should be able to build only 120 on the site. It is impossible to get 320 flats on an acre of ground. You just would not get them on there, anyhow.
5.15 p.m.
Mrs. Mann: I have been chairman of the Housing Committee of Glasgow, the most congested' city in Great Britain. Its infant mortality exceeded that of Tokyo. From that example we now know that nothing is saved by crowding people together into a small space. We also know, as hon. Members will be aware who have read the 1937 Report of the Ridley Commission, that Glasgow, second city in Great Britain, had more than 3,000 empty flats in the centre of the city. They were modern flats, and all above £35 per annum. They were left empty because people had a choice, not of staying near their work and being crammed together, but of going out to bungalows in the country. The Ridley Committee therefore recommended the decontrol of all rents of £35 per annum upwards. The most luxurious block of Hats built in Glasgow was Kelvin Court. The owners actually had to reduce the rents below the economic level in order to entice people to live in them.
I do not want to labour the point. I thought it was generally accepted that 90 per cent. of the people of the country preferred a house with a garden. We are always hearing that they must be near their work, but I thought that, under a coordinated plan the Board of Trade was to give guidance about the location of industry so that industrialists would be invited outwards from our great cities, leaving more space. At the same time, our people were to go outwards with the industries. I well remember, when I was chairman of Glasgow Housing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) telling us that in no circumstances would Bridgeton people desert him. About six months afterwards they packed up and deserted him because Stewart and Lloyd's had opened up at Corby. Everyone in Bridgeton who could do so got a job in Corby and not only left Bridgeton but left Scotland itself.

255
I want to bring the Debate back to the Clause, which says:
" Where a house (not being a flat in a block of flats)—
(a) is provided on a site the cost of which as developed … exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds per acre."
The Clause describes the inner ring of practically all our cities. It is there that sites are expensive. The Minister wants to make the most of that ground and to get the most people on it, within the limits laid down by town planning. One has a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. However, he should, I think, keep in mind the other effect of the centralisation of people and industry which is likely to come about later. I want to ask him and to ask my hon. Friends in this House, what kind of cities shall we have if the inner rings are representative of nothing else than blocks of flats? London has been quoted extensively today. In walking along any of the streets in the inner ring, is it not delightful when one leaves the high blocks and comes on, say, a terracing of houses? Is not the break of a crescent here and there in our cities refreshing and delightful? Yet the Bill encourages, nay compels, nothing but the blocking up of the skyline with unrelieved blocks of flats. I hope the Minister will reconsider it.
However, I have this consolation, as one of the idiosyncratic town planners, combined with the practical experience of a civic administrator, that very few local authorities will proceed under this Bill to build blocks of flats, firstly, because it is the most expensive form of building, even taking into consideration this generous subsidy; secondly, because it takes longer to clear the sites for building blocks of flats than one could build an entire development of cottages. It takes so long that the time in this Bill will be utterly useless for the large cities. They simply cannot proceed administratively on the long delays they know will take place in clearing sites before they can proceed with their blocks of flats on a subsidy which is ending in 1947. So with these words, I say, "God bless that quick ending of the subsidy," for there will be very few blocks of flats.
Lady Megan Lloyd-George: I would ask the Minister to reconsider the whole of this question. Will he not con-
256
sider the very real feeling there is on this matter, which is obvious from the speeches made from both sides of the Committee today? Will he not consider, between now and Report stage, some form of words or some Amendment which would meet this demand on the part of hon. Members? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of idiosyncrasies and preconceived notions, and he spoke of town planners as though they were cranks. There may be cranks amongst them; I do not say there are not.
Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Lady allow me to interrupt her? We are all entitled to describe ourselves as town planners.
Lady Megan Lloyd-George: I agree, but the right hon. Gentleman rather included in his definition a great many town planners who are acknowledged to be great experts on this matter. As a matter of fact, there is considerable evidence available on this and there is no doubt as to where the wishes of the majority of the people of this country lie. There have been many surveys made, and a good deal of evidence has been collected by many organisations which cover a large cross-section of the population. I would only mention one. It is the evidence given before the Dudley Committee on the design of dwellings, which reported some time ago. It was very interesting, in view of what the Minister has said about the blessings of living in flats, to read the reasons given to the Dudley Committee as to the unpopularity of flats amongst the majority of people whom they consulted.
The principal reasons were: first, noise; second, the lack of privacy—the fact that there was no private garden. And here is one fact which has not been mentioned, the difficulty of supervising children when they are playing. That is a very real problem for a housewife who has no nurse to do it for her. These are all very practical reasons. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not determine the needs of the community on the cost and availability of the land. If he does that, what becomes of town planning? Let us face that issue. He will be flying in the faces of all the experts and, it seems to me, that we shall be rebuilding our cities on the bad old centralisation plan of the prewar years. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter.

257
The Minister asked in his speech, "All this talk about people migrating into the country—is it really something that has happened?" I think it was an hon. Gentleman opposite who said that about one million people had moved out to the countryside between the two wars. The hon. lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) has just mentioned what has been happening in Glasgow; that although good, well-equipped flats have been built there, yet they remained empty because people did not wish to live in them. You will find that the great majority of black-coated workers live outside London. They do so because they want to; they can afford to do so, therefore they are able to make up their own minds. You will find that when the workers earn a little more and save enough they, too, will migrate. Why should not the people, if the great majority really wish to live outside the great cities, do so? We ought to organise our transport—cheap transport—so that the needs of the people in this respect should he met. That, I think, we have always to consider as part of any town planning scheme.
I do not say for a moment that it is not necessary to have flats.. There are certain areas where it may be necessary. There are certain classes of people who may desire to live in flats; elderly couples, whose families have grown up, perhaps single women or single men. We do not want to have an over-emphasis; we want a judicious admixture of flats and houses. I do not, even at this stage, accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being flat minded. It is perfectly true that his oratory soars many storeys up and reaches high levels, but I think no one would accuse him of a drab uniformity at any moment. Therefore, I appeal to him most strongly, because I believe he has an open mind on these things, to reconsider this matter and see that we do not go back to the bad old days of centralised planning.
Squadron-Leader Fleming (Manchester, Withington): I quite agree with the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady M. Lloyd George) that this Clause applies to the whole of England, not merely to London. Nevertheless, 1 was very forcibly struck by what was Said by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) about the congestion in his area. I am rather surprised that the Minister has forgotten what happened
258
in Manchester, where we had several congested areas, and we did a certain amount of slum clearance. When it came to rehousing those people some 15 or more years ago, it was decided to take over an area outside the City boundaries at Wythenshawe. That has now been developed into an enormous area, and the Division it is in is practically the largest in the North of England. My own, which is next door, is the largest in Manchester. We found, during the years of the development of that estate, that at first there was a certain amount of opposition from the people who worked in the centre of Manchester to going outside, and I received letters myself—

ROYAL ASSENT
5.30 p.m.
Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER of the BLACK ROD being come with a Message. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. r) Act,
1946.

2. Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946.

3. Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946.

4. Statutory Instruments Act, 1946.

5. Straits Settlements (Repeal) Act, 1946.

6. National Service (Release of Conscientious Objectors) Act, 1946.

7. India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946.

8. Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1946.

9. Public Works Loans Act, 1946.

10. Water (Scotland) Act, 1946.

11. Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Act, 1946.

12. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mortlake Crematorium Board) Act, 1946.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
CLAUSE 4.—(Standard amount of Exchequer contributions for flats, etc., on expensive sites.)
Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 1, after "For ", insert "a house, or "— [Mr. Braddock.]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
5.43 P.m.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: I was pointing out to the Minister that in my own City of Manchester we had this difficulty of developing a new site, when the workers had to be taken away from what might be called close proximity to their work, to a distance of four or five miles away. I agree with the Minister that, at the start, one or two did object to being uprooted from their native areas, but to my great surprise the majority of these people, once settled in that area of Wythenshawe have undoubtedly settled down there for good. At the beginning a certain minority preferred lodgings in my area nearer the centre of the city than Wythenshawe, but latterly that difficulty has resolved itself. Most people. have moved out from my area, and further from their work, to this new satellite city of Wythenshawe, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has been a wonderful experiment in town planning.
I agree that distances would be greater in relation to London, but on the other hand, I agree with the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady M. Lloyd George) that first we must consider the views of the would-be future tenants of these new areas. Here, I entirely disagree with the Minister, because from my experience in talking these things over, particularly with ex-Servicemen, I find that the majority would much sooner have a house than a fiat; in fact, they have told me that above all they would like to have a small garden in which to work at the week-ends. I have had the experience of living, at different times, both in a flat and in a small house, and my own preference is undoubtedly for the small house with a garden.
260
5.45 P.m.
Here again I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are areas, particularly in London, where these amenities cannot be provided. Under this Clause, if this Amendment were accepted, local authorities, not merely in London but throughout the country, would at least have an opportunity of meeting the wishes of the majority of the people who are to be the tenants of those houses or flats, in other words, to let the would-be tenant decide whether they want a house or a flat. As the Clause stands without the Amendment, it undoubtedly gives the local authority the last word in deciding whether these people should live in flats or houses. I am afraid that, on the question of convenience and cheapness, they might decide on great blocks of flats of seven or eight storeys. As regards Manchester, some 12 years ago we had this matter disputed in this House, and the majority of the Manchester Members of those days were undoubtedly in favour of the house, as opposed to the flat, for developing small areas. If the right hon. Gentleman merely wants to do what the people want, he ought to give further consideration to this Amendment between now and the Report stage. If the Amendment were to go to a Division, I should certainly support it.
Mr. Sparks: Can the Minister say whether any objection has been raised by any local authorities to Clause 4?
Mr. Bevan: I hope the Committee will find it possible to make progress on this matter. We have now discussed this question for a considerable time. In fact, the Debate has degenerated, if I may use that term, into a discussion on the relative merits of flats and houses, and of dispersal. The fact is that that is entirely irrelevant to the question under consideration. The Government, as hon. Members on this side of the Committee in particular ought to know, have under way a number of plans for dispersal. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning will shortly be asking Parliament to consider a Bill dealing with new towns, so that, so far from the Government taking exception to dispersal and to the provision of estates like Wythenshawe, we shall make and are making legislative provision for the establishment of such estates. It seems to me slightly irrelevant to argue the merits of

261
these estates, in connection with Government plans, which are in train for the provision of these estates.
Squadron-Leader Fleming: How can the discussion be irrelevant, when the words of the Amendment would make the Clause read, "For a house, or a flat…"?
Mr. Bevan: Because the whole argument has been on the merits of living in flats, as against those of living in houses. Under the proposals of the Government, we are not conceding that it is necessarily the case that everywhere it is better to have a house than a flat. We agree that the plans are based upon the fact that the vast majority of the population of Great Britain would prefer to live in a house with a garden. That is accepted. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of Government policy that the Metropolis should be dispersed, and that the people should be able to live in communal units where a full communal life is more accessible to the individual citizen than is the case in the Metropolis. That is a cardinal principle of planning which we accept. At the same time, there exists in London and some other great cities a living need for flat accommodation nearer to the centre of the city, and for that we have to make provision. As a matter of fact, the Abercrombie plan for London provides for that, and London housing is largely in accordance with the Abercrombie plan. Where then lies the argument? What is the purpose of it? It seems to me to be merely to air an academic interest in houses as against flats. That has been the situation for some time.
Mr. McAllister: Is not the argument simply whether the Minister is saying to the local authority, "If you build flats on expensive land you will get the special subsidy. If you build houses you will not "?
Mr. Bevan: the fact of the matter is that it is just in the centre of the city where the land is expensive that the flats exist now. The two things go together, and the local authorities will in fact be masters of that decision. They will decide. I have not received from a single authority any objection to this Clause. As a matter of fact, the great housing authorities of London, and of the larger
cities, are fully in accord with it. It makes generous provision for maximum
262
development. In other words, it tries to avoid the very circumstances which have been described. If I may refer to to the hyperbole of one hon. Member, who used the expression about "darkly disguised with a monotonous line of high flats, that is precisely the opposite of what is provided for. I really do wish that hon. Members would not look at the Clause in such a way that they inflame their eyesight and are unable to see what it is about. I suggest the time has arrived for the Committee to make further progress.
Mr. Braddock: In moving the Amendment I was very careful not to bring up this question of houses versus flats. With the Minister I do to a certain extent regret the course the discussion has taken but, in view of what has been said, I think an opportunity ought to be given to all to reconsider this matter and I. beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Charles Williams: No.I object very strongly.
Amendment negatived.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, after "storey," to insert:
" whether above or below the surface of the ground adjoining the block."
I sympathise very deeply with the Minister. I promise we shall not take quite so long with this Amendment as his own friends thought it necessary to take with the last one. The object of this Amendment is to get some explanation from the Minister of what "storey" means. In the Clause as drafted, there is a proviso
"… where the whole or any part of a
block of flats on such a site … "
That is an expensive site such as we have been discussing for so long:
"… is of at least four storeys (including any storey which is constructed for use for purposes other than those of a dwelling) ….
We want to know whether four storeys-means four storeys above ground, or whether a basement counts as a storey, in which case it would be three storeys above ground. When the Minister uses the words
" any storey which is constructed for use for purposes other than those of a dwelling ",
it would he easier if one knew exactly what was intended. It may be that he is referring, for example, to the ground floor

263
being used as shops or—again, I am really only trying to find out what is intended—those words might presumably refer to a basement, if a basement was a storey which was entirely devoted to non-dwelling purposes, heating or laundries, or places for bicycles and that kind of thing. The net result is, "Does the right hon. Gentleman mean three storeys above ground, or four storeys above ground?
Mr. Bevan: The intention is that a basement should not be regarded as a storey and that this should be four storeys above the ground, including the ground floor.
Mr. Keeling: Is not the Minister going to clear up this point in the Bill? We have his own assurance, -but is he not going to put it in the Bill? It is not clear at present whether a basement is included or not.
Mr. Bevan: I understand from my advisers that the language of the Bill makes it perfectly clear that a basement is not included.
Amendment negatived.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from "block," to the third "the" in line 13.
This Amendment, like the Amendment just moved by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), is primarily an Amendment seeking for clarification. As the Clause now stands, the Minister has discretion in relation to cases in which payments will be made in accordance with the table contained in Part III of the Schedule. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave out the words conferring a discretion in this matter on the Minister. The case as it stands is that, to qualify for receipt of the money under Part III of the First Schedule, three circumstances must in any case exist. First, the cost of the site must exceed £1,500 an acre; second, there must be a four-storey building; and, third, expenditure must be incurred on the installation of lifts. In the Clause as it stands, even where all these circumstances jointly exist, there is a discretion in the Minister to determine whether or not flats will qualify for the payment, in accordance with Part III of the Schedule. We recog-
264
nise that there may be a case for a sliding scale here, because, clearly, the cost of the installation of lifts does not vary in any exact proportion to the number of storeys served in a block of flats, but we take the view that it would be better if this could be more precisely defined instead of leaving this wide discretion to the Minister. I would like to know on what principle it is proposed to apply this discretion, and whether it would not be possible more narrowly to define the circumstances, so as to give a greater measure of clarity as to the conditions which would necessarily attract payment under Part III of the Schedule.
Mr. Bevan: I think the intention of the mover of the Amendment is to seek clarification, and, behind that desire to seek clarification, there is the same intention that I have myself—to try to secure that lifts are, in tact, provided. But it might easily happen, unless we had this discretion, that one lift would be supplied at the end of a block of flats which would only serve the immediate flats and not the others, and yet the whole block of flats would qualify for a subsidy. It is our intention that these flats should be served by effective lifts for all. We do not want to encourage the local authorities, in such cases as this, to economise at the expense of the tenants of the flats, and we do not want a subsidy for all the flats, where, in fact, they would only be providing a lift to serve a very small number. That is the reason for the discretion. I think the only way in which this can be operated is that we should have that discretion. Without it, it would be quite impossible to define the circumstances in which the subsidy ought to be paid for lifts. Probably, in these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will agree with me
Captain Crookshank: I see the point which the Minister has made, and, of course, we might get some unscrupulous arrangement, but, in view of the fact that the word is used in the plural—"lifts" instead of "lift"—does not that help to get over the difficulty?
Mr. Bevan: It helps, but it does not entirely remove the difficulty because we might have a large block of flats with lifts at each end, and it might be said that it was adequately served by lifts, when, as a matter of fact, those lifts were almost entirely inaccessible to the vast majority

265
of the inhabitants of the flats. I know of flats in London at present—very large blocks of flats—with lifts at each end, quite useless for the people living in the middle. It is our intention that, if these flats are to be constructed,, they should not become tenements in the old sense, but that the people living in them should have the use of lifts, because, without lifts, many of these flats become unendurable, particularly for women of advanced years, and women who have to carry up perambulators and children.
Captain Crookshank: I could not agree with the Minister more, I am sure he is absolutely right, but the difficulty is in giving this discretion. Parliament is generally anxious about such a discretion fearing that the Minister might do something; here, it is the other way. I wonder whether, as the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are agreed, he will look, into this again and see whether it can be tightened up in some other way.
Mr. Bevan: I will certainly have a look at it, but I believe that we shall find that this discretion is the most effective way. What will be the situation if sufficient lifts are not provided? It will be that the local authority would be able to attract the lift subsidy for the whole block of flats where inadequate lifts are provided. That would be the situation. Obviously, no Minister of Health is going to give public money for an amenity which, in fact, is not provided, so that, in the original submission of plans for the approval of the Ministry, where application is made for the subsidy for the lifts, the Minister would have to satisfy himself that he was having something far which he was paying—that is, lifts for all the people living in the flats. I will certainly see if some other form of words could tighten the provision up, but these are, in fact, our intentions
Mr. Walker-Smith: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill,
CLAUSE 5.—(Local authorities'
contributions.)
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, at the end, to insert:
" and where' the house is provided by a housing association in accordance with arrange-
266
ments made under section ninety-four of the principal Act the local authority shall pay by way of annual grant to the housing association an amount not less than the annual rate fund contribution.''
This Amendment refers to housing associations, and deals with local authorities' contributions. I do not want to carry it far beyond what the Minister said earlier but, if it was made mandatory on the local authorities to pay over the full annual rate fund contributions, they simply would not use the housing association at all. I accept that argument as valid. I wonder. however, if there would be any point in making it permissive. Alight it not be a good thing to say that they may pay the contribution over, should they so desire? In order to get a reply to that question, I move the Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: As I explained earlier, and as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates, if the language of the Amendment were accepted, it would make payment of the rate contribution obligatory upon the local authority, who, then, of course, would not approve of the housing association, and it would serve as an almost insurmountable deterrent to the housing association. which We are clear about that. If we substitute the word "may ", it merely repeats the language of the principal Act, since the local authority can now approve of the housing association, which would have the Exchequer subsidy almost automatically, and the local authority could, if it wished, pay over the rate contribution, and the whole position would be merely repetitive of the original Act.
Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged. I thought that was the original case, but, we thought it would be as well, in a new Bill, to have the points cleared up as we go along. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Kinley: I want to ask the Minister to remove a very serious doubt which I am entertaining about the success of this Bill. However good the Bill may he and however powerful is the drive behind it, I suggest that a mistake has been made by following the old idea of attempting to solve the housing problem with borrowed

267
[Mr. Kinley.]
money. I am convinced, and have been convinced for a long time, that on the basis of borrowed money we shall never be able to solve our housing problem.
First, I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the imposition upon local authorities. They must contribute
£5 10s. a year from the general rate for 60 years in respect of each house. So far as my own constituency is concerned, if the average cost of a house is £1,000, it means that for every 1000 houses we build under this Bill, we shall need to contribute from the rates £5,500. That is a threepenny rate. Therefore, for every 1,000 houses we need, we shall have to levy an additional threepence on the rates. We require 7,000 houses which means that, under this Clause, we shall have to impose a rate of Is. 9d. in the £for 6o years. My arithmetic may be faulty and my thinking may be faulty, but I suggest that it is what I have already termed it—an imposition. There is a small council immediately adjacent to my constituency which estimates that under this Bill the satisfying of its housing needs will involve an imposition of an additional 2s. on the rates. That suggests to me that even if this method—
Mr. Bevan: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that there was a local authority whose application of the principles of this Bill would mean adding 2s. to the rate? I should like to know the name of that authority.
Mr. Kinley: Litherland.
Mr. Bevan: Are they assuming that the price of houses for the whole of the housing schemes will be at the existing level?
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Kinley: I assume that they are. I am basing my assumptions on an average of £1,000 per house.A further point I wish to put is that the older industrial towns will be most affected by the Bill. They are in most need of additional houses. In my own area where we have an old congested industrial town that now requires 7,000 houses, we shall have to impose, if we get those houses, an additional Is. 9d. in respect of them. Not far away the people of the local authority to which I have already referred—another middle-class authority with large resi
268
dential properties needing few, if any, houses—will escape that additional burden on their rates. I suggest that all the towns in the country are going to feel the effect of this Bill. That is equally unfair. Some will have to bear a heavy burden, and others will escape with a much lighter one.
The second objection on that point is that those who are in the old properties at present will contribute in order that others who are living in rooms may be provided with houses. From a national point of view it is right, but from a local point of view it is wrong that those living in existing houses should have to pay an addition on their rates, in order that houses may be built from which 'they themselves are barred on the ground that they already have a house.
I would like to put the same argument from another angle. I am suggesting that many attempts have been made in the past to solve our housing problem on the basis of borrowed money. This is -another one. I would like to ask whether it is conceived to be possible, on the basis of £1,000 a house, which must be borrowed, that the building of houses can be speeded up to 100,000, 200,000 or 300,000 a year or more and that the local authorities should be compelled to contribute their share. They can contribute their share only in respect of houses built or building and, therefore, the whole of the money will have to be borrowed before they can be asked for their s £5 Ios. a house. One thousand houses at an average cost of £1,000 means £1,000,000; 200,000 houses means £100,000, 000; 200,000 houses means £2,000,00o, and 300,000 houses means £300,000,000. So far, apparently, I am doing well. But if the local authorities of this country have to borrow £300 million a year, for several years, what is, industry going to do? How much is to be left for the general development of the industries of the country, and how much for the other national, local and general works? Are we to assume that there is now in existence, or will be next year or the year after, or in the early years to come, an unlimited' amount of capital from which it will be possible to borrow anything up to £400million? My view is that what happened in the case of the Addison Act will be reversed in this case. The Addison Act was torpedoed because the Government of that day found itself unable to control the cost of materials. I

