Sitting of 16 February 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BOLTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading, deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  BRITISH HONDURAS (EMPLOYMENT)
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the responsibility of the present re-absorption officer in Belize who has been appointed on a temporary basis to deal with the unemployment problem; what staff and office accommodation is available to this officer; what is the number of ex-Service men for whom this officer has been able to obtain employment; and what was the number of registered unemployed in British Honduras at the latest convenient date.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): My hon. Friend no doubt has in mind the liaison officer, appointed to attend to ex-Service men's problems, including employment. This officer is attached to and has an office in the Labour Department. It has not been found necessary to provide him with a separate staff of his own. At the end of November, there were 645 registered unemployed in British Honduras, of whom 102 were ex-Service men. Between that date and the end of January, the number of unemployed ex-Service men on the register was reduced to 74, including 42 for whom casual work has been found.
  Mr. Cooper: Does the Colonial Secretary realise that the figures of registered
  1114
  unemployed give little real indication of the unemployment problem in Honduras, because few men continue to register when they see that so little is done for them? Can he give an assurance that something more vigorous will be done in future than has been done in the past to alleviate this problem, which I have been following up for over a year with little result?
  Mr. Creech Jones: In the difficult economic circumstances of British Honduras, everything possible is being done to find employment for these men, and the figures which I have given do indicate an important reduction.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether "re-absorption officer" is the official title of this man, and what are his exact functions?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have not the official title here, but that is certainly not the title by which he is known in British Honduras.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: Will the figures distinguish between the native and the white populations?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir; not the figures in my reply.
  Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the registered figures, unless registration is made compulsory, really do not indicate the size of the problem?
  Mr. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to establish a well-organised employment exchange in Belize, British Honduras, in order to tackle more effectively than at the present time the urgent unemployment problem.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Government Departments are required to obtain such labour as they need through the Labour Department, which fulfils the functions of an employment exchange and maintains a register of unemployed. That Department also keeps in touch with private employers for the same purpose, and there would be no advantage in establishing a separate employment exchange.
  Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer does not bear out the testimony coming from the

  1115
  Colony, and will he look into this matter again, because he will no doubt realise that the problem will not be solved until new development schemes are introduced and new industries are developed in the Colony?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I would point out that very considerable attention is being given to the recommendations of the Commission which visited Honduras, and many of its recommendations are being applied at the present time.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Could not the Governor be recalled for consultation?

  HONG KONG (BROADCASTING STATION)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the strength of the Hong Kong Radio is only 2½kilowatts; that this station cannot possibly be heard in Canton or even in some parts of the New Territories; and what steps are being taken to improve the coverage of the Hong Kong station.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am aware that the present power of the Hong Kong Broadcasting Station may not give a fully effective service to the whole of the new territories at all times and seasons. The possibility of an increase in power, which would improve the service to all parts of the Colony, is already being examined.
  Mr. Gammans: Is the Government going to try to set up a broadcasting station in Hong Kong that can be heard throughout South China as well, or are they going to neglect this opportunity of getting in touch with a large number of people in China?
  Mr. Creech Jones: There is, of course, the broadcasting station in Malaya, but the whole of our broadcasting policy in these British territories is now being very closely examined.
  Mr. Gammans: What is the relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there is a broadcasting station in Malaya?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member referred to South China.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that broadcasts from the Malayan broadcasting station will be heard in South China?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, I am saying that the whole of our broadcasting policy in that part of the world is now under close examination by the Government.
  Mr. Fletcher: But can the station be heard in South China?
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Radio Hong Kong continues to be under the control of the Postmaster-General instead of setting up a special radio department in Malaya.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am consulting the Governor of Hong Kong on the point raised by the hon. Member and will communicate with him as soon as I have received the Governor's reply.
  Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction in Hong Kong about this arrangement, for people do not see why they cannot have the same sort of set-up as Malaya?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is for that reason that I am in contact with the Governor of Hong Kong to discover whether further changes can be made.

  CAMEROONS (DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
  Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present constitution and function of the Cameroons Development Corporation; by whom appointments are made to it; and what governmental control is exercised over it.
  Mr. Creech Jones: This Corporation was forced to develop the resources of certain ex-enemy properties in the Cameroons under United Kingdom Trusteeship. Its constitution and functions are set out in Nigerian Ordinance No. 39 of 1946, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House. Appointments to the Corporation are made by the Governor. As regards the last part of the Question, the Corporation is required to submit annually to the

  1117
  Governor of Nigeria a Report on its operation and policy, and a statement of accounts has to be laid before the Legislative Council. Its net profits have to be applied under the direction of the Governor for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Trust Territory.
  Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is proper co-ordination between the functions of the Nigerian administration and the officials of the Cameroons Development Corporation in respect of matters like education and labour conditions in the work which is being done in the Cameroons?
  Mr. Creech Jones: There is very close co-ordination between the work of the Trust territory and the Nigerian Government.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: Has there been any review of this matter in the last nine months, because at an earlier date there was a very definite division of view between the Corporation and the Nigerian Government on responsibility, with education falling between two stools?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Responsibility is with the Nigerian Government and this matter has recently been under discussion again.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Students, United Kingdom (Accommodation)
    Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are made to provide suitable hostel or other accommodation for colonial students arriving in this country for the first time; and whether he is satisfied with the present position.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Arrangements are made to provide colonial students with accommodation in hostels, University Halls of Residence, or in suitable lodgings. I am satisfied that the arrangements for new arrivals are adequate.
    Mr. Davies: Would not the Minister agree that wherever possible it is desirable for West Africans and other colonial people coming to this country to have an opportunity to mix with good English families? Will he pay increasing attention to that and get more families to make offers to accommodate them?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, it is part of our general policy not to segregate colonial peoples in this country but to find accommodation for them as far as possible in British homes. Obviously, however, there are very real difficulties and hostels become essential if we are to cope with the problem of accommodation for the students coming here.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if anything is being done to provide playing field facilities for the students?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That problem is being looked into at the moment by the welfare department of the Colonial Office.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Are there at present any hostels for British and Colonial students, mixed?
    Mr. Creech Jones: We are anxious in the case of the universities that such hostels should be established and some progress has already been made. I believe in the case of London there is already a mixed hostel in operation.
    Colonel Clarke: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether one of these hostels is at Colonial House, Stepney? Is he aware that it is reported that this house was raided on 29th January, by the police as a gambling house and that it is also reported as a centre of undesirable ideological propaganda?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I should like notice of that question. I am aware that there has been some incident at the East End hostel or centre but I am not in a position to answer for the facts without proper notice.

    Official Visits
    Mr. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officials on the staff of the Colonial Office paid visits to any part of the British Colonies for any purpose during the years ended 31st December, 1947, and 31st December, 1938, respectively.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Fifty-two in 1947 and 11 in 1938.
    Mr. Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman looking into the claim recently publicised by the Governor of the Leeward Islands about the number of fruitless

    1119
    journeys made by officials from his Department, which claim is confirmed by Colonial officials in other parts of the Empire; and is he instituting some check to ensure that all these journeys are really necessary and productive?
    Mr. Creech Jones: All the journeys being made are necessary. It is important that the Colonial Office should be staffed by people with some experience in the Colonies. I can only say that if such a statement is made in regard to the Leeward Islands it is just nonsense.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the old days, when air travel was difficult, the continual complaint of the Colonies was that not enough visits were made from the Colonial Office? Is it not a very good thing that more and more visits should be made?
    Mr. Thomas Reid: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in addition to sending out these officials, he would make it his policy to staff the Colonial Office as far as possible with people with long administrative and political experience of the Colonies?
    Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is it not a fact that, now air travel and conditions of travel are so much easier, more and more officials are needed, especially those with technical experience, to go round? Will he encourage that as much as possible?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly. It is being encouraged in every possible way and the figures I have quoted indicate the progress which has been made since the war.

    Women (Circumcision)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what British dependencies the rite of female circumcision is practised; and what steps are taken to bring the practice to an end.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that the rites of female circumcision, generally in their less severe forms, are practised among a few tribes in certain of the African dependencies. I am not aware that the custom exists in British dependencies outside these areas. By tactful and unobtrusive persuasion, Governments have influenced and continue to influence
    1120
    African opinion in favour of its abolition, and with the spread of education and knowledge of hygiene there is reason to believe that progress will be made.

    MALAYA (INSURANCE)
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with bringing into being a Government insurance scheme in Malaya, in view of the fact that without such a scheme the vital flow of dollar-earning commodities from that area is in danger of stopping at short notice.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Discussions are taking place in London with the interests concerned, whose views will be forwarded to the Malayan Governments for their consideration.
    Mr. Fletcher: As no answer has yet been received from the Malayan Government saying that they are in favour of such a scheme, will the Minister put the lightning-like pressure well known to his Department behind the urge to bring this into being?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Malayan Government have been kept fully in touch with this development and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all possible speed will be used in order that conclusions should be reached without delay.

    GAMBIA (RICE PRODUCTION)
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made to date with the proposal to develop rice production in the Gambia.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Gambia Government have a scheme by which 32 square miles in the neighbourhood of Bathurst, the capital, would be reclaimed from the sea, and about half of this area planted with rice. A Consulting Engineer is now in the Colony examining the reclamation scheme in more detail. The West African Rice Mission has also suggested that a mechanised rice scheme should be tried in the area of McCarthy Island on the middle Gambia river and the Governor who is very anxious to

    1121
    increase rice production in the Colony is considering whether funds can be found for this.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible as yet to give any estimate as to when there will be some results from this scheme to grow food in the Colony; when it will make a real contribution to better nutrition within the Colony; and when there will be an exportable surplus of rice?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is hoped that as a result of this work, 10,000 additional acres will be brought into cultivation, but in the Colony they are, of course, very conscious of the importance of increasing the food supply.
    Mr. Erroll: Is not the poultry scheme interfering with the rice scheme?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have not heard that that is the case.

  TANGANYIKA

    Agricultural Officers
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many agricultural officers are employed in Tanganyika; what are their salaries; and for what approximate area each officer is responsible.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Thirty-three fully qualified agricultural officers are employed in Tanganyika on salaries ranging from £585 to £1,320 per annum. The aim is to have an agricultural officer in charge of each of the 47 Administrative Districts, the areas of which vary from 1,800 to 38,000 square miles, but owing to the shortage of qualified recruits it has not yet been possible to realise this aim.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of suitable persons who might be used to make up this shortage are having a good deal of their time wasted—and there are too many of them—on the groundnut scheme on the other side?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot accept that assumption. We are trying to increase the agricultural staff to make good
    1122
    the deficiency there, but in addition, we have made about 57 additional appointments of assistants to the principal agricultural officer.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what principle is followed in the selection and recruitment of these officers?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question, but I can supply the information. They are graduates of a certain standard and they are, of course, in short supply because we did not have the flow out from the universities in the war years.

    Dar-es-Salaam Harbour
    Mr. J. H. Hareasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether work has now been started on two deep-water berths in Dar-es-Salaam Harbour; and when it is anticipated that these berths will be in operation.
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is hoped that the detailed designs will be ready for tendering at the end of April. It is expected that the first berth will be in operation at the end of 1951 and the second in
    1952.
    Mr. Hare: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether with the completion of these two deep water quays the port of Dar-es-Salaam will be able to cope with a greatly increased amount of traffic, which, presumably, may be expected because of these two berths?
    Mr. Creech Jones: As the hon. Member is aware, we have just had a conference in London about all the facilities of the port and the possibilities of development have been under consideration. I think I can give that assurance.
    Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now a time lag of something like four months in the import of urgently-needed consumer goods owing to the priority given to the groundnut scheme? Does he think that as a result of this action it will be possible to reduce that priority?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I rather hope that the port will facilitate a rapid flow of goods as they arrive. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those on the spot think these proposals will provide just the facilities that are necessary.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Did the right hon. Gentleman at his meeting in London consider the following alternatives which may give better and quicker results—first, the development of Dar-es-Salaam as a lighterage port, which would provide better, quicker and cheaper facilities; and secondly, extending the railway to Kilindini? There is only about 20 miles difference.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Both projects have received very careful consideration. The port will be very largely a lighterage port. As to the railway extension proposed, that is being considered, and we hope it will be carried through.

    Railway Rolling-stock
    Mr. Hareasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when were indents for rolling-stock replacements first received from the Tanganyikan railways; and how have these requirements been complied with.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The first indents for the post-war replacement of wagons and locomotives for the Tanganyika section of the East African Railways were received in 1945. The 61 wagons then ordered were supplied in 1947, and the two locomotives are due for delivery this year. Eight locomotives subsequently applied for were supplied last April.
    Mr. Hare: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we shall be able to supply the amount of steel needed in these territories? Is he certain that the Government have given a large enough allotment of steel for providing adequate rolling-stock for the Colonies as a whole?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, we have taken the requirements of transport in Africa very seriously indeed, and I hope we shall get progress with this programme.

  GOLD COAST

    Mass Education
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what plans the Gold Coast Government have formulated for the extension of mass education throughout the country;
    (2) what staff and administrative facilities have been allotted to the mass education officer in the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Comprehensive plans have not yet been formulated. An
    1124
    experimental project in mass education is being carried out in an area of Togoland over a period of six months. In the light of the results of this experiment it is the Government's intention to make plans for the extension of mass education throughout the country. In carrying out this experiment the social development officer has had the assistance of the Social Welfare Department and of the administrative staff in the area concerned.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the extreme dilatoriness of the Gold Coast Government in all its dealings with mass education?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot accept the assumption that there has been dilatoriness. We have done everything possible to stimulate an active interest in the problem of mass education. I think that on the Gold Coast some interesting work has already been done.
    Mr. Donner: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this extension of mass education will be accompanied by the provision of suitable religious literature in adequate quantities, otherwise the new literates will only create a demand for a yellow Press of the worst possible kind?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The question of the supply of literature comes in a later Question, I think, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I recognise the importance of additional literature.
    Dr. Segal: How many mass education officers have been allotted to the northern territories?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is a different question. If I am given notice of it, I will answer it.

    New Immigration Procedure
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware of the indignation which has been caused by the terms of Gazette Notice No. 192 published in the "Gold Coast Gazette" on 1st February in which it is stated that there is to be revised immigration procedure which will apply, irrespective of nationality or race to British subjects as well as aliens; and what consultations took place before this procedure was announced;

    1125
    (2) whether he is aware that under the new immigration procedure in the Gold Coast owners or partners in businesses or professions in the Gold Coast will now have to obtain re-entry permits before they leave that territory and that any new partners in a firm will have to show that the expansion of the business is in the economic interest of the Gold Coast before getting a permit to go there; and whether, in view of the unfortunate effect which these limitations will have on the proper development of the Gold Coast by private British interests, he will arrange for their reconsideration;
    (3) whether he has approved the new ordinance in the Gold Coast under which wives accompanying their husbands to that territory will not be allowed to undertake any employment without the permission of the Gold Coast Government.
    Captain John Crowderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that under the new immigration procedure being applied ill the Gold Coast the children of British persons working there will not necessarily be permitted to stay after they have reached the age of 16, after which age they will be considered as if they were new immigrants and therefore on the same footing as aliens wishing to visit the colony; and whether he has approved such arrangements;
    (2) whether he is aware that the new immigration procedure announced for the Gold Coast may oblige British subjects who go as temporary visitors to the Gold Coast to make a deposit or enter into a Bond and that conditions will be imposed preventing them from undertaking any employment locally; and whether he has approved such arrangements.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am aware of the points raised by hon. Members, but as they all bear on a matter of general policy I will state briefly the reasons why the Gold Coast Government has taken the action to which the Questions relate.
    It is the settled policy of His Majesty's Government, in the Gold Coast as in other West African Territories, that the advancement of the African peoples shall be safeguarded not only in the political sphere, but also in the economic field, into which the African is now entering in increasing numbers with the growth of
    1126
    education. There is strong political feeling on this subject in the Gold Coast, and it is right that the Government should pay due regard to it.
    There is nothing new in applying the Immigration Law in a Colonial Territory to immigrants from all countries or to providing in the law that the economic background of an intended immigrant, whether British or foreign, shall be examined in order to ensure that his intended occupation shall not conflict with the interests of the inhabitants. It was in accordance with this principle that the Gold Coast Government amended their immigration law in September of last year, with my agreement, to enable them to control the immigration of persons whose intended occupation might prove detrimental to the economic development of the inhabitants of the Gold Coast. In consequence of this amendment a directive was given by the Government to the immigration authorities and the Gazette Notice which is now in question is no more than a notification to the general public of the substance of that directive and the manner in which it will be operated. The terms of this Notice were referred to my Department before it was issued.
    The Notice clearly states that it is not intended to apply the procedure in such a manner as to prevent private enterprise from playing a useful part in the development of the Gold Coast in spheres which the indigenous population is unwilling or unqualified to enter. Private businesses, firms and mining companies have played a great part in the development of the Territory; they have a great part to play in the future, and it is not in the interests of the Gold Coast, nor is it the intention of the Gold Coast Government, to make things difficult for them.
    I understand that difficulties are felt in regard to the machinery by which the control is to be operated and in particular the quota system. 1 have little doubt that the Government decided to adopt this system in the belief that it would be less inconvenient to the firms concerned than a separate examination of each individual case. I am however asking the Acting Governor to consider the procedure further in the light of the criticisms which have been made and to discuss it with the interests concerned on the spot,