269
am afraid this Bill will be torpedoed because money in the course Of another two or three years will be unobtainable.
Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the building of houses creates a capital investment on which it is possible to borrow money?
Mr. Kinley: That is not so. One cannot go on for ever borrowing money in the open market and building houses with that money, and then finding money in the open market again, with which to build more houses.
Sir F. Sanderson: Yes, one can, on the capital assets.
Mr. Kinley: If we are to be compelled to borrow all this money, a burden will be imposed on the ratepayers in addition to an increase in the rent which will have to be charged. The ratepayers in every town in the country are now the owners of the Bank of England, and it is absurd that they should be compelled to borrow in the market at a rate of interest fixed at 3⅛ per cent. We should build a large number of houses without putting a burden on our constituents.
Clause Ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 7.—(Reduction of local authori-
ties' contributions in certain cases, and corresponding increase of
Exchequer contributions.)
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, after the first "the," to insert "average."
Dazed by the oratory to which we have just been subjected, I rise to explain the reason for this Amendment. Clause 7 enables a variation to be made in respect of contributions, in the event of two circumstances being satisfied. Those two circumstances relate first to the incidence of the general rate, and secondly to the incidence of the housing rate. My hon. Friends and I do not necessarily accept the proposition that efficiency should, or can, be measured by expenditure. There is some good cause—
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Is the hon. Member discussing the Amendment, in page 5, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a)?
Mr. Walker-Smith: No. I should have pointed out that I am not moving that Amendment. I was saying in passing that perhaps if one really viewed the matter—
The Deputy-Chairman: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman proceeds with the discussion of the Amendment which he is moving?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I submit that this general consideration is germane to the argument that I am putting before the Committee. The argument which I am seeking to develop has its roots in the fact that we do not think a measurement of expenditure is a proper criterion of efficiency, and I was merely saying that that being so, it might be argued—although I am not concerned to argue it here—that it would be better to delete paragraph (a) altogether. However, I am not proposing to do that. We do not take any objection to the proviso dealing with the housing rate, because it is clear that if a local authority is to be active in its housing programme it will necessarily incur a high housing rate. Therefore, it is quite proper that paragraph (b) should be inserted in this Clause. We accept that. Nor are we moving to delete all reference to the general rate. What we are seeking to do is to ensure that the proviso dealing with the general rate shall be spread over an average of three years, because by inserting those words we shall ensure that this concession is only given to local authorities who have a genuinely heavy expenditure which has been sustained over a certain period.
If this Amendment is accepted, it will have the effect of exempting from the provisions of this Clause local authorities who, because of irresponsibility or extravagance, may attain a general rate figure greater by one quarter than the average amount levied for one single financial year by all local authorities of the same class. We diminish the risk of benefiting extravagance and penalising thrift if we insert in the Bill words which will substitute a three year average period for the one year single period in regard to the single rate. I trust that those

271
words of explanation will commend this Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the Committee as a whole.
Mr. Bevan: I very much sympathise with the intention which lies behind the Amendment. I think probably it will be of more value to take three years than to take one year. We are, of course, rather hidebound by these annual considerations, and it often happens that a longer period would be very much wiser. In this case, for the reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman, and for others which I am certain are apparent to him as well as to me, I am ready to accept the intention behind the Amendment. However, the language of the Amendment itself does not give effective expression to that intention. I believe hon. Members opposite have a form of words which they can move as a manuscript Amendment which will, in fact, give effect to that intention. If they move those words and if those words give effect to that intention, I shall be prepared to accept them.
6.30 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I am sure my hon. Friends and I are very grateful to the Minister for accepting our point of view. We thought there was some danger, if we adopted the principle "the more we spend, the more we get." We thought it wise to limit the risk by spreading it over a period of years. I am happy to think the Minister agrees with us. Therefore, although this Amendment is all right, I shall have other manuscript Amendments with the details of which it will not be necessary to weary the Committee. They merely carry out the intention indicated by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 5, line 22, after "pound" insert "per year."
In line 23, leave out from "the," to "receipt," in line 24, and insert "three financial years immediately preceding "
In line 25, at end insert, "for the authority per year."
In line 26, leave out "that financial -year," and insert "those financial years."—[Captain Crookshank.]
Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out "twice," and to insert "half as much again as."
272
The object of Clause 7 is to assist the ratepayers of the highly rated areas, in which more than the average housing work has already been done but in which there still remains housing work, which will add still further burdens to the rates. In such cases the Clause allows the Minister to cut down the rate contribution for completed houses by as much as one half, and to add that half to the Exchequer contribution. The object of the Clause is, therefore, to assist the housing authority which has an excessive amount of housing work done. For the purpose of picking up those highly rated areas, the Clause provides that such areas shall be those in which the general rate is, at least, 25 per cent. above the average general rate for That class of authority, because obviously the actual rate burden for a citizen only begins where the higher housing rate has resulted in a higher general rate. It would be inappropriate to come to the assistance of an authority already fairly well off, and which can afford to do a considerable amount of house construction without affecting its general rate. Therefore, it is the general rate which is taken into account.
For the purpose of picking up those highly rated areas in which more than the average housing work has already been done, there is the further criterion that the rate burden for housing alone is at least twice the average rate burden for that particuar class of authority. It has been represented to me that the second criterion should be altered, because in its present form it does not give the additional assistance to authorities who need it. For example, as it stands, according to the latest available figures, only one county borough, Barnsley, would qualify. Accordingly, the Government propose this Amendment, which would bring in those authorities whose housing burden was one and a half times the average housing burden of that class instead of twice. According to the latest figures available, this would bring in five county boroughs. I will give the Committee an idea of the authorities which will now have the additional benefit.
There are 83 county boroughs: in the Bill as it stands, only one would qualify for the additional Exchequer contribution; under the Amendment there will be five," an addition of four. There are 309 non-county boroughs: under the Bill only 14

273
would qualify; under the Amendment 19 qualify. There are 572 urban district councils: under the Bill 30 would qualify; under the Amendment 42 qualify. There are 475 rural district councils: under the Bill 16 would qualify; under the Amendment 19 qualify. The Metropolitan boroughs will be in the same position.
Mr. Medland: Will the Minister tell us on what basis the calculation is made, because there are different valuations and different standards of assessment? Is it on the basis of the. rate in the areas, or is it on the basis of rates per head of the population?
Mr. Bevan: I am afraid, in this case, it must be -rate valuation. The other consideration would give rise to all sorts of complications.
Mr. Medland: So does this one.
Mr. Bevan: I am sure it does. Whenever we approach local government finance we are in the middle of complications. Indeed, it will be our task to try to clear it up. We always have to make an assumption which I admit, with my hon. Friend, is entirely unwarranted by the facts, namely, that valuations are uniform throughout the country. Therefore, in speaking of the difference in rate poundages we are, in fact, speaking at the same time of the differential burden. I admit the weakness of the argument at once. Nevertheless, I am caught, and in the circumstances it is the only way in which I can express the additional housing construction burden. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to accept that rough and ready way of enabling the Government to give additional Exchequer contributions to those authorities who otherwise would not qualify.
Captain Crookshank: Could the Minister give us any estimate of what the probable cost would be per so many Thousand houses, or whatever it may be?
Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it is not possible to make any calculation of the burden on the Exchequer under the whole Bill, because it depends entirely upon the number of houses constructed. Those being the criteria, I am quite sure the higher the burden the more everybody would he;pleased.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 8.—(County council contributions.)
Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 6, line 37, at the end, to insert:
" (2) Without prejudice to their duties under the preceding subsection, the council of a county may undertake to pay to the council of any county district situated in the county, in respect of any house provided by the council of the district with the approval of the Minister, an annual contribution of such amount and payable for such number of years as may be specified in the undertaking.
(3) After the passing of this Act, no undertaking shall be given under subsection (4) of section one hundred and fifteen of the principal Act (which relates to the power of county councils to make contributions in respect of houses provided by the councils of rural districts).''
The purpose of this Amendment is to give effect to a promise I made the other day in the House on the occasion of the bringing in of Private Bills. There were, if hon. Members will recall, three Bills before the House. One of them was moved, and on that a Debate took place. There was in the Bill one Clause the purpose of which was to enable the county council to make a contribution towards their non-county boroughs and urban districts in respect of houses. I appreciate that there may be—I hope there will not be —some controversy on this matter. I hope, however, before I sit down to remove all cause for anxiety.
County councils at the moment are compelled to make a contribution to rural housing. At the same time, they make contributions towards water and sewerage schemes and, in some instances, towards hospital services, as well. But they have not the power to make contributions towards the housing costs of urban authorities and of non-county boroughs. It has been suggested that there may be some circumstances where a small authority would have an exceptional housing task to perform, a task in excess of its own strength, and that, in these circumstances, it might be in the interests of good planning and of quick house construction if the county rate were enabled to come to the assistance of the local rate. That would be, of course, entirely a matter for the county council to determine. The criticism which may be raised is that in that case the other authorities in the county area which had already discharged their housing burdens satisfac-

275
torily would have to make a contribution towards the provision of the houses for a particular authority. This criticism has validity but not much substance, because it is exactly the same criticism that can now be levelled in the case of rural housing, sewerage, water supplies, and, maybe, other services. Indeed, it would he extremely doubtful if any county council could be persuaded to use its county rate to assist a local authority in a county district which had been negligent It would only do so if the circumstances of the case were so appealing that the rest of the county could be convinced that the county rate ought to be used for this purpose.
There may be another apprehension, also, in the minds of hon. Members, and that is that the county council here is seeking to obtain special housing powers. That fear must be set against the background of some of the discussion we had last week. Some of the great county boroughs are apprehensive that the county councils are seeking to obtain housing powers which would deal with the problems of overspill or of marginal development on the boundaries of county boroughs. I know that apprehension exists in the minds of many local government savants. But I assure them this has no application to that, that it has nothing at all to do with it. I feel that where a large section of population has to be moved a considerable distance from the county borough that constitutes a new township not to be dealt with by the county borough. It is not necessarily a function the parent borough can adequately perform. It can deal with fringe development, because that is a case of the extension of its own services and of its own population, but where development has to jump a large distance, I think—
Mr. York: Could the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by jumping a large distance? Does he mean ten miles?
Mr. Bevan: I should say something like 10 or 15 or 20 miles—a long way away. A new township could not be said to he an organic part of the borough unit—
Mr. York: Contiguous or adjacent?
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Bevan: Contiguous would mean that the new township was connected with
276
the borough unit. If it were adjacent it would be near to it. Where it was contiguous it would be fringe development. Where it was adjacent—well, I cannot devise a definition on the spot. But I should say that the rough and ready principle to apply is, that where the new township is obviously self-sufficient, and where it has no organic connection with the parent borough, the parent borough should not interfere.
Mr. Sparks: May I ask a question, because it is a very important matter—
Mr. Bevan: I hope the hon. Member will excuse me. I should be out of Order if I were to argue the merits of this against the background of the controversy now running amongst the county boroughs, and I hope hon. Members will not do it.
Mr. Sparks: That was not my point. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he considers that the parent authority should not be asked to accept responsibility for rehousing all their surplus populations in far distant places. That to some extent conflicts with the requests being made, for instance, to certain Middlesex local authorities that they should go out long distances to develop housing schemes—
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is at once doing exactly what I asked him not to do. I do not want him to press the merits of that controversy, I am merely using it in order to try to convince hon. Members that the purpose of this Amendment is not, in fact, to give any one of the contesting authorities an advantage in the argument. It is an entirely different principle. It is merely in order to bring housing into line with other services to which the county councils can make a county rate contribution.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I rise only for a moment because some of us were extremely worried about those three Private Bills which were brought to the Floor of the House the other day. I myself have not had time to look at this Amendment. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that he is only dealing here with what, I think, was contained in those Private Bills, and that various other powers which infringed on other Acts which had great consideration in this House are not affected in any kind of way.
Mr. Bevan indicated assent
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: If that is so, then, as far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly. good case.
Mr. Walker: I regard the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Amendment as being somewhat adroit, because I feel that we are making a new departure in the Bill. It may sound all right in the way that the Minister has put it, but, in my opinion, and I have received a considerable amount of advice upon this matter, his proposals will work very adversely against those councils and boroughs which have taken an active interest in their housing schemes. We must recognise that certain councils have taken a definite lead in this matter, and have shown an exceedingly good example to the lackadaisical councils which have done little, or only that which they have been compelled to do. We have three corporations in my division and each has taken an active part in housing development. If this scheme is carried, the good councils will be somewhat penalised for their past activities.
We all know that in quiet country districts there is not the same amount of enthusiasm for housing, although the houses are probably now required just as much as in the urban areas. Evidently, the idea of the Minister is to work up the activities of these people by asking the county councils to render first aid, giving them advantages which have not been given to the enthusiastic activities of the larger councils. I am a member of a very small county council, and the penny rate does not come to £1,800. We are responsible for looking after and administering a sparsely populated area. I am referring to Westmorland where I live, and I can imagine a good many districts in that small county which have not yet awakened to the fact that rural houses arc required. I am envisaging a small village in the centre of my county which, under this Bill realises that it requires houses. The first step, evidently, will be to make a direct approach to the county council for a substantial contribution to carry out the work. Those who have shown enthusiasm and energy, and have done their job in regard to housing, because these quiet places are waking up, will have to help them to do their sob, and will. therefore, be making a double contribution
278
I have here a letter from the borough of Rawtenstall, which has done as good a job as any in connection with housing development. It is in Lancashire, which is a tremendous county, and I can imagine, as the writer of this letter imagines, small places coming under these proposals. which will be asking for substantial benefits to help them with their housing scheme. What will be the direct result It will mean that Rawtenstall, which has done its job and embarked on its own housing problem, will now have to pay, through county channels, towards helping others. We know the county councils are spending authorities, and that the other councils have to contribute towards expenditures they may make. I can assure the Minister that I am as keen as he about housing, but I do not like the idea of ratepayers having to pay twice over, firstly, for their own housing development, and, secondly, by making contributions, indirectly, through the county councils to enable some other authority to build houses. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter. I would prefer that he helped the smaller authorities direct from the Exchequer and nationalised housing, but if he cannot do that, I ask him not to make ratepayers pay twice over.
Mr. Braddock: I should like to thank the Minister for his very lucid explanation, which met the difficulty I had in mind. I think it is particularly valuable, as he has pointed out, that the county council has to make a decision in this matter. It is permissive, and there is no must about it, which is really the reply to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker). The Minister also mentioned water schemes. I understand that a Royal Commission was considering this matter in 1928, and that they empowered county districts to make an appeal to a Minister if called upon to contribute to another authority. I am not certain about this, but, if it is correct, it seems to me it might be a good safeguard in this connection, especially in view of the anxiety on the part of some authorities. I suggest to the Minister that a Clause of that kind might be included in the Bill.
Mr. York: I am feeling somewhat more happy about the Amendment than before the Minister spoke, but, like many hon. Members, being somewhat of a split personality in regard to non-county boroughs, I have to try to balance the claims of

279
the two parts of my constituency. Undoubtedly, the case which a county borough can make out on their own behalf is a strong one. The Minister is a Welshman, but I and my constituency are Yorkshire. and we strongly object, as all human beings must object, to paying for something for which we do not obtain the benefit. A non-county borough, in many cases, will be paying for something which it will not get. A non-county borough in my constituency will have a very large programme of housing and has as a result of what it has accomplished since the war ended, increased the rate burden by a penny in the pound. No doubt, before many years are out, that increase in burden will be multiplied. In addition, they are now going to be asked to pay for the less efficient or, at any rate, the less go-ahead urban areas in the county area.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Messer: The less able.
Mr. York: There seems to be some difficulty. The Minister shakes his head and the hon. Gentleman encourages me to go further.
Mr. Bevan: The authorities to determine this always will be the county councils, and, therefore, all persons who may feel aggrieved will be there to argue it out. I am quite certain that a county council would not devote any county rate to a negligent authority.
Mr. York: It is not altogether a question of negligence. It is a question of lack of ability, which is quite different from negligence I realise that the Minister is in exactly the same difficulty as I am in. I wish only to stress the fact that the efficient, go-ahead, non-county borough is getting the hard end of this stick. The non-county boroughs, particularly the progressive ones, are being continually knocked about by legislation in this House. In the Education Bill, the non-county boroughs had their educational facilities taken away from them. On that occasion, it cost the ratepayers of many of these non-county boroughs a great deal. My own constituency was one of the most glaring examples of that, and under this Amendment, it will cost them a certain amount more. My own view in this matter is that the Minister is giving unlimited
280
powers to the county councils to make agreements.
I should feel happier if the Minister would retain some supervisory power over the way in which these powers will be exercised by the county councils. I hope that the result of this Amendment will be that urban districts which are not up to the average of competence will not be able to make a case to the county council and get it through, but that the rural areas which are in need of assistance will get it. If that were so, perhaps it would be not quite as bad as we anticipated. I think that it is most unfortunate that this matter should arise out of what I might call an unholy contact between the Minister and certain promoting authorities who wished to put through Bills in this House. I hope that the next time there is legislation seriously affecting the financial status of non-county boroughs it will not be brought up on an Amendment in a Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, but will be tackled in a straightforward way, so that the whole of the local authorities concerned will have the time and opportunity to make their case fully and, if necessary, to inform their own and other Members of Parliament, so that the whole case may be properly put.
Mr. Haworth: I have had representations made to me about which I have felt some apprehension, but I feel much less apprehensive in view of the lucid statement which my right hon. Friend made in introducing the Amendment. At the same time, I still have one or two fears. The feeling expressed by the hon. Member who has just sat down that this matter has been rather rushed is one of them. Usually, in matters of this kind, preliminary discussions take place with the authorities likely to be affected. I do not think that discussions have taken place in this case with the authorities. It seems regrettable that this should be done so quickly. I hope that my right hon. Friend feels quite sure that this Measure is going to help in the provision of houses. I should be very loth to oppose any Measure if I were certain that it was going to do that, but I am not so sure of it in this case. If we take away responsibility from the authorities which now have that responsibility, will there be the danger that the backward

281
authority will leave the matter to the county? Will it pay them not to do anything and to rely upon the county coming along and making a grant at some later period? If that is to be the result, I want my right hon. Friend to consider very seriously if it will give him what he is hoping for.
I would like the Minister to explain what he really means by "fringe building." My local authority in Liverpool has a tremendous overspill, and I am bound to say that any efforts which we have made which meant trespassing on the county have not been met with any friendly feeling by the county. Anything which seems to strengthen the county in its territorial ownership is feared by us as something which will make it more difficult than at present to house our own people. I would like the Minister to elaborate a little on what he meant by "building on the fringe." Does he mean that he will encourage my local authority, for instance, to trespass on the county, and that we shall have facilities for housing our overspill provided that it is contiguous to our own city? I hope that when he has given his explanation, I shall be able to support the Amendment.
Mr. Messer: I cannot understand the feeling which has been aroused in opposition to this Amendment. I have listened very attentively, and have given some consideration to the points which had been made by the Opposition. I have heard, for instance, that Liverpool looks with suspicion on the Lancashire County Council because in any attempt which Liverpool has made to deal with its overspill population it has met with opposition by Lancashire. If Liverpool wants to buy land outside Liverpool for the purpose of building houses, the Lancashire County Council cannot prevent it. There cannot be any effective opposition. I understand that there is a possibility that a county borough council may want to extend its boundaries and build within its new boundaries, but surely if Liverpool wants to go outside its boundaries to get land on which to build houses there is nothing to prevent it doing so. The real point, I think, is that there are many local authorities who simply cannot undertake this work unless they get assistance from some source. What is proposed in this Amendment is that county councils should be
282
empowered to do with regard to urban building what they already have power to do with regard to rural housing. In principle, why should you agree that an urban district anywhere in a county should be called upon to assist by its rates in the building of rural houses and not be called upon to assist in the building of urban houses? I have not been able to find an answer to that yet.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The answer is the agricultural depression.
Mr. Messer: The answer is the agricultural depression, but it does not alter the fact that the urban districts are being called upon to pay twice, which is the argument used. They pay directly and they are also going to pay in the county rate, from which a county district will ask for a contribution towards the building of houses. One will not assume that the houses built within a given locality will be given only to people who live in that locality, for people move from place to place. What is more important with regard to this Amendment is that the Minister himself will have some control. A county council is not something separate from a county district. A county council decides that it will make a grant to a county district for house building and other districts can make a similar request. It should also be remembered that it is possible for members of a county council to prevent such a grant being given. Members of a county council are not drawn from one area to the exclusion of another, but they are drawn from all over the county.
I do not see why there should be objection to what is an obvious need. Here we have a count: district which is overbuilt. No more houses can be built in it, but there is pressure on that county district for housing accommodation. There is part of that county where there is land upon which the houses can be built, but the rate raising ability of that district is such as to prevent it building houses. Surely it is the right thing for the county council to come to the assistance of that county district and help it to build those houses so that the over spill population, the people who cannot find accommodation in the first county district, can find accommodation in the district which has been helped by the county. If that first county district, which

283
is overbuilt, wants its population housed, is there any other way or is there any better way than going to that larger authority for financial assistance?
I represent a borough which has 7,000 people on the waiting list for houses. If the local authority built on every available inch of land, which is spare land because of the blitz, no more than 4,000 houses would be built. What is to be clone with the rest of the population? The strange thing is that if a county which borders London has got some land, the London County Council can go into that county and build houses, but the Middlesex County Council cannot build houses within its own boundaries and cannot assist rural district councils to do so. Where are the overspill population of my constituency to find houses? They will find them outside the borough and they can only find them if another county district is given that assistance which enables it to do the job. Indeed, I think we ought to go further than is contained in this Amendment. There are certain -county councils whose problem can only be solved if they have concurrent powers with the borough; in other words, they should be in a position to build houses where the borough council is unable to do so. If we were an immobile population, a population remaining in one place, there might be something in the argument used, but for Heaven's sake do not let the Members of this Committee do anything that will prevent the building of houses. It is the most important political, social and economic question facing this country at the present time.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Hale: I rise with mixed feelings, for I am a member of a county council and a representative of a county borough. It is the measure of the importance of this matter that these mixed feelings should arise. The first point I am concerned about is the way in which this matter has been produced. I am speaking subject to correction, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the county councils have no housing powers except for rural or agricultural houses. If my reading of Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Housing Act, 1936, is correct, the power to subsidise houses in county rural districts has existed since 1936, and to the best of my knowledge,
284
and again speaking subject to correction, remained a dead letter, for the power was not exercised. The powers in Subsection (1) to make grants for agricultural houses have been exercised, but as far as I am aware there have been very few subsidised dwellings under Subsection (4) which it is now sought to amend. That gives rise in the suspicious mind of a lawyer to the further consideration—why is this Amendment proposed now? The Cheshire, Lancashire and Nottingham-shire County Council Bills were widely opposed throughout this House last week. They aroused very angry and different feelings, as they were proposing through the back door of a Private Bill to confer on those county councils the widest possible powers. The primary powers it was sought to confer are contained in this Clause. I am speaking subject to correction and I welcome an interruption at any moment.
Mr. Bevan: I do hope there is no misapprehension about this. When the Private Bill was before the House I made a promise, which I think was universally acclaimed, that, as the powers that were being asked for were powers, if it were wise to give them, which should be made of general application, I would put an Amendment down on the Committee stage of this Bill to confer such powers on all county councils. They are not powers to build houses. They are merely, as I described in my opening statement, tidying up powers to give county councils the right to make some sort of contribution towards the provision of houses by a county district, just as a council makes contribution towards other services in the county, and which can be exercised at the discretion of the county council, though only in such limited circumstances as appeals to them.
Mr. Hale: I am sorry to say that the Minister's interruption has increased rather than allayed my feelings about the merits of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a tidying up Clause. The answer to that was made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), that if it is desirable that the county councils should have housing powers, let them have them I think it is very undesirable that housing powers should be left in the hands of what may be a very incompetent rural district council,

285
who will continue to practise the art of building half a dozen houses here and there, using builders some of whom cannot read plans.
Mr. Bevan: If I may interrupt again, I am exceedingly anxious that the Committee should get this thing right. In the first place, it is considered undesirable to give the county councils building powers because difficulties would arise as to whether they were responsible for building houses or not in different areas. I would get no houses, because one would be waiting for the other. I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to Cast an aspersion on rural authorities, but I can tell him that at the moment they are much further ahead with their housing plans than urban authorities.
Mr. Hale: Let me deal with my right hon. Friend's second point before I deal with his first, because I want to protect my own reputation. I am not attacking rural authorities, because I act as solicitor and adviser to one or two, and I should be in serious trouble if they thought that I was attacking them in that way. What I said was that in many remote and lowly populated areas they have not the facilities and the experience to perform the very difficult evolutions which are required of them today in building houses without bricks.
With regard to my right hon. Friend's first point in that interruption, the cheers which he heard were for his proposition that if these powers are any good they should be given to all counties, and not those who are prepared to expend rates on the promotion of Private Bills. I am an apostle of the parish pump, and whenever can I rise to talk not of Athens but, normally, of Oldham. I am concerned with the problems of Oldham. It is a borough which is seeking to extend its boundaries, and in connection with this matter the Boundary Commission is sitting at the moment. The borough is now having to seek compulsory powers to buy land outside its area for housebuilding. I may be wrong, but, as I understand the position, if Oldham builds houses outside its area it can only get so much subsidy, but if a county district council builds houses in that same area, with the approval of the Minister, then a much higher subsidy can be given, indeed, a subsidy which is not limited by the Amendment. We agree with my hon. Friend the Mem
286
ber for South Tottenham that we should have houses, and that we should give encouragement, but as we understand it this is a part of the war between county councils and county boroughs. That is a. serious war, which has lasted since 1888.
Mr. Bowles: And my hon. Friend is on both sides.
Mr. Hale: This is not the first time that I have had a foot in both camps. One of my hon. Friends has an Amendment on the Order Paper, which was not called, which dealt at some length with the importance of the powers the Minister was seeking, and he accepted, with gratitude, the assurance which the Minister gave in relation to its point. Last week, one of my hon. Friends said, "We have an eight course dinner tonight, but the hors d'œuvre is off, the fish is off, the cheese is off, the coffee is off, the sweets are off and both vegetables are off, there are, however, roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, but the Minister is going to give us Spam." This is the Spam. I think we are entitled to a fuller explanation than we have had. I admire my right hon. Friend's eloquence and resilience, but I cannot give him the-prize for lucidity in regard to what he said when moving this Amendment. My mind may be turgid, but what he said did not carry conviction. If the borough. of Oldham has to build houses outside its area it is limited in subsidy, whereas if a county district council builds houses, of the same design, in that same area, there is no limit. That is very undesirable. In view of the way Private Bills were promoted at great expense, one cannot avoid the suspicion that the intention of county councils, in promoting those Bills, was to establish a foothold near county boroughs, to give themselves the right to argue in regard to the activities of the Boundary Commission.
Mr. Bevan: Is Oldham a county borough?
Mr. Hale: Yes, Oldham is a county borough.
Mr. Bevan: My hen. Friend said that I was not lucid. I thought I had made it clear that Oldham, in that case, would not contribute a farthing.
Mr. Hale: I know that, but the point is that Oldham is contemplating building, indeed, must build, houses outside its-

287
area, and that in respect of those houses it will be at an acute financial disadvantage compared with the houses built in the same area by a county district council. The Minister does not shake his head in disagreement. I understand that a county council can give an additional subsidy if the houses are built by a county district council, but not if they are built by a county borough council. I cannot find a definition of a county district council in this Bill. I think it might be a county borough—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate that is the difficulty which confronts the Oldham Corporation on which I should like some -assurance.
Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) said there was a war on between county councils and county boroughs, but I think non-county boroughs are also in the war. I have the honour to represent in this House a non-county borough, the town clerk of which has asked me to oppose this Amendment. I am also a member of the county council, whose clerk has asked me to support it. I shall, therefore, try to exercise my own judgment. With all due respect to the hon Member for Oldham, I do not think ought to regard this, matter purely from the point of view of parish politics. It is unfortunate that housing policy, or any other policy, should be mixed up in conflicts between the powers of local authorities. The real point behind this opposition is not really so much a financial one as that it might confer on county councils powers which may weaken still further the powers of other authorities.
Another Member complained that the matter is being rushed. I am glad that the Minister is moving quickly. Indeed, the complaint of some of us is that it has not been rushed quickly enough. One has to consider, on their merits, the actual -proposals which are being brought forward. It has been objected on the other side of the Committee that if the Amendment is passed certain county districts, particularly non-county boroughs, will pay twice over. I admit that, but they still have to pay twice over for many services —water, sewerage, rural housing—and there is no new principle involved. It may be that a certain financial burden will be added, but there is no new principle.
288
What is proposed, as an alternative by the hon. Member for Oldham would still mean that those authorities would have to pay twice over. The hon. Member says that the way to deal with this matter is to give to county councils powers to build. The Minister pointed out one serious objection to that. It county councils build then county district councils and non-county boroughs would still have to pay twice over, because they would still have to bear their share of the burden.
7.30 p.m.
It has been suggested that it power is given to the county council to contribute towards the expense of housing in a county district that would mean accepting the responsibility of the county districts. May I say how this would be dealt with by the county councils? The county councils would consider whether or not they should make a contribution by one test only—the ability of a particular county district to do it. That is how it operates in all the services. If the council are satisfied that the county district has sufficient resources to meet its obligation so far as housing is concerned, they will say, "We will make no contribution." If, on the other hand, they consider that without the assistance of the county council it is asking too much of a county district to have to meet this added burden, and that in fact the houses are needed, the county council will be able to meet the responsibility. They will not take the responsibility from the county council because they will insist that the county district shall bear a portion of the expenditure, and the responsibility will rest that way.
There is one matter, apart from the question of finance, which I believe is worrying non-county boroughs, and if the Minister could give an assurance on this point I think it would remove something of the objection. The Boundary Comissioners are to go to various areas, and there are some non-county boroughs who feel that they have a claim to take over some areas outside their boundaries but that if the county council has made a substantial contribution towards housing this would be used as an argument with the Boundary Commissioners against ceding territory to the non-county boroughs. If the Minister can say that this would not be so, and that the question of an extension would not be approached on these lines at all but

289
purely on the merits of the case, I think it would go a long way towards meeting the objection. I remember some years ago seeing a play entitled, "It's the Poor as Helps the Poor," but the principle behind this, is that the rich are to help the poor. Though I object very much to the very heavy contribution my own county has to make, I feel that we are very fortunate to be financially able to make that contribution. It is a principle that was applied in the Education Bill and one which may extend beyond the county council. I am sure it is sound, and personally I shall vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: It may be for the convenience of Le Committee if I intervene again at this point. I am anxious that we should not hold up the passage of this Bill, but that we should complete the Committee stage this evening. We are hearing a number of interesting arguments but I think I can shorten this discussion a little if I make a statement in answer to the last point. I am satisfied that this Amendment will have no effect upon the consideration of the extension of non-county boroughs. If hon. Members look up the directives contained in the regulations governing the conduct of the Boundary Commission they will see what is in fact involved, and this Amendment in no way modifies that. I am impressed by one argument used tonight on several occasions, which is that this Amendment has been introduced rather hurriedly—as hon. Members will recollect, it rose out of the discussion last week —and that the county councils and the non-county boroughs may not have had a proper opportunity of examining its implications. I am satisfied that unnecessary fears have been aroused and that these are not so much contributions to a Debate, as flags waving in a somewhat remote battle. I did my very best at the beginning to assuage the fears of the combatants, but they are more concerned with the battle than with the verdict.
I think that perhaps I might put matters right if, on the Report stage, I inserted the words, "with the consent of the Minister," and that that would meet every single objection. This does not appear in the Amendment at the moment. It would give an opportunity for aggrieved parties in each case to make
290
their representations, and would meet the substantial point that we have not given them sufficient time to consider the Amendment. With that assurance I hope the Committee will let me have the Amendment.
Mr. Gallacher: I have been wanting to take part in the Debate in order to raise a point of principle. I am sorry the Minister has had to introduce such an Amendment, but I can understand his reasons for doing so. It arises from the orthodox methods of financing housing. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) thinks that the local authorities and the county councils should operate no new principle with regard to financing. That is the unfortunate thing. It is necessary that there should be new principles if we are going to get the houses. Several hon Members have expressed their pleasure that this Clause is permissive. Without prejudice to their duties under the preceding Subsection, the county councils may undertake the responsibility, if it is desirable. Why not make it compulsory? In order to reassure us the Minister says he thinks that a county council would not take on responsibility if a county district which had the money was wasting its resources. Consider some of the hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, and the opinions they express, and some of the people they represent and the opinions they express—the county squire, for instance. What will he consider wasting resources on the part of a district council? The Tory squire will look upon anything which represents progress of any kind as wasting resources. There will be instances where although a progressive county council will be prepared to do everything possible to assist the district to get ahead with housing where the houses are most needed, a reactionary Tory county council will refuse to cooperate. In view of this I suggest that the character of finance in relation to housing is all wrong, and that a new principle has to be produced to place the full burden of responsibility on the national authority and thereby provide the county council and the district council with all the necessary finance to carry out their obligations.
Mr. Frank McLeavy: I should like to say a few words on the Minister's Amendment, chiefly because it was my privilege last week to move the

291
Second Reading of a Bill which sought to authorise the county council of Cheshire to carry out the provisions indicated in the Amendment. It is my desire to bring the discussion to the point at which I think the Amendment should be thoroughly examined. I am afraid it is a fact that hon. Members—on this side of the Committee in particular—have forgotten that this is a desire to use the financial resources within a county, for the purpose of providing for the ratepayers of that county facilities which they otherwise could not enjoy.
I ask the Committee to look at the position of district councils. In the main, two-thirds of their rate yield goes to the county council for major public services, so they have very little left for carrying out the normal public services which fall to be carried out by an authority, whether it be a municipal borough or an urban district council. It has been clearly pointed out that the county councils, under this Bill, will have an increased financial responsibility, because they are not only having to provide 30s. in connection with agricultural houses, as against 20s. under the 1936 Act, but the provision is extended to areas of low rent paying capacity, and it may well apply to some of the small municipal boroughs and urban district areas situated in the administrative counties. Unless the county council is permitted to come to the financial aid of those small authorities, they will not be able to provide for their ratepayers the houses which hon. Members on both sides of this Committee are anxious should be built as soon as possible.
To my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, I say quite frankly that if they took the trouble to read the Labour Party policy on this matter they would find that the established Labour Party policy, approved by the annual conference, is that the responsibility for housing should fall upon the shoulders of the major local government authorities. That was a very wise decision, because it is only the major public authority that has the financial resources necessary to meet this very serious problem. I warn the Committee that the provisions suggested in the Minister's Amendment will only go part way to meet the problems that will face the small authorities, and it will be necessary for
292
the Minister to come back to the House and ask for further legislation to enable the small urban district and municipal-boroughs to carry out their responsibilities in connection with public services. What have we done in connection with education? We have taken away from the small municipal boroughs their right to be an education authority. In the Police Bill we are proposing to take away—
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Douglas): This discussion must be confined to financial assistance by county councils.
Mr. McLeavy: I was only pointing out that we have taken away from local municipal authorities their right to be an education authority, and—
The Temporary Chairman: That is out of Order. There is no question here of transfer of functions.
7.45
Mr. McLeavy: I am only drawing attention to the fact that we have done these things because those authorities have not the necessary financial resources to maintain the services. It is surely quite clear to hon. Members of this Committee that it is mainly because of lack of financial resources that we have had to take that step. I regard the opposition from the county boroughs as anti-social. It is anti-social insofar as it seeks to prevent a county council from doing with its finances in its own area what the county borough is entitled to do in its area. It is an unjustifiable attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of a county council, and I want to make that point very strongly. County boroughs object to the county councils helping county districts because they are afraid that any financial assistance to county districts, which will help them to carry out their job more satisfactorily both to the public and to the Government, will lessen their chances in any application they may make for extension of boundaries.
This matter must be considered upon its merits. The financial position of county districts—and I speak with many years of experience in local government work, in connection with both county councils and county district councils—is such that unless we allow the county councils to give this financial assistance, the houses we require will not be built in the

293
county districts. When I was speaking last week on the Cheshire Bill I gave authentic figures which proved that a local municipal borough, with which I have had many years of association, will lose, unless they receive additional financial support from the county council, £1 75. 4d. per house. It is simply because they have not got the financial reserves. I believe that the time has arrived when the finances of the county councils should be used generally for the development of the whole of the administrative counties. In my opinion, this is a step in the right direction. It is a step which will ensure the district councils carrying out their responsibilities, and it is a step which I hope will be followed by further legislation to allow county councils to help district councils in connection with overspill population.
Mr. Butcher: The Minister's concession, to the effect that at a later stage he will insert the words "with the consent of the Minister ", seems to be a roundabout way of dealing with the very acute problem of assistance to those local authorities and county districts which, because of their lack of ability to raise sufficient funds, must receive a subvention from somewhere else. If, of course, a county district is behind in its housing because of dilatoriness, the county council would not, imagine, regard it as a suitable object for assistance, and, therefore, the reason must be lack of ability to raise funds. Under the proposal the Minister has brought forward two things are to happen. First, the county council is to be satisfied that it is a deserving recipient, and when the county council has so satisfied itself, it then goes to the Minister and asks his consent to give financial assistance. That, I believe, is the position which the Minister envisages. Surely it would be more straightforward if all authorities who were unable to finance their housing needs from their own resources were enabled to come to the Minister straight away. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) referred to mobility, and used that as an argument why the county council should assist the county districts. He is quite right, but the logical thing is to carry it still further and see that districts which cannot secure sufficient funds from their own resources, arc assisted on a national scale.
294
I am rather like the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York)—briefed by a non-county borough while representing a county. I am not sure whether to come down with the right foot or the left foot. In these matters it is much better to make the county authority come to determination with the country districts, and then submit the whole thing to the Minister. It will be better for authorities which are backward in raising funds to be able to come to the Minister straight away After all, it is to the Minister that their progress reports are made—not to the county council. If we cut out the county council and enabled the poorer authorities to be in direct relations with the Minister, it would be a great advantage.
Mr. McEntee: Like many other hon. Members, I also have a letter in my hand from my non-county borough. They object to this Amendment on grounds that have already been stated—that it has been rushed through too quickly, that it gives the county an additional financial power—not quite a new power—and that it has a depressing effect on non-county boroughs in getting on with their own housing schemes because they have to contribute something to other housing schemes. My constituency is similar to South Tottenham. Between 6,000 and 7,000 people are seeking housing accommodation which it is quite impossible to provide within the area, and consequently these people have to find accommodation elsewhere. The non-county borough that I represent is a county district within the county of Essex. The probability is that the Essex county council would say that Waltham-stow was sufficiently well off to provide their own accommodation for that part of the population which could not be provided with accommodation now. There would, however, be a surplus of people for whom accommodation could not be provided within the area of Waltham-stow, and accommodation must therefore be provided for them elsewhere. The natural thing was, as they were residents of the county, that the county should be asked to assist in getting accommodation elsewhere.
The logic would appear to be that the county council, having a responsibility for all the people within their area, might say that they would endeavour to get

295
another borough or another non-county borough, or an urban district or even a rural district to extend its building programme—with financial assistance from the county—to take the surplus population of Walthamstow or people similarly situated. 1 think that can be done, and, if it can be done, it would certainly relieve my borough. In spite of the tact that my borough objects to this Clause, I am supporting it because it would relieve places like Walthamstow with a surplus population to house. I hope it will be done. What is the alternative? Walthamstow can buy land elsewhere within the county and build houses for its surplus population there. The moment the houses are built, the financial responsibility will be ours and we will have to pay whatever subsidies arc required in addition to the actual cost of building the houses—the subsidies over a period of years in addition to those which the Ministry will give. We shall have all the financial responsibility, and the rates will go to the place where the houses are built. From our point of view that is a very bad thing.
The people of Walthamstow and other places ask us what we are going to do to provide houses for them. What is our answer? We cannot provide, but we can approach the county council, place the position before them and say to the county council that these people are not only our charge but the county charge. They are not only people living, or hoping to live within the borough of Walthamstow, but they are also people living or hoping to live within the county. This opens up a possibility for helping surplus population such as those I have spoken of. I hope the Minister will encourage county councils to use their powers in the way I have suggested to find accommodation for the very large number of people who are returning from the Services and getting married, and want to live where they lived before but cannot find accommodation to let. I think the Amendment is a good one and I hope it will be carried unanimously.
8.0 p.m.
Captain Chetwynd: I represent two non-county boroughs, one the borough of Stockton in the County of Durham, and the other Thornaby-on-Tees in the North Riding of Yorkshire,
296
and if I did not say something on this Amendment, I should find that, on my next visit to my constituency, I should not be in Stockton or Thornaby, but somewhere in the River Tees, which separates the two. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to consider the cases that have been put forward in the discussion on this Amendment. I hope that when he considers these cases, he will give full weight to small non-county boroughs with a very low rateable value, such as Thornaby-on-Tees. It is an intolerable burden that such a small borough should have to contribute twice to the housing of this country. I think that housing costs should be spread over the whole of the people by means of Exchequer grants. It is, for instance, most unfair that, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, a great city like Middlesbrough should go scotfree in a case of this sort, whereas the impoverished and very hard hit town of Thornaby-on-Tees should have to bear a double burden. I am glad that the Minister will consider such cases, and I hope he will give due weight to my remarks. The only other point I wish to make concerns the reduction in the local authority's contributions where the rateable value of the house is one and half times above _the average. Does that include the rateable value for its own houses, plus the rateable value it will have to contribute to the county authorities?
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to II ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 12.—(Contributions in respect of temporary housing accommodation provided in certain war buildings.)
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, to leave out Subsection (2).
This Clause deals with Government property to be taken over for the purpose of providing temporary housing accommodation. The Minister has to estimate whether there will be a profit or a loss to the local authority, and to make a grant accordingly. Under Subsection (2), the deletion of which I am moving in order to get some explanation of the provision, the Exchequer makes good the loss incurred by the local authority

297
only in so far as, in the case of a rural district, the loss exceeds£and in the case of other districts, £a year. There is nothing to show on what basis that notional loss or notional profit has been arrived at. I hope the Minister will tell us why those figures rather than any others have been inserted, and indeed I do not quite understand why any figures should be inserted, for there is either a loss or a profit, and I should have thought the actual figure could have been reached. I hope the Minister will enlighten us on the subject.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): The purpose of this Clause is the provision of temporary accommodation—the adaptation of these buildings for temporary purposes. Under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, where temporary provision is being made, the financial arrangements involve the local authority being responsible for a contribution, if a rural authority, of £6, and if an urban authority of £8, for each of the temporary houses provided under the Act. It was' felt to be only right that the financial arrangements that apply to the temporary provision of houses in that way should apply also to the temporary provisions being made under this Clause. It is for that reason that the figures of £6 and £8 are inserted.
Captain Crookshank: I am obliged to the Minister for explaining the genesis of this provision, but I am still not clear why it should be necessary. In the Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it was a question of building something, but here it is a question of existing buildings being used for the purpose. I should not have thought the cost was anything like the same.
Mr. Key: It is not a matter of cost even in the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, because under that Act the temporary houses belong to the Government and not to the local authorities. It was felt that the local authority should make a contribution towards the housing of the people coming under it, and those were the sums set for the purpose; hence, they are included in this Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 13.—(Amendment of section 3 of I & 2 Geo. 6. c 16.)
Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 10, line 29, to leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), and to insert:
" such rent as in the opinion of the council it would have been appropriate for the council to charge if the house had been provided by the council."
This Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment, intended to make quite plain that the maximum rent should conform with the rent which would have been charged if the house had been erected by the local authority. We think it is better to say that in the form set out in the Amendment rather than in the roundabout way in which it is said in the subparagraphs which it is proposed to omit.
Captain Crookshank: I agree that this Amendment makes clearer what is intended.
Mr. York: I presume that the new wording covers all existing legislation about the agricultural rent contained in the Housing Act referring to agricultural cottages.
Mr. Key: Yes, as far as I understand it.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I should like to be sure on this matter. At present, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there is a considerable element of doubt about the exact meaning of "rent" and the amount that can be charged under various Acts, particularly the Rent Restriction Acts as they apply to rural houses. The matter was dealt with in paragraphs 152–5 of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rent Control. There is a great deal to be said for clearing up these various doubts, and I should have thought the appropriate time to do so would be when legislation is brought forward to bring the various Rent Restriction Acts up to date. If the words of the Amendment achieve that end, I think the Committee ought to be told so authoritatively. If the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) is correct, these words affect the existing Acts, and not merely the one Act to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Key: I am sorry. It affects only the new houses, as I understand it, that were provided under the Act of 1938. The power is in that Act, The first sub-