    1127
    if they so wish, in order to avoid interference with the conduct of their business. I shall also of course be glad to transmit to the Acting Governor any representations which may be made to me.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he has given approval to this extraordinary document which I have in my hand; why it is not signed and who is responsible for it? What is the status of this immigration officer who is supposed to be responsible for operating this extraordinary directive, and is the directive in accordance with the British Nationality Act, which gives a British subject status not only in Great Britain but in the Colonial Empire?
    Mr. Creech Jones: This is an indication of no new principle so far as nationality is concerned. If I can remember all the Questions which I have been asked—which I cannot—I would only say that it gives approval for the amending legislation. The paper referred to does not contain the regulations issued but is an indication to the public of how certain regulations are likely to apply and these, of course, were referred to my Department, but they did not call for my approval.
    Captain Crowder: Is there any precedent for treating British subjects who want to go to the Gold Coast, as aliens?
    Mr. Creech Jones: They are not treated as aliens. This discrimination does occur over quite a period in a great deal of Colonial legislation in regard to immigration.
    Mr. Stanley: Was not the whole purpose of one Clause of the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman's Government this summer to establish a common citizenship between citizens of the United Kingdom and of the Colonial territory, and in these circumstances how can there be discrimination between United Kingdom citizens entering into British Colonies, and how is it that they are not treated on the same lines as the other citizens?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is for this reason, among a number of reasons, that I have asked the Acting Governor of the Gold Coast to give this matter further consideration.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does this new immigration procedure apply to Africans from Sierra Leone and Nigeria, and is this not rather strange at a time when closer union is in all our minds?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It relates to all immigration into the Gold Coast. The primary purpose is to defend the economic interest of Africans, the indigenous inhabitants of the territories. I am very much concerned lest the new regulations interfere with normal trade and commerce and development of the territories, and for that reason I have asked that this matter should be looked at again.
    Mr. George Wigg: Will my right hon. Friend make available in the Library a copy of the directive and of the Gazette Notice No. 192? It seems that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have a considerable advantage over hon. Members on this side, in that they have possession of them and we have not.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The actual instructions to the immigration officers have not yet been received in this country. What has been received is a copy of the "Gazette." What information is available shall be put in the Library.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that this ordinance prohibits the wives of business men in this Colony from taking up employment without permission, but imposes no similar restriction upon the wives of officials? If that is so, what is the reason for that discrimination?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think there is some misunderstanding in regard to that particular point in the proposed regulations. In order to make doubly certain that our view in London is the right one, this is one of the points which we are referring to the Acting Governor.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no such document as the one I hold in my hand is ever introduced again in any Colony without being signed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] It says:
    "Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary. Published by Authority."
    It is unsigned, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies does not know who is responsible for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is responsible for

    1129
    it? Will he find out who is responsible for this document and tell the House of Commons?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I can only say that the paper was issued by the Gold Coast Government and that undoubtedly it is an authoritative statement by the Gold Coast Government.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Why is it not signed?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It must be remembered that in London I cannot control every detail of the actions of Colonial Governments, and indeed it would be folly of me to attempt to do so.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether similar discrimination against Gold Coast subjects coming into this country is to be imposed?
    Mr. Keeling: In view of the big interests and investments of France and America in British West Africa, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether their Governments were consulted, because these regulations apply to their citizens?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I can only say that the amending of the original ordinance was a matter entirely within the discretion of the Gold Coast Government and myself. The regulations which are to be made will be made under that ordinance.
    Mr. Erroll: In promulgating this ordinance, are not the Government pandering to a small section of extremist opinion and acting against the interests of Gold Coast natives as a whole?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would not take that view myself. The purpose of the Amendment to the law is to meet the rising demand among Africans themselves that they should play a larger part in economic life and economic control in their own territory.

  NIGERIA

    Local Projects (Funds)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the funds at the disposal of Nigerian district officers for encouraging local projects have increased in recent years; and whether, in view of the good use to which
    1130
    such funds have been and can be put, the amounts at the disposal of officers will be increased.
    Mr. Creech Jones: A scheme giving wider financial discretion in this matter to administrative officers is being brought into operation in Nigeria. I have recently made it clear to all Colonial Governments in Africa that I should warmly welcome any scheme for encouraging local projects and giving greater initiative to the district staffs.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does it mean that, in fact, sums of money now at the disposal of district officers will be increased shortly, so that they will be able to increase the sums for these various projects?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Certain restrictive financial arrangements are being removed.

    Male Nurses (Accommodation)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to improve the living accommodation for male nurses and their families attached to Nigerian hospitals; and what plans exists to provide adequate accommodation for these nurses.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am asking the Governor for information, and will write to my hon. Friend when I have his reply.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the accommodation for these male nurses leaves much to be desired? Could not action be taken beforehand to provide them with proper accommodation?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think my hon. Friend will find that point covered by the information which I propose to send him.

    Books (Supply)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to encourage and secure a substantial increase in the number of suitable books for Nigerian reading rooms and schools, particularly non-technical or scholastic.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Nigerian Government, acting through the Education and Public Relations Departments, are doing a great deal to increase the supply

    1131
    of general reading material. Their efforts are being supplemented by the Caskiya Corporation, which controls the Hausa Literature Bureau, and by the
    native administrations. The British Council and the Carnegie Corporation are also making important and most welcome contributions to this work.
    Mr. Sorensen: While I appreciate what the Caskiya Corporation has been doing, may I ask my right hon. Friend if it is not a fact that in many parts of Nigeria there is an appalling lack of suitable literature, apart from technical literature? Will he take steps to see that more suitable books of a general nature are provided for the reading rooms and schools of Nigeria?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There is a good deal going on in the way of providing books, and the native authorities have funds for this purpose.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the books are dog-eared, and are scarcely readable?

    ST. HELENA (LABOURERS' PAY)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the average rate of pay for general labourers employed by the Government of St. Helena; and what is the rate of relief for a married man with two or more children if unemployed.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The present standard rate of pay for general labourers employed by the Government of St. Helena is 3s. 5d. per day; and the relief rate for an unemployed man with reasonably large family commitments is 2s. 8d. per diem for a week of five working days, with a minimum of 2s. 3d. per diem for a single man. The Governor has submitted proposals for increasing these rates, which are now under examination.
    Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that people can live on those amounts, considering the high cost of living, as almost all foodstuffs have to be imported? Has the Colonial Office any plans for doing something to increase the general level of prosperity of the island?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, the island has received a great deal of consideration in the Colonial Development and Welfare plans. Proposals for increasing the economic activities in the island have been endorsed, and I hope that as a result some means of employment will be found.
    Mr. Mellish: In view of the fact that the salaries of the men are so shockingly low what are the rates for women?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot say without notice.

    UGANDA (COTTON INDUSTRY)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the disclosures of widespread theft by ginners and their African cotton buyers in Uganda, with a resultant annual loss to the growers estimated at £600,000, it is intended that the Government shall assume the responsibility of buying the crop and thereafter selling the quotas to the ginners; and whether the fund derived from the export cess is sufficient to enable this change of system to be instituted.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I hope to receive shortly the proposals of the Uganda Government arising out of this and other suggestions made by the Uganda Cotton Industry Commission.
    Mr. Skinnard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the recommendations of the Commission are really only a repeat of those of the Commission held many years ago when a similar state of affairs was shown to exist?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I was not aware that this was a repeat of a previous Commission, but the losses stated are much higher than is the actual case, I think. The local Government are taking the necessary measures to cope with this difficult situation.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: If the British Government intervene without curing the ill locally, will they not merely transfer the loss to the taxpayers here without curing the evil?
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the prefatory statement by the Government of Uganda

    1133
    to the Report of the Cotton Industry Commission in which it is alleged as a deplorable fact that dishonest practices and fraudulent transactions are prevalent throughout Uganda; whether he has been furnished with evidence to substantiate the allegation; and if he will institute an inquiry.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed that the allegations of dishonest practices and fraudulent transactions are supported by an analysis of the cases in the Uganda courts. I am satisfied that the Uganda Government, and particularly the police and judiciary, are doing everything possible to check and discourage dishonest practices, and I do not consider that a special inquiry will be necessary.

    GROUNDNUT SCHEME, WEST AFRICA
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what quantities, respectively, of groundnuts grown in West Africa have been delivered in the United Kingdom, are in transit and remain in store awaiting transport at Kano and other centres.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply contains a number of figures and place names I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rate of railing of these groundnuts to the coast is being kept up to schedule or not?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think that the schedule is being observed, and I hope that the last remnants of the 1947–48 crop will have reached the coast within a few months.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the reduced production of groundnuts last season, compared with the previous season, was due to a smaller yield per acre or to a smaller acreage of cultivation?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is not due to a smaller acreage of cultivation. I think that it is due to climatic reasons.
    Following is the reply:
    The table below gives the figures required in respect of the last two crops in tons of decorticated groundnuts, as at 3rd February, 1949:

    —

    Northern Nigeria

    River area (Upper Niger/Benus)

    Gambia (a)

    Total

    1947–48 Crop Delivered in U.K.

    203,000

    11,000

    49,500

    263,500

    In Transit

    36,000

    3,700

    —

    39,700

    Up Country

    76,000

    —

    —

    76,000

    Total purchased

    315,000

    14,700

    49,500

    379,200

    1948–49 Crop Delivered in U.K.

    4,000

    —

    —

    4,000

    In Transit

    14,000

    1,750

    21,500

    37,250

    Up Country

    262,000

    9,500

    19,000

    290,500

    Total purchased (b)

    280,000

    11,250

    40,500

    331,750

    NOTES:
    (a) Gambia groundnuts are normally shipped undecorticated, but for the purposes of this table the figures have been converted to decorticated equivalent.
    (b) Purchases of the 1948–49 crop are not yet complete.
    Sir R. Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give the tonnage figure of groundnuts now stored at Kano and other West African centres of the 1947–48 harvest that have become infested by the larvae of a beetle Trogaderma Sp.; and whether, in view of the damage being done, it is intended to give immediate instructions that absolute priority shall be given to clear the stocks that remain unaffected but vulnerable to attack.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Investigation has shown that so far stores containing some 11,500 tons of groundnuts, all at Kano, are so infested. Arrangements are being made to fumigate these nuts before they are railed; the amount actually lost cannot yet be estimated, but is not likely to be large. Priority for railing is being given to stocks surrounding those infested; spraying with insecticides is also being carried out.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is going to bear this severe loss? The stocks at Kano are reported to be deteriorating at the rate of 1 per cent. The loss is now over 11,000 tons, and I understand that there is not a single

    1135
    groundnut fit to sell. Will the native grower have to suffer this loss, or will it be borne by the Ministry of Food and the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I must have notice of that Question as to how the losses will be covered. I would point out that this particular species of insect had not previously been known to attack groundnuts.
    Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that this beetle was reported in groundnuts some years ago and that the right hon. Gentleman's Department was warned then that if the groundnuts were not moved with greater facility, this kind of destruction might occur. Is it not a fact that these nuts are being kept there as a monument to, Socialist planning?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think the hon. Member is completely confused in regard to this matter. This does not arise from the problem of stacking the groundnuts for railing. It arises from the operations of a new insect, and scientists are working on this problem without delay. It may be that a great quantity of nuts already affected will be restored for normal use.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it not a pity to put temptation in the way of these hitherto harmless insects by leaving 70,000 tons of groundnuts lying about for over a year?
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Are not these stocks the property of British trading companies in Kano, and is it not their responsibility to see that the nuts are kept in proper condition? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulty in transporting these nuts to the coast arises from the neglect of the railways in Nigeria under previous administration?
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is two-and-a-half years since questions were asked by me and others about the stocks accumulating, and does he not think that it is now a question of "Weevil be to him who weevil does."

    BARBADOS ASSEMBLY DEBATE (ALLEGATION)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to reports of a
    1136
    debate in the Barbados House of Assembly during which the allegation was made that a highly placed Colonial official had referred in offensive terms to a coloured member of the Executive Council; if any inquiry has been made into the matter; and whether the official in question is still serving in the Colony.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Governor of Barbados has informed me that there is no foundation whatsoever for the allegation made in debate in the House of Assembly, on 27th December, last, that a member of Executive Committee had been referred to in offensive terms by a senior Government official. The member who made the allegation has been repeatedly asked by the official concerned to give particulars of the time and place of the alleged utterance, but has consistently refused to do so. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. John Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any official record is kept of the proceedings of the Barbados House of Assembly?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Official records are kept, but I cannot say without notice whether they are shorthand records.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegation was printed in the official record as kept by the local newspaper, as is the case in many of the West Indian Islands?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no information on that matter.

    MALTA (EDITOR, PROSECUTION)
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make available in the Library a full report of the recent decision of the Criminal Court of Appellate Jurisdiction of Malta in the Royal University Council case, together with a list of the previous convictions for libel against Mr. J. J. Scorey, the Editor of the "Malta Bulletin" newspaper.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am prepared to make the report of the judgment available in the Library as soon as I receive a copy from Malta. I am not however ready to provide a list of previous convictions.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the misleading report in some sections of the Press about this case, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the criminal proceedings against Mr. Scorey were instituted not by the Governor of Malta, but by the Prime Minister acting through the police? Will he also confirm that there are five previous convictions against this editor.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that the answer to the second part of the supplementary question is in the affirmative. I would also say that the prosecution was not initiated by the Governor of Malta but through the normal machinery of Government there, at the instance of the Prime Minister.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Ordnance Inspection
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the terms of reference of the Madden Committee; when this committee was formed; and when it concluded its final report.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): This Committee was set up in December, 1946, and completed its report in April, 1948. Its terms of reference were, broadly, to review the structure and organisation of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Pool, the sources and conditions of recruitment of its officers and their remuneration and terms of service.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Has any action been taken upon the recommendations of that Committee?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes, and very careful consideration is being given to it. No final decision has yet been made.
    Commander Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the difference in pay between an officer in the Royal Navy who is serving ashore and a Lieut.-Commander with two years in, who is serving—
    Mr. Speaker: The Question relates only to the terms of reference and other general matters and not to details.
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there
    1138
    is a great deal of dissatisfaction about terms and conditions in this department? Will he consider publishing a White Paper so as to give further information to the House on the matter?

    Electrical Engineering (Civilian Staff)
    Mr. Channonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why, as the decision to employ naval instead of civilian personnel in the Directorate of Electrical Engineering was taken three years ago, it has not yet been found possible to give the staff side of the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council any indication of the steps to be taken; and when he will give such information.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The decision to which the hon. Member refers related to the introduction of an Electrical Branch into the Royal Navy, and was one of general principle only, requiring, as the staff side of the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council were informed, much further investigation and consultation before any concrete scheme could be produced. As I told the hon. Member on 15th December last, there have already been preliminary discussions with the Staff side, and I hope, though I cannot promise, that more detailed information will be given to them fairly soon.

    H.M.S. "Implacable"
    Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make a statement about the future of H.M.S. "Implacable," which as a French 74-gun ship of the line engaged H.M.S. "Victory" at Trafalgar, was captured a few days later, and is the only man-of-war except H.M.S. "Victory" which fought at Trafalgar and is still in existence.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The possibility is being examined of preserving this ship at Greenwich as part of a development scheme prepared by the London County Council.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the very serious shortage of firewood in France, would it not be possible to send—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Austin.

    Aircraft Inspectorate
    Mr. Austinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the composition of the Naval Inspection Service in terms of naval personnel and civilians; what liaison exists between this branch and the Aeronautic Inspection Department; what are the terms of training; and if he is fully satisfied that all considerations of safety and efficiency in the Naval Air Arm are adequately met in this connection.
    Mr. W. Edwards: There are in the Naval Aircraft Inspectorate 13 Naval officers, nine ratings, 17 non-industrial civilian technicians and 293 civilian industrial examiners and viewers. All members of the Inspectorate are trained at the R.A.F. Aeronautical Inspection Service Training Course. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 12th February, 1947. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

    "Ditty Box" (Publication)
    Commander Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the publication of "Ditty Box" has been discontinued.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Publication of the "Ditty Box" was discontinued as a result of a serious fall in circulation and consequent financial loss. To cover the loss on production costs alone, it would have been necessary to have trebled the sales.
    Commander Maitland: Is it not a fact that several commercial firms were prepared to push this paper with the Admiralty, and at no public expense? Is it not also a fact that the editor of "Ditty Box" was not consulted before action was taken?
    Mr. Edwards: So far as commercial firms are concerned, I do not think it is completely correct to say that they were prepared to undertake the publication of "Ditty Box" without any charge falling on public funds. As to the second part of the supplementary question, it was because of financial circumstances that the Admiralty decided that it was inadvisable to go on with the publication, despite what the editor may have thought.