299
section states that Section 3 of that Act shall have effect—
" in -elation to a new house completed in pursuance of arrangements made under that section after the passing of this Act,… as if, in subsection (1) thereof, for the words "not exceeding ten pounds "there were substituted the words "not exceeding fifteen pounds.""
Therefore, the rents of the new houses arc provided under that Act.
Mr. York: But this does not cover houses under Section 115 of the Act of 1936.
Mr. Key: No, only under the 1938 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, to leave out Subsection (3).
I understand that the object of the words in the Subsection is to prevent subsidy being paid in respect of new cottages held under service occupation. I do not want to go at length into the vexed question of tied cottages. The object of the Bill is to try to help towards a solution of the housing shortage in rural areas. If we are to maintain, let alone to increase, food production in the present emergency, housing in rural areas is one of the key matters.
I have had much experience and knowledge of the countryside, through the accident or good fortune of being, for five years, Minister of Agriculture. I visited not only the good farming areas but the difficult ones, and I have seen all sorts and kinds of conditions. I agree, broadly speaking, that in building new cottages in the country it is desirable to group them around existing villages. It is obvious that if people can live near neighbours we shall increase the amenities thereby of people living in the cottages, and make it easier to attract people into the industry, as well as to retain the younger people in the industry. It is much easier for a man to cycle to his work than it is for children to have to walk a distance to school. There are strong arguments, therefore, in favour of the policy of building around existing centres of population.
300
But there are many cases—I assert, from having seen them—in which, if we are to get an increased supply of high quality food, meat and particularly milk, we must have a certain number of cottages near farms, especially where the farm is being transformed from stock breeding to milk production. it will be essential to have a certain number of cottages built close to the farmsteads and some distance away from the villages. I cannot imagine that in the next five or six years, which really matter, local authorities will want, or will have the time or the resources, to build those individual cottages. I do not say there will be a very large number of them, but there will be an appreciable number. They will be scattered some distance away from villages. The energies of local authorities will be concentrated upon building blocks of cottages in or near existing villages.
The question arises how to provide the minimum number of such individual cottages. It is already difficult to see what inducement the private owner will have to build a cottage at all under the earlier Subsections of the Clause. Under the proposals of the Government he is heavily penalised, compared with the local authorities, because the local authorities will get £28 a year for 60 years while the unfortunate private individual will have £15 a year for 40 years, for building the same kind of cottage. As long as this Subsection remains in the Bill, private owners who build cottages and take advantage of the subsidy will only be able to let the cottage, at the low rent prescribed in the Bill.
It is already agreed that local authorities will lose heavily, at present costs of building, in addition to having to pay their local contribution to the rates. The Government subsidy will not meet the cost by a long way, especially if they let the cottage at an agricultural rent. The private owner will not be able to let a cottage he has built at more than the low agricultural rent, so clearly his annual loss will be even greater than that of the local authority. Once having let the cottage, what happens to it? It immediately comes, I understand, under the Rent Restrictions Acts. The private owner will not be allowed to increase the rent, even if the price of money falls. He will have built cottages for

301
the population as a whole and, in the great majority of cases, will not be able to ensure that the cottages are used for the purpose For which they were designed, to enable him to run his farm with the staff required.
Under the first two Subsections there is no inducement to the private individual to build any of these cottages, and I cannot see anyone doing it. The only advantage that the private individual may have in. building a cottage, if he were to get the subsidy, niggardly though it is, to help him to build, on top of what I have spoken of at first, would be to ensure that in turning the farm over from stock raising to milk producing he could be sure of having a stockman in his employ. The effect of the Subsection is, therefore, to render completely nugatory the whole apparent object of the rest of the Clause. [Laughter.]
The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) laughs, but I do not think there is anything to laugh at. We are considering the housing of people in order to help the production of food. Either the Government in bringing in this Bill, and this particular Clause, believe it will serve some purpose, or they are doing it as window dressing. I have shown, I think, that as long as Subsection (3) remains, this Clause is nothing but window dressing, because it will not produce a single cottage. I believe that a certain number of these cottages are required for service occupation in the sort of circumstances I have outlined, where you are dealing with shortage and the necessity for transforming the system of agriculture in some remote areas from what it has been in the past to what is required now. Because, if this Clause is maintained, we shall not achieve that result, I am moving this Amendment.
Mr. York: I can hardly believe that any hon. Members of this Committee really think that tied houses, in one form or another, are not an essential part of industry. I have never yet heard anybody argue that the bank manager's house, the signalman's house or any of the other categories of tied houses, should not be tied. It appears to me, and to many of my hon. Friends, that the agricultural industry is singled out as the target for those who believe, or say they believe, that tied cottages are neither necessary nor socially desirable. I feel strongly about this dis-
302
crimination against the agricultural industry.
In regard to the costs of production in agriculture, we have before us in the industry heavy capital commitments to meet in the near future in order to carry out not only the immediate but the long-term policy of this Government, and it is the hope and desire of the Ministry of Agriculture that production costs shall be lowered. It is an undoubted fact that many isolated farms which are going over to milk production for the first time will require the presence of a cowman on the farm itself. I realise that where a farm is in a village, it is possible to provide the cowman with a house within measurable distance of the farm itself? but a very large number of farms in this country are not in villages, and therefore there will have to be houses built upon the farms themselves. The cost of a house at present is probably somewhere about £1,200. Under this Clause it will be impossible for a farmer to build that cottage on his farm except at the full cost of £1,200. Therefore, the interest upon the money which he has to borrow to build that house—for it cannot come out of profits will be a direct charge upon the costs of production of his milk. I say that if this Government wishes to see the cost of production lowered, one of the ways in which they should not tackle this problem is to force the farmer to provide the total of the present high costs of building without coming to his rescue.
There is another point in regard to the prejudice which hon. Members opposite have against the agricultural tied cottages. Speaking generally, the one class of skilled farm worker who will not obtain a modernised or new house in the immediate future will be the skilled cowman or stockman. I feel it quite wrong that the man who is, perhaps of all agricultural workers, most in demand at present, should be the man with the least chance of obtaining a modern house in the next two or three years.
I have two alternative suggestions to make to the Minister. I am trying to believe that his mind is not altogether fixed upon this matter. I am trying to believe that he would be open to suggestions. My first suggestion is that he might be inclined to accept a compromise in this matter whereby a farmer could, in return for being given the subsidy upon

303
two houses, and upon his building two houses, be allowed to have one house tied and the other house free. Alternatively, I would suggest to him that he might consider that, where the war agricultural committee or its successor has come to the conclusion that a house is an absolute necessity upon a detached farm—detached in the sense of not being in the village—a certificate or other information from that committee should be sufficient authority for the Minister of Health, or perhaps the Minister of Agriculture, to allow a subsidy to be payable upon that house. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider those suggestions if his mind is not already completely turned to stone on the matter? That is all I have to say in support of my right hon. Friend, who put a moderate and a practical case, and I hope that the Minister and the Committee will realise that this is not so much a political problem as a problem of production.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I support the arguments in favour of this Amendment. I know that a great many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite look on an Amendment of this kind with the gravest suspicion, because they think it is an attempt to revive, in stronger form, at a critical moment, the arguments about tied cottages.
Mr. Alpass: We do.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: That feeling is obviously endorsed by the other side, and I am glad that I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I well recognise the risk of putting forward this type of Amendment where it attracts exactly the type of feeling expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and therefore I hope he will recognise the fact that in speaking for this Amendment, I am not doing so in order to raise this very old controversy. Whether we think that tied houses, in principle, are right or wrong, at the present moment—and after all this Bill deals with the present moment and the immediate need—we cannot do without them in the countryside. Of course, I know the old prejudices. They are based on many misconceptions on one side and on the other from bitter experience. But there are a great many different forms of tied houses—Downing Street is one, Chequers is another, and Admiralty House used to be another.
304
In my own county we have a system of letting out grazing far detached from the farms where the farmer is the owner of the stock which will make use of that grazing. In the past, with the wonderful hay crop we get in Somerset, it was necessary in many instances that close attention should be given to the stock. Now we are using those same grazings far detached from the central farm for milk production and stock feeding. I live in one of the large valleys of the Mendips and I know what goes on around me. Unless we can find houses for the men who have to be on the spot to look after the stock, we shall be under a very serious handicap. If the Committee really wish to put food production and milk production under a handicap, let them resist this Amendment. If they wish to assist it, let them support the Amendment. In forestry close attention on the spot is needed. One does not just plant several hundred acres of trees and leave them; they have to be watched. Not only have vermin and rabbits to be dealt with, but the danger caused by people who are over-careless in dropping lighted matches when they light pipes and cause fires and a great deal of damage, have to be guarded against. What is the position on that sort of holding without a cottage on the spot?
The Amendment does not raise the grave principle of the tied cottage, but the question of how the crop can be grown and looked after and brought to maturity. We are raising by this Amendment, not the old argument of whether it is or is not right to have a tied cottage at all, far from it. During this period when it is of vital necessity that we should produce milk and stock and look after our crops and produce various crops, we must have houses as quickly as we can possibly get them. I beg the Minister not to look on this Amendment with the old bias predominant in his mind. He told us how the rivers run down the steep slopes of Wales but never said how he came down, let him consider this Amendment free of old prejudices and do not let any Member of the Committee imagine he will be doing anything else but hindering the production of food it this country in the most efficient manner if he resists this Amendment, for that what he will be doing.
Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members will appreciate that this is the only instance in the Bill where the Government are providing State money for houses owned by private persons. I must confess at once that this breach was made in the general strategy of the Government's housing policy by me with considerable reluctance. I am temperamentally indisposed to provide public money for private property. My temperamental indisposition is fortified by philosophical reflections.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: And logical reflections?
Mr. Bevan: And logical reflections. The logic is disclosed or written by the development of the philosophy.
I was very much impressed by the considerations the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has advanced and which I have heard from some of his hon. Friends behind him, that in certain circumstances it is necessary for cottages of this sort to be made available in agricultural areas. Hon. Members will, therefore, see that the subsidy has been raised from £10 to £15. Furthermore, these cottages will attract a higher rent than they traditionally are charged. They will be modern cottages. They will be occupied by skilled agricultural workers who, therefore, will receive the highest agricultural wage and so the rent to be obtained by the owners will be higher than the rent normally paid in agricultural areas for agricultural cottages. In addition to the £15, the owner will receive a high rent. Some of the rents vary from 3s. to 4s. a week, whereas the net rent of these new houses, if it is a comparable rent with that of the local government houses, is about 7s. 6d. These cottages are to be erected at the rents which are paid for analogous cottages in the ownership of the local authorities and, therefore, will attract a rather higher rent than is normally charged for such cottages. The revenue that the owner will have will be the £15, plus this rent. It is perfectly true—and I would not hide it—that those two revenues together would not be sufficient to meet the capital cost of a house of this sort. But is the owner of the property to make no contribution at all? Is he to get a house free? After all, the house will be a part of his farm property. It will add to the capital value of his holding, and is it not reasonable to ask him to
306
make some contribution to it? Hon. and right hon. Members opposite seem to me to be quite unreasonable.
The further argument is that unless we make these cottages tied, they will be of no use because they will not be built. The answer to that surely is, first, that the existence of these tied cottages is an expression of housing scarcity. If there were sufficient houses in rural areas for all the agricultural workers, the category of the tied cottage would disappear.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I thought I had made it clear that it was not merely a question of sufficiency in numbers but largely a question of siting. It is the special case for which we are pleading.
Mr. Bevan: Then the hon. Member is not doing me the justice of listening to what I am saying, because if there were sufficient cottages in the agricultural areas, the worker in this particular cottage would suffer from no fear, because if he were dismissed from his employment, and dismissal carried with it the surrender of his tenancy, it would involve no fear that there would not be another house to which to go. The odium that attaches itself to the "tied" cottages is an expression of the general housing scarcity in rural areas. Therefore, if we attain our ideal, and not only our ideal but our realisable objective, of providing sufficient cottages for all agricultural workers, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to face the problem from which they have been running away for 150 years, that is, how to provide conditions of employment in the agricultural industry, and relations between the farmer and his workmen, that will attract individuals to live near the farm. where they work. So that, in fact, hon. Members opposite are now asking me to make a concession to generations of neglect by. them of their agricultural workers, and to impose, in the next two or three years, whilst the housing scarcity still exists, a restriction upon the agricultural worker which is as repugnant to them as to us.
Furthermore, the agricultural industry must, at some time or other, start to live on its own feet. If the provision of these cottages is necessary for the agricultural industry, that is legitimately a charge upon the industry, not on the Ministry of Health. Other industries have to purchase special housing property. Why should we always have to

307
rush to the rescue of this one? We know the reasons, but it would be slightly outside the boundaries of this Debate to discuss them. Quite frankly, I gave this matter every consideration before putting this Subsection in the Bill, and at this stage I can make absolutely no concession whatever.
Mr. Turton: We would have expected the Minister to have informed the agricultural industry tonight of how agricultural cottages are being provided. Under his administration, in the last seven months, he has provided 35, and that is the policy he is putting forward. This proviso of the Minister's is, on hi own argument, quite unnecessary.
Mr. Stubbs: Will the hon. Member say how many cottages the party on his side of the Committee built in recent years for farm workers? They did not build 300, and they charged the farm workers 15s. a week.
Mr. Turton: Under the Housing Act, 1938, we built all the agricultural cottages that have been built in recent years.
Mr. Stubbs: How many?
Mr. Turton: I do not carry about all the statistics. Let the hon. Member go to the Library and find out. The Minister has built 35 houses in rural areas in seven months, and with his policy he will not build many more. Where agricultural cottages are wanted, especially today, is where it is desired to increase milk production. The Minister is Minister of Health as well as Minister of Housing. I do not know if he is anxious to see more milk produced in this country. I feel sure that as Minister of Health he takes an objective interest, if not a subjective one, in the question of the milk drunk in this country. During the war years it has been the marginal farms that have changed over from store cattle to milk. These farms are a long way from the villages. The Minister is to condemn those who do the milking on these farms to travel three or four miles on a bicycle every morning in order to do the early milking, and to travel the same distance at night. That is the reality of the situation the Minister has to face.
8.45 p.m.
I regard this proviso as unnecessary. If you get a Minister who says he will
308
never help the private owner or the "tied" cottage in any event, he does not require this proviso. It only operates when the district council are satisfied that they cannot provide a house and it is reasonable for the private owner so to do. It is then, under Clause 3, submitted to the Minister, and the Minister has to be satisfied that it is a good case for a grant. Surely, in those cases there is sufficient protection for him, holding, as he does, such strong views, to remove this proviso. But perhaps he fears that he will not be very long in power to carry out the administration of the pleasure. That may be the reason for the proviso. He may think that some other Member either on 'the other side of the Committee or on this side may be Minister of Health. We believe that the removal of this proviso is necessary, because we can make a case in respect of marginal land for the building of service cottages attached to farms that are to produce milk. It may not be the case in Wales, but I can take the Minister to the upland areas of the Yorkshire Dales where these service cottages are a vital necessity to food production. If this Amendment is defeated, less milk will he produced in the country, and the housing conditions for agricultural workers will not be so good as they would be if this Amendment were carried.
Mr. McEntee:. I have listened very attentively to the discussion and I have tried to reason the matter out for myself. I was particularly interested in the observations of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton), who was chiding the Minister for having produced only a small number of houses in a short time. I have been long enough in the House of Commons-19 years—to remember that nearly all that time the party opposite were in power. Had they done their duty during all that period there would not be any necessity for this Measure. I am wondering why the country should find for the farmer a place to house an essential worker on his farm. We might just as well be asked to find a house for the essential cows on his farm. We are asked to house the stockkeeper but not to house the stock. Yet without stock the farmer will not get his profit. Without the stockkeeper he cannot get his profit either.
If he gets all the profit, and he most certainly does, then it is up to him to pro-

309
vide the means by which he gets it. It is obviously part of his duty to provide accommodation on the spot where he wants it Frankly, I am amazed to hear that they expect public money to be put into a fund to enable certain selected people in the community to provide a profit for themselves. Why should a farmer be different in this regard from a builder, an engineer, or any other producing manufacturer in this country? One is manufacturing milk, if you like, and another is manufacturing houses for people in the city, or engineering products which the farmer himself will use. Why we should be expected to provide houses to enable the farmer to take all that he does take of the profit resulting from the tied houses, and not provide similar accommodation for other people in the country, I have always failed to understand. I hope nobody on this side of the Committee will be foolish enough to vote for this Amendment.
Mr. Austin: I seek elucidation from the Minister on one point only. The Minister referred to the probability of rents for agricultural workers rising from 3s. or 4s. to 7s. I would like his view in regard to these proposed increases in rent for the cottages of agricultural workers, when their wages standard is £10s. Surely, if the Minister is to authorise an increase in rent, he must bear in mind that the rent should be commensurate with their present earnings.
Mr. Bevan: The answer to that is that this matter is already being given consideration. Subsidies for agricultural houses are based on the low wages in agricultural areas.
Mr. York: I think there has been a misunderstanding about this matter. The Minister said that the reason why the cottages were not there, was because of the neglect of the owners in the past. He entirely missed the point of our argument. The point is that over the past seven or eight years the emphasis upon milk has become more and more pronounced. In my. own village no fewer than three, and I think possibly four, farms which beforehand were stock farms requiring the attention more of the farmer than of the expert milkman, have gone over to milk. The reason why the milkman's cottages are not there, is because there was no need for them before. The reason why we consider that the present
310
subsidies, at a temporary level, should be given now is in order to get over these se next two or three years of high costs. Then we hope that the building costs will tall to such a reasonable level that the cost of a house will not be an unnecessary cost upon the industry.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister in my experience is not renowned for taking the trouble to answer arguments advanced from these benches He has perhaps some slight excuse tonight, because he was not present at the beginning of what I had to say. If he had been, he would realise—perhaps he will realise if he reads HANSARD tomorrow—that the speech he made had very little relevance indeed to the argument I produced. I propose to repeat that argument for his advantage, and to comment also on some arguments he has used. I repeat that I based my case for omitting this Subsection, on the circumstances that have arisen lately, and the pressing need at the present moment for the maintenance of food production and on the repeated requests by the Government for increased supplies of food, particularly milk. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) pointed out, the necessity for these tied cottages, scattered in ones and twos in isolated areas throughout the country, has arisen owing to the change -in the traditional methods of farming which have been imposed upon us by the requirement of additional supplies of milk.
Let me tell the Minister of Health that there is no part of this country which requires this provision of cottages more than his own country of Wales. If he will take the trouble to travel about his country, as I have done in the last five years, and consult the people who arc responsible for trying to meet this insistent demand of the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture for increased supplies of milk, he will find that every district committee which is trying to get this increase will say that the key is more labour and that means more cottages. We have succeeded, during my period of office arid up to date, very largely through billeting on farms members of the Women's Land Army, and Italian prisoners of war, and now, I suppose, to some extent German prisoners. That is not a process that can continue for ever. It is

311
not a process that ought to continue for any appreciable period once we can get cottages built. We will not replace the German prisoner or the member of the Women's Land Army by building a cottage in the village. The characteristic of upland farms in Wales—not only in Wales but also in Yorkshire, Northumberland, Derbyshire and other places—where we are trying to get milk produced, is that they are a long way from the village. Hitherto, there has usually only been the farm house, because not much labour is required on a farm, if the farmer is merely producing store cattle—not as much as is required if the farmer is producing milk. Therefore, there is a very definite need. I suggested before the right hon. Gentleman came in, that we could not expect local authorities to build these houses. They would concentrate on building houses in the villages where there is still a great demand. Therefore, we should have to provide some alternative. The obvious alternative is either the landlord, where he owns an estate, or else, as in the great majority of cases in Wales, the owner-occupier.
9.0 p.m.
The owner-occupier in Wales is, on the whole, a small man. He has not the capital resources to enable him to undertake housing for charitable purposes, and the provision of the earlier part of the Clause is wholly inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some imaginary figures of rent. He said that the private individual, when he built a cottage under this Clause and got his subsidy of £15, would be able to let it for 10s. a week, but that is not the case. Anyone who builds a cottage and accepts the subsidy will not be allowed, under the terms of the Clause, to let it for 10s. a week. The right hon. Gentleman, carried away by his enthusiasm, forgot what he himself said on Second Reading. The whole object of this Bill, he said, was to get houses built and let. Let me quote his own words:
" For the standard house, the assumed average net rent is 10s. a week in urban areas and 7s. 6d. in agricultural areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1946;
420, c. 344.]
The Parliamentary Secretary, a few moments ago, moved an Amendment to this Clause providing that the rent to be charged for these houses was to be the rent settled by the county council or local
312
authority as an average rent for these cottages, and the average rent is defined by the right hon. Gentleman himself as 7s. 6d. and 10s. Therefore, the whole case which has been made about the financial arrangements which would enable private individuals to build falls to the ground.
Mr. McEntee: No, that is not the Minister's argument. It is 7s. 6d.
Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman said 10s.
Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate. I said, in the first case, that the capital expenditure of the farmer on the house will be serviced by £15 subsidy per year and 7s. 6d. in rent, which is the rent the local authority would charge for a comparable house, and then an addition which he himself ought to make because of the increase in the capital value of his own. property.
Mr. Hudson: We shall see. It is within the recollection of the Committee and certainly I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say 10s.
Hon. Members: No, 7s. 6d.
Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that I said that the rents of tied cottages in a great many parts of the country at the moment are at the rate of 35. to 4s. a week. In future, when a house of this sort is going to be serviced to that extent; we think he should pay 7s. 6d. in rent, and that would be sufficient to provide the cottage.
Mr. Hudson: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say 10s. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It makes no difference at all. Even supposing it is 7s. 6d., the ordinary small farmer in Wales, the owner-occupier who requires this cottage, is not going to be in a position to pay the sum that will be required to meet the financial charges of this expenditure.
Mr. Stubbs: But the right hon. Gentleman opposite wants 15s.
Mr. Hudson: I maintain that this provision will be absolutely useless, and I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try, between now and the Report stage, to see whether there is not some modification possible which would meet the case. There is no question about the need. Let the Minister ask his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who will not

313
get the food production unless he gets the cottages, and no one can he expected to provide the cottages on the present financial arrangements. Therefore, I hope. the Minister, for the sake of food production and not for the sake of party politics, will try to see if something can be done.
Mr. Bevan: I am very anxious to meet any reasonable claim made from any part of the Committee, but the claim made now is unreasonable. The capital value of the subsidy of £15 per house per year, and the rent which the owner would be expected to receive from the tenant, would be equal to a sum of more than £800. Surely, it is reasonable to expect the owner of the property to make the additional capital contribution necessary to construct the cottage? The fact is that the claim which is now being made is one which I am certain no other industry in this, country would ever make. Further more—
Mr. York: Surely, every industry in this country is being indirectly subsidised by this vast subsidy to local authorities.
Mr. Bevan: There is no industry in this country which has received such a substantial amount of subsidy as the agricultural industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "For the landlord."] Yes. I do not want to be acrimonious, but I am bound to tell bon. Members that I have reserves in depth about this if they want them. The argument, up to now, has been proceeding on a very wide basis, but what the Committee is actually asked to delete is Subsection (3). That Subsection has no relationship at all to subsidies; it is concerned only with whether the house is to be a tied cottage or not. We have made our position perfectly clear. We cannot hand out public money and tie agricultural workers in this way, as they have been in the past. It is repugnant to us in every degree and, therefore, no concession can be made.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 125.