    Magnetic Station, Abinger (Masts)
    Mr. Toucheasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty for what purpose it is proposed to erect further masts in the neighbourhood of the Magnetic Station at Abinger; what is to be the height of the masts; and whether the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has been consulted regarding the erection and location.
    Mr. W. Edwards: No further masts are being erected at this Admiralty station. What is being done is to replace two existing 78-foot masts, which in their present position are stated to interfere with agriculture, by a single mast, which will be 100 feet high. The Ministry of Town and, Country Planning are aware of this proposal and have no objection.
    Mr. Touche: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Ministry of Town and Country Planning were consulted?
    Mr. Edwards: We have been in communication with the Ministry—since the Question was put down actually—and we understand that they have no objection. This is a matter of one mast being erected in the place of two.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of the fact that the whole of the Greenwich Observatory, including the Magnetic Station at Abinger are to be moved to Herstmonceux, why should any further construction proceed in this very attractive corner of Surrey?
    Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that the move will take some time to accomplish and that the Admiralty will require this station for some time yet.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Milk Registration
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Food at what date this spring he contemplates offering consumers a further opportunity of changing their milk retailer.
    Mr. Binnsasked the Minister of Food whether he will make arrangements for customers to change their milk retailer.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): Yes Sir. All domestic consumers

    1141
    and catering establishments will be given the opportunity at the time of the mass issue of ration books next April and May to change their milk retailers if they wish to do so. There will, however, be no compulsory re-registration for milk except in the case of expectant mothers and children up to five who receive supplies of milk under the Welfare Food Service.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this operation was carried out last Spring it resulted in a great increase in the use of petrol, tyres, vehicles and distributive manpower for very little benefit to the consumer? Why are we going on with it?
    Dr. Summerskill: Because it is of importance that the housewife should be allowed to exercise her choice.
    Mr. Drayson: Will the right hon. Lady agree that she should abolish milk rationing altogether now because there is plenty of milk about?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

    Eire Cattle (Imports)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to increase the cattle imports from Eire, with special regard to the supplies of cattle from Eire which are being shipped to the Continent, because of the higher prices obtainable there than those ruling in this country.
    Dr. Summerskill: The steps which we have taken are that we have come to an agreement with the Government of Eire to the effect that the export of Eire cattle to the Continent shall in future be limited to 10 per cent. of total export. There has recently been some improvement in imports of stores compared with a year ago. As to fat cattle we are satisfied that the prices we offer are sufficient to attract cattle from Eire.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Lady aware that countless homes throughout the country are having meatless days? The Government cannot disclaim responsibility for this. Is not this one of the most preposterous muddles ever known in the history of any Government?

    Office, Bangor (Staff)
    Mr. Price-Whiteasked the Minister of Food how many redundancy notices
    1142
    have been served upon the temporary staff at the Bangor-Ogwen area food office at Bangor since 1st January, 1948; whether the posts of any of such temporary staff have or are intended to be filled by established civil servants; and what are the ages and experience of any replacements concerned.
    Dr. Summerskill: One temporary officer has been served with a redundancy notice. He is being replaced by a newly established civil servant, aged 17, who has had no previous experience in a food office. It is our policy to introduce a number of established officers into the regional organisation of the Ministry.
    Mr. Price-White: Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that as a matter of staff policy it is not the intention of the Ministry to dispense with persons, particularly ex-Service men, who have been in this work for some time and to replace them with young girls who have just come from school and secretarial college and have no experience?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has not fully informed himself of the facts. This girl of 17 has passed the appropriate Civil Service examination. The young man had every opportunity of doing so—it was brought to his notice—but he failed to do so. I therefore think that it was quite fair that he should be replaced.

    Canned Fish Cargo (Supervision)
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Food why at least 12 cars each carrying two officials of his Department in addition to a considerable ground staff of other officials were necessary in the Liverpool docks on 9th February to supervise the unloading and warehousing of a cargo of Russian canned fish; what the total number of officials employed was; and whether he will in future make economies in such cases.
    Dr. Summerskill: It is sometimes desirable to supervise the unloading and warehousing of valuable cargo. To do so in this case necessitated the use of 38 officers and 12 cars working on a shift basis.
    Mr. Fraser: I could not hear the right hon. Lady. Did she say 48 officers?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir—38.
    Mr. Fraser: If it was an investigation, surely it would have been much better if the officers had ridden on the lorry instead of using Government transport—[HON. MEMBERS: "And petrol."]—and drawing to the attention of the criminals concerned to the fact that an investigation was taking place?
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands what happened. These men were there to prevent pilfering. This is not a new feature of our Department. We have supervised the unloading of eight vessels in the same way this year.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Lady say why the safeguarding of these stores could safely be left to a £2 10s. a week watchman at the weekend?
    Dr. Summerskill: That was the rate of wages when the hon. Gentleman's Government was in power.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Lady say what was the nature of the fish which made this cargo so particularly valuable and which could not be protected by the police?
    Dr. Summerskill: Canned crab.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it a fact that 12 cars carrying two officials each had to supervise all this business?
    Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. There were 38 officers and 12 cars. It was a very large cargo and the unloading went on for something like 13 days.
    Mr. Churchill: I suppose that the right hon. Lady realises that it is not rich people's money which she is squandering but the money raised by severe taxation from the whole mass of the people of the country?
    Dr. Sununerskill: I recognise something which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not recognised, and that is that we are protecting the food of the poorest people.
    Mr. Churchill: That may explain the motive but it in no way excuses the extravagance and waste.

    Officials (Payments)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Food how many officials of his Department are in receipt of retaining fees from private firms.
    Dr. Summerskill: Officers on loan to my Department from private firms undertake not to favour, or to exercise executive control of any food business, so there is no question of retaining fees in the accepted sense. But their previous employers may make up the difference between their official salaries and their previous salaries. I do not know in how many cases this is done.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this system has placed many of her officials in the very difficult position of having to serve two masters at the same time? Is she aware that it was recently reported in a newspaper that one of her officers had said that he was in receipt of a retaining fee of £300 a year to look after the interests of the Union Cold Storage Company? What action is her Department taking to end this system?
    Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend must realise that when my Department was set up it was necessary to obtain at short notice men who were experienced in their own fields and therefore we asked various firms in the country which were highly respected for their work to allow us to have their officials to help us for a period. These men are, of course, temporary. In this case the man has served us very well for seven years. We have not had any reason to suspect that he has shown partiality to his former employers. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are now making the most careful inquiries and are asking this man to make a statement, and if we are not satisfied, we shall take appropriate action.
    Mr. Osborne: Does this mean that the Government are paying sweated wages?

    East African Groundnut Scheme
    Mr. Hareasked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement as to how far he is consulted as to the future cropping programme of groundnuts and alternative crops in the African territories where the groundnut scheme is operating.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Corporation determine their cropping programme in the light of agricultural considerations and of the demand for the different kind of foodstuffs which they can produce. With my right hon. Friend's concurrence they consult him only as to our requirements of each type of produce.
    Mr. Hare: Does not the right hon. Lady consider that her right hon. Friend should have some greater say in the amount of crops to be grown of certain types in these schemes in East Africa; and does not she realise that the country and the House of Commons are gravely concerned with what is going on there at the moment?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. Friend does have sufficient say, so far as his own particular work is concerned. We were asked, for instance, whether sunflower seed would be an acceptable oil seed in this country. We were advised that it would. Then, having given that information, we had to leave it to the Corporation to decide how much they would plant and when it should be planted.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the overriding interest in the cropping programme should be the possibilities of soil erosion and not the question of what oils her Department requires?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is taken into consideration.

    DISTILLING INDUSTRY (BARLEY)
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Food how soon he proposes to open his discussions with the Scotch Whisky Association regarding the question of future allocations of barley to the distilling industry, having regard to the substantial amount of barley now on the market and to the urgent need of the industry for increased supplies.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association early next week.

OFFICIAL REPORT (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw your attention to an entry in the OFFICIAL REPORT today which I think will require correction. It is in Column 1018, and the entry is made there, about three parts down the column, "Amendment negatived." The Amendment in question was that moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Commander Galbraith), in column 991, and the Minister, at column 993, said he would be prepared to accept this Amendment though he was not prepared to accept subsequent Amendments, which was stated in column 994. The Question, I think, was put by the Deputy-Chairman and was agreed to by the Committee, and the Amendment was, in fact, made but the OFFICIAL REPORT indicates that the Amendment was not made.
We are fortunate in having also "The Times" report of this which gives, I think, the accurate statement. It says:
"The first amendment, permitting a landlord to appear before a tribunal, was agreed to. The second amendment was negatived by 269 votes to 97."
I think the confusion may have arisen owing to the growing practice of including a number of Amendments in one discussion, and subsequently dividing upon them separately, but I put it to you, Sir, that it would be well that this incorrect statement should be put right.
Mr. Speaker: I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the mere fact that he has raised that point will automatically put the matter right. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it was a mistake in the Official Report. HANSARD is not an official report. It is, I hope, as accurate an account of our proceedings as possible. The official report is one which it is my duty, the House remembers, by Resolution passed at the beginning of every Session, to peruse daily. I did peruse the official report, which is the accurate one, and it says "Another Amendment made," which is the correct wording. Therefore, officially the Amendment is correct and in order, and I hope that what I have said, and what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, will ensure that the matter is put right in HANSARD.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is desirable that it should be put right in this perhaps less official report, but one which is accepted as very accurate by the majority of the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker: I quite agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do my best to see that HANSARD is as accurate as possible, but one cannot always ensure, in difficult circumstances, that it is quite accurate.
Earl Winterton: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is obviously a mistake in the description Of HANSARD, because it is always published as the "Official Report." In view of what you have said, perhaps you will call the attention of the Editor to the fact that it is not the official report?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to that fact. There is no question about it. HANSARD is not the official report. This is the official record—the Votes and Proceedings—which I have in my hand.

BILLS PRESENTED

  LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL
  Mr. Speaker"to establish new tribunals to determine in place of official arbitrators and others certain questions relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land and other matters, to amend the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, with respect to the failure to deliver a notice of claim,
  and for purposes connected therewith," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Woodburn, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Glenvil Hall; read the First Time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

  SUPERANNUATION BILL
  "to amend the law relating to the superannuation and other benefits payable to and in respect of persons who serve or have served in the civil service of the State or in service to which the Superannuation (Various Services) Act, 1938, applies or are existing Irish officers within the meaning of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920; to authorise the payment of annual allowances and gratuities to and in respect of persons who are injured or contract diseases while employed in a civil capacity for the purposes of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, "presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall; read the First time; to be read read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

  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 Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
  The House divided: Ayes. 257; Noes, 121.

  Division No. 59.]

  AYES

  [3.39 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Batham)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Deer, G.

  Albu, A. H.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

  Burke, W. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Alpass, J. H

  Byers, Frank

  Driberg, T. E. H.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Carmichael, James

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Attewell, H. C

  Champion, A. J.

  Edelman. M.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Coldrick, W

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Collindridge, F.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Colman, Miss. G. M.

  Ewart, R.

  Balfour, A.

  Cooper, G

  Fairhurst, F.

  Barton, C.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Cove, W. G.

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

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

  Crawley, A.

  Follick, M.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Cullen, Miss

  Foot, M. M.

  Binns, J.

  Daggar, G.

  Forman, J C.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Daines, P.

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Bramall, E A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Gibbins, J

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gilzean, A.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Davies, S. O, (Merthyr)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  McKinlay, A. S

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Grey, C. F.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Sharp, Granville

  Grierson, E.

  McLeavy, F.

  Shurmer, p

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Guy. W. H.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Smith, H N (Nottingham, S.)

  Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Snow, J. W.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Medland, H. M.

  Solley, L. J.

  Harrison, J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Haworth, J.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stamford, W.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Holman, P

  Monslow, W.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Moody, A. S.

  Swingler, S

  Horabin, T. L.

  Morley, R.

  Sylvester, G. O

  Hoy, J.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Hubbard, T.

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

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Mort, D. L.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnot)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

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

  Murray, J. D.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

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

  Timmons, J.

  Janner, B.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  O'Brien, T.

  Tolley, L.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Johnston, Douglas

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Usborne, Henry

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)

  Vernon, Maj. W F.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Parker, J.

  Walker, G. H.

  Keenan, W.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Kenyon, C.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  King, E, M.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Kinghorn, Sqn. -Ldt. E.

  Pearson, A.

  Watson, W. M.

  Kinley, J.

  Piratin, P.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

  Kirby, B V.

  Popplewell, E.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Wells, W. (Walsall)

  Lang, G.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  West, D. G.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Price, M. Philips

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

  Lee F. (Hulme)

  Pritt, D. N.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wigg, George

  Levy, B. W.

  Pursey, Comdr. H

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Randall, H. E.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Reeves, J.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

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

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Logan, D. G.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Williams, E.

  Longden, F.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Wills, Mrs E. A.

  McAdam, W.

  Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

  Woods, G. S.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Yates, V. F.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  McGovern, J

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Mack, J. D.

  Royle, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Scollan, T.

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

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

  Segal, Dr. S

  NOES

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.

  Gabraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Birch, Nigel

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Gammans, L. D

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

  Darling, Sri W. Y.

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Boothby, R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Bossom, A. C.

  De la Bère, R

  Grimston, R. V.

  Bower, N.

  Digby, S. W.

  Hannom, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Donner, P. W.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Drayson, G. B

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

  Challen, C

  Drewe, C.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Channon, H.

  Eccles, D. M

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Elliot, Lieut. Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hollis, M C.

  Clarke Col. R S.

  Erroll, F. J

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (En'gh, W.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

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

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

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Jarvis, Sir J.

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

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  1150

  1151

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Nicholson, G

  Teeling, William

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Osborne, C

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Peto, Brig. C. H M

  Thomas, J P. (Hereford)

  Lucas, Major. Sir J.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Price-White, Lt.-Col D.

  Touche, G C.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Vane, W M F.

  Macdonald, Sir P (I. Of Wight)

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Ward Hon. G. R.

  McFarlane, C. S

  Renton, D.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset. E.)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Roberts H. (Handsworth)

  Williams C. (Torquay)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Roberts P G. (Ecclesall)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Robinson, Roland

  Young Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  MacLeod, J.

  Savory, Prof. D L.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Scott, Lord W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Major Conant and

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Mr. Studholme.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress 15th February].
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(VARIATION OF STANDARD RENTS FIXED BY REFERENCE TO NEW LETTINGS.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 43, at the end, to add:
    "(7) Where the rent reserved under the terms of a contract of tenancy is reduced under this Section such contract of tenancy shall be deemed to have been terminated upon the making of the determination and the tenant shall he deemed to retain posession of such dwelling-house thereafter by virtue of the provisions of the principal Acts."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]
    Question again proposed. "That those words be there added."
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Foster: The argument of the Minister of Health upon this Amendment was that the rent tribunal would have assessed the new rent on the basis of its being a contractual tenancy. He then said that, if the Amendment were carried and a contractual tenancy were turned into a statutory tenancy, that would be unfair to the tenant because the rent tribunal would have fixed the rent on the basis of its being a contractual tenancy, and that that was one of the circumstances which the tribunal would have taken into account. That, I think, represents fairly the Minister's argument as reported in the "unofficial" Report.
    That argument, however, contains a fallacy, for, if the Amendment were carried, the tribunal would know that the reduction of rent would turn a contractual tenancy into a statutory tenancy. That is one of the circumstances it would take into account. It would be quite imaginative on the part of the tribunal to deal with a contractual tenancy which they knew was being turned into a statutory tenancy and then to say, "We are not paying attention to that. It is not one of the circumstances we take into account and, therefore, we have formed a rent on the basis that it is a contractual tenancy." That example shows how
    1154
    desirable it is to specify to the tribunal the circumstances which they should take into account.
    Apparently, had the Minister been in the Chair at this imaginary tribunal—supposing the Amendment is accepted—he would have said, "Oh, no. The tenant gets the advantage of a contractual tenancy. Therefore, we fix his rent at x pounds a year," knowing perfectly well that the Act, if amended, would have turned the rent into that of a statutory tenancy. That attitude must be a fallacy. How can a tribunal be deemed to decide according to all the circumstances of the case and not take into account the very effect of their decision? This shows that one of the Minister's arguments against the Amendment is ill-founded.
    I agree that, in one sense, there are differences and disadvantages between a contractual and a statutory tenancy. We on this side, however, say that if the tenant has gone to the tribunal and has invoked a reduction of the contractual rent payable, then it shall be on the same footing as that of a statutory tenant, because he has invoked the powers of the rent tribunal and the whole machinery of the Rent Restrictions Acts; and it would have been thought, quite rightly, that in that case the statutory tenant has sufficient protection. He has the protection of Section 15 of the 1920 Act, which gives him all the advantages arid conditions of the former tenancy.
    It is very significant that the Minister of Health should think that a tribunal sitting to decide how much a rent should be should disregard the state of the law under which the tribunal is sitting. In other words, if he thinks that a rent tribunal deciding the amount of a rent will pay no attention to the fact that it is to be turned into a statutory tenancy, I can well imagine another chairman taking a different view. We have always felt there should be some guidance for these chairmen to lay down the rules on which they should decide. Otherwise the Minister of Health and the chairmen would fall into the same error and disregard some of the cases he is so fond of quoting.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: I supported the Amendment which provided that some guidance should be given tribunals in reaching their

    1155
    decisions, but I do not think this Amendment has anything to do with that. The point is that by reason of the reference the tenancy is changed from a contractual to a statutory tenancy. To decide whether that is so, we have to look at the essential difference between a contractual tenancy and a statutory tenancy. The essential difference is that in a statutory tenancy the landlord can take steps to evict a tenant without giving notice to quit. Why should the tenant who has invoked his rights under the Act be deprived of the protection of the notice to quit and given a lower grade, a more personal kind of tenancy? For that reason I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Member realise that in many contractual tenancies no notice to quit is necessary?
    Mr. Roberts: Yes, but notice to quit is always necessary when a contractual tenancy is still in being.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think this matter was explored quite sufficiently last night and there is no reason why we should repeat what was said last night. I cannot understand why if a tenant has applied to the tribunal and the tribunal have decided that the rent should be reduced as in the case mentioned in the Amendment, the tenant should lose whatever rights there might be under the contractual tenancy. That seems quite unfair. In any case, one would assume that if the tribunal take into account the fact that the contractual tenancy should cease to exist that itself would be expressed in the rent. The landlord would lose in that way. It can be taken into account the other way and I should think it much better for the tribunal to assess what the reasonable rent would be in the light of the contractual
    tenancy remaining and that would be the more just and equitable attitude.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Chairman: I have to inform the Committee that in my opinion the principle of Clause 1 and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of Debate on the various Amendments proposed thereto, and I therefore propose, in accordance with the Standing Order, to put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," forthwith.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While not, of course, contesting your Ruling, Major Milner, and not suggesting that a general wide Debate should be opened up, because I think the Clause has been discussed in detail, we should certainly wish to put the three points, that retrospective legislation is extended—
    The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to continue. The Standing Order instructs me to put the Question forthwith.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are not in any way debating it. It is simply on the point of Order. We should have thought it would be more convenient for those reading the long Debate, as indeed the slight contretemps about the previous entry in HANSARD has shown—this is a point of Order and I am not arguing the merit—it may have been for the convenience of those reading the long and complicated Debates to have, very succinctly, the points of difference stated between us on each side, but naturally, we bow to your Ruling.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 119.

    Division No. 60.]

    AYES

    [3.55 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Byers, Frank

    Albu, A. H.

    Benson, G.

    Carmichael, James

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Alpass, J. H

    Bevan, Rt. Hon E. (Wandsworth, C.)

    Champ on, A. J

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Binns, J.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Coldrick, W

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Collick, P.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

    Collindridge, F.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Bramall, E A.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Brook, D (Halifax)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Cove, W. G.

    Balfour, A.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Crawley, A.

    Barton, C.

    Burke, W. A.

    Cullen, Miss

    Daggar, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Daines, P

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Reeves, J

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Lang, G.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N)

    Deer, G.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Robertson, J, J, (Berwick)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Levy, B. W.

    Rogers, G H. R.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lewis, J (Bolton)

    Royle, C.

    Dumpleton, C W.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Scollan, T.

    Edelman, M

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

    Logan, D. G.

    Segal, Dr S.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Longden, F

    Shackleton, E. A A

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    McAdam, W.

    Sharp, Granville

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    McAllister, G.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Ewart, R

    McEntee, V La T.

    Silverman, S. S (Nelson)

    Fairhurst, F.

    McGhee, H G

    Simmons, C. J

    Fernyhough, E

    McGovern, J.

    Skeffington, A. M.

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

    Mack, J. D

    Skinnard, F. W

    Follick, M.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

    Foot, M. M

    McKinlay, A. S

    Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Snow, J W

    Fraser, T (Hamilton)

    McLeavy, F.

    Sorensen, R. W

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sparks, J. A

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    Mainwaring, W H.

    Stross, Dr B.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Gibbins, J

    Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Summerskill, Rt Hon. Ed

    Gilzean, A

    Mann, Mrs. J

    Swingler, S

    Glanville, J E. (Consett)

    Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)

    Sylvester, G O

    Grey C. F

    Mathers, Rt. Hon George

    Symonds, A. L.

    Grierson, E.

    Medland, H. M

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Mellish, R J

    Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

    Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

    Gunter, R. J

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Guy. W. H.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Mitchison, G. R

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

    Monslow, W.

    Timmons, J

    Hardman, D. R

    Moody, A S.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Hardy, E A.

    Morley, R

    Tolley, L.

    Harrison, J.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G.

    Haworth, J.

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

    Usborne, Henry

    Henderson, Rt. Hn A. (Kingswinford)

    Mort, D L.

    Vernon, Maj W F.

    Hewitson, Capt M

    Moyle, A.

    Wadsworth, G

    Hobson, C R

    Murray, J D.

    Walker, G. H.

    Holman, P

    Naylor, T E.

    Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

    Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

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

    Wallace, H W (Walthamstow. E.)

    Horabin, T L

    O'Brien, T.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Hoy J.

    Olivet, G H

    Watson, W M.

    Hubbard, T

    Paget, R T.

    Webb, M (Bradford, C)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Wells, P. L (Faversham)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paling, W. T (Dewsbury)

    Wells, W T (Watsall)

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

    Parker, J

    West, D. G.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Parkin, B T.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn John (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

    Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Whiteley, Rt Hon W.

    Janner, B.

    Pearson, A

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    peart T. F

    Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

    Jenkins, R. H

    Piratin, P.

    Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

    Johnston, Douglas

    Popplewell, E.

    Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A C. (Shipley)

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Williams, W R. (Heston)

    Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

    Price, M. Philips

    Willis, E.

    Keenan, W

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wills, Mrs E. A

    Kenyon, C

    Pryde, D. J

    Woods, G S

    King, E. M.

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    Yates, V F

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Randall, H. E.

    Kinley, J

    Ranger, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

    NOES

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon R.

    Conant, Maj R. J E.

    Drewe, C.

    Birch, Nigel

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Eccles, D. M.

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

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)

    Erroll, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

    Boothby, R.

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

    Erroll, F. J.

    Bossom, A C.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Bower, N.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Fraser, H. C P (Stone)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

    Darling, Sir W Y.

    Galbraith, Cmdr T D (Pollok)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Digby, S W

    Gammans, L D

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

    Dodds-Parker, A D.

    Glyn, Sir R

    Challen, C.

    Donner, P W

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Channon, H

    Dower, Col A. V G, (Penrith)

    Grimston, R. V.

    1158

    1159

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Roberson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Robinson, Roland

    Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

    McFarlane, C. S

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Mackeson, Brig H. R.

    Scott, Lord W.

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

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Smithers, Sir W

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    MacLeod, J.

    Spearman, A C. M.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Hollis, M C.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin gh, W.)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

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

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Tayler, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Teeling, William

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Nicholson, G

    Touche, G. C.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Osborne, C.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Ward, Hon. G, R.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Lindsay, M (Solihull)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Willtoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Linstead, H. N.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Low, A. R. W.

    Price-White, Li.-Col. D.

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

    Lucas, Major Sir J.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Mr. Studholme and

    McCallum, Maj. D

    Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Colonel Wheatley.

    CLAUSE 2.—(PROVISION AS TO PREMIUMS, ETC., WHERE S. 1 APPLIES.)
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, after "that," to insert "before the commencement of this Act."
    This is a paving Amendment, which should be taken in conjunction with the new Clause on the prohibition of premiums which appears on the Order Paper. It will no doubt be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this matter later in the proceedings.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We should have been perfectly prepared to discuss the matter on the paving Amendment. It is a little difficult to leave the whole matter until we reach the new Clause, as that course makes this Amendment rather meaningless. If the Minister wishes to take the matter now, we shall be willing to do so.
    Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but in view of the fact that hon. Members may have assumed that the new Clause would be reached at a certain time, it would perhaps be best if we allowed this Amendment to go through in the ordinary way. Members sometimes make their arrangements on the assumption that certain major questions will be taken at certain times in the course of the Committee stage. If we discuss the new Clause on what is purely a paving Amendment, it might give rise to misunderstanding.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Our only difficulty in following the course which the Minister suggests is lest that might be taken to prejudge the matter, which I am sure the Minister does not desire to be the case. One has to be careful in case the Chairman feels that some commitment has been entered into by the Committee which it would be wrong to reverse at a subsequent period. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Bowles, whether, if this Amendment is accepted now as a paving Amendment, it does not necessarily commit us at a later stage. If we could be so assured we should be willing to agree to the Amendment, but we should not wish, in doing so, to surrender any of our rights of criticism and debate at a later stage.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): In my view it would be more convenient for the Committee to discuss the general issue when we reach the new Clause. If the Committee accept this Amendment, it will be without prejudice to debate or decision later.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On that understanding, that it is without prejudice to later debate and decision, we should not object to this Amendment now being included in the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "the tenancy," and to insert:
    "a tenancy of the dwelling-house to which the application relates."

    1161
    This is a clarifying Amendment which is linked with a series of consequential Amendments. The position with which the Amendment is concerned is that a contractual tenancy may have expired with the tenant in possession of the house and with a rental equivalent still to be collected. The idea is to continue the period of the right to occupy the premises until the expiry of the period over which the rental equivalent has still to be collected. It does not affect an entirely new tenant who would have no such rights; it is concerned with a continuing tenancy, where the tenancy may have expired but where the tenant is still in possession of the house, and still has rental equivalents to collect; and it extends the period to the time when the rental equivalents expire.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the fact that this Amendment is a little more than a clarifying one. The intention of the original Measure was by no means clear. The proposition which the Minister now advances that a tenant might have possession of the building during his tenancy and thereafter for a period rent free seems to us to be going a long way. It might easily produce a situation in which it would be quite impossible for the property owner to maintain the premises in good and tenantable repair. Some of my hon. Friends have put down Amendments for consideration at a later stage dealing with that point. Perhaps it would be more convenient if we discussed the matter now, as this is an Amendment connected with a group of Amendments which the Minister has down for subsequent consideration, all of which have this same general purpose.
    As I understand the position, the tenancy may be prolonged for a period during which a tenant may enjoy rent-free possession—that the physical possession of the house may be granted to the tenant for presumably quite a considerable period so that what the Minister would call the overcharge, might be collected by the tenant. That involves certain questions which it would be impossible simply to dismiss.
    Mr. Bevan: This Amendment is merely concerned with a question of doubt. There are some people who could contend quite properly that these Amendments are not necessary to achieve
    1162
    the end I have stated. In order to make quite sure that this end is secured, however, this Amendment and a succession of other Amendments have been put down on the Order Paper. This Amendment does not prejudge the question of principle, but if the principle is determined, this is the way in which it will apply.
    Mr. Marlowe: What would happen if another tenant replaced the tenant of whom the Minister has been speaking?
    Mr. Bevan: The rental equivalent would cease entirely. This Amendment is merely to make it clear that a new tenancy does not necessarily mean a new tenant.
    Mr. J. H. Hare: Do these Amendments affect the principle which we are to discuss later which concerns the position when a premium, for the sake of convenience, is divided into instalments, and when the premium to be returned is greater than the rent payable; and when the period of the tenancy is limited to three or four years and there is still some premium to he repaid at the end of that time? Is that position being dealt with in what the Minister is saying?
    Mr. Bevan: We are not at the moment deciding the principle of whether any rent should be recoverable. In the event of Parliament subsequently deciding that these conditions should apply this is the way in which we consider they should apply in this particular case. Suppose the lease expires and the contractual tenant becomes the statutory tenant but nevertheless a rental equivalent has to be collected for some years because of the premium which has been paid. That tenant can continue to pay a low rent despite the fact that he has become a statutory tenant. But if he vacates the premises and a new tenant takes possession, that new tenant cannot claim any rental equivalent, as there can be no assignment of a statutory tenancy.
    Mr. Janner: This rather differs from a reply which was given to me in the course of the Second Reading Debate, about this point. I understood that reply to mean that if a subsequent tenancy was entered into, those reductions would apply in respect of the new tenancy. Otherwise the

    1163
    position would be rather awkward. It would mean that if a landlord charged a premium, and if that premium was not recoverable in subsequent lettings, the landlord would be retaining an advantage which was quite wrong. The way in which I would suggest the matter should be dealt with—and I should be obliged if the Minister would consider it between now and the Report stage—is that the amount of the rent should be reducible also to cover a transfer, and that the assignor should be entitled to claim a portion of the premiums from the assignee.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: I do not wish to discuss the main question now. My hon. Friend has it quite wrong in this matter. There is no assignor of a statutory tenancy. What will happen, if Parliament so determines at a subsequent point, is that there will be first of all a contractual tenant who has paid a premium to the landlord. That contractual tenant will have received a reduction of rent as rental equivalent. He could become an assignor, before the end of his lease, to another person. Therefore, that subsequent person could collect the reduced rent. But this will be a statutory tenant and he could not become an assignor and there is no reason why an entirely new tenant should collect money which he has never paid.
    Mr. Foster: I think that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) was wrong in using the word "assignor." He should have said "subsequent tenant." The reason we are a little suspicious about this Amendment is because the right hon. Gentleman has said that it helps him to achieve his object later. On reading it I do not see how it does that and the right hon. Gentleman has not explained how it does it. If one
    reads—
    Mr. Bevan: I did not say that. All I said was that if subsequently we decided that premiums were to be paid, this would be one of the vehicles by which they could be paid.
    Mr. Foster: That sounds the same to me, but perhaps I cannot appreciate Welsh subtlety. The right hon. Gentleman says that, and if one looks at the
    1164
    Amendment it looks quite an innocent Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: It is.
    Mr. Foster: It looks innocent, because it looks as if the draftsman had written the words "the tenancy," and, no tenancy having been referred to before, had said to himself, "That is not clear, I want to make it clear that I am referring to a tenancy of the dwelling house to which the application relates." If it is confined to that, it is quite an innocent Amendment. It does not prejudice the question later in any way and does not enable the right hon. Gentleman to use any kind of vehicle to achieve his object later. That is what is confusing—that he says that this Amendment is one of the vehicles which helps him to achieve his object later. I cannot see how it does, and he has not explained how it does. If he will tell us what is the relation of this Amendment to his later objective, our suspicions will probably be allayed. But, he having said that, we do not know at the moment where we are. "The tenancy" here is just rather an inaccurate way of describing something which has not been referred to and therefore, as I see it, the draftsman has improved his draftsmanship. If the right hon. Gentleman stopped there we might be satisfied, but he goes on to say that it is one of the vehicles which helps him to achieve his object. It is not clear why it is and he has not said why.
    Mr. Bevan: Is not the hon. Member being over subtle? The assumption is that the vehicle is there. Now the vehicle is being clarified and oiled up. That is all.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think that on that we must accept the Minister's contention. It is rather mixing metaphors to speak of a vehicle being clarified, except in the administration of drugs, which is a different argument, but one with which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has become familiar in recent years. We can say that the vehicle is being oiled and trued up. I think we can agree that what is to be put in the vehicle we shall discuss afterwards.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The next three Amendments which we have put down in

    1165
    page 3, lines 4 and 6, really relate to the Minister's new Clause and we shall be willing to take a discussion on that later. Therefore, we do not propose to move them.
    Amendment made: In Clause 2, page 3, line 4, leave out "under that tenancy," and insert "of the dwelling-house."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out from first "premium," to end of line 10, and to insert:
    "Provided that this Section shall not have effect where since the said grant, continuance or renewal the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began."
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is this still part of the oiling of the vehicle or is it not rather a flaw in the original Bill which is being corrected?
    Mr. Bevan: It is entirely consequential upon the one we have already decided. There are a series of consequential Amendments.
    Colonel Dower: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what that one is?
    Mr. Bevan: The one we have just carried, which I said was oiling the vehicle.
    Mr. Molson: Is this a new part for the vehicle? On previous occasions the Minister has expressed sympathy with my desire that the drafting of Bills should be as simple and as lucid as possible. I have read and re-read this Amendment and I do not find it either simple or lucid. The very fact that we have to be told that it is consequential shows that it is not absolutely simple to understand. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how this lubricates the vehicle?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will look at it he will see it relates at once to what we have done. It is to make the distinction between an entirely new tenant and a continuation, which is what we originally decided was necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is desirable that we should have this clear and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for
    1166
    The High Peak (Mr. Molson) was justified in his remarks. The Minister has made it clear—and this point was raised by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr Janner)—that this distinguishes sharply between a person who has the tenancy and some other person. But what we ask is whether the Minister, between now and Report stage, will give attention to the wording and see whether, when these various points have been agreed to or dissented from in principle, it may not be possible to state it in clearer language. So far as clarification or redrafting on Report stage is concerned, we shall offer no niggling objection to anything which will make the Statute more easy and clear to understand, so that he who runs may read—if that ever may be said about rent restriction legislation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Would it meet the convenience of the Committee if I put together all the Amendments in the name of the Minister which follow?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We must have it quite clear which are the Amendments. We do not wish to find ourselves in the quandary in which we were this afternoon, and subsequently have to have—I will not say the OFFICIAL REPORT—may I say the "Demi-Official Report" altered in a subsequent entry. While we play the rigour of the game most sternly, we assume, and I think rightly, that the Minister plays it according to the rules. If he will give us an assurance that these are drafting Amendments, and can indicate from which line to which line he wishes them inserted, we shall not, for the purpose of delay or obstruction, wish any time to be spent on them.
    Mr. Bevan: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I know it is difficult for hon. Members and I will read out the ones which I regard as entirely consequential. They are liable to be changed later if they do not turn out to be consequential. They are:
    Page 3, line 21, leave out from "expression," to first "the," in line 22, and insert:
    "'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered, divided by the number of rent-periods between."