Division No. 103.]

AYES

9.8 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Collindridge, F.

Gordon-Walker, P. C

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Collins, V. J.

Grenfell, D. R.

Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Grierson, E.

Alien, A. C. (Bosworth)

Cook, T. F.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Gruffydd Prof. W. J.

Alpass, J. H,

Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Guy, W. H.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Corlett, Dr. J

Hale, Leslie

Attewell, H. C.

Daggar, G.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Austin, H. L

Daines, P.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Ayles, W. H.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Bacon, Miss A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Haworth, J.

Baird, Capt. J.

Deer, G.

Herbison, Miss M.

Balfour, A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Holman, P.

Barstow, P. G

Diamond, J.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Barton, C.

Dobbie, W-

Horabin, T. L.

Battley, J. R.

Dodds, N. N.

House, G.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Donovan, T.

Hoy, J.

Berry, H.

Douglas, F. C. R.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Dribarg, T. E. N.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Binns, J.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Irving, W. J.

Blyton, W. R.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Boardman, H.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Janner, B.

Botlomley, A. G.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Bowen, R.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

John, W.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Fairhurst, F.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Farthing, W. J.

Key, C. W.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Fletcher, E, G. M. (Islington, E.)

King, E. M.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Follick, M.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Kinley, J.

Buchanan, G.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Kirby, B. V.

Burke, W. A.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Kirkwood, D

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Gallacher, W.

Lang, G.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Lavers, S.

Callaghan, James

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Lee, F. (Hulma)

Chater, D

Gibbins, J.

Leslie, J. R.

Chetwynd, Capt. G R

Gibson, C. W

Levy, B. W.

Cluse, W. S

Gilzean, A.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Cobb, F. A.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Cooks, F. S.

Gooch, E. G.

Lindgren, G. S

Collick, P.

Goodrich, H. E.

Lipson, D. L.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Pearson, A.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Logan, D. G.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Symonds, Maj. A L.

Longden, F.

Perrins, W.

Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

Lyne, A. W.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

McAdam, W.

Popplewell, E.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

McAllister, G.

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

McGhee, H. G.

Randall, H. E.

Thorneycroft, H.

McGovern, J.

Rankin, J.

Tiffany, S.

Mack, J. D.

Ranger, J.

Timmons, J.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Reeves, J.

Titterington, M F.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Tolley, L.

McKinlay. A. S.

Rhodes, H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Richards, R.

Turner-Samuels, M.

McLeavy, F.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

MacMillan, M. K.

Robens, A.

Viant, S. P.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

Wadsworth, G.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Walkden, E.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Walker, G. H.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Royle, C.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Marshall. F. (Brightside)

Scollan, T.

Warbey, W. N.

Mathers, G.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Watkins, T. E.

Medland H. M.

Segal, Sq -Ldr. S.

Watson, W. M.

Messer, F

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

Weitzman, D.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Mitchison, Maj. G- R.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Montague, F.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.

White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)

Morgan, Dr. H. B

Shurmer, P.

Whiteley Rt. Hon. W.

Morley, R.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Wigg, Col. G. E

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Simmons, C. J.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Skeffington, A. M

Wilkins, W. A.

Mort, D L.

Skinnard, F. W.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Moyle, A.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Nally W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Williams. D. J. (Neath)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Solley, L. J.

Williams, W. R (Heston)

Noel-Buxton, Lads

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Willis, E.

O'Brien, T.

Sparks, J A.

Yates, V. F.

Oldfield, W. H.

Stamford, W

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Oliver, G. H.

Steele, T.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Orbach, M.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Zilliacus, K.

Paget, R. T.

Strachey, J.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Strauss, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T

Stross, Dr. B

Mr. Joseph Henderson and captain Blenkinsop.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Stubbs, A. E.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Aitken, Hon. Max

Gammans, L D.

MacLeod Capt. J.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Baldwin, A. E.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Barlow, Sir J.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G

Marples, A. E

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Gridley, Sir A.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

Grimston, R. V.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Bennett, Sir P.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Maude, J C

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'gc)

Mellor, Sir J.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)

Harvey, Air-Comdre- A V.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Bower, N.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Nutting, Anthony

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Holmes, Sir Stanley

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hope, Lord J.

Osborne, C

Butcher, H. W.

Howard, Hon. A.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Carson, E

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.

Raikes, H. V.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

Hurd, A.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Rayner, Brig. R

Cooper-Key, E. M

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Jennings, R.

Renton, D.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Keeling, E. H.

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Robinson, Wing-Comdr- Roland

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Lambert, Hon. G

Ropner, Col. L

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Langford-Holt, J.

Ross, Sir R.

Davidson Viscountess

Law, Rt Hon. R. K

Sanderson, Sir F

Digby, Maj. S. W.

Legge-Bourke. Maj E. A H

Savory, Prof. D. L

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Lennox-Boyd A T

Scott, Lord W.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Lindsay, M (Sollhull)

Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)

Duthie, W. S.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Snadden, W. M

Eccles, D. M.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Spence, Maj. H. R.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

Erroll, F. J

McCallum, Maj. D.

Sutcliffe, H.

Fraser, Maj. H. C P. (Stone)

Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)

Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Teeling. William

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

York, C.

Thorneycrott, G. E. P.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Touche, G. C.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J

Turton, R. H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Vane, W. M. T.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Walker-Smith, D.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Question put, and agreed to.

"Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. York: I want to raise criticism of the whole of this Clause on lines somewhat different from that which we have just been discussing. I do so because I perceive here an attempt on the part of the Government—and I do not blame this Government any more than past Governments—to stabilise the standard of living and the wage level of the agricultural industry at a level below that of urban areas. This Clause sets out that the agricultural worker is not able to pay the same rent as an urban worker, and, therefore, in order to assist him, the local authority concerned with the provision of a house for him must receive a higher subsidy. Indeed, the Minister went so far, I think, as to say that the 7s. 6d. level was a particular level for what he called the lower income wage earner. I do not think I misinterpret him in saying that.
Why is this? I think that there are three reasons. One I have already given, that the Government wish to maintain this lower wage level in the agricultural industry. Secondly, it is becoming a tradition in trade unions and in industrial circles that the agricultural wage shall be maintained below that of other industries —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Let me give an instance of what I mean. Whenever the agricultural worker gets a rise in pay, that is the reason given for every other union to ask for a rise in the pay of the workers it represents.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not keeping to the Clause.
Mr. York: I have been led astray. I will come back to my own argument which, I think, is very relevant to the Clause. I have given two reasons. The third reason is that the Ministry of Health allows itself what I call a "rural prejudice "against rural areas. That is why I am making this protest on this Clause. I do not think it is for the benefit of the agricultural workers that this differentiation should continue, and I am quite certain that progress in modernisation in the industry is kept back because
318
of this very reason, because the wages are kept lower the rents are kept lower and—
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has not been led astray. He is deliberately setting his own 1 foot on the road to ruin. This Clause has nothing whatever to do with subsidies for agricultural cottages. It relates specifically to the provision of subsidy for privately owned cottages, and has no relation to the general level of agricultural wages.
Mr. York: I am sorry. I was muddling the two things up. Of course, the argument is exactly the same, whichever instance I use. I am sorry that I was in this case—
Mr. Bevan: We have left Clause 3. The argument to which we are listening would have been strictly relevant to that Clause. It is wholly irrelevant to Clause 13.
The Chairman: I rather took that view.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: Might I suggest, if what the right hon. Gentleman stated was correct, that the argument my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) was endeavouring to use would have been relevant to Clause 3, that it should also be relevant to Clause 13? Clause 3 deals with houses,
" provided by the council of a county district by way of housing accommodation required for the agricultural population of their district."
We are discussing exactly the same point, except that this is a case of private ownership.
The Chairman: I do not think we want to go back and discuss a Clause which was dealt with some time ago. If the right hon. Gentleman has anything relevant to say on Clause 13, perhaps he will deal with that now.
Mr. Hudson: I was trying to deal with the suggestion made by the Minister of Health that this argument was relevant on Clause 3 but not on Clause 13, because we are dealing with contributions to be made in the case of houses built by private owners. It will be within your recollec-

319
tion, Major Milner, that Clause 3 dealt with the case of a house provided by the council, which surely is the same point, it being merely a question of the rate of subsidy.
Mr. Bevan: If we are to embark now upon the general principles which govern the provision of a subsidy for agricultural dwellings, we shall, indeed, be traversing the whole of the ground covered by Clause 3. Clause 13 relates directly to the subvention given to owners of dwellings, and is not related to the general agricultural subsidy.
Mr. Hudson: I think it is quite clear that one of the reasons why it is suggested it is necessary to give a higher subsidy in the case of a house built in an agricultural area, whether it is, under Clause 3, by a council, or, under Clause 13, by a private individual, is because agricultural wages are lower in agricultural areas than are wages in towns. Surely it is relevant in this to discuss whether the question of £15 accurately reflects that or not?
The Chairman: The arguments which have been addressed to the Committee on this Clause have been concerned with the difference between Clause 3 and Clause 13, and not as to whether the remarks of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) were in Order. It is my view that they were not in Order.
Mr. York: The Clause, as amended, specifically relates the rent which can be payable for housing under this Clause to-the same rent which is payable under Clause 3. If that is so, surely I am entitled to argue on this Clause, as on Clause 3, if I had realised it at the time, that wages are being kept down by this Clause as they are being kept down by Clause 3? Surely I am not out of Order in arguing that point on Clause 13 because I did not argue it on Clause 3.
9.30 p.m.
The Chairman: It is not relevant to this Clause whether agricultural wages are kept down or up.
Mr. York: The point which I was trying to make, Major Milner, was this: Because a subsidy level and a rent level for agricultural houses are based, in the first instance, on a higher level of subsidy and, in the second instance, on a lower
320
rental, that was in fact an attempt to keep agricultural wages at a lower level than in the case of urban workers.
The Chairman: I am sorry but I really do not see the relevance to the Question of this Clause standing part.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 16.—(Review of Contributions.)
Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, at the end, to insert:
" Provided that no such reduction shall have effect so as to reduce the total of the contributions receivable in respect of any house in course of construction at the date specified in any order below the total of the contributions which would have been payable in respect of that house if no such orders had been made during the course of its construction.
In moving this Amendment, I shall do so shortly and objectively, thereby differentiating myself in both instances from a large number of hon. Members opposite. Clause 16 provides for a review of contributions at a given date—30th June, 1947—with a view to their reduction, and the Clause relates to new houses completed after that date. The effect of the Amendment would be to exempt from the reduction houses in the course of construction at that date. If the Amendment is not carried and the Clause becomes statutory law as it stands, the effect will clearly be to discourage local authorities in the provision of houses before that date, at such time as they know that they cannot bring them to completion by the date fixed for the review. If, on the other hand, the Amendment is carried, there is no such discouragement, and there need be no lack of a steady flow of housing progress, which, I Think, is the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
We are not particularly wedded to the form of words in which this Amendment has been tabled. It is the principle which I am urging on the Committee, and if that principle commends itself to the Minister he will be able, if need be, to find better words to give effect to the intentions of this Amendment. I foresee a possible difficulty in the phrase "in the course of construction ". It may be that there is some technical difficulty in defining the date at which the construc-

321
tion of a building actually starts—as to whether it is when the plans are submitted, the plans are approved, the tenders are approved or the site taken possession of. I do not think that difficulties of that sort need stand in the way of the principle of this Amendment. If some reasonable definition could be given to "in the course of construction" that could be included in any Amendment which would give effect to the principle embodied in this Amendment. I am sure this is a principle which will commend itself to the good sense of the Committee, because it is a principle which will assist the provision of houses by local authorities in this country and in that confident hope I submit the Amendment.
Mr. Bevan: I hope hon. Members will not press this Amendment; I am certain when they hear what I say they will drop it. The effect of this Amendment will be to delay house construction, because if local authorities have to complete houses by a certain date in order to qualify for the higher subsidy, they will hurry up to complete the houses by that date rather than delay their construction, which would happen if the time and the payment of the subsidy were indeterminate. Obviously, if local authorities qualify for the higher subsidy at any date when the house is completed provided they started the house before a certain date not only would there be the difficulty of defining legally when the house started, but there would be no incentive on the part of the local authority to finish the construction of the house by a certain date. As things are, if they do not complete the construction by a certain date, that house falls into the lower subsidy which will be paid, whereas if it had been completed by a given date, the local authority will qualify for the higher subsidy. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, the chief effect would be to delay the house construction. There will be the legal difficulty of when a house is finished, but the question of deciding when a house is started would be interminable. I hope for these reasons that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I would ask the Minister of Health to have another look at this Amendment, because I must disagree with the reason which he has just given. The same question will arise on the Scottish Bill. If the Minister's advisers tell him that if the completion
322
date is June, 1947, and that local authorities will race against time to have the houses completed, I say, as one with experience of the building trade industry over 30 years, and as one who as convenor of the biggest housing authority in Scotland, that the argument will not hold water. I raise the matter here because I do not want to hear it said in the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill, that the principle has been accepted in the English Bill. I say quite definitely, drawing on my experience, that if the Treasury put up the argument that you require to have a finishing date like June, 1947, that would have some hope of success if it were a free market, It is not a free market. however, but it is a period of scarcity. As matters stand at the moment, it is possible that the great hulk of the local authorities would not be in the saddle by June, 1947, so far as the housing programme is concerned. I will ask the Members of the Committee to look at this thing seriously. It is futile to say that local authorities will race to get the subsidy. If I were responsible for the housing programme I would put in the number of houses I knew I could complete and no more. Instead of developing a site as it should be developed I would stop halfway or one-third of the way to ensure that the houses would be completed by the date the subsidy was due.
Mr. Bevan: I do really insist that to accept the principle contained in the Amendment and the implications contained in the last statement would be entirely futile because what might happen in such circumstances is, as is envisaged by the hon. Member, that in order that houses started at any particular time might qualify for higher subsidy local authorities would be encouraged to start a large number of houses at the highest prices. Houses with just a brick in them might qualify for a higher subsidy, although they might not be finished until 1948–49. What we want to do is to give a local authority some idea when subsidies are to be reviewed and the date on which they will be reduced, and they can only be reduced if housing prices fall low enough to justify such a reduction. If the Amendment were accepted you would have the largest possible number of houses started at the highest prices. There would be a large number of houses

323
in the course of construction, and few would be completed.
Mr. Sparks: The Minister said it was essential to specify a date in order that local authorities might be spurred on to complete their schemes by that date. But is he aware that some local authorities are not able to go as quickly as they would like, because circumstances are against them—a shortage of architects, quantity surveyors and so on? Could he, therefore, give an assurance that where a local authority are making a move, and are not able to complete their scheme by this specified date, he will give favourable consideration to a continuance of the rate of subsidy?
Mr. Bevan: This does not relate to schemes, but to individual houses. Members will note that the subsidy does not necessarily fall. It means that it has to be reviewed. It would be fatal at the moment to offer hope to local authorities that houses started in time would rank for higher subsidy.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I have listened with close attention to the Minister's argument, which seems to me to be an argument against fixing an early period for the definition of a course of construction, but which has not in any way damaged the principle which this Amendment seeks to embody. Surely, the Minister's argument would be answered if the course of construction was given a specific definition covering a reasonably advanced period of the construction of the house. I went out of my way to say that the course of construction would be required to be defined, and I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is any particular difficulty in defining the course of construction, at whatever stage it is sought to do it. Those familiar with building contracts are aware that it is normal to have a series of what are known as progress certificates, on which payment is made to the contractor. If you have such certificates for the purposes of payment you can equally use the same method for judging whether a partially completed house should rank for full subsidy, or whether it should fall for review and possible reduction. In the light of that, I would ask the Minister to reconsider his opposition to this Amendment which, I am sure, would act as an encouragement to local authorities in the
324
great majority of cases, and more than offset, in the few isolated cases, the pessimistic effect to which he has drawn attention.
9.45 p.m.
Major Peter Roberts,: There are two points I should like to raise. First, the Minister thinks that this will hurry up the local authorities. Apparently he does not think they are going fast enough now and he seems not to have enough confidence in them but wants some extra spur. I feel that they are working as hard as they can under difficult circumstances. On the other hand, there is the suggestion of a long lag, and of a lot of houses started before the date. I think it would be quite possible to say that a house started before that date must be completed, say, within 12 months.
Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.
Major Roberts: I notice that the Minister shakes his head, but it is a practical suggestion to get the best from both sides.
Mr. Bevan: I apologise to the Committee for intervening once more, but hon. Members opposite really should address themselves to the practical problem, and not try to make obstructive arguments. What hon. Members are now suggesting is that the House of Commons should offer a financial inducement to 1,500 local authorities in Great Britain to go out to tender immediately for all their housing schemes and programmes in order to be able to start the houses so as to qualify for the higher subsidy That is the practical import of what is suggested because, according to hon. Members, apart from the suggestion that they must complete within one year of starting, one does not know when a house is started. Is it when the sewer is laid, when the road is made, when the sod is turned, or when a brick is laid? At what point is a house started, for purposes of legal definition in an Act of Parliament? I ask hon. Members what conceivable advantage could be obtained by the Amendment. Local authorities are entitled to receive the subsidy when the house becomes occupied. They do not expect to receive it at any other time, and, indeed, no single housing authority has made the suggestion. The fact is that it would reduce the housing programme to a state of bedlam. I am

325
astonished that the hon. Member should bring up so footling an Amendment at this time of night, in view of his long family association with the building industry.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 17.—(Grants towards the cost of providing houses constructed by special methods approved by the Minister.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Captain Crookshank: This is a Clause under which the Minister can' make an extra grant in the case of houses not constructed by traditional methods. In the Second Reading speech the Under-Secretary told us that there were two kinds of houses in view. One is what is called the British Iron and Steel Federation house, and the other is called the Airey house, the first, from its name presumably being of steel, and the second of pre-cast concrete construction. I do not know if the Minister feels that he is able to give us any idea of what the cost of these houses is likely to be in order that we may know what sort of amount he is going to require. Perhaps it is too soon to make any such statement, but if he can I shall be very much obliged. If he cannot, I shall understand, but I should like him to [Laughter]. I do not know what has come over hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a perfectly normal inquiry and there is nothing funny about it.
Mr. Gallacher: No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is funny.
Captain Crookshank: At any rate that is something to which the hon. Member who represents the Communist Party will never aspire.
The second point is what the Minister would consider a substantial excess. There is no kind of definition in the Clause and it would be helpful for us to know whether it is in the region of £5 or£10, of £50 or £100, or even a great deal more than that. If the Minister could answer this, I should be very grateful.
Mr. Bevan: I am anxious not to be pressed at the moment about the price of the non-traditional types of house, because, as hon. Members know, it is diffi
326
cult to cost these houses until they have had a sufficiently long production run, and if I gave a figure at the moment it would be an embarrassment later on, since a reduction from it would be only reluctantly conceded. I hope therefore I shall not be pressed on the matter; I am certain hon. Members will understand, at any rate my right hon. Friend, with his Ministerial experience, will know that there is always very strict Treasury control over these matters. The answer to the second part of his question is that a "substantial amount" would be, by definition, an amount so much above the price of a traditional house that the local authority would not put it up without a subsidy. In other words, we should go along to a local authority and say, "Here is a non-traditional house costing so much," and the local authority would say, "No, that costs too much, it is too far above the price for which we could get a traditional house for us to undertake its construction." A substantial amount would therefore be defined by the attitude of a local authority to its construction. Nearer than that it is impossible to go.
Captain Crookshank: In fact, it would probably be the difference between the subsidy and the cost.
Mr. Bevan: No. There are local authorities in fact putting up non-traditional types of house, although the cost is above what they would have to pay for traditional houses, because they are so anxious to get the houses that they carry it as a rate charge. Where the difference is so substantial that the local authority would not be induced to do it, then of course we should have to come in with the additional subsidy.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions with respect to housing associations established in pursuance of arrangements made by the Minister.)
Amendment made: In page 15, line 22, leave out from "sums," to "which," in line 23.—[Mr. Bevan.]
Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 15, line 33, after "are," to insert:
" outstanding from the Exchequer in respect of money."