    1167
    Line 24, leave out "ending," and insert:
    "the following date (in this section referred to as the 'relevant date') that is to say."
    Line 28, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."
    Line 30, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."
    Line 37, after "notice," insert "by the landlord."
    Line 38, leave out "ending," and insert "giving."
    Line 44, leave out from second "the," to end of line, and insert "relevant date."
    Page 4, leave out line 6, and insert "that date were the relevant date."
    Line 7, leave out "will," and insert "would."
    Line 10, leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 11.
    Line 12, after "paragraph," insert:
    "shall be deemed to be the relevant date."
    Line 22, leave out from "after," to end of line 24, and insert:
    "the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began."
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister has not said anything about the proposed Amendment in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 14.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let us dispose of that first. We can go on to the bunch of Amendments the Minister mentioned later.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 14.
    Mr. Foster: Would the Minister say why he is leaving out the definition of "premium"?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: This is merely a drafting Amendment to transfer to Clause 14 what is at present provided here. There is no change in the provisions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if the next seven Amendments were taken together?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it would be simpler if the Amendment in page 3, line 21, were put now. That is where we have now arrived. From our own examination of it we are of the same opinion as the Minister, that these Amendments are drafting, or consequential, and therefore I would counsel my hon. Friends in that sense, that these do not alter the sense of the Statute and do not pre-judge any of the issues which we have to consider. For that reason they may well be made. I think it would be convenient, however, if they were called separately, otherwise not only we, but the Table might find considerable difficulty in following so large a bunch of Amendments some of which are scattered among other Amendments.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move in page 3, line 21, to leave out from "expression," to the first "the," in line 2, and insert:
    "'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered, divided by the number of rent-periods between."
    Mr. Foster: I understand that the Minister is proposing to leave out the definition of "relevant part of the letting" and to insert a definition of "rental equivalent." That seems to be what the Amendment does. The relevant part of the letting is referred to in page 3, line 10. Is it to be defined again in Clause 14? Where do we find "rental equivalent"? As I understand the Amendment it is, in line 21, to leave out "the relevant part of the letting means the period the period beginning with," and to insert instead the words which follow in the Amendment. My question is: why are we leaving out "'relevant part of the letting.'" because it is an expression which occurs in page 3, line 10?
    4.30 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This Amend-is only consequential on the Amendment already accepted, as I understand it.
    Mr. Bevan: That is so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendments made.
    Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, to leave oat "subsections (5) and (6)," and to insert, "the subsequent provisions."

    1169
    Is it your intention, Mr. Bowles, that we should discuss at the same time the proposed Amendment in page 4, line 13, at the end, insert:
    (5) Where at the date of an application under the foregoing Section the landlord is a person who has become the landlord of the premises in respect of which or of any part of which a premium has been paid after the date upon which such premium has been paid and has purchased the premises for value the provisions of this Section shall not apply and the tenant shall be entitled to recover from the person to whom such premium was paid and in no other manner the amount by which the reasonable rent of the premises is less than the aggregate of the rent actually payable in respect thereof and of the rental equivalent of the premium.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is so.
    Sir J. Mellor: The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that where the ownership of premises has changed hands the new landlord shall not be penalised if the previous landlord received a premium; that is to say, provided the new landlord acquired the premises for value. I think it will be conceded that it is quite impossible for the purchaser of a house to discover whether or not a premium has been paid to the vendor, so that if the purchaser has given full value for the premises it would be entirely inequitable that he should suffer because the person from whom he purchased had had the benefit of receiving a premium from the tenant. This Amendment is designed to secure that the tenant shall recover against the person to whom he paid the premium, and not from anyone else. It is, I think, a just proposal which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.
    Mr. Bevan: As I understand the point it is that, when a house has been sold, the tenant is entitled to proceed against a landlord who has never received the premium, and to get a reduction of rent accordingly, whereas the proceedings ought to lie against the landlord who has benefited by receiving the premium. I think that there is a point here, and I shall look at it to see if it can be covered. I think that the proposed Amendment is a little too wide.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not want to make a long speech, but I must say that I should be against the proposed Amendment in principle. The premium was paid in respect of the house and the tenancy, and the
    1170
    liability to return it ought to attach to the tenancy and to the house. A landlord who has received a premium and sells the house ought to be under a duty to inform any purchaser from him of the circumstances. But to leave the tenant to have to chase the landlord to whom he paid the premium to Timbuctoo because the landlord has sold the house and run away. would be to destroy the purpose of the Bill.
    Colonel Dower: It seems to me that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would be covered if the vendor were in some way made responsible and put under an obligation if he has received a premium.
    Mr. Bevan: We are here dealing only with past cases, because once the Bill becomes law, any future premiums for rent controlled property would be illegal, so that that situation would not arise. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I would point out that, there being no legal obligation—because all these premiums are not illegal—on the part of the vendor to inform the buyer of the premises that a premium had been paid, it appears to me to be rather unreasonable that the new owner, who was kept in complete ignorance of the liability he might have to meet, should be the person to be proceeded against.
    This is a question of equity as between the landlord and the tenant. We are not depriving the tenant of a remedy, but we are exempting the landlord from an abuse. It would be an abuse if, having paid a price for a house on a certain assumption which was altered, the tenant could get a reduction of the rent by a rental equivalent of a premium which that landlord never charged. It seems to me, therefore, to be quite just that the tenant should be able to pursue the previous landlord. It is not so difficult to identify the previous landlord in most cases. I agree that there will be some cases where it might not be easy to find him, but it would not be so difficult to find the landlord, whose name will be on the conveyance, as it would be, later on, to find the tenant who might have disappeared into the void. This seems to be a perfectly just thing to consider in itself, but I would say that perhaps the appropriate time to debate it is

    1171
    when we have put down the Amendment which we should consider reasonable to carry this principle into effect.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to debate it. If after consideration my right hon. Friend retains the view he has just expressed, I shall not make any difficulties about it, because it is only a small point. However, since my right hon. Friend has promised to consider it I do want to take this opportunity of ensuring that he considers it all round. I do not think that it would be such an easy thing for a tenant to find out where his landlord has gone after having sold the premises, whereas I do think that it would be a perfectly easy thing for a man who buys his house to put into his requisition on title—which he will deliver anyhow in the course of obtaining the conveyance, what premium has been received in the case of any tenancy disclosed. In that case the purchaser would buy with notice. Anyone who has had experience of conveyancing will know that it would be perfectly easy for the purchaser of such a house to protect himself.
    Sir J. Mellor: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 48, at the end to insert:
    "or one-half of the reasonable rent, whichever is the greater."
    I can put the point at issue here very briefly. The general purpose of the Bill has been to enable premiums to be recovered, in so far as they can be recovered by reducing the rent still due. The Minister has made it plain that he does not intend that there should be any provision enabling money once paid to be claimed back. He obviously realises that in order not to impose an intolerable hardship, which might also result in great inconvenience, it is necessary that any sum recovered in respect of the premium should be recovered by deduction from the rents still to be paid. I put it to the Minister that it will also be a very great hardship, and likely to result in great inconvenience, if for a considerable period of time, the owner of the house receives no rent at all.
    1172
    We have largely in mind the comparatively small owners of property, and the maintenance of that property is met largely, sometimes wholly, out of the rent paid. I hope the Minister will consider that it is reasonable that the minimum rent which shall be paid so long as these tenancies continue shall be one-half of the reasonable rent. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago about continuing into the future the existing contractual tenancy will make this provision less onerous in its operation upon the tenant, and will therefore enable this recovery of the premium to be spread over a longer period of time, and will reduce the inconvenience and hardship which would result from the landlord receiving no rent for a considerable period.
    Mr. Bevan: The Committee will have in mind that we have already provided in the Bill that there shall be a minimum period of seven years as a divisor in order that the annual increment falling to the tenant should be reasonably small. At the same time, where the amount of premium was so exorbitant as not to be extinguished in such a period—in other words, it might be much more than the reasonable rent itself—we have made provision to add to the number of years so as to try to make either the two cancel out, or to make some small amount of rent payable.
    The circumstances envisaged by the hon. Member would, therefore, arise only where there has been an unreasonable premium and the landlord has been in enjoyment of the premium, so no hardship would fall upon him if he had no rent for some time. This could not arise except in cases where the landlord has exacted a very large sum of money, which the tribunal considered so utterly unreasonable as to extinguish, or almost extinguish, the rent. I cannot, therefore, accept that in such a case there has been hardship on the landlord. Indeed, the hardship would, under the terms of the Amendment, be transferred to the tenant because it would take him very much longer to get his money back.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Minister sees the strength of the case. Indeed, as he has admitted, when drafting the Bill the Government made this provision of seven years with exactly this sort of contingency in view. This brings

    1173
    up sharply the point about retrospective legislation, because this is an executed contract which was not illegal when it was carried out, and now a piece of retrospection is being carried out. What we say, from the practical point of view, is that a tenant may be in the position in which he is making no contribution towards the standing charges for the upkeep of the property. We all know that in practice that might lead to rapid deterioration of the property. This is really a very practical point to which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has drawn attention, and it deserves further consideration.
    It may well be that the tribunal will act reasonably, but it is also not unknown that a tribunal may act in a somewhat unreasonable fashion. I consider that this Committee, which has given no directions at all to the tribunal, should not leave the owner of a small property in a position in which, for a period of years, he will receive no income at all by means of which he can maintain the property in good and tenantable repair. That will prove to be a disadvantage to all the large class of tenants who desire tenantable property, and to the occasional landlord who has carried out and executed a perfectly legal contract a number of years ago. I hope that the Minister will not completely dismiss the question, as he appears to have done in the reply which he has given to the hon. Member for The High Peak.
    Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister clear up a point concerning repairs? Apart from the fact that the landlord has an obligation to do repairs, and that the local authority can order him to do so, this Bill as it stands does not forbid the tenant making an arrangement with the landlord not to withhold the complete rent if the landlord does carry out repairs. In my view, this Bill does not break that arrangement.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is a very important point. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has suggested that landlord and tenant can contract out of this Bill. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, the determination is that the tenant need not pay all the rent if some of the repairs are not done.
    Mr. Bevan: It is an academic point. The tenant would not proceed to arbitration at all on that point. It is only the tenant who appears to have a grievance who will ask for the arbitration of the tribunal.
    Colonel Dower: I do not think there is any dispute about the objective which both sides of the Committee are seeking to attain, and the question is how the money should be recovered most fairly in the interests of all the parties. The instance which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, and it is one on which I have some knowledge, is that of poor property concerning which there are loans and mortgages from the bank and so on, the interest on which has to be met. If the owner of this property did something illegal when he charged a premium, I should have no compunction or pity for him at all.
    Mr. Bevan: I agree that the only case in which this could arise is one in which the landlord had been manifestly unjust and was in possession of excessive sums of money received over some years. I can imagine the tribunal coming to a decision on this particular case in those circumstances but this does not seem to me to be a point of hardship at all.
    Colonel Dower: I was not concerned with hardship so much as with the means by which the property was to be main tained during that period. Will the Minister say how, in a case where the property is mortgaged, the landlord would be able to have that property maintained during that period?
    Mr. Marlowe: This situation has been rather altered by the Amendment which was accepted yesterday and which put the relevant date back to 1939. I could see some force in the argument that if, during the last few years, the landlord had received a premium which was illegal at the time, that would have some relation to the money which he had received by way of premium being used for repairs in the subsequent years, but that has been altered by putting the date back a further six years. We must bear in mind that the premium was lawfully accepted, and that very often the rent was adjusted accordingly, especially if there was a rent which the right hon. Gentleman might call exorbitant and which others might prefer to call just and substantial.
    Mr. Bevan: That is really one of the most relevant factors for the tribunal.
    Mr. Marlowe: I know it is, but the tribunal cannot raise the rent. If the rent was a low one because there was a premium, the position will be that the rent must remain the same and cannot be increased to bring it up to what the rent would have been if there had been no premium. That is a very important point, and it is becoming increasingly important by reason of the fact that the relevant date has been put back six years.
    Let us suppose that the rent was £1 a week, in relation to a tenancy beginning since the war ended in 1945, and that, over the subsequent period of three years, the landlord had received £156. That rent would have been fixed originally in relation to the fact that he was receiving, say, £150 over these three years. But, now, if a premium had been fixed in relation to the rent, it has to be spread over nine or 10 years, and that considerably reduces the value of the rent to the landlord. A tenant might even live rent free for a considerable time, which is most undesirable, both from the point of view of the tenant and that of the landlord and is not in the interests of the proper maintenance of property.
    Sir J. Mellor: I think the trouble here is that the Minister has approached this question as if it were a criminal one. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Clause affecting only the landlord who has obtained a very unjust and unreasonable premium, and he appears to regard this as a punishment and thinks that that landlord should get no rent at all. This Measure gives certain civil rights to tenants. It is not a criminal proceeding at all, but, if it were, and if the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards it was correct, surely it would be highly improper by means of this Clause to impose a penalty retrospectively? It is one thing to vary civil rights retrospectively, but something which is never done by Parliament is to impose a penalty for an offence committed before the Statute creating that offence became law. I think there is an important point here.
    If the Minister approaches this matter as if the landlord who had received an unreasonable premium had committed some criminal offence, it is quite improper to use this Bill as a means of
    1176
    punishing him, because it will be a retrospective punishment. If, on the other hand, we are to treat this matter as being purely a question of varying civil rights between two contractual parties, we ought to regard it in a different spirit. We must recognise that the landlord who obtained a premium, which was perfectly lawful at the time, had no reason whatever to suppose that that transaction would be interfered with by this legislation.
    Now, however, the Minister is going to interfere with it, and I think that it should not be interfered with, if at all, without having reasonable regard to the position of the landlord, who is taken entirely by surprise. It is not the fault of the landlord that this Measure was not introduced three years ago. That is the fault of the Government, but I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if it had been introduced three years ago—I am not saying that it should have been, because it is a bad Bill now and would have been then—this situation would not have arisen. Introducing it three years late, I think it is highly unfair to treat a landlord who has received a perfectly lawful premium as if he had committed a criminal offence and to impose upon him a retrospective penalty.
    Mr. Janner: May I try to put this matter on a different footing from that on which it rests at present, due to the fact that we have not heard the whole truth about this Amendment? What has been overlooked by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) is that the principal Acts refer to properties and dwelling-houses which come within a certain rateable value. These principal Acts, in so far as the cover is concerned, are not affected by this Measure, and, consequently, the provisions of the principal Acts continue to apply and were being applied at the time when the tenancies to which hon. Members are referring were created. It was illegal to exact a premium except in respect of a tenancy agreement or lease which extended for a period of 14 years or over. Consequently, there cannot be any tenancy agreements affected by this Clause which have not still some time to run. If a premium was exacted for a shorter term, it was illegal. I understand that the complaint here is that it would involve a considerable hardship on the

    1177
    tenant unless some concession of this sort were made, but the fact of the matter is that, if the landlord let the place for less than 14 years, in asking for a premium he was committing an offence and was aware of the fact that he was not entitled to that premium.
    Sir J. Mellor: Surely, if the landlord had received an illegal premium, that could have been recovered in full?
    Mr. Janner: It may be recovered or it may not under the Bill, but this Clause purports to give the tenant another method of recovering the amount from the landlord. It serves the purpose of enabling the landlord to repay if he is not in a position to repay the full amount at once, and that of course is very important.
    5.0 p.m.
    I think the position is this: nobody who is called upon to repay a premium in those circumstances can be heard to say that he did not know what he would have to do in the event of his charging that premium. These people knew exactly what rent they were entitled to exact under the Act and they knew that if they charged a premium, and in consequence charged a lower rental, they would be doing something that would still enable the tenant to recover the premium. They cannot be heard to say at this stage that they will be prejudiced by anything in this Bill. I do not want hon. Members to think that I am trying to put a legal point to overcome something which it is reasonable to request.
    Mr. Molson: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. What I am referring to are the three kinds of premiums which, until the passing of this Bill, are and have been perfectly legal.
    Mr. Janner: After the passing of the Bill, of course, the person will know precisely what he is doing.
    Colonel Dower: We all know that.
    Mr. Janner: I wish the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) knew the other thing, too. This only applies where the tenancy is for 14 years or over, and consequently there should be very few cases indeed in which the particular circumstances to which the hon. Member refers will arise.
    Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has not referred to the case of the letting of property which had not been previously let—letting during the war—where it was perfectly legal to charge a premium.
    Mr. Janner: It is really a question of a premium, which applies even in that case. The 1939 Act says one must not charge a premium, so when a person charged it as rent he knew very well that unless the agreement was for 14 years or over he would not be entitled to charge a premium. That is precisely the point I was trying to make.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 265.

    Division No. 61.]

    AYES

    [5.05 p.m.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Head, Brig A. H.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    De la Bère, R.

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

    Birch, Nigel

    Digby, S. W.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Dodds-Parker, A, D.

    Hogg, Hon. Q

    Boothby, R.

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

    Hollis, M C

    Bower, N

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh. W.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

    Drayson, G B.

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

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Drewe, C.

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.

    Eccles, D M

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

    Jennings, R

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.

    Erroll, F. J

    Keeling, E. H.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Fletcher, W (Bury)

    Lamoert, Hon. G.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Langford-Holt, J

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

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Carson, E.

    Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)

    Lindsay, M (Solihull)

    Challen, C.

    Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

    Linstead, H. N.

    Clarke, Col. R S.

    Gammans, L. D

    Low, A. R. W.

    Clifton-B own, Lt.-Col. G

    Glyn, Sir R

    Lucas, Major Sir J

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)

    Gridley, Sir A.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    McCallum, Maj. D

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    McCorquoda'e, Rt Hon. M S.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Studholme, H. G.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

    Teeling, William

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Renton, D.

    Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Marlowe, A A. H.

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    white sir D. (Fareham)

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Savory, Prof D L.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Moison, A. H. E.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Eart

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Smithers, Sir W.

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

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Nicholson, G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Osborne, C.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Major Conant and

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

    Colonel Wheatley.

    NOES

    Albu, A. H.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Ewart, R.

    Lislie, J. R.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Levy, B. W.