327
This is a technical Amendment to meet the requirements of proper auditing.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 35, leave out from "of," to end of line and insert "those sums."—[Mr. Bevan.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Captain Crookshank: May I ask what are the Minister's intentions with regard to these special housing associations, because we have heard very little about them at any stage so far? We had hoped that it would be made clear by Amendment that the Minister would consult local authorities before he made arrangements with regard to these housing associations, and it may be that that is his intention anyhow. In the principal Act the normal procedure with regard to housing associations is laid down in Section 94:
"The local authority may with the approval of the Minister make arrangements."
Here, of course, it is an entirely different procedure; it is the Minister who is to make arrangements, and then set up the associations. What we would like to know is whether it is his intention to press this kind of association on an unwilling local authority. Is he going to compel them to have such an association working in their areas? Is the Minister going to put some form of outside pressure on the local authority? There are many questions which spring to the mind. I do not want to start a lot of hares at this stage but I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some idea of what he has in mind in this connection, and particularly whether he does intend to work this by some sort of agreed method or whether he wants to have some sort of dictatorial reserve powers in his own hands.
Mr. Bevan: I believe that some of the natural misunderstandings arise over nomenclature. The term "association" is rather inconclusive. This is not an association within the meaning of the principal Act. It has no relationship to that at all. Those are associations which have been described earlier this evening as associations fostered by the local authorities, and approved by them, which can receive the Exchequer subsidy, the
328
local authority subsidy or both. But they are not analagous to the association for which I am asking powers. I want the Ministry of Health to be able to establish a building organisation that can step in to build houses with the consent of and in cooperation with the local authority, where the local building resources in any direction whatsoever are insufficient for local housing needs. Hon. Members will recall that when the Building Materials Bill was before the House, the Ministry of Works had power to direct building. It is thought that the Ministry of Health, which has very much more direct relationships with local authorities, should have similar powers, but I doubt very much whether they will be exercised to any extent.
Normally the Ministry of Health, with its building organisation, would not step in without first reaching agreement with the local authorities. However, I cannot hide from the Committee that there might be circumstances where the Ministry of Health would step in without the consent of the local authorities, because we must, although we hope it will not arise, envisage circumstances in which the local authority has failed to discharge its housing powers, and where, as hon. Members know, the Ministry of Health has power to default the local authority. In such circumstances, the Ministry of Health would step in, use the housing association for building purposes and receive the Exchequer subsidy and the local rate subsidy. It is necessary to get the local rate subsidy. Unless that happened, the local authority would have an incentive not to build houses because, if the Ministry of Health stepped in to build houses, the local authority would be relieved of the payment of their own housing subsidy. It is necessary to attach their subsidy, so that they shall not have a financial inducement to be tardy. There is nothing sinister in these powers. They are to be held in reserve, and I doubt whether they will be exercised to any substantial extent.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I appreciate the point the Minister has made and I agree that a considerable amount of confusion may be caused by this question of nomenclature. It is unfortunate that the same term should have to be used for two quite different types of body. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to con-

329
sider some different form of description or nomenclature before the Report stage so that it shall be quite clear?
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Bevan: I will consider that, but it will mean an enormous number of drafting Amendments.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 19.—(Duty of local authorities to reserve houses for agricultural population.)
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 16, line 4, after "houses," to insert "vested in them."
It appears that there is a small loophole here which ought to be stopped up. It would be possible for an authority to make up the total number of houses reserved for the agricultural population by adding in houses which had not been provided by it. That seems to me to be wrong, because it would mean that the local authority would be able to pocket part of the Exchequer contribution without having provided the houses. That is my reading of the provision; it may be the wrong interpretation, but if it is the right reading, the Amendment would prevent such a thing occurring.
Mr. Bevan: I am advised that there is no legal difficulty about this, that the language of the Bill is satisfactory, and that the local authorities reserve only houses which they themselves have provided.
Captain Crookshank: If the right hon. Gentleman gives us that as the opinion of his legal advisers, obviously it supersedes my amateur views on the subject, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 21.—(Amendment of law as to housing accounts.)
Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to move, in page 17, line at the end, to insert:
" (3) If a local authority defray or have defrayed capital expenditure out of the proceeds of the general rate or other revenue for the provision of housing accommodation for the
330
working classes under Part V of the principal Act, it shall be lawful and be deemed always to have been lawful for the local authority (in addition to debiting to the Housing Revenue Account kept by them under section one hundred and twenty-eight of the principal Act the amounts to be debited thereto under section one hundred and twenty-nine of the principal Act) to debit to that account amounts in respect of any financial year commencing after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-five not exceeding the amounts which they would have been entitled to debit to that account for the financial year in respect of loan charges if on the date on which such capital expenditure was defrayed they had borrowed the amount of such capital expenditure for the purposes of providing such housing accommodation; and all amounts debited to the said Housing Revenue Account under this subsection shall be deemed to be loan charges for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a surplus or a deficit in the said Housing Revenue Account for the financial year concerned and the amount of any such surplus or deficit."
This is a very long Amendment, but I hope it will not occupy much time. I hope also that, as it is entirely non-controversial, it will afford the Minister the opportunity for which he has waited so many hours of making a concession to the Opposition. The point is of substantial importance to a considerable number of local authorities. Housing authorities are required to prepare annually two sets of accounts, the housing revenue account and the housing repairs account. The housing repairs account is kept in funds in the main by the transfers provided under Statute from the housing revenue of the authority. Any surplus which remains at the end of the year in the housing revenue account may be dealt with by the authority, with the approval of the Ministry in two ways. It may either be carried forward to the following year's accounts or it may be transferred to the housing repairs account. Under a later part of this Clause, a third method of disposal is to be provided, namely, that it may be used by the local authority, with the agreement of the Minister, for any purpose which seems suitable in connection with its housing operations. Failing the disposal of the surplus in any one of those ways, any balance which remains has to be divided between the Minister and the local authority in the proportion of the credits made to the housing revenue account from the Exchequer and from the rates. In drawing up the housing revenue account, one of the items which falls to be debited is,

331
of course, the amount of any loan charges which have to be paid by the authorities in respect of capital moneys borrowed to defray the capital costs of housing operations.
Many local authorities, including the Westminster City Council, have on many occasions adopted what I believe is known and recognised generally, as the very sound financial practice of the defraying some of their capital accounts out of their own rates revenue, and not out of borrowed money. When they come to strike the housing revenue account, they know that sums so provided out of rates obviously attract no loan charges. The balance remaining is therefore greater then it would be if the authority had adopted the less satisfactory and less prudent method of borrowing for the whole of their housing requirements. What is to happen to those increased balances? Obviously there is no point in carrying them forward; that merely puts off the evil day. Many such local authorities have already brought their repairs account to a point where it is more than adequate to meet the calls made upon it, so there is no point in transferring those balances to the repairs account. The only use to which the authorities can put the extra balances, so far as I can see, would be to employ them in defraying their capital expenditure. That merely means building up interest upon interest.
Therefore, there is, in the case of authorities who have handled their finances in a prudent and satisfactory manner, a grave risk that, as a reward for their financial prudence, they may find part of those funds, accumulated by their able management, pocketed by the Minister, who has contributed nothing whatever to their creation. The point has been repeatedly made. Local authorities have more than once asked the Minister to allow them to take some steps to avoid that result: The purpose of the Amendment is to authorise the authorities, in respect of capital moneys not borrowed, to debit the housing revenue account with a notional loan charge in respect of those sums.
This is simply an act of justice in order to keep money from the rapacious hands of the Minister of Health, who is not in any way entitled to it. This point has been put more than once to the Minister,
332
who has always replied that he has no objection to the idea of the notional loan charge. The approaches of the local authorities have always been met sympathetically by the Ministry, who have repeatedly promised that when new housing registration was under consideration the point would be considered. It is because of that that I am putting this proposal to the Committee now. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a precedent for a charge of this kind, there is one in recent legislation, namely, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. I think it is in Section 5, which deals with the conditions under which the Exchequer will cover the loan charges of authorities incurred in the acquisition or redevelopment of the areas, during the period when development was not possible. There is provision in the Section enabling, the authorities to take into account a notional loan charge in respect of properties which they acquired from their own funds, and upon which they were not obliged to borrow. I submit that is a very close precedent and I hope that the Minister, if he does not like the rather cumbersome and ample words in which this Amendment, is expressed, will at least accept the principle, and give this measure of justice to the local authorities who arc doing their best, to defray capital expenditure out of revenue.
Mr. Bevan: I understand that the intention of the Amendment is to cover the point that where the local authority has not borrowed money, but has used its general revenues for the purpose of meeting its housing charges, the housing revenue account of the local authority, where it has a surplus, ought to be debited with the loan charges that would otherwise have been raised. I am informed that this Clause enables me to permit that to be done, where there is a surplus on the housing revenue account; where there is not a surplus on the housing revenue account, debiting that would merely mean, at once, an increase in the rates because, where there is a debit on the housing revenue account, the local authority must immediately recoup itself by an increase in the rates. So the situation is quite simple, namely, that where there is a surplus, the Clause enables this to be done; where there is a deficit, it would embarrass the local authority. In those circumstances, I

333
hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
Sir H. Webbe: I do not desire to press the Amendment because the Minister is obviously sympathetic to it, but I would like to know the words of this Clause which will enable him to achieve the result I want. Perhaps the Minister will answer that point briefly?
Mr. Bevan: All I can say is that if, on further consultation, I find that the language of the Clause does not enable it to be done, it will be dealt with.
Sir H. Webbe: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, to leave out "four," and insert "six."
In the 1936 Act, the amount to be transferred to the repair accounts was assessed on a percentage basis, a minimum of 15 per cent. Under the Clause as it stands, that 15 per cent. is changed to £4. I understand that it is administratively more convenient to have an equated sum than to have a sum expressed in terms of percentage. There is no desire on this side of the Committee to go back on the principle of the equated sum to the old principle of percentage. However, the sum of £4 as the equated sum seems to be too low, especially in view of the existing costs of building repairs. It is, no doubt, true that the Minister hopes, as we all hope, that these costs will decline but, even so, it would seem that this figure is at present fixed too low. My recollection is that there was no explanation, as such, of the equated sum of £4 given in the Second Reading Debate on this Bill. In the absence of such explanation, it seems to us that £6 would be a more correct figure to insert in this Clause as the equated sum for repairs. With that in mind, unless there is any explanation forthcoming from the Minister to show that £4 is a more correctly assessed figure, we should like to see £6 substituted.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Bevan: I think that an explanation on this matter will soon satisfy the hon. Gentleman. The amount of 15 per cent. was not considered satisfactory by the
334
local authorities as a way of determining what should be paid in the repair account, because there is no direct relation between the amount of the direct rent charge for a house, and the amount of repairs which was necessary to have done to the house. Therefore, the 15 per cent. has been disregarded. The flat rate of £4 has been agreed with the local authorities, as a reasonable amount. However, there is nothing to prevent local authorities paying a higher amount if they wish to do so.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 22.—(Provision of housing accommodation in Isles of Scilly.)
Amendment made: In page r8, line 24, leave out "twenty-eight," and insert "forty."—[Mr. Bevan.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Captain Crookshank: As a matter of interest, may I ask why is it necessary to have a special Clause for the Isles of Scilly?
Mr. Bevan: They are under no local authority. They have to be provided for separately.
Captain Crookshank: I wonder if that, of all possible explanations, is the right one, because the Clause speaks of a council.
Mr. Bevan: There is not a local authority within the ordinary definition of the term.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Exchequer contributions to be subject to prohibition of any rent increase without permission of Minister.)
All Exchequer contributions paid by the Minister after the passing of this Act in respect of each new house or flat provided by a local authority in the exercise of their powers to provide housing accommodation shall be subject to the condition that any such local authority shall be prohibited from increasing the rent for such new house or flat beyond the rent validly payable for the same on its first

335
letting unless permission so to do has first been obtained" from the Minister, and Section eighty-five of the Housing Act, 1936, shall be modified accordingly.
Provided that no permission as aforesaid shall be necessary where the increase consists of a sum representing any increase in the rates payable from time to time in respect of the said new house or flat.—[Mr. Turner-Samuels.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is intended to cover a matter of very great importance. Its design is that, in respect of those houses on which Exchequer contributions are to be made, there is to be no increase in the rent originally, validly charged, without the consent of the Minister, and then only in regard to matters outside any question of rate increase. I want this Clause included in the Bill for reasons which 1 shall give to the Committee which are connected with what has happened in the case of one local authority. Under the present law local authorities have acted in such a way as to deprive local authority tenants of the benefit of both the Exchequer contribution and the rate aid. I say that advisedly, and I am going to cite a case in which it has actually happened. Under the present law, the duty of a local authority is to fix its rents, which it does by taking into account the rents ordinarily payable by working-class people in the neighbourhood. The Minister has told us that rents, apart from rates, ought to be 10s. in urban areas and 7s. 6d. in the rural districts. In my own constituency, the city of Gloucester, mare than 45 per cent. of the rents are not only more than 10s.; in the case of a large number, the inclusive rents are more than £1. The reason is that, as we have already heard, surpluses which are derived from rents, go into the repairs fund or are used in the ways already mentioned.
I will give the Committee an example of what has occurred under this method in the city of Gloucester. Local authority houses started in 1940, and the repair item was estimated at £11,250. Instead of paying only that amount into the repairs account, for the first year, no less than £25,000 was paid into the repairs account. At the end of the first year it was shown there was a surplus in the rents account; notwithstanding that, the
336
first thing the council did—by the way it was a council with a Tory majority—was to propose an increase of the rents. Hon. Members will see why that was done. [Laughter.] This may be a laughing matter for hon. Members opposite, but it was not a laughing matter for the tenants. The proportion of rate aid that had to be paid by the local authority was over £7,000. They evaded that obligation in this way: Notwithstanding the surplus on the rents, as I say, they increased the rents by nearly £9,000, the effect of which was that later, they asked for an increase of the rates. By that method they got a sum which reduced their liability of just under £8,000, to be paid from the rates, to one of just over £2,000. Having evaded the liability to that extent, they then, in 1941, paid into the repairs account—which, as I have said previously, was estimated at £11,000—a sum of just under £27,000. In 1942, they improved on that and had in the repairs account no less than £35,573. They were carrying forward huge profits, amounting in that year to £26,000.
They made no attempt to use that surplus in the only honest way, the way in which it ought to have been used, namely, to reduce the rents. They should not only have taken back the increase which had been wrongly imposed; they should have further reduced the rents, because under Sections 130–31 of the principal Act which deal with housing revenue accounts and housing repair accounts the purpose is each year to see how the accounts stand, and if there is any balance to use it for reduction of rent. The council in this case did not do that. What they did was to pay £5,000 odd to the general rate fund, quite apart from increasing the rates in the way they have done. They improved on that as the years went on, and, finally, paid a sum of over £8,000 into the general rate fund. That was exactly the amount of the increase in rent. Having paid in 1942 £35,573 to the repairs account, in respect of an item of £11,000, in 1943 they paid no less than £40,332. In 1944 they added to that and paid—[Interruption.]
Mr. Gallacher: Order.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a rather important matter. It amounts to dishonest dealing on the part of a local authority

337
In 1944 they had £53,789 in an account that required only £11,000 odd. In 1945 they had £58,000 odd for the same purpose. The result was that in 1944, after paying repairs and everything, including management and supervision, they actually paid into the repairs account a sum of £21,000. That was the equivalent of the amount of the Exchequer contribution. As a consequence the tenants were deprived of the benefit both of the Exchequer contribution and also of rate aid. In addition, they did something absolutely unheard of. They had so much money —not being used for the purpose of reducing the rents as they should have done—they had to invest it. [Laughter.] Hon. Members on the opposite side may laugh, but these are houses for which the Council was getting a subsidy from the State and in my humble submission it is not honest to put one's hand in the pocket of the State when one has huge balances left over at the end of the year. They had actually invested so much money that they got an income from it of over £1,000 in the year. That, of course, on the present basis of investment, must represent a sum of something like £40,000. In addition to that, this housing revenue account was paying Income Tax. In the first year —it is a most amazing story—they paid £1,300 Income Tax. Then, of course, they began to feel like a housing trading company who were improving the shining hour. Next year they paid £1,600 in Income Tax. Even that was not good enough for this reactionary council, so the following year they paid over £2,000 Income Tax, and now they are paying between £2,600 and £3,000 in Income Tax. [Laughter.] It may amuse hon. Members on the other side, but—
Captain Crookshank: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to say that what is amusing to hon. Members on this side, is the enormous length of time it is taking him to come to the point.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know the point—which I should have thought was by now overwhelmingly obvious—it is that the law, as it stands, is not good enough or strong enough to control reactionary local authorities. What I am putting to the Minister, in this new Clause, is that, if he wants a rent to be fixed at 10s. and 7s. 6d., apart from rates, he
338
ought to take measures to see that reactionary local authorities do not defeat his intention, and the only way, as proved by the illustration I have given, in which that can be done, is by putting this provision into an Act of Parliament and making the necessary safeguards which will prevent that kind of thing which I have described happening again in the future. I have described what has been done in the city of Gloucester. There are many other cities that have had reactionary local authorities, and I have no doubt that the same commercial sentiments have stirred in the breasts of these other councils. I dare say that, if investigation were made, it would be found that they had, in the same way, deprived their tenants of the benefit of these subsidies and of the rate aid.
I ask the Minister, who has launched this new scheme with much larger subsidies than were given previously and in which the local authority has to pay out a much larger sum, to take this precaution. There is a much bigger incentive now than ever before, to see that local authorities do not, by the device I have described, evade their obligations to pay the rate aid which they are supposed to pay under this legislation. In my submission, the only way to no mat, is to have a Clause of this kind. This Bill when it becomes an Act is to be read with the 1936 Act; it is part of the same legislation, and this is an opportunity for the Minister to take the step which I have indicated. The Minister might consider that a better method of doing this would be to include it in some future legislation dealing with rent restriction, but the point should be noted by the Committee, that in a case such as I have put, the local authority appointed under the legislation as the guardian, to see that private landlords do not raise their rents above the standard, is the authority guilty of doing that very thing. The Council themselves have thought it right outrageously to increase these rents, whereas they are supposed to be the guardians to prevent other people doing so. It may be that the Minister has in mind future legislation to deal with rent restrictions, and perhaps he intends to catch cases of this kind in the net that will be spread If. so, the matter may be dealt with in that way, but I ask the Minister to consider this question, and, particularly, to consider what has been done in the city of Gloucester, and to

339
assure us that it will not be possible, while he is in office, for this to happen again.
Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend at the conclusion of his speech, provided the answer to his own point. This is a matter more appropriate to a Rent Restriction Bill, and if and when such a Bill comes before the House, it will then be brought into account.
Mr. Janner: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not leave it at that. The fact that we may have to wait a considerable time before a Rent Restriction Bill is before Parliament emphasises rather than detracts from the necessity of taking the opportunity to introduce legislation to deal with some of the points which are unsatisfactory. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter between now and the Report stage. The minority report, to which his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary was a party, stated that the local authority has, at present, complete freedom to evict a tenant for anything. It would be better if the Minister were to take advantage of the opportunity which offers itself here whereby local authorities can be brought into line with other people who are prevented from increasing their rent.
Mr. Bevan: No, I am afraid I cannot. It is impossible for the Ministry of Health to undertake the obligation of fixing the rents of local government houses, throughout Great Britain. If local authority houses are to be controlled, the Act dealing with rent control is the appropriate vehicle; this Measure is certainly not.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: In view of what the Minister has said about future legislation on this subject, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Houses provided by conversion, etc., by persons other than local authority.)
Where any new house is provided by any person other than a local authority by the conversion, alteration, enlargement, repair or improvement of any building, and such person enters into an arrangement with the local authority whereby the house shall be let to a person of the working classes at a rent not exceeding the rent permitted by the local
340
authority and subject to such conditions as the Minister may by order made in accordance with the provisions of section sixteen of this Act prescribe, the provisions of section ninety-one of the principal Act (excepting paragraph (b) of subsection (1) thereof) shall apply subject to the modification that instead of the words "and the advance shall not exceed ninety per cent. of the value of the interest of the mortgagor in the property," in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) thereof, there shall be substituted the words, "and the advance shall not exceed the total cost of the works hereinbefore mentioned and shall be repayable with interest at a rate not exceeding two pounds per cent. per annum."—[Captain Crookshank.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to couple this Clause with that which we have just discussed, but what I seek to establish is the point that no one other than a local authority should alter, convert, enlarge, or improve any such building, unless that person enters into arrangements with the local authority, whereby the house is to be let at a rent permitted by the local authority. It would be possible for the local authority to advance the maximum amount—
Mr. Gallacher: Come to the point.
Captain Crookshank: I think the Minister will see the point, even if the Communist Party do not. It would be possible, I say, for the local authority to advance the maximum amount of the total cost of conversion, instead of, as in the words of the Bill, 90 per cent. of the value of the interest of the mortgagor in the property; and clearly, as nothing to the contrary is mentioned that would be limited to an interest charge of two per cent. In our view, there may he cases where people would be prepared to work on the conversion of premises. There is great scope for more conversions and alterations as a way of getting quickly, a lot of extra housing accommodation, and we think a plan of this kind would be of some use in this Bill.
Mr. Bevan: Having spent so genial an evening, I am sorry it is not possible for me to accept the new Clause. But I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that this is a matter of considerable substance, and I am afraid that the proposal would be deeply resented by most of the local authorities. In the first

341
place, I am very anxious at the moment, that we should not use too much labour and materials on conversions, largely because I want most building labour to go on new building, if only to provide them with a more agreeable working experience, after they have spent so much time on war damage repairs. This Clause would have the consequence of making considerable diversions of labour from new building to conversions. In the second place, there are some very disagreeable features about conversion, as many Members know. Licences are obtained by building contractors; it is not always possible to limit the work done to the actual amount of the licence, especially when they are behind closed doors. I do not want to open this door any wider than it is now.
The most substantial reason, however, why it is not possible to accept the new Clause is because it would throw an additional burden on the rates. The local authority would be borrowing money from the Public Works Loans Board at 3¼ per cent., and under this new Clause would be expected to lend it at 2 per cent. It seems hardly reasonable that the local authority should have to carry that obligation. Already it finds up to go per cent. of the cost of providing cheap money. It seems therefore objectionable that we should violate the main structure of the Bill, and provide an additional rate subsidy for privately-owned dwellings by making the local authority lend money at a lower interest than that at which the local authority itself is able to borrow. I hope, in these circumstances, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not insist on this new Clause.
Captain Crookshank: I do not feel like insisting, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the financial side. I thought it would be helpful to have some indication of what might be considered a reasonable rate in these circumstances. But I rather demur to his first proposition. I hope that it will not go out from this Committee that we are not going to consider the conversion or alteration, enlargement or repair of any building, not because they are not required by the people, but because the Minister of Health wants workers in this industry—whom we all respect—to have the more agreeable experience of working out of doors, after doing so much work on bomb damage. That is a most extra
342
ordinary proposition. Much as we would like all workers to work in the most agreeable circumstances, surely the paramount consideration is to get the maximum amount of new and converted houses as quickly as possible. That is the object of the Bill we have been discussing all day. If it is really a Bill to promote greater happiness among outdoor workers or building operatives, that is a very different question. But perhaps that was one of the pleasantries which we are used to from the right hon. Gentleman, and he does not want us to take it too seriously. It should not go out that the one consideration in the right hon. Gentleman's mind is to offer an agreeable type of work to operatives. I hope it will be made plain that we all agree on our objective, and disagree only on the question whether this Bill is going to achieve it. Our objective should be the greatest number of houses in the quickest possible time.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations of Principal Act.)
Amendment made: In page 23, line 26, at end, insert "the councils of."—[Mr. Bevan]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

BORROWING (CONTROL AND GUARANTEES) BILL
Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he re-committed to the former Committee in respect of the Amendment moved in that Committee to leave out sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of the Schedule."—[Mr. Dalton.]
10.46 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I first apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchquer, for the fact that, I was not in my place yesterday, when he gave notice of this Motion. I was unaware that it was coming on, and I hope he realises that no discourtesy was intended. We on

343
this side take no umbrage at this Motion. In fact, I blame myself to this extent, that I was unaware of the irregularity when it occurred upstairs in the Standing Committee. As the Member in charge of the Amendment in question I should have been aware of the fact. I can only urge that for six years past we have been working in a hiatus, in which we have lost much of our knowledge of procedure in Committees upstairs, and I expect it was I who was to blame, for not calling the attention of the Chairman of the Committee to this fact at the time. I am assured by my theosophical and spiritualist friends that it is unusual for anybody to have a second time on earth. It must be far more unusual for any hon. Member of this House to have a second opportunity of moving an Amendment on a Bill in Committee. If only for that reason, I support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. It will give us an opportunity of again presenting, I hope, in different language and with different arguments, the gravamen of the case which we previously advanced upstairs. If I may say so, there is a certain poetic justice in this, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was seeking to obtain for himself powers which we on our side of the Committee regarded as dictatorial. The Gestapo methods, the snooping and the rummaging, which are possible under the paragraph which we sought to delete, we shall now have another opportunity of debating. We felt upstairs that indecent haste was being shown by the right hon. Gentleman. Streamlined Bills, after all, have their disadvantages and this case illustrates one of them. Streamlined cars are devised for speeding along bypass roads.
344
On this occasion, the streamlined car has had a crash. We on this side of the House welcome the opportunity of the re-committal of this Measure to refocus public attention on what we regard as a most vicious paragraph of the Schedule and we call attention to the public strictures passed upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General since this incident took place, by the "Law Journal."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Member cannot go into the merits of the matter. He can only debate the question of whether the Bill should be re-committed.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Perhaps I should not at this stage have mentioned the trade union journal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite should remember that it is not the fault of the Opposition that a mess has been made of this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it.''] I could keep on for a long time on this subject and I shall do so if hon. Members opposite continue to interrupt me. I will not be shouted down. It is a great mistake of hon. Members to think that clamour can take the place of argument. I was about to say that we welcome the opportunity of repeating the arguments we made upstairs, and for that reason, take no objection to this Motion.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes to Eleven o' Clock.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Addison, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with to allow the remaining stages of the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Bill to be taken, and, in the event of a message being received from the Commons that they have passed the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, in order to pass that Bill through all its stages.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1946.
MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1946.
MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1946.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have a Message from the King, signed with his own hand. His Majesty's Message is as follows:
"I have received your Addresses praying that the Department of Overseas Trade (Dissolution) Order, 1946, the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Dissolution) Order, 1946, and the Ministry of War Transport (Dissolution) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament. I have complied with your request."