    Attewell, H. C

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Field, Capt. W J.

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Awbery, S. S.

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

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Follick, M.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Foot, M. M.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Logan, D. G.

    Balfour, A

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Longden, F.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

    McAdam, W.

    Barton, C.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    McAllister, G.

    Bechervaise, A E.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Benson, G.

    Gibbins, J.

    McGhee, H. G

    Berry, H.

    Gilzean, A

    McGovern. J.

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

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mack, J. D.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Grey, C. F.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Binns, J.

    Grierson, E.

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

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    McLeavy, F.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

    Gunter, R. J.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bramall, E A.

    Guy. W. H.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Brown, T. J, (Ince)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Burden, T. W.

    Harrison, J

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Burke, W. A.

    Haworth, J.

    Medland, H. M.

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Mellish, R. J

    Byers, Frank

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Messer, F.

    Carmichael, James

    Hicks, G.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Holman, P.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Champion, A J.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hoy, J.

    Monslow, W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hubbard, T.

    Moody, A. S.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Collick, P.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Morley, R.

    Collindridge, F.

    Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

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

    Cooper, G.

    Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

    Mort, D. L.

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

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Moyle, A.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Janner, B.

    Murray, J. D.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Crawley, A.

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

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

    Cullen, Miss

    Jenkins, R. H.

    O'Brien, T.

    Daggar, G.

    Johnston, Douglas

    Oliver, G. H

    Daines, P.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jones, Jack (Bolton)

    Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Parker, J.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Keenan, W.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    King, E. M.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Peart, T. F.

    Deer, G.

    Kinley, J.

    Piratin, P.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Popplewell, E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Lang, G.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Lavers, S.

    Price, M. Philips

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Pritt, D. N.

    1180

    1181

    Proctor, W. T.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Walker, G. H.

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

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

    Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

    Randall, H. E.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Rangar, J.

    Snow, J. W

    Watson, W. M.

    Rankin, J.

    Solley, L. J.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Reeves, J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wells, W. T (Walsall)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Sparks, J. A.

    West, D. G.

    Rhodes, H.

    Stamford, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Richards, R.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

    Wigg, George

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

    Swingler, S

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Sargood, R.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Scollan, T.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Willis, E.

    Scott-Elliot, W

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wiils, Mrs. E. A

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Timmons, J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Titterington, M. F

    Woods, G. S.

    Sharp, Granville

    Tolley, L

    Yates, V. F.

    Shurmer, P.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Usborne, Henry

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Viant, S. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Richard Adams

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Further Amendments made: In page 4, leave out line 6, and insert "that date were the relevant date."
    In line 7, leave out "will," and insert "would."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in line 8, after "be," to insert "as."
    This is to correct a misprint in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 10. leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 11.—[Mr. Bevan.]
    The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment is in line 12.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have an Amendment in line 10, after "deemed." to insert:
    "for the purposes of this section only."
    The Deputy-Chairman: That has already fallen by the previous Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Which previous Amendment?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister's previous Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: That is the Amendment in line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the first "the," in line 11. That is consequential.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment having been passed, it is impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to move his Amendment to line 10.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This shows the difficulty we can fall into in being as reasonable as we can with the Minister. It is perfectly true that the Minister's Amendment was consequential. However, I should have thought that as we had indicated we attached importance to this Amendment of ours, and intended to move it, the Minister's Amendment might have been moved saving ours. As the Minister can see, we shall have to oppose Amendments—which otherwise we should certainly not oppose—for the purpose of saving our own subsequent Amendments. We do attach a great amount of importance to this. If we cannot discuss it now, perhaps we can on the Question "That the Clause stand part," although there would be a difficulty about that, as it would be tidier to have the discussion here and now.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That cannot be done, because the Minister has insisted on moving his Amendment and it has been passed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, therefore, precluded from moving his Amendment. He would have been, in any case, with or without the "saving."
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think you will agree, Mr. Bowles, and I think the Minister will agree, that we have been very reasonable in not attempting to delay the Committee; but we are very anxious to safeguard our own position in these matters. I had not myself realised that, in assenting to the Minister's consequential

    1183
    Amendment, we were debarring ourselves from moving an Amendment which we regard as of real substance, and the point of which we shall try to bring out at another stage.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps, it may be possible to do that on the Question "That the Clause stand part." As the position is at the moment, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is precluded from moving this Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: There is not very much between us here at all. We think it is a matter of drafting. I will look at this. There is no real question involved.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the Minister in drafting will have in mind the implications of our Amendment then, of course, he will be going some way to meet our point. We shall, as has been said already in another connection, reserve our fundamental interest until we see what the proposals are that the Minister intends to lay before us at a subsequent stage. We shall do our best to take any Parliamentary opportunity that may be allowed us to develop the general line of argument we should like to deploy on this matter, and which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may have an opportunity on the Question "That the Clause stand part."
    Commander Galbraith: You have disallowed our Amendment, Mr. Bowles, because we have accepted an Amendment which leaves out line 10 to the first "the" in line 11; but may I suggest that it would be perfectly possible for this passage to read properly if our Amendment were put in? It would read thus:
    "For the purpose of this Section only the date determined under the last foregoing paragraph.…;"
    I think that would meet the point.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps, it would be more convenient to let the matter stand as it is, as the Minister is going to look at it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We find ourselves in this difficulty, owing, perhaps, to an excess of zeal in co-operation—an
    1184
    unusual fault in an Opposition. I should have thought that the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) would have been most convenient. It is tidier to deal with points one by one as we reach them, rather than by a general discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part." However, we are in the hands of the Chair.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have looked at the matter again, and I think that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) is right, and, therefore, the Amendment may be moved.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the beginning, to insert:
    "for the purposes of this Section only."
    I should like to start by thanking you, Mr. Bowles, for helping us over this We think there is an important point here, and we should like more clarification of it. The premium is divided by the number of years in the tenancy of seven years. The amount of the premium is divided, and as a result of the calculation made an annual levy, so to speak, is made on the actual rent paid by the tenant. That is all perfectly well from a mathematical, calculating point of view, but the thing we want to find out is whether the tenancy is automatically extended—
    Mr. Bevan: I have already said that if these fears turn out to be justified, I shall import into the Bill a form of words to make it impossible for that to happen. That is what I have guaranteed to do.
    Mr. Hare: Since I have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. I shall not detain the Committee.
    Mr. Bevan: We are at one here.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 4, line 12, after "paragraph," insert:
    "shall be deemed to be the relevant date."
    In line 22, leave out from "after," to end of line 24, and insert:
    "the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out subsection (7).
    My reasons for moving this Amendment are very simple. I want to ask the Minister to explain the real purpose of this subsection. My interpretation of it is that it makes a gift to the landlord of the proportion of a premium which has been taken illegally from the tenant in defiance of the law. The law in this respect is laid down in Section 8 of the Act of 1920, in respect of old controlled houses; and in respect of the new controlled houses, in the First Schedule to the 1939 Act. It seems to me that the landlord is now being allowed to get away with the money which he has already obtained. The subsection specifically deprives the tenant of his present right under these laws to recover part of the premium paid prior to the date of the tribunal's decision. The opening words of the subsection are, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Acts." Thus, the principal Acts do not apply.
    Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain what is the purpose of this subsection. I am certain that there is a very large measure of common ground in his attitude and mine on this particular question. Neither of us—if I may put it moderately, without causing much contention on the other side of the Committee, although that does not worry me very much—wants to be overgenerous to the landlords; and yet it seems to me that in this case we are being over-generous to the landlords. On the other hand, if my interpretation of the subsection is wrong, and the Minister can explain it adequately, then it is likely that I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: The explanation is perfectly simple. A tenant can exercise one right or another. If he wishes, he can go to the courts for the recovery of the whole premium. If he does not wish to do that, he can go to the tribunal for the recovery of such part of the premium as this Bill would entitle him to obtain. It does not seem to me that he should have the right to do both together, but one or the other. Nothing is taken away from him. If he wishes to apply under the principal Acts, he can still do so. If he wishes to exercise his rights conferred by this Bill, he may do so. He is losing nothing.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say how that explanation fits in with his new Clause on the Notice Paper (Prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of tenancy)? In subsection (9) of that new Clause it is proposed to repeal Section 8 of the Act of 1920.
    Mr. Bevan: We can discuss that when we reach it. At the moment we are discussing whether the tenant has the right to make two applications. As I have said, this deprives him of nothing at all.
    Mr. Piratin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out subsection (9).
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand this is little more than a drafting Amendment, and that the subsection is to be omitted here and inserted at a later stage. We can discuss it then, and so we will not object now.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Colonel Dower: The matter I want to discuss can, perhaps, be better discussed on Third Reading, but I think it ought to be mentioned now. It is this. The Clause receives the general support of the Committee in so far as it seeks to stop abuses of premiums, and stops not only the owner but the tenant also from exploiting an assignment of lease. However, there is one difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman ought to think about with his expert advisers, and that is how it is possible for a tenant to get a really long lease. After all, if he wants a long lease—of 40 years, for instance—why should he not be able to have it?
    If the right hon. Gentleman rules out any question of the payment of a premium of some amount—I am not now referring to the exploitation of premiums—I think he will find that there will not be that feeling of security that I should like to see every Britisher have—that feeling of security in knowing he has a roof over his head for the remaining years of his life. We have discussed premiums

    1187
    which are demanded in a vicious manner, which is fundamentally bad. However, there are occasions when a premium is not bad, and when, indeed, a man wants to pay it. It is on those lines that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the point I am bringing forward. I hope we shall cure the abuse of which we all disapprove, but will not deny the opportunity of security to a tenant who wishes to have a roof over his head for a number of years.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Harold Roberts: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clear my mind on one point. When a man owns two houses which are on a collective ground rent, and he desires to sell one of them, that is commonly done by charging, say, £300 for that one house and granting a 99 years' lease, or the whole of the expiring term of the lease, as a notional conversion. One would not want that convenient device to be caught in a Bill designed to deal with something quite different. It may well be that there is a perfectly satisfactory answer to that point, but I have called the attention of the Minister to it so that the point may be covered, if necessary.
    Mr. Marlowe: I should like to set it on record that I do not share the views of the right hon. Gentleman that all premiums are immoral per se. Unfortunately, as the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) has said, that is the manner in which this matter has been approached. There are instances in which a premium is defensible on every ground of morality and justice. I think it is unfortunate that, because there have been instances where the situation has been exploited and the power to extract a premium has been used immorally, it should be assumed that every landlord is an extortionate usurer. I find no evidence to make me believe that this is a matter of widespread malpractice. Personally, I know of many cases where a premium is desirable, and in return for a premium, by way almost of an investment, the tenant has to pay considerably less rent. Many tenants prefer to have their tenancy on such terms and I think it unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman is making that impossible.
    1188
    There is one other aspect of this matter. I do not think this Measure will make any contribution to the right hon. Gentleman's housing programme. Perhaps that is immaterial because his housing programme is such a failure that there is nothing which could make it much worse. I think he is going to discourage conversion. There will be many cases in which owners of property would be prepared to convert old houses into a number of flats, to bring old properties up to date or even acquire properties for the purpose of conversion in the belief that they could legitimately make a small profit by doing so. They would be encouraged to enter upon conversion schemes because of the incentive of making that profit. They are up against the usual approach of this Socialist Government which believes that all incentives ought to be killed.
    There is no doubt that the prospect of making a profit on a conversion of that kind is an incentive to a property-owner to make that conversion and thereby make fresh dwellings available. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, does not approach these things in that way. He prefers the rather vindictive attitude of assuming the property owners are persons who ought to be exterminated, and insists on putting on the Statute Book anything which he thinks will achieve that end. I cannot help feeling that by this Measure he will do a great deal of harm to the provision of fresh housing accommodation.
    Mr. S. Silverman: No one, I think, will regret that we should for a minute or two, in the middle of this businesslike Measure, give the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) an opportunity of making his party's characteristic defence of landlords. All that is perfectly right, and it is well that the Opposition's case should be made so abundantly clear as he has made it. That is, however, no reason why we should be deceived in any way. No one has ever said that there is anything immoral in a premium by itself, any more than anyone has ever said that there is anything wrong in a rent by itself, or that there is anything wrong in free bargaining and negotiating between a tenant and a landlord and the fixing of a rent in that way. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken if he thinks that

    1189
    anybody on this side of the Committee has ever said any of those things.
    What has been said is that we are aiming at a situation in which there is not any freedom of contract because there is a shortage of a necessary article, and that shortage has been occasioned partly by generations of neglect by the hon. and learned Gentleman's party and partly by the exigencies of the war in which we have been engaged, and that in those circumstances it is right that the State should step in and enact legislation to protect the weaker of the parties in negotiating what cannot fairly be described as a free contract. We should like to know whether the Opposition are officially taking a line that the State ought not to interfere in these circumstances? Are they against any rent control, and, if not, do they think that my right hon. Friend is wrong to have a Measure which deals with it under the circumstances in which this Bill applies?
    Colonel Dower: We want the Government to get on with building houses.
    Mr. Silverman: That is not quite what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants. He wanted to take advantage of what he alleged was the failure to build houses in order that his friends the landlords could make a profit out of that alleged neglect.
    Mr. Marlowe: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does it not follow that we have not got a free market, and therefore, until we get a free market, the proper way to deal with this matter is to build enough houses to make a free market?
    Mr. Silverman: Of course, it is. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman's party, when it was in power for over 20 years, did not find that it was so very easy to build houses overnight. My right hon. Friend has built five or six times as many houses in a corresponding period after the end of the war as were built after the end of the previous war. That does not relieve us of the obligation in the meantime, while we are building houses more rapidly than the hon. and learned Gentleman's party ever did—
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—
    The Chairman: Unless the hon. Gentleman gives way, the right hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to intervene.
    Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman paid me the compliment yesterday of saying that I always waited for him to finish his sentence before I interrupted. I should like to finish the sentence on which I embarked, if only I could remember what it was, which I can no longer do.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In that case, perhaps I may complete the sentence on which the hon. Gentleman embarked, and then make my interruption. He said that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was building houses far faster than the party to which I belong ever did or could have done. I am sure that on reflection he will not wish to advance that thesis, and I leave it to his fairness to consider whether he did not considerably exceed the statistical basis for his argument in that contention.
    Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for reminding me of what I was saying. What my right hon. Friend has done has been to build houses in three years after the end of the Second World War many times more rapidly than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's party did in the corresponding period after the First World War. That, I take it, is not any longer, if it ever was, in dispute. I say further that he will continue to build houses far more rapidly than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's party has ever done. That I cannot yet prove, but the Government will do so after the next Election when it continues in power and has an opportunity of developing its policy even more rapidly.
    The point I was making was that however short or long the time it may take, it is the obligation of any decent Government to protect people in the meantime, and to protect them in respect of contracts which they have been driven to make and which they would not have made except for the economic conditions which deprived them of any freedom of choice. It is interesting to see at this time that the Opposition are so greatly concerned to protect not those who are exploiting the victims of this situation but those who are making a profit out of it for what the hon. and learned Gentleman called an incentive. We prefer other incentives by relying on this Bill.
    Mr. Janner: There is a very important Section of the Acts which some hon. Members have overlooked when making their arguments. I understood them to say that when a small rental is charged no premium can be exacted, no matter how long the period may be. That is not correct. The fact of the matter is that a premium may be charged and will be charged after the passing of this Measure. The Measure relates to houses within the purview of the principal Acts, and those Acts contain a proviso to the effect that if the rent is below two-thirds of the rateable value, the house does not come within the principal Acts at all; and secondly, if a person wants to give a very long letting after this Bill becomes an Act, he will still be able to do so and charge up to two-thirds of the rateable value, which is not an unreasonable amount in the sense of its being a small amount, and he will continue to do this in a way which those who want us to believe that the landlord is not properly protected, do not understand.
    I want to make only one other point. I have intervened in these Debates from time to time because I felt that a considerable amount of argument was being adduced in order to convince the country that the Socialist Party is not prepared to act reasonably with the small landlord or with the tenant, or with any other party concerned. The fact of the matter is that these Acts were produced by the Tories. They excluded premiums, and we are doing precisely what they have been doing all along, namely, giving an opportunity of extracting a premium only if the rental is below two-thirds of the rateable value.
    5.45 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Now that we have been exonerated, vindicated and decorated by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), I trust that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will hang his head in shame. We have heard a splendid vindication of the social policy of the Conservative Party in the years between the wars, against the somewhat splenetic condemnation by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. We can therefore get back again to the Bill.
    We do not wish to enter now upon a Third Reading Debate, in which we shall
    1192
    have many things to say about the provisions against the exaction of premium, but under present conditions of shortage, these are provisions, the necessity for which we recognise. We said so upon the Second Reading, when we drew attention to one of the difficulties inherent in the Bill as introduced, namely, that it dealt with certain classes of abuse and not with others. At a later date the Minister is to bring in a new Clause in response to that appeal which, it is only fair to say, was made from more than one side of the House.
    Our general contention remains, however, that we do not think that a premium in itself is morally wrong. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne went further and said that nobody on that side of the House had ever said that he was against rent as such. I looked at the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), and I could practically see his toes turning up in his boots, even through the somewhat substantial piece of furniture behind which he is sitting. He will not have omitted to remember the vehement denunciations of rent as robbery which the founders of his party have made.
    The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying far too widely. He is introducing matter which I really cannot allow to be developed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was not going more widely than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. In fact, I had not embarked, nor did I intend to embark, upon a consideration of the general housing programme, not merely of the present Government but of previous Governments, as did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
    The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appears rather to be reflecting on the Chair. I allowed the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to deal with that matter because it had been referred to by a previous speaker on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's side of the Committee. I endeavour to divide my favours as evenly as possible, but there is a limit to them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I did not intend to go further than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had been allowed to go. I did not intend to say enough to bring me to the very narrow line which

    1193
    the hon. Member was on the point of crossing when he veered and stood off on another tack.
    The difficulties in which we are just now are those of shortage. Owing to those difficulties of shortage some control must be exerted upon premiums. That is agreed. The difficulty that we see is that we fear that the arrest of the process of paying a certain sum in advance may easily lead to the withholding of letting altogether in favour of a process of sale. All that may happen is that instead of having to raise a certain proportion of money from the landlord, the unhappy tenant will be forced to raise a much larger proportion of money from a bank. Sales of property in those conditions will be greatly increased and that process will inure to the disadvantage and not to the advantage of the class which this legislation is seeking to protect.
    In the present position we do not deny, the House having decided the principle upon Second Reading, that there must be control of premiums in certain conditions. We accept that. That control will also be exercised in the case of assignments which the Minister is dealing with later. Therefore, we do not propose to divide the Committee against the Clause. We shall examine the Minister's proposals with a sympathetic mind because they meet the objections which we ourselves advanced upon the Second Reading.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3. —(PROVISIONS AS TO APPORTIONMENT WHERE SECTION 1 APPLIES.)
    Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out subsection (2).
    Perhaps the Minister will give us an explanation of this subsection, which is not clear to me, however clear it may be to other hon. Members. As I understand the matter, if the subsection remains, where, in the case of a major property, a property which is part of it has its rent determined, then, in the words of the Bill,
    "in making any apportionment under the principal Acts for the purpose of ascertaining the standard rent of any other part of the property no regard shall be had to the determination under Section one of this Act."
    The problem that arises here is of having two kinds of standard rent in one
    1194
    and the same house, one for the whole dwelling and another for part of the dwelling which falls within the subsection. For that matter, there may be even more than one part of the dwelling with a different standard rent. Therefore, we are likely to have two standards of rent applying to various parts of the house. In the case of the principal dwelling the tenant already has the remedy of obtaining an apportionment under the 1920 Act and under the Act of 1939. No problem arises there.
    What I cannot understand is the purpose of the subsection. Hence my Amendment to remove it. If the tribunal fixes a standard rent there will be two types of standard rent. We shall also have the effect that the total rent of the different parts of the house will bear no relationship to the standard rent of the whole house. It may well be that the new standard rent will be higher than the old standard rent, and higher than that which has been the apportionment of the old standard rent of the whole of the house.
    I do not know whether I am making my meaning clear. It is all very "abstuse." There has been so much complication that it will be very easy for me to follow in the wake of some of the lawyers and to be found equally difficult to apprehend. I am doing my best to make myself understood. The Minister said, in the course of his speech upon an earlier Amendment which I withdrew, that the tenant could go either to the county court in relation to a whole house which comes within the present rent Acts, or he could go to the tribunal, if we have in mind what the Bill permits the tenant to do. That may be the answer, but it will not explain that there will still be two kinds of standard rent obtaining in one dwelling-house and that there are likely to be anomalies. I am trying to help to make the Bill more constructive and understandable.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: The effect of the Amendment would be that the other tenants in the major property would have to have their rents raised, if the new reasonable rent for a particular part of the dwelling-house were taken into account. The remedy for the other tenants is clearly that of going before the rent tribunal and having their new reasonable rents determined. There is no

    1195
    reason at all why they could not do that and it is obviously a desirable thing to do.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not wish to be thought "abstuse," to use the word which I thought was very happily coined by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and which I take it is a combination of the words "abstruse" and "obtuse." But I am wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary will explain the effect of the subsection in the case where property which comes within Clause 1 is the subject of a determination under that Clause and subsequently has to be let in different parts. It might perhaps be argued by a tenant who subsequently applied for an apportionment that this subsection applied, and that the part of the dwelling-house which he then occupied, being part of the original dwelling-house in respect of which a determination had been made, was in fact not the same and was therefore other than that dwelling house, and that, therefore, in making the apportionment in the county court, no regard was to be had to the determination. I may have misread the words, or perhaps the Minister has been advised that that is an impossible construction. If I am mistaken in this matter, perhaps the Minister will forgive me because no one would pretend that these matters are easy to understand.
    Mr. Janner: A very important point has been raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). There happens to be an Act of 1938 which says that in order to obtain an apportionment on a dwelling-house which is part of another dwelling-house we must take into consideration the rent of the whole dwelling-house. We have enough confusion with these Acts already. I make this interjection in order to find out whether that will be in conflict with these new provisions. Otherwise a county court will be able to do what a rent tribunal is not able to do, and a rent tribunal may come to conclusions to which a county court would not come, by reason of the fact that the 1938 Act still prevails. I am raising this matter in the hope that the Minister will give me an explanation. It will be difficult to have two Acts on the Statute Book which conflict with each other.
    Mr. Bevan: I should have thought that the language of the subsection, whatever else is obscure in the Bill, would be perfectly clear. It says here that the determination of the tribunal shall not affect a determination under the principal Act. It is sometimes better to read out the words, because we are still dependent upon the acoustics of the market-place to penetrate our understandings. The words are:
    "(2) Where the standard rent of a dwelling-house, being part of a property which is a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply, has been determined under Section one of this Act, then in making any apportionment under the principal Acts for the purpose of ascertaining the standard rent of any other part of the property no regard shall be had to the determination under Section one of this Act."
    I should have thought that those words reasserted the supremacy of the principal Act.
    Mr. Piratin: Why should it be necessary for the tenant to apply to the tribunal, in view of the fact that the dwelling-house falls within the principal Act and he can go to the county court and obtain an apportionment on a lower standard than he is likely to get from the tribunal?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not follow the point which my hon. Friend is making. The effect of leaving out the subsection is to call upon the tribunal to take into account the standard rent of the other parts of the house.
    Mr. Piratin: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(REGISTER OF DETERMINA TIONS OF TRIBUNAL UNDER FORE GOING SECTIONS.)
    6.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: Mr. Sparks.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of Order, Major Milner. May I draw your attention to the fact that I have an Amendment down to this Clause in page 5, line 30, after "Act," to insert "and of the principal Acts."
    The Chairman: I am sorry but the hon. Member's Amendment is out of

    1197
    Order, as is also his Amendment in page 5, line 44, at the end, to insert:
    (3) The register shall be so prepared and kept up to date so as to contain with regard to any dwelling-house in respect of which the principal Acts apply, being a dwelling-house in the area of the local authority, particulars of the standard rent of the dwelling-house in such form as may be prescribed from time to time by the Minister of Health.
    It is outside the Money Resolution.
    Mr. Fletcher: May I make a submission to you on that point, Major Milner, because this seems to me to raise a point of some general importance? I understood you to rule that my first Amendment is out of Order because it is not covered by the Money Resolution. May I remind you that there is nothing whatever in the Money Resolution which was passed after the Bill had had its Second Reading which deals with this Clause? The ambit of the Money Resolution which was passed by the Committee is very narrowly drawn and drawn in such a way as to authorise the expenditure out of public funds of the money required to serve the purposes of the tribunal.
    There is nothing in the Money Resolution which covers the expenses to which local authorities will be put by having to provide the register under Clause 4. I think that is appropriate to the case because, as I understand the position, it is unnecessary to have a Money Resolution to authorise expenditure by local authorities as distinct from the expenditure by the Exchequer. If I am right in thinking that, I find it difficult to understand why an Amendment which is merely designed to extend the scope of the register which local authorities are to be required to keep should be ruled out of Order because there is nothing in the Money Resolution about it. The whole object of the Amendment is to enable local authorities to carry out what is universally regarded as a desirable preliminary to any general review of these Acts.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member. He must not, of course, argue the merits of the proposal. It is true that the Clause provides for a register to be kept of the determinations of the tribunal. This is a very small matter and on the
    1198
    de minimis rule, it is not customary to provide for, it in the terms of a Financial Resolution. The hon. Member's proposal now is a very different one and would involve very substantial expenditure indeed, I am advised. In those circumstances, as some contribution would have to be made from the national Exchequer, it is necessary to have a Money Resolution.
    Mr. Fletcher: I realise that the provision of a register of all rent controlled dwelling-houses will involve a greater expenditure by local authorities than the provision of a register for the purposes of the Act. Whether that increased expenditure is substantial or de minimis or something between the two, I do not think anybody can know, because from the language of the Amendment, it depends on what regulations are prescribed. The point has now emerged from your Ruling, Major Milner, that the expenditure which you have in mind will not be the expenditure of the central Exchequer but the expenditure of local authorities. I believe I am right in thinking that until a year or two ago, an Amendment could never have been ruled out of Order in a Committee of this House merely because it involved an addition to the expenditure of local authorities.
    I realise that the position has changed to some extent now by virtue of the Local Government Act, 1948, which changed the method by which the central Exchequer makes contributions to the local authorities, but this particular point, if I remember rightly, was raised during the Second Reading Debate and the Committe stage of the Local Government Act, 1948. It was realised that it ought not to detract from the rights of hon. Members merely because under the Act of 1948 the Exchequer make their contributions to the revenues of local authorities on a different principle. I, therefore, suggest with great respect that this is a matter of some importance and that I should be allowed to move my Amendment in order to put before the Committee reasons designed to show that it is essential for the purposes of the general review of the Rent Acts which is contemplated that a necessary preliminary step should be authorised now by the House and undertaken without delay.
    The Chairman: The question of merits does not enter into this matter. The point

    1199
    I have to decide is whether under the Rules of the House the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is in Order. I am afraid that I have come to the conclusion that it is not in Order because it is not covered by the terms of the Financial Resolution. The hon. Member is correct in saying that up to two or three years ago this might have been dealt with without the necessity for a Financial Resolution, but as he knows, the Local Government Act provided for contributions on a certain basis by the national Exchequer and his present proposal would attract a grant from the national Exchequer which I am advised would be very substantial. That would not come within the terms of the de minimis rule and that being the case, I have no alternative under the Rules of the House but to rule the Amendment out of Order.
    Mr. Hogg: This seems to be a question of some substance and one which would perhaps have rather surprised those who made the change concerning local government finance in the Act. I wonder whether this is the first occasion on which this point has been raised. Although I appreciate the reasons which underlie your Ruling, Major Milner, it is an odd result of the Local Government Act, 1948, that we cannot now make provision for expenditure by local authorities because to do so would attract a block grant from the central Exchequer. The effect, oddly enough, is to take away from Private Members, though not from the Government, a right which they would hitherto have regarded most jealously.
    Mr. Bevan: Of course, hon. Members cannot in any way challenge the Ruling which you gave, Major Milner, but I must say on the spur of the moment without having an opportunity to reflect very much about it—I trust that all I say will be regarded as tentative—that I should be surprised if it were the intention—it was certainly not my intention as the author of the 1948 Act—to so limit the rights of the House in this matter because it would be a most serious thing if the Government could resist any Amendment on the ground that too large a sum was imposed upon the Exchequer or for any other reason. It is rather a serious matter if hon. Members of the Committee or the House are inhibited
    1200
    from putting down an Amendment merely on account of the fact that an additional activity by a local authority would attract such proportion of Exchequer grant as the increased expenditure of a local authority will give rise to. This is a matter upon which we ought to have some more discussion. It is a serious question indeed.
    The Chairman: It may be of help to the Committee if I say that I am not in the least unsympathetic or in oppositon to the view expressed by the Minister, and I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to say that the possibility of such a result was pointed out at the time of the 1948 Act. For the moment I must stick to my Ruling, but I suggest that this is one of those matters which might be considered privately so that an endeavour may be made, if the House wishes, to find a way out of the difficulty for the future.
    Mr. Marlowe: Would it be possible for the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to put his Amendment in Order by adding a manuscript Amendment to the effect that this should be a charge solely on local authorities?
    Mr. Fletcher: While I must accept your Ruling, Major Milner, I should like, if I catch your eye, to say a word on the merits of this proposal on the Question "That the Clause stand part." I should like to make this observation about the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It seems to me to be very important that it should not emerge from this discussion that the rights of Members of the Front Bench in this respect are any greater than the rights of hon. Members in other parts of the House—
    Hon. Members: They are.
    The Chairman: I say at once that the hon. Member is perfectly correct in that. The Front Bench have no greater powers than other hon. Members.
    Mr. Hogg: I think I was right in what I said originally. The rule is, I understand, that it is part of the custom of this House that increases in charge may be moved by Members of the Government, although of course it is true that a further Financial Resolution might be required at one stage or other. The effect would be that Members of the Govern-

    1201
    ment could move Amendments one way or the other, increasing the activities of local authorities whereas Private Members could not because they never could initiate a Resolution in Committee. I therefore think I was right in substance in what I originally said.
    The Chairman: I am not disputing whether the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is right or wrong. However, it is a fact, of course, that only the Government can initiate expenditure, but just as with any other hon. Member, they must work within the terms of the Financial Resolution passed either early or late as the case may be.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Assuming as one must, and as I do, that the original Ruling was correct, is it not then very important indeed that regard should be paid to that fact whenever a Money Resolution is drafted? It is extremely unfortunate if the state of the Rules of the House is such that if a Money Resolution is tightly drawn, it prevents the Committee from discussing a point, whatever the ultimate results might be, when we all desire to discuss it and when the Government themselves would not wish us not to discuss it? It seems that if the effect of the Local Government Act is to produce this limiting effect upon the rights of Private Members afterwards, the Government might well have regard to that in considering the terms of Money Resolutions which they put on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Bevan: It does not seem to me that very much damage has been done so far. The House may recollect that it has been found necessary to change the Rules governing the Private Bill Procedure because of the application to Private Bill legislation of the 1948 Local Government Act, and it is also obvious that, as the Chairman has said, as this would attract a charge from national funds, it is not open for Private Members to put down Amendments which have that effect. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) quite properly pointed that out. However, I think we might tonight leave it at the point where I will discuss what steps, if any, are necessary to liberate the House from the inhibitions imposed on it by the 1948 Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) for having raised the point.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was correct in regard to the Financial Resolution. It would, however, have been competent for the hon. Member for East Islington to raise his point when the Financial Resolution came before the Committee. Unfortunately that was not done.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out "Minister may direct," and to insert "local authority may determine."
    This is a minor Amendment which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept. The Clause as it stands says that the register must be in such place or places, and kept in such manner, as the Minister may direct. All this Amendment is asking is that the discretion shall be left to the local authorities. After all, they can carry out the provisions of this Clause quite well, and it seems redundant that the Minister in such a small matter shall lay down so precisely how the register shall be kept. The local authorities already have to keep a register of proceedings under the 1946 Act, and there is no reason why this register cannot be kept in similar form and discretion be allowed them as to the place and manner in which it is kept.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: As my hon. Friend says, he has raised what is a small point; but this matter was considered when the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act was passed, where exactly the same provision stands. We see no good reason why the same provision should not be made in this Measure. It seems to us to have worked quite satisfactorily, and we do not propose that any change should be made.
    Mr. Sparks: 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. E. Fletcher: In common with every other hon. Member of the Committee, I welcome this Clause but regret that its effect is weakened by the limited nature of its provisions. It is agreed that a register is essential to record the decisions of these tribunals, but I regret that