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order) and passed.

CAMBERWELL, BRISTOL AND NOTTINGHAM ELECTIONS (VALIDATION) BILL.
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I had to introduce a Bill rather on these lines not very long ago. I hope this will be the last time I shall have to do so. This matter arises out of the obscurity surrounding the question what in fact is an office of profit under the Crown. A Committee has been sitting to consider the subject and I myself have been giving much thought to the matter. Before very long we may be able to introduce a Bill to deal with this very difficult topic. The present Bill relates to three persons who were returned as members of the House of Commons; Mr. Harrison, Mrs. Corbet and Mr. Awbery. The House of Commons Privileges Committee considered the matter (and recommended unanimously that this Bill be passed. It then came 'before members of another place, and they quite rightly treated it not as a matter of form but, far from being that, a matter that needed very serious consideration. However, they decided to pass the Bill, and it passed through all its stages without any Divisions.
The other place is of course rightly supreme in deciding matters about its own members. It is possible however that in some similar case to this, proceedings might come before the Courts to recover penalties. And I want to make it quite plain that if the matter does come before the Courts, the Courts will consider they are not bound by the precedents by which the other place regards itself as bound.
For my own part, I regard as a matter of exceeding doubt—I put it no higher
334
than that—the effect of being placed on a panel. All these three persons were placed on panels; that means to say that they indicated their willingness, other things being equal, to serve if and when called upon so to do. Mr. Harrison was put on the panel of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal. For my part, I very much doubt whether being put on a panel entails any right on the part of the person who is put on to be appointed to serve in any particular case, and it is only if he is so appointed that any remuneration attaches to the office. I very much doubt if he would be under any legal liability if, owing to domestic circumstances, owing to having changed his mind or whatever you will, when the time came he declined to serve. Under those circumstances, I express the view—I go no further—that the question as to whether the placing of a person on a panel does or does not constitute an office of profit under the Crown is a matter which might have to be further considered if the matter ever does come before any of His Majesty's Courts.
The facts here are very striking. Mr. Harrison, for instance, was put on the panel of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal and he was called upon to serve on only three occasions, namely, in September, 1944, January, 1945, and April, 1945. He received a fee of 30s. for each, attendance but he lost more than that sum in wages. The last payment he received was in April, 1945, which was, of course, before any material date.
The case of Mrs. Corbet is perhaps more striking still. She was put on a panel to deal with hardship cases particularly relating to women. The last time she served was in 1943 in which year she received £8 8s. for two attendances. Indeed, long before the material date it was made plain to her that she never would be called upon to serve again, because the calling up of women had been stopped. However, it was held by the Privileges Committee that she was still technically a member of the panel and therefore, they thought, holding an office of profit under the Crown.
As to Mr. Awbery's case, he was appointed to a panel under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. On the 21st July (which was before the 26th July, the date of the declaration of the poll), he asked the Minister of Labour, by letter, to accept his resignation but owing to the fact that the Minister or Labour did not

335
reply until 21st August it was held that Mr. Awbery remained a member of the panel until that date and consequently still held an office of profit. He last served in June, 1944, which was, of course, more than a year before the critical date. On the facts of this case the House of Commons obviously had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that they did, but it does indicate once more, if we want another indication, the desirability of trying to clear up the obscurities which are left under the old Act.
I commend this Bill to your Lordships. It is of course peculiarly a matter concerning the other place, but they have passed it and I recommend your Lordships to do the same. I hope your Lordships will pass it through all its stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.44 p.m.
LORD SIMON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I should not expect there to be any opposition to this particular proposal, although I always regard it as very unfortunate when retrospective legislation has to be passed because it is supposed that an individual was not qualified to be made a member of the House of Commons when that individual was elected. I have no doubt there was complete good faith in the present instance, and I share the Lord Chancellor's hopes that this will be the last example. The question whether people are paid or not is not, as we all know, the real question. The question is whether the office is one of the sort to which payment might be attached; you do not escape by saying "I will not be paid."
I rise principally to say that I am very glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that he is able to assure us that he expects shortly to introduce a general Bill on the subject. There was a Committee which held many sittings, presided over by my noble friend Lord Hemingford, before which some of us gave evidence. I did as a matter of fact. There were a great many points of difficulty which were then brought up and which should certainly be got rid of by a new Statute, in which I am sure we should be glad to co-operate. For those reasons I do not myself think that my noble friends are likely to raise any further objection.
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, this is a Bill which your Lordships will obviously be glad to pass, remedying some of the gross absurdities which arise out of the present state of the law. I myself feel somewhat bitterly about this, having been the victim of that obscurity in days gone by. It is high time this change was made. After all, it is quite a considerable time since Queen Anne died and during the interval many of these absurdities have arisen which urgently need remedying. I think we all ought cordially and publicly to encourage the Lord Chancellor in the initiative he has taken. We trust that he will be able to persuade his colleagues to give him Parliamentary opportunity for carrying into law such a Bill as he has foreshadowed.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

RENT OF DEREQUISITIONED PROPERTIES.
2.49 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government in what cases, and to what extent, is compensation rent paid to owners of properties after the properties have been derequisitioned. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the question which stands in my name. I understand that in some cases after properties have been derequisitioned the Government continue to pay owners compensation rent for some months in order to enable the owners to tide over

337
the period of time which must elapse before repairs are carried out and the properties are once again made habitable or fit for business, as the case may be. I ask the Government generally in what cases and to what extent such compensation rent is payable after the premises have been derequisitioned. I understand that in the case of some hotels compensation rent has been paid for a period of three months after derequisitioning in order to enable the proprietors to put the premises into repair and start business again. However, I am very much in the dark about the whole matter, and I would be very grateful for any information on the subject. I believe that it is the general practice of the Government in these cases, when they do pay compensation rent after the premises have been derequisitioned, to pay such rent for an arbitrary period of time, such as three months or six months. I suggest that the payment of compensation rent for an arbitrary period of time may not do adequate justice in every case. There may be a number of cases, for example, where, owing to such things as lack of labour and materials, the owner is unable to get the repairs done for a year. In all these cases I hope that the Government will be able to take a broader view of the matter than they have done in the past.
2.52 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I begin by disclosing an interest in this subject, and asking your permission to proceed. I feel that it will at any rate convince the noble Lord who has raised the point that I am not liable to be unsympathetic to the point he has in mind. The noble Lord is no doubt aware that under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, compensation rent ceases to be payable as soon as the premises are derequisitioned. It was, nevertheless, felt that where derequisitioned premises were unfit for occupation as a result of damage done during requisition, it was right that some allowance should be paid in respect of the time taken to make good the damage. The noble Lord no doubt would rather I set out the matter as it stands than reply to the particular points he raised, and in that way give him a general picture.
It was agreed with the Hotel and Restaurant Keepers' Association that hotels and boarding-houses which have suffered damage during requisition shall,
338
when they are due for derequisition, be retained on nominal requisition for a period called a rehabilitation period. This applies to hotels and restaurants. The period is intended to cover the time it would take, in normal circumstances, to renovate the premises, and its length is determined by a formula which depends on the size of the premises. During this period the compensation rent remains payable and the owner is given a licence to enter the premises and carry out such work as he desires. In return, he agrees to indemnify the Department concerned in respect of any damage occurring to the premises during the rehabilitation period and to bear any rates that might be payable during that period.
A similar arrangement whereby premises are nominally retained in requisition for a period was subsequently arrived at with the Association of Permanent Holiday Camps. This is the second class of case. In these cases, however, there is no formula for determining the length of the period. Each case is dealt with on its merits. The number of weeks that would be required in normal circumstances to render the premises suitable for use as a camp is determined and the requisition is nominally extended for that period. Finally, other types of premises are not nominally retained on requisition for a rehabilitation period but are derequisitioned as soon as they are no longer required. In these cases, on derequisition a lump sum is paid ex gratia as a rehabilitation allowance which is equal to the net amount that would be payable as compensation rent during the period it would take, in normal circumstances, to make good the damage to the premises, not exceeding three months in ordinary cases and six months in exceptional cases. I hope that gives the noble Lord the information he requires.
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, that which the noble Lord has explained sounds quite reasonable, but is it authorized by the Statute? I do not myself understand the phrase "nominal requisition," and I do not think it appears in the Statute at all. He says this arrangement is made, if I followed him, with two important bodies, the Hotel and Restaurant Keepers' Association and the Association of Permanent Holiday Camps. One is very glad they

339
are given that amount of relief, but what happens to the ordinary person whose house has been requisitioned and, when it becomes derequisitioned, will take a long time to put in a habitable position? Is he left to take the rigour of the law while these people get some special provision in their favour?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I feel that if I did not make it plain to the noble and learned Viscount, I did not make it plain to anybody. First of all, we have the case of the hotels and restaurants, the first class of case, then the case of the holiday camps and finally the other cases. As I have explained, these are not nominally retained on a requisition. In the other cases he had in mind they are derequisitioned as soon as they are no longer required. In these cases of derequisitioning a lump sum is paid ex gratia as a rehabilitation allowance; they get the lump sum and not the compensation rent.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Are they treated as well or differently?
LORD PAKENHAM: Do they score or not score?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not know whether their position is preferable to the others, but it has been intended that they should, broadly speaking, obtain the same kind of compensation. As I have explained, the ex gratia lump sum is supposed to be equal to the net amount which would be payable as compensation rent during the period.
LORD SWINTON: Every person who has had his premises requisitioned has to go in and repair the damage which has been done to his premises and that may-take some time. We all start level, whether we are private owners, hotelkeepers or owners of holiday camps. The idea is that each person who has had his premises requisitioned shall receive a compensation rent for a calculated period until he can get his house decently in order and fit to live in. Everybody would at least get that. Then a special deal—I am not saying anything offensive—has been done "on the side" with two classes of people, the hotel-keepers and the holiday camp people, who get a lump sum instead of the rent.
LORD PAKENHAM: No.
LORD SWINTON: I am sorry, I have not understood it. The first proposition was right, that everybody is entitled to a rent.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, it is not quite right, I am afraid. May I put my own case? I have just had my own place derequisitioned, and it is completely uninhabitable. At the moment an argument is going on between two valuers, and quite naturally they will take time, although they will eventually arrive at an agreement. Then comes the question of how long it will be before I shall be able to make the place habitable. Could the noble Lord tell me?
LORD PAKENHAM: Let me just remove from the field of discussion the question of compensation for dilapidation, as we are all clear that is quite a separate item. We are simply talking of compensation for not being able to get into your premises as soon as they are derequisitioned. The noble Lord has put a case which happens to be my own, though on a far smaller scale. Like him, I do not know exactly when I shall get into my small property. In the case of the hotel and restaurant owners the payment is a rent. That is, a rent for a period that depends upon the size of the premises, but it is intended to cover the period which it would normally take to put the premises in a suitable condition. I want to say frankly that of course this notional idea of a normal period may not in all cases be exactly the same as the actual period, and that is why I was anxious not to mislead the noble Viscount. I felt he had an idea the Government were being a little more generous than they are able to be in this case, and that is why I had to correct him.
The period it would normally take is fixed and in the case of hotels and restaurants a certain compensation rent is allowed for that period. The owner goes into the hotel or restaurant, and although it is nominally still requisitioned by the Government he is allowed to proceed to put it in order. In the case of the holiday camps there is no formula referring to the size of the premises. Each case is dealt with on its merits. Compensation rent operates there in much the same way. In the other case, the result is supposed to be equally

341
generous, but a lump sum is paid instead of the compensation rent. So, in the first two cases, there is compensation rent, and in the last case, which is the case that all speakers who have intervened had in mind I think, a lump sum is paid which is supposed to place an owner in the same position as if he owned an hotel or a restaurant or a camp.
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I be allowed to add a word, because I am in precisely the same position as the last speakers, including the noble Lord who has replied on behalf of the Government. What I do not like is the phrase "the period it would normally take to put the premises into proper condition." As no doubt my noble friends on the same side as myself are well aware, as a rule a licence is granted to spend the sum of £100, but if dilapidations amount to considerably more than that modest sum, an owner may be kept for years before he can put his premises into decent repair. If the intention is to give what is called a normal rent which would be paid during the normal period and no more, then the amount of an owner's satisfaction from the Government will be exceedingly exiguous.
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may, I will reply to the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken. I think he takes rather too gloomy a view. I should be very much depressed if I thought that I could not get into my humble little shack for years. I do not think that there is any question of being held up for years. I quite agree that some cases of hardship may arise, but I have no doubt that, if and when they do, they will be carefully looked into.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If the noble Lord can do so, he would help us in an obvious way by saying that the £100 limit will not apply in the case of derequisitioned premises.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am assured by an expert sitting behind me that it does not apply in these cases. I am not, of course, able to get confirmation from the Department at this moment, but I have that from a source of great authority.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In view of the very interesting information which we had yesterday in another place, may I ask
342
whether the lump sum payment which is supposed to give us fair treatment, is based on the appraisal by the Minister of Works of the shortage of material and the time it will take to get all this done?
LORD PAKENHAM: I should like to be able to assure the noble Viscount that that is correct, but I am not in a position at the moment to do so. I shall be happy, on a later occasion, if it proves to be so, to inform him at once.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord who has replied on behalf of the Government. I may say that it has been brought to my notice upon the highest and most unimpeachable legal authority that, strictly speaking, these ex gratia payments are outside the Act. I do not want the Government to take that as an indication that they should not make these ex gratia payments, but, strictly speaking, they are outside the ambit of the Statute. Perhaps, therefore, the Government may consider forthwith bringing in a new or amending Act which will put everybody on the same footing and enable the Government properly to make payments of compensation rent after the period of requisition has been terminated. Again, I would express my thanks to the noble Lord for his reply.

SERVICE MEN'S DIVORCE DELAYS.
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER rose to call attention to the serious situation which has arisen in regard to the handling of proceedings for divorce brought by Service men and women, with particular reference to the long delays which occur in disposing of these cases, and to the great hardship thereby imposed on the men and women concerned; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper today is one which I think is likely to gain the sympathy of all noble Lords, in whatever part of the House they may sit, who saw service in the last war. My question deals with a very human problem—namely, the need for securing quicker machinery for the disposal of cases of Service men and women who are suing (or divorce. I have been informed that since the war broke out the number of cases from the Services personnel alone has amounted to some-

343
thing between 30,000 and 40,000. While I venture to think that that is probably a matter for the greatest anxiety, I do not wish to refer to it to-day, but only to deal with the unsatisfactory state of the existing machinery.
Some of your Lordships may recall that, in October, 1944, I proceeded to India to make a report on welfare arrangements for British troops, and on my journeys both to and from that country I passed through Naples, Cairo, Jerusalem and Bagdad. At all those military centres—for in those days they were indeed vast military centres—I was shown the machinery in operation for assisting Service personnel in disposing of cases of divorce which had unfortunately arisen. The staffs at those centres—and I shall refer to them again in the course of my remarks—were undoubtedly performing an excellent job of work, but I well remember being told that from the day any man began divorce proceedings, a considerable period of time must elapse before his case was finally concluded. I feel that there is no necessity for me to weary the House with the many reasons which lead to delay in the rapid disposal of these cases, but I think it is clear—and I shall endeavour to prove it beyond all manner of doubt—that the existing machinery is inadequate for its purpose. I have been told that where grounds for divorce arose as long ago as 1942, and the proceedings were started in the following year—that is, in 1943—many cases have not yet reached the stage at which they are ready for presentation to the Courts.
On my return from India, I made various suggestions for improvement, but at that time it was not found possible to implement them all. Frankly, I had always hoped, even at that time, that as soon as the war was ended, the speed of disposal of these cases would be greatly increased, and that, perhaps in the course of six months, certainly in a year, there would be very few left to be dealt with at all. Now unfortunately it appears that the organizations which have been set up to deal with these cases are completely snowed under by the large numbers which are still coming forward.
Let me take a typical example of a case which occurs—a somewhat sordid case, but, unhappily, one which is all too common, that in which a man receives
344
a letter from a friend or relative at home informing him that his wife has had, or is about to have, a child by another man. I found typical cases such as this during my visit to India, and if it could be arranged that the man could return from overseas to his home, disaster to his marriage and to his domestic happiness might, possibly, be averted. But in the greater number of cases the damage was done, and it was in the interests of all concerned to bring that marriage to an end at the earliest possible moment. I am told that to-day there must be a gap of from three to five years between the break up of the marriage and its final legal end. I think your Lordships can picture, without any additional words from me, the terrible hardship and in-deed misery caused to any returning soldier who comes home in those circumstances.
It seems to me at any rate that it is particularly undesirable to learn that in the midst of our society there is a very large number of men and women who are bound together by no other tie than that of the legal pact of marriage. What happens? Both parties by that time will probably have gone their own way with disastrous consequences to themselves and to others, for are we not placing the innocent party in a situation where there is an irresistible temptation to the commission of sin? There must be any number of your Lordships who know as well as I do that a soldier's morale depends greatly upon freedom from worry or concern about anything that is happening at home, and so a demand arose in the Services that some facilities for legal aid advice should be set up and made available to the Armed Forces of the Crown. For that reason, special legal aid facilities were set up. They came under the Director of Army Welfare. These Service legal aid schemes, which are used by all Service personnel under the rank of sergeant, have been in operation some time and owe their existence to the foresight of my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon and to the three Service Ministers in the late Government.
Let me see if I can explain how the scheme works. The scheme which is operated in the Army and in the Air Force—and I understand that the Navy follow a somewhat similar scheme—is like this. A man receives information telling

345
him of trouble at home. He at once consults his welfare officer. There is really no excuse if he does not consult his welfare officer because all men in the Army, and I should imagine in the other Services as well, are advised to get into consultation with their welfare officers immediately. At this very early stage of the proceedings steps are taken to see if it is possible to reconcile the parties and if there is the remotest chance of saving the marriage. Everything possible is done through the welfare officer and through the welfare organizations such as the Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, who, indeed, have done noble work during the war. Right up to the time when the parties go into the Courts continuous efforts are made to effect a reconciliation and at that stage, of course, the efforts are made by the legal aid section. Some people may say that that in itself tends to delay the proceedings but on the contrary the proceedings for divorce are steadily followed up while at the same time continual suggestions are made to the man or woman concerned that a reconciliation might be possible. So I do not believe that there is any sound ground for saying that at this stage the procedure is liable to lead to delay.
If the attempted reconciliation fails in its early stages the next step is for the man to go to his nearest Army Command legal aid section, which is an organization set up in every Command at home and overseas. Here let me say at once that I saw these legal aid sections in operation in India and many commanding officers were perfectly prepared to send their men for many hundreds of miles in order that they might receive the legal aid given by these sections. This body is staffed by officers or men who practised as barristers or solicitors in civilian life and therefore have full knowledge of the law. Their duty it is to consider all the circumstances of the case, to examine the man or woman generally, to take statements from any witnesses and to collect other evidence generally. From there the papers are sent to the Poor Persons Committee of the Law Society in London and there the case is examined by a subcommittee which in due course issues a poor person's certificate which enables the individual, subject to a very small charge, to have his case heard in the Courts. From there the papers travel to the Services Divorce
346
Department of the Law Society where a solicitor completes the legal preliminaries for presentation of the case to the Court where in the end the man obtains his divorce.
I do not doubt that your Lordships will say that this is a very long and complicated process and that even at the end of it the man, in the English Court certainly, only obtains a decree nisi and has to wait a further six months before his divorce is made absolute. It is true it is a long journey from the day on which the man receives information of his wife's unfaithfulness to the day when his decree is made absolute and his marriage is legally terminated. I have been told that the Courts could take many more cases than they are taking at present, and, if that is so, a speeding up of the slow process of preparation seems to be all that is necessary. In another place it was stated some time ago that the main delay occurs at the Law Society, who at the present moment have more cases than they can handle, but I do not want your Lordships to think that I am criticizing or attacking the Law Society in any way whatever. They have done extraordinarily fine work with really insuperable difficulties facing them.
What I would ask is whether it is intended to expand this organization within the Law Society, and whether His Majesty's Government can say how it will be done. It is, I think your Lordships will agree, a little disheartening for the legal aid sections to know that no case which they prepare can get into the Courts for trial under a period of eighteen months. I have seen these legal aid sections at work, and although unfortunately the divorce oases form a very large proportion of the 100,000 or more cases which they have already dealt with they have nevertheless done an admirable job of work. It is true that at the beginning there was a serious shortage of staff, but I believe those difficulties have been overcome to-day. There are many people either in the Services or now out-side the Services who express their greatest gratitude to those legal aid sections for the work that they have accomplished on their behalf, and from information which has been given to me by senior officers of the Services with whom I have consulted I have no doubt whatever that these sections have made a vast contribution to welfare in general.
There must be in your Lordships' House many noble Lords who know far more than I do about the legal and technical points of the divorce law, but I feel quite certain they will not quarrel with my plea that divorce proceedings for Service men should be speeded up. I have not asked that the present reason-able law of divorce, which I believe is based upon human needs, should be relaxed. All I have asked is for a speeding up of the present machinery which is a necessary preliminary for the presentation to Courts of divorce cases. I repeat again that great harm can be done, and done permanently, to the characters of all Service men and women if their cases for divorce are held up for long and unending periods. It is for these reasons that I have thought fit to move the Motion which stands in my name and I sincerely hope that it will receive the support and the sympathy of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I very much welcome the debate on this important subject which has been initiated this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, in an interesting and, if I may say so, a well-informed speech, more particularly because he has had an opportunity of seeing at first hand the working of the machinery which is under discussion. I may say at once that the noble Earl is substantially accurate in his facts, and he in no way whatever exaggerated the gravity of the situation. There are an enormous number of Service divorce cases; there is great delay, and there is consequently great hardship. But unfortunately there have been, and still are, almost insuperable difficulties in handling the cases with the expedition which the men and women concerned are entitled to expect and which we are striving our utmost to achieve. I tell your Lordships quite frankly that since I assumed office as Lord Chancellor there has been no subject, of the many subjects with which the Lord Chancellor has to deal, to which I have given more attention and which has given me more acute anxiety than the problem of these Service divorce cases. That anxiety I am quite sure was shared by my predecessor, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I am in frequent consultation with the
348
President of the Divorce Division, whom I am glad to see sitting with us to-day, and with the President and the officials of the Law Society, about the situation. They certainly share my anxiety and I can assure your Lordships that that anxiety is fully shared by my colleagues in the Government, who recognize the need of taking every possible step to put matters right.
I am anxious that your Lordships and the public should understand how matters stand at present and what steps we are taking. That is why I welcome the opportunity of this debate in order that I may give as full a picture as I can of the situation. I hope your Lordships will bear with me whilst I review the past, and deal with the present. It is a very grave situation. The noble Earl has already described to you the existing machinery for enabling men and women in the Forces to get a divorce. I will not go over that part of the ground again. It is sufficient to say that the Services legal aid schemes were introduced in the latter half of 1942. At that time there was no special machinery available for giving advice and assistance to members of the forces. A man serving in the Army who wanted to pursue his remedy in the Courts had to avail him-self of the ordinary poor persons procedure. The man applied for a poor person's certificate to the Law Society or the provincial Law Society and had to satisfy a somewhat rigid means test. Furthermore, at that time (the war having been on for some time), the Poor Persons Committees were in a sorry plight. There was a great drain on the man-power of the profession, on the solicitors, caused by the demands of the Services and other forms of service, which had reduced the number of solicitors available to take poor persons' cases almost to vanishing point. In the case of some provincial Law Societies, every single member of the Poor Persons Committee was away on national service, with the result that the Committee themselves were simply unable to function.
It is no exaggeration to say that by the end of 1941 the system which existed in this country in peacetime for giving legal aid to poor persons had largely broken down. At the same time, as the noble Lord has pointed out, a demand had arisen for some facilities for legal

349
advice and assistance in the Services themselves. Indeed the President of the Law Society had already, in September, 1941, drawn the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the unfortunate result to men and women serving in the Forces which was being occasioned by delays in the poor persons' procedure. I must tell your Lordships, as indeed I am glad to do, that the initiative in this matter came from the Law Society, who themselves offered to set up a special Services Divorce Department if the three Service Departments would form an organization to help the troops by giving legal advice at first hand, and if special procedure adapted to Service requirements could be introduced. The Law Society in fact set up their Services Divorce Department in January, 1942. It was in those circumstances that the Services legal aid schemes were conceived—schemes providing free legal advice and very cheap legal assistance in the conduct of certain kinds of litigation, and, in particular, divorce cases.
So far as the schemes provide for litigation, they were, and are now, an adaptation of the ordinary poor persons' procedure to Service requirements. For instance, the rigid means test was abolished in favour of a test by rank, with the result that all Service men and women whose Service rank is not above that of Sergeant, Flight-Sergeant or Petty Officer, are entitled to the benefit of the Service scheme with the exception of the rare case where the man or woman concerned happens to have some substantial private means. I may observe here that demobilization from the Forces does not mean that the demobilized man or woman who has applied for assistance under the scheme while in the Forces has to start again. If proceedings were started while the petitioner was in the Forces, he or she continues to get the benefit of the scheme notwithstanding demobilization.
The noble Earl has described to your Lordships the steps which have to be taken by the serving soldier who wants a divorce. He has characterized the proceedings as complicated. Well, perhaps they are. You begin with the Army authorities, the legal aid sections, then the Law Society's two organizations, the Poor Persons Committee and the Services Divorce Department, and finally you reach the Courts. The reasons for
350
this seemingly complex procedure are twofold. In the first place, the men and women proceeding under the schemes are serving all over the world under Service conditions. They have to be informed where they are serving, and this can only be done by serving officers and their assistants on the spot. If the first contact between the would-be petitioner and his legal adviser had to be conducted by correspondence, the delays would be far greater than they are under the present conditions. Secondly, when the case gets to the Courts, the whole machinery of justice is set in motion for the benefit of the soldier petitioner, at practically no cost to himself. As in the case of all parties proceeding as poor persons, the State and the legal profession bear the entire burden. This burden is not normally undertaken without a proper inquiry being made, on the application for a poor person's certificate, to see whether a petitioner has got a prima facie case and has not got the means to employ his own solicitor.
It is quite plain from the figures quoted that the Service legal aid schemes have supplied a service the magnitude of which was far beyond the contemplation of those who set them up. From July, 1942, to the end of last year, about 48,500 applications for assistance in divorce proceedings alone had been accepted by the Command legal aid sections at home and overseas. They had come to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case. As I am dealing with divorce, I will not give the figures for legal advice and litigation in fields other than divorce, but I can assure your Lordships that they are also very substantial. This large number of applications for divorce is a tragic but symptomatic feature of the disastrous disturbances brought about by the war in the field of family relationship. I realize that many of your Lordships must share the anxiety which those who have had to investigate these figures felt about this whole problem. But, my Lords, the melancholy fact is this—I do not seek to conceal it—that in all these 48,500 divorce cases brought by serving men and women, not more than 5,198 decrees nisi had been obtained by the end of 1945, and of these 5,000, some 3,000 were not then finally finished on account of questions of custody or costs or something.

351
It is the fact, as the noble Earl has said, that in a very large number of cases the proceedings were initiated at the legal aid sections so long ago as the spring of 1943. I do not say in every single case there has been a long delay. Cases have been quoted to me in which it was vital for many special reasons that the case should be disposed of rapidly, and I believe that the record is something like six weeks from start to finish. But in the vast majority of cases the normal period which elapses from the date on which an application is made to the legal aid section and the date on which the decree is made absolute, and the parties are free to marry again, is now of the order of three to three-and-a-half years. I am not saying that in cases of particular difficulty the time may not be even longer.
Why has this situation developed, and what are the causes of delay? The first thing I wish to emphasize is that as the noble Earl has said, and as has recently been stated in another place, the delay is not at the Courts but in the preparatory stages. The President of the Divorce Division has made it his constant care to see that these Service cases have not been held up by delays of the Courts. He and his Puisne Judges have gone out of their way to ensure that everything possible is done to facilitate the hearing of the Service cases. Affidavit evidence is allowed when the petitioner is serving in distant theatres of operations. Service cases are given preferential treatment in fixing the date of trial. Special machinery has been set up for photographing petitions and affidavits so as to avoid delay, and in particular the divorce Judges have taken it in turn to sit continuously throughout the Long Vacation so that no Service case may be held up. The result of all these measures is that Service cases have been disposed of in a very short period.
Turning to the preparatory stage, as I have already said, the number of cases coming forward is far in excess of those originally contemplated when the Legal Aid Society set up a special organization known as the Services Divorce Department. The creation by the Law Society of this department was a part, and a vital part, of the arrangements made in 1942 for tackling Service divorce cases. Its
352
creation, as I have already mentioned, was due to the initiation and foresight of the Law Society. Here I would like to tell your Lordships that the Government recognize the debt of gratitude owed to the Law Society for the part which they have played and are playing in this matter. No blame attaches to the Law Society for the present state of affairs. On the contrary, they have done their utmost, with inadequate staff and inadequate accommodation, to cope with a hopeless flood of work. All through the war when accommodation and staff were at a premium, it was unfortunately impossible for the Government to assist them with either, with the result that the Services Divorce Department had to wage a constant struggle to carry on at all, and even at the present time the staffs of the Department are working in quarters and accommodation which are well nigh intolerable. The comparatively small number of cases which have been finally disposed of so far gives no indication at all of the magnitude of the efforts which have been made by the Law Society and the able officials who work under them. Although during the war some members of the solicitors' profession, despite shortage of staff and the difficult times, managed to conduct quite a substantial number of civilian poor-person cases—for which great credit is due to them—from 1942 until quite recently the paid whole-time solicitors of the Services Divorce Department were almost the only solicitors in the country who were regularly conducting proceedings on behalf of Service men and women, but their numbers and their staff were, and still are, very limited.
There are, of course, peculiar features in Service divorce cases which tend to make for delay: for example, the fact that the parties and their witnesses are serving overseas, often in remote places where communication is impossible or difficult. Sometimes divorce papers have been lost in transit, through enemy action. But, and I would emphasize the fact, the main cause of delay in the preparation of the cases lies at present in the inability of the Services Divorce Department to handle the cases fast enough. I repeat that the Department is grossly understaffed and, notwithstanding every possible effort which has been made during the last twelve months, it is only now that the staff can be gradually in-

353
creased and accommodation found to enable the Department to be expanded to a size adequate to the demands made upon it.
The Department is divided into a number of units, as they are called, each of which is presided over by a solicitor who has, or ought to have, a number of clerks and shorthand and copy-typists under him. Each unit is organized rather like an ordinary solicitor's office. When the cases come into the Department they are immediately allocated to one of the units, and the solicitor in charge of that unit then becomes the solicitor in the case and sees it through the Courts. At the present moment there are six units. At the beginning of May there will be nine if—and I stress the word "if"—we can find the staff, and particularly the typing staff, which is required.
At the beginning of this year the Services Divorce Department had about 10,300 cases in hand, of which some 3,000 were cases in which the decree nisi had been pronounced, but which had not been finally disposed of. On the same date the Poor Persons Committee, the organization which feeds the cases to the Services Divorce Department, had more than 3,000 cases waiting to be passed to that Department and a further 14,000 cases waiting for the issue of a poor person's certificate. As many noble Lords know, the Poor Persons Committee consists of solicitors in general practice who do the work of examining the cases entirely voluntarily and gratuitously. The London Committee sits three or four days a week, and the mass of cases throws a very heavy burden on the gentlemen concerned. On January 1, 1946—all my figures are based on January 1, 1946, and the position has been getting worse since then—there were more than 24,000 Service cases pending in the two organizations of the Law Society: that is to say, cases passed to the Law Society through the legal aid sections but in which decrees nisi had not then been pronounced. To complete the picture, I ought to add that on the same date there were still some 19.000 cases pending in the Services legal aid sections at home and overseas.
The position to-day is that cases are still coming into the legal aid sections faster than they are being got rid of by the Services Divorce Department. The delay in the Poor Persons Committee has not seriously affected the position because
354
that Committee has an accumulated mass of cases in which the poor person's certificates have been issued, but which at: present cannot be absorbed by the Services Divorce Department. In due time it is proposed to abolish the need for the issue of poor person's certificates in Service cases altogether, with the result: that the cases will be sent straight from the Legal Aid Department to the Services Divorce Department, and one of the drags on the wheel will be removed.
The experienced officers who control the legal aid sections tell me that the flood of Service cases now shows some sign of diminishing, and I hope the peak has been reached. I say nothing of the ordinary civilian cases, which, as your Lordships know, are coming forward in unprecedented numbers. The problem now is how to dispose, as fast as is humanly possible, of the accumulated mass of Service cases which reach a total of some 43,000. When I tell your Lordships that out of the total of 20,000 divorce cases disposed of by the Judges in. 1945 only some 3,000 odd were Service cases, because those were the only Service cases ready for trial, the magnitude of the task of disposing of 43,000 can be appreciated.
My noble friend asked what steps the Government are taking to deal with the situation, and I am glad to tell him what we are trying to do. It may, I think, be fairly said that the machinery for handling these cases has broken down. It was on that assumption that I reviewed the situation very recently in consultation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, and with the President of the Law Society. There seemed to us all to be two possible courses. One was to start an entirely new system for handling the cases, and the other was to take the existing organization and do everything possible to make it capable of dealing with the situation which had arisen. The Law Society pointed out that it had not hitherto been possible for the Government to help by finding the accommodation or staff, but they said that, given Government aid in finance, accommodation and staff, their organization could be expanded to a capacity capable of disposing of the mass of cases within two years from the date on which the expansion became effective, which means disposing of the cases at the rate of 20,000 per annum. In the circumstances, the Government considered that

355
the only practical and proper course was to accept the offer of the Law Society, and that offer has been accepted on the terms mentioned. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works has agreed to find the necessary accommodation and has already done much in that direction. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has promised to do his best with the even more difficult matter of staff, and the Treasury have agreed to finance the proposals as suggested by the Law Society.
The proposals are these. Plans have been laid and are already in process of being carried out for expanding the Services Divorce Department to nearly four times its present establishment of units. There will be thirty-five units, of which seventeen will operate in London, where the bulk of the cases fall to be heard, and the other eighteen units will be stationed in the large provincial centres. The work will thus be decentralized, which in itself should make for speed and efficiency. We have already secured suitable buildings in London, and offices in the provinces are being found. The Law Society tell me that at the present stage of demobilization they expect little difficulty in finding solicitors to take charge of the numerous new units. The requisite number of managing clerks is also available. The most difficult problem will be in finding shorthand-and copy-typists. If I were asked to specify one single cause rather than another for the present lamentable state of affairs I should be inclined to point to the current shortage of typists. During the war and in recent months it has been almost impossible to find typing staff, with the result that the Law Society are to-day short of some fifty typists for their existing establishment. The expansion of the department which I have indicated will mean that they will require some 300 additional typists. I have been most carefully into the matter myself in all its aspects; I have suggested the introduction of every possible improvisation and expedient, mechanical and otherwise, for meeting the situation, but the fact remains that this vital work requires a great deal of typing and there are not sufficient typists to do it. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is doing his utmost to help me find the girls, but they are slow in coming forward. If there are any
356
available shorthand-typists or copy-typists who would be prepared to play a part either in London or in the provinces to help these poor men and women of the Forces to get a fresh start in life after all the stress and turmoil of the war years, I earnestly hope that they will get into touch with the Secretary of the Law Society at once.
Subject to the vital question of typists, we hope to get the Services Divorce Department expanded to half the target figure by July, when it should be handling cases at the rate of 10,000 a year, and fully expanded by the end of the year. I can assure your Lordships that anything that I or my colleagues can do to get the whole machine working at top pressure will not be left undone, but it must be remembered that the new staff will have to be trained in the work and that disappointments and setbacks will undoubtedly occur. I therefore make no promise beyond that we will do our best.
If I may trouble your Lordships for a few moments longer, there is a further aspect of the matter which I must mention. It will have occurred to many of your Lordships that it is of little use to expand enormously the rate at which the cases are prepared if the only result is to create a bottleneck where no bottleneck exists at present, that is to say at the Courts. If the whole process is to operate smoothly and rapidly the judicial machinery must be capable of disposing of the cases at whatever rate we can make them ready for hearing. Therefore we must see, and we shall see, that the Divorce Registry in London and the other District Registries are provided with adequate staff and accommodation to absorb the cases and that the judicial strength is adequate to meet the very heavy demands which will be made upon it. Steps have already been taken to expand the Divorce Registries.
As to the increase in Judge-power which will be necessary, one course would be to create additional Judges; but there is, I think, objection to the creation of a number of new permanent Judges to deal with a situation which is in reality—at least, so I hope and pray—of a temporary nature. The existing Judges are already capable of disposing of more than 20,000 divorce cases of all types every year—they are disposed of in London and on the Circuits in about

357
equal proportions—but if Service cases alone were to reach the Courts at the rate of 20,000 per annum the judicial machinery would be swamped. After much consideration and consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Divorce Division we have decided that the best course, as a short-term policy to supplement the existing Judge-power, is to appoint a number of Commissioners who will sit in London and in the provinces under a special Commission made in pursuance of the powers granted by Section 70 of the Judicature Act, 1925.
As your Lordships know, a Commissioner when sitting has all the power and authority of a High Court Judge: his sitting is a sitting of the High Court. There is, therefore, no suggestion that any less degree of authority will be brought to bear upon the trial of Service divorce cases than is brought to bear upon any other type of divorce case. That is important because there can, I think, be no excuse whatever for treating Service divorce cases any differently from any others. The law to be applied is the same, and the standard of care and skill should be no less. What we have to do is to see that the machinery of preparation for the trial is adequate to meet the demands made upon it. Your Lordships may be assured that no chance will be lost of making improvements wherever possible as, for example, in the deletion of unnecessary technical steps and the speeding up of the process at every stage.
I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships at such length. Believe me, I feel this is a matter of vital importance. It may not be so sensational or arresting as, for instance, the shortage of bricks or the shortage of timber, but if you are going to have a system which prevents a very large body of men and women—who have deserved well of us, if any men and women have—having the benefit of starting a new family life, and if you are going to expose them to a system which makes the contraction of irregular unions almost inevitable, you will be doing something which may in the long run do this country more injury than any shortage of physical materials can possibly do.
3.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to occupy three or four minutes. Speaking for myself, and I think for the great majority of your Lord-ships, perhaps I may say that the Lord
358
Chancellor has no reason to apologize for occupying the time which he did occupy. He has given to many of us a much more complete understanding of this problem than was previously held. What gives particular satisfaction to those of us who have really looked into it closely is that he made at the end some practical proposals which I hope with all my heart will produce a real improvement. I am very glad that in the time of a former Government we took our courage in both hands and insisted upon a new system to help the man who was serving and who had bad news from home. There was no such special system before that. If we are going to mention those who took a special part in it there is one name I would venture to mention which has not been mentioned in this debate, and that is the name of the present Lord Schuster. It was a Committee over which he presided in the Lord Chancellor's Department, assisted by very good servants of the Crown in that Department, which did so much to get this thing into shape.
It was not the easiest thing in the world to persuade the heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force in the midst of the pinch of war to develop a system not immediately connected with fighting the enemy but which none the less was of very great importance to maintain morale and to do justice. I should be glad also if I might be allowed to join the Lord Chancellor in paying a most sincere tribute to the part which the Law Society has taken in this, both in its origin and in its carrying out. Very few people know how much we really owe to the self-sacrificing work done by a comparatively limited body of solicitors, not able themselves to serve, over-burdened in many cases with the business of their own particular practice, with their partners absent, with the loss, very often, of their managing clerk, and in addition, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has just said, without the ordinary means by which letters can be rapidly taken down, typed and dealt with. It is proof of the public spirit of the profession that its members should have shouldered this task with such courage and such devotion and such success, for what would have happened if they had not played their part in this matter almost boggles the imagination. I would, therefore, for my part, like to assure the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that the proposals he has outlined will

359
receive our most sympathetic support. I cannot attempt to discuss the methods suggested, but it is absolutely necessary that something should be done because otherwise we shall go from bad to worse. A very united effort will be needed in order to remove one of the greatest objections to legal proceedings, and that is what Hamlet called the law's delay.
4.1 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to add one word. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has explained to us how, after consultation with the noble Lord the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and the Secretary of the Law Society, he has taken practical steps to expedite the hearing of these Service cases. He has further told us how he has intervened—I imagine successfully—with his ministerial colleagues, and he mentioned some of them, namely, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Works, and also the Treasury, to see that it is in fact possible to carry these improvements into being. What I do want to ask is whether he has completed, or if he has not whether he will complete, that excellent work by going to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for Air, to see how many competent clerical staff and how many excellent typists—particularly female typists—are at the present time still retained in the Fighting Services.
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I must express to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack my gratitude to him for the friendly manner in which he has replied to the question on the Paper. Before I withdraw my Motion, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether in endeavouring to find the three hundred or more typists who are required, he will see that his request that the Law Society should obtain the services of these girls receives full publicity. I would also ask that he should consider whether he, or perhaps someone from the Law Society on his behalf, could make some broadcast at a suitable hour and on a suitable day as a means of attracting girls to this essential and useful work. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IMBER TRAINING AREA.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they anticipate giving a decision in regard to the future of the Imber area as a live battle-training ground, and, further, if it is His Majesty's Government's intention to retain it, what compensation will be paid for the damage done to dwellings due to the concussion which is felt beyond the confines of the area itself.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I regret that I cannot, at the moment, give any indication of the date when it will be possible to announce the decision regarding the future of the Imber training area. I can, however, assure noble Lords that there will be no unnecessary delay in arriving at a decision and in making it known. It will be realized that this is only one item in a very large programme—the provision of training-land facilities for the post-war Army—and that it cannot with justice be considered in isolation. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War has had a particular responsibility in connexion with the general problem. At the request of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War he has for some time been engaged in surveying the whole of the land owned or occupied by the Army, in order to formulate the future requirements, based on the best assumptions which can be made at present regarding the size, shape, and organization of the post-war Army. Similar action is being taken by the other Service Departments.
As soon as this task is completed, and it is nearly finished, it is intended to coordinate the proposals of the three Services, and to place the co-ordinated scheme before the Minister of Town and Country Planning, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and other interested Departments, in order to determine how the needs of the Services can best be met to the general advantage of the public. The authorities and interests in all the areas which appear to be affected

361
are naturally concerned to find out as quickly as possible how and to what extent their own particular area is to be used, but I hope that the noble Viscount, and noble Lords generally, will appreciate that it is essential, in the general interest, to deal with the plan as a whole, and that it would be improper to prejudice the position in one area by a premature decision on the future use of another. In these circumstances the point raised in the second part of the question does not arise at present. My noble friend will be happy to deal with it in due course if it should prove necessary.
4.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I would ask, in view of the grave anxiety which exists at the present time that training is about to take place in that area—and so far we have had no word from His Majesty's Government with regard to the compensation to be paid to us—whether he would again raise that matter with His Majesty's Government and try to help us at this very vital moment, the beginning of the summer training.
LORD AMMON: I assure the noble Viscount I will bring this to the attention of my right honourable friend.
4.7 p.m.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Consolidated Fund (No. 1).

Furnished Houses (Rent Control).

Building Restrictions (War-time Contraventions).

362

Statutory Instruments.

Straits Settlements (Repeal).

National Service (Release of Conscientious Objectors).

India (Central Government and Legislature).

Miscellaneous Financial Provisions.

Public Works Loans.

Water (Scotland).

Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation).

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mortlake Crematorium Board).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 6th and 19th of February last discharged and the Bill committed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

Borough of Luton,

Urban district of Otley:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.