    1203
    the Clause does not go further and compel local authorities to compile a register showing the standard rents and the rents payable in respect of all rent-controlled dwelling houses within their area. Those of us who welcome the improvements that have been made in the Bill since its Second Reading regard it, apart from its intrinsic merits, as a prelude to a comprehensive review of the morass of Rent Restrictions Acts, but a first step towards that must be a compilation of the existing standard rents which now date back to 1915 and are difficult to understand. The point was put very well in a recent leading article in "The Times" which said:
    "If rent control"—
    The Chairman: Clearly the hon. Gentleman cannot argue something on the Clause as a whole, which he was not permitted to argue on an Amendment which was out of Order. I have given him a little latitude, but he ought not to go into detail.
    Mr. Fletcher: I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, and do not want to go into detail. I merely want to emphasise the point that, before we can get a comprehensive review of the rent Acts, we must have a register of existing rents payable under the existing Acts.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(TRIBUNAL FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 1.)
    Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that when an application is made under this Act the chairman or the clerk of the tribunal shall be an experienced lawyer."
    It is obvious that there should be a lawyer, either as chairman or clerk, for the benefit of the tribunal and those who make application to it. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that one or the other will be a lawyer.
    The Chairman: It may be helpful if I say that I think that the following Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) might be discussed at the same time—in page 6, line 43, at end, add:
    1204
    "(6) The Schedule to the Act of 1946 shall, from such date as the Minister may by regulation appoint, have effect as though at the end of paragraph 1 there were added the words 'of whom at least one shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing.'"
    Commander Galbraith: I think these two Amendments might be taken together because they deal with the same point. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has asked that the chairman or the clerk of the tribunal shall be an experienced lawyer, and we ask that at least one member shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing. In view of the intricate matters which will come before the tribunal in consequence of the passing of this Bill, I should have thought that an Amendment of this kind was called for, and that a tribunal should at least have as one of its members, a gentleman with fairly high legal qualifications; indeed, they might be required to be very high. We have had numerous discussions today during which we have heard lawyers of eminence completely opposed to one another as to the meaning of certain passages. If that happens in the House of Commons, I do not know what will happen with these tribunals. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment to which I have spoken, and which I will move later on.
    The Chairman: I assume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates that along with the Amendment he has moved, there must also go the new Clause on page 698 of the Order Paper—
    Composition of tribunals.
    The Schedule to the Act of 1946 shall, from such date as the Minister may by regulation appoint, have effect as though at the end of paragraph 1 there were added the words "of whom at least one shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing."
    Commander Galbraith: But I have not moved it.
    The Chairman: I must have an understanding that the discussion on this matter, if there is to be one, must cover the new Clause also. It is obvious that we cannot have two discussions, and these Amendments cover the new Clause in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities on page 698.
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, it is the same point.
    Mr. Bevan: We are getting along well, but we have a long distance to go, and I was hoping that I would not be pressed upon this matter. Obviously, from the interchange that took place just now, if there are to be any lawyers, there should be only one because, if there are two, they will almost certainly quarrel with each other about interpretation, and if there are three, there will be permanent discord. I hope we shall not be limited by this because quite often it has the effect of making it more difficult to set up a tribunal quickly enough where it is insisted upon by the Statute that a certain profession—it does not matter which—should have some one of its number on the tribunal. It means that the administration has to hold up the appointment of a tribunal until a suitable person of that profession has been found. It quite often happens, too, that lawyers are exceedingly busy people.
    There is another reason. It does not follow necessarily that these tribunals need legal assistance. They are fact-finding tribunals and, judging by experience in the House, no lawyer is able to look at a fact without reducing it to such a one-dimensional situation that it loses all humanity. I suggest, therefore, that it is essential to look at these facts in the round. I am not suggesting that it is a disqualification to be a lawyer because, when I give the figures of the tribunals, it will be shown that in the majority of cases a lawyer is included. Nor must it be supposed that lay tribunals reach decisions that are more readily challengeable in the courts than they would be if there were lawyers on the tribunal.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Or less.
    Mr. Bevan: I would not be too precipitate about that. The position will be seen from the figures. Some 23 tribunals in the country do not contain any legal gentleman or ladies, one of those tribunals has been challenged in the courts, and there has been one appearance. There are 40 tribunals with a legally qualified chairman; six have been challenged 12 times.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does the Minister mean by appeal?
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly, by appeal to the courts. Their decisions were challenged six times.
    Mr. Silverman: Were they challenged successfully?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not got the decisions.
    Mr. Hogg: That makes a difference.
    Mr. Bevan: Does it? It means that if the appeal was successful, then it was against the lawyers, but only one appeal has been made against tribunals which had no lawyers on them. There are nine tribunals with a legal member who is not the chairman, and two of these have been challenged three times. I do not want to make too much of this point because it often happens that tribunals with legal chairmen are much busier, they have a much greater number of cases. Therefore, I give these figures rather facetiously without wishing to make any important deduction from them. However, I hope I shall not be pressed. It is fairly easy to get a lawyer—the figures show that in 49 cases out of 72 we have got a lawyer—but I would not like to be constrained to have a lawyer, because of the administrative inconvenience in finding a suitable person, and because these are primarily lay tribunals and not for the purpose of construing the law.
    Mr. Marlowe: I want to make this point to the right hon. Gentleman. So far as appeals are concerned, there is no deduction to be drawn at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not take the figures seriously, but he ought not to have put them before the Committee as a guide because, as he knows, there is under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, no appeal except on the question of jurisdiction. That is the only ground upon which a case could go to the Court of Appeal. That completely disposes of any deductions which could be drawn from the appeals.
    Mr. Bevan: How does that dispose of the argument that there may be no appeals against a tribunal after the passing of the Bill?
    Mr. Marlowe: I agree, but the only appeal there may be is one of jurisdiction, and the question of whether a lawyer

    1207
    is hearing the appeal is of no consequence for the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) proposing that lawyers should be on these tribunals. It is not often that lawyers receive support from the other side of the Committee. I assure him that we shall remember it in support of the hairdressers. The difficulty here is that there is no doubt that these tribunals will have to discharge an onerous task. It is not so much a question of their being what the right hon. Gentleman called fact-finding tribunals. Difficulties arise more on questions of interpretation. Everybody sitting on these tribunals has to interpret a great number of Statutes other than this one by itself. This one, as we have seen from the fact that it took us a whole day to get through Clause 1, is by no means easy to understand.
    6.30 p.m.
    There is another argument I want to put before the Committee. While there may have been a case under the 1946 Act for not having lawyers on the tribunal, because comparatively simple issues were involved there and, if the tribunal did make a mistake, no great harm was done because security of tenure was given only for three months, here a much more important principle is involved, for security of tenure is given virtually indefinitely. Therefore, these tribunals may be creating a statutory tenancy which may last for a term of years, which is a very different matter from the security for three months which existed under the 1946 Act. That, I think, brings the thing into quite a different category.
    It is possible to argue that under the powers existing in the 1946 Act something in the nature of rough justice could he done, because it affected people for only three months. I suppose it is possible to accept rough justice for three months and to suffer an injustice for that time, but if a person feels aggrieved about the result of a decision of one of these tribunals he must go on suffering that grievance for year after year. That, I feel, is the strongest point which the right hon. Gentleman ought to take into account. He ought to realise that these tribunals are adjudicating between
    1208
    people for that length of time, for a time which fixes their contractual relationship over a very considerable number of years. I ask him to weigh that in the scales and to believe that, on that account, it detracts from the precedent which was set in 1946.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment. I remember that the English Act followed the Scottish one. It followed because Members of this House had gone to Scotland and found out how very successful the tribunals were proving in Scotland. But we did not have lawyers as chairmen. I was a member of a tribunal from the inception of the Act and can say that we had very competent chairmen indeed. The Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, in fact, would have had great difficulty in seeking lawyers.
    From my experience in the House I find lawyers singularly unattractive and their political mind exceedingly baffling. Looking at hon. Members opposite, we can see a lawyer and an accountant sitting side by side. I very much prefer the hon. and gallant Member for Pollock (Commander Galbraith), who is an accountant. I think that if he were a member of a tribunal he would be just as competent—there is no disrespect in these remarks—as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who is sitting on his right. I am quite certain also that most of the women of Glasgow think so.
    There is another factor which concerns these tribunals. I feel that my hon. Friends on these Benches will very soon be asking that sheriffs shall preside over the tribunals. We are getting very far away from the spirit which dominated the inception of the Act, namely, that the tribunals should be very informal and that there should be nothing about them to deter simple people from coming forward with their cases. I do not find anything difficult in the Bill, which really will be very simple when we have finished with it. The regulations which are issued will be quite simple to follow. The Minister should, I think, have the benefit of accountants, valuers—we often do in Scotland, where we have competent valuers—and other valuable people presiding over these tribunals. These people hitherto have always presided with great

    1209
    competence, and I hope that the Amendment to insist upon the legal mind will be dropped.
    Mr. Hogg: The Minister gave two reasons for resisting the Amendment. With one I am in some sympathy, but with the other I am in less sympathy. I am in still less sympathy with what has just fallen from the lips of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann).
    Of course, I should not desire to embarrass the Minister's administration of what is, obviously, an urgent temporary Measure, and I can well understand his argument that lawyers are so much sought after that they are difficult to obtain. I sympathise with his difficulties in that respect. I feel it my duty, however, to say a word or two in support of my sometimes rather maligned profession. We may be unattractive, as the hon. Lady thinks—we are not, of course, selected for our sex appeal—and I can well understand her preference for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), who is an accountant, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), whom I have known from his schooldays and who has never been other than he is.
    To turn to the serious matter of the Amendment, it is important that the Committee should not give way too much to its very understandable dislike of the want of attraction in lawyers. There are certain things which people think they can do for themselves about which they are very ready to resent interference. One I have noticed is that they always think they know what is good propaganda on their own side. Sometimes we see, on both sides of the House, examples of people not knowing quite as well as they think they do which arguments advance and which arguments do not advance their case.
    Another thing I have noticed that people are very apt to think they can do for themselves, and are supremely ignorant of how badly they do for themselves and other people, is trying to administer justice. Justice is not an easy matter. It is not a matter which can simply be approached by a person of good will and common sense with any hope of arriving at consistently good results. In my time I have spoken to all sorts of lay tribunals as an advocate and I can assure
    1210
    you, Major Milner, that there is no capacity in which one finds out their faults and weaknesses quicker than if one appears as an advocate, because then one has to exploit their weaknesses.
    It is important that in the administration of justice of all kinds—and this is now one of the very important ways in which justice will be administered, and is actually being administered, in this country—those who have dedicated their lives to the subject should play an important. part. Hon. Members opposite are commonly friendly to appeals to trade union qualifications. I sympathise with them, and have always done so, in that approach to vocations of all sorts. The administration and the love of justice is something which is just as demandant of a dedicated life as other things and I do not myself view without apprehension the ready assumption which comes from hon. Members sometimes that that kind of experience and devotion is of no value. I hope that, as we are constantly, both now and in other connections, setting up new tribunals to administer justice in one way and another, we shall not disregard the need for qualified persons to administer it.
    I was not impressed by the statistics quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I think that he really put them forward seriously. He realised as well as did my hon. and learned Friend that these tribunals are tribunals from which there is no effective appeal. The only way in which their decision can be challenged is when their jurisdiction is in question. For that reason, it is all the more important that those who have made a professional study of this matter should be asked to play their full part in it. Therefore, although I certainly respect the argument which was put forward on the basis of practicability, I hope that the Committee will not listen favourably to what I must regard as irresponsible, mischievous and, I must add, meretricious appeals of the kind to which the hon. Lady has given voice.
    Mr. Solley: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider his decision and accept one or other of the two Amendments or alternatively tell the Committee that at some later stage he may be able to meet the import of these Amendments by some other Amendment which will enable him.

    1211
    wherever possible, to have as chairman somebody with legal qualifications. I should like to say immediately that no one has been more critical of my own profession in the House of Commons than myself. I make this appeal to my right hon. Friend not because of any false sense of loyalty to my profession—to which I am, of course, loyal—but because it would be in the best public interests if these Amendments or a similar Amendment were accepted by him.
    The work of the tribunals under the Bill when it becomes law will be of a vastly different character from the work of the tribunals under the 1946 Act. I have had some small measure of professional experience in the working of that Act and I have complete confidence in the general efficiency of the tribunals set up under it. The work of tribunals under that Act is essentially of a very limited character. Their findings are purely findings of fact and it is very rare that any issue of law arises. Quite the contrary will be the case if this Bill becomes law. Tribunals will frequently find themselves faced with substantial difficulties of interpretation and with ascertaining what is the law, in relation not merely to this Measure but to the entire law of rent restriction. No one but a chairman experienced in law could really administer, and appear to administer, justice fairly in relation to the operation of the provisions of the Bill.
    The Court of Appeal—and, indeed, the House of Lords—have frequently put on record their inability to understand the Rent Restrictions Acts. No lawyer in this Committee would dare to suggest that he could really understand them in their entirety. Yet we are thrusting upon the chairmen of these tribunals, not the question as to what is a fair rent for furnished premises, but the sort of problems which the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal, the judges in the King's Bench Division on appeal and county court judges cannot decide. [Interruption.] I can understand my hon. Friends thinking I am exaggerating, but when these matters come before a tribunal, not only are questions of fact likely to be involved, but mixed questions of fact and law.
    6.45 p.m.
    It would be in the best interests of the public if the chairman of a tribunal were
    1212
    able properly to understand the issues involved in every case and to deal with them as an experienced lawyer would deal with them, that is to say, in accordance with the terms of the Statute and in accordance with the proper interpretation of the Statute. I make this appeal to my right hon. Friend, not as lawyer, or on the ground that lawyers ought to be given work, but on the sole basis that it would be in the best interests of the community and of the poorer classes of the community, the working classes, if the chairman had legal experience, because if that were so these people would have a square deal.
    Mr. Bevan: May I ask the Committee to come to a decision? This is a perfectly simple point. Most of the tribunals have already been appointed and only a very small part of the country remains to be covered. I am not saying that in many of the important tribunals it is not necessary to have a lawyer as chairman. In fact, they do have such chairmen. I should have thought the Committee might leave it to me, might leave it to the administration, to see that in practice substantially what the Committee wishes to do is done, but not to make it a statutory obligation. Some of these tribunals in more remote districts do not want a lawyer as chairman and often a layman is quite as good as a lawyer.
    I also point out to the Committee that it would gravely embarrass some of the lawyers if someone were taken out of the tribunal in order to appoint another chairman. They would be examining him to see if he were better than his predecessor. I think we might get on and not insist on the Amendment, but take it for granted that where the tribunals have substantial work to do substantial people are appointed.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I feel I should make a few observations at this stage, particuarly in consequence of the remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann). I do not know what I have done to call upon myself her hostile animadversion, but I shall take such steps as are within my power—
    Mrs. Mann rose—
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Allow me to finish the sentence—to seek to induce her to change her feeling about the

    1213
    absence of attraction in my hon. and learned Friends and myself. This matter goes deeper that the outward appearance of the tribunal. I am not quite clear, from what the right hon. hon. Gentleman said, whether he accepts in principle the desirability, in every case in which a vacancy occurs, of appointing someone legally qualified. His argument was, in the first place, that there was difficulty in finding lawyers. I should have thought that was not a very substantial difficulty, nor one which might not have been easily overcome.
    He went on to argue in his later observations that it was not always desirable because, after all, these were fact-finding bodies. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the pressure put upon the Secretary of State for War from time to time to secure the presence of a trained lawyer upon courts martial—in an advisory capacity it is true—which, in the vast majority of cases, are nothing but fact-finding bodies. He will also bear in mind that under the original Workmen's Compensation Acts provision was made for arbitration and there was the same argument that a lawyer was not necessary to decide and find the facts, but, as we all know, under those Acts the matter was dealt with by county court judges. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the clearest possible assurance that he will spare no effort to find lawyers and will also appoint lawyers with these qualifications on every possible occasion.
    Mr. Sparks: I have listened to what the Minister said upon this Amendment and I think his attitude is reasonable. He has accepted the principle and spirit of the Amendment and we have no right to impose upon him a measure which is impracticable administratively. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher): I am calling the next Amendment, in page 6, line 43, but a discussion cannot be permitted on it.
    Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to add:
    "(6) The Schedule to the Act of 1946 shall, from such date as the Minister may by regulation appoint, have effect as though at the end of paragraph 1 there were added the words ' of whom at least one shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing.'"
    While we regret it, we feel that the difference is so great between the 1946 Act and the present Bill that we ought so far as possible to insist on this Amendment receiving the consent of the Committee and, therefore, we shall have to divide the Committee.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 286.

    Division No. 62.]

    AYES

    [6.54 p.m.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Eccles, D. M.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Assheton Rt. Hon. R

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Low, A. R W

    Bennett, Sir P

    Fletcher, W.(Bury)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

    Birch, Nigel

    Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)

    Lyttelton, Rt Hon O

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

    Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale.)

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

    Boothby, R.

    Gage, C.

    McCallum, Maj D

    Bower, N.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

    Galbraith, T G D. (Hillhead)

    McFarlane, C S

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Gammans, L D

    Mackeson, Brig H R

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

    Glyn, Sir R

    McKie, J. H (Galloway)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Maolay, Hon J. S

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.

    Granville, E (Eye)

    Maolean, F H. R. (Lancaster)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Grimston, R V.

    Macm lan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

    Byers, Frank

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Carson, E.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V

    Maitland, Comdr J W

    Challen, C

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

    Manningham-Buller, R E.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Marlowe, A A H

    Clifton-Brown, Lt-Cot. G

    Herbert, Sir A. P

    Maude, J C

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mellor, Sir J

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

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Molson, A H E

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Hutchison Lt.-Cdr Clark (Edin'gh, W)

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    Darling, Sir W Y.

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

    Morrison, Maj J. G (Salisbury)

    Davies Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jarvis, Sir J.

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

    De la Bere, R

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Jennings, R.

    Orr-Ewing. I L.

    Dowor, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

    Keeling, E H.

    Osborne. C

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Drewe, C.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.

    Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Studholme, H. G.

    White, Sir D, (Fareham)

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Robinson, Roland

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl

    Scott, Lord W.

    Teeling, William

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

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Major Conant and

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Mr. Wingfield Digby.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Batham)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Albu, A. H.

    Field, Capt. W. J.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

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

    Logan, D G.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Follick, M.

    Longdon, F.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Foot, M. M.

    Lyne, A W.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Forman, J. C.

    McAdam, W.

    Attewell, H. C

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McAllister, G.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    McGhee, H. G

    Ayles, W. H.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S

    McGovern, J.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Gibbins, J.

    Mack, J. D.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Balfour, A.

    Gilzean, A.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Glanville, J. E (Consett)

    Maclean, N (Govan)

    Barton, C.

    Grey, C. F.

    McLeavy, F.

    Battley, J. R.

    Grierson, E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Mainwaring, W H.

    Benson, G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Berry, H.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Beswick, F.

    Gunter, R. J

    Mann, Mrs. J.

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

    Guy. W. H.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Binns, J.

    Hale, Leslie

    Medland, H. M

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Mellish, R. J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Messer, F.

    Boardman, H.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

    Harrison, J.

    Mikardo, lan

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Haworth, J.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Monslow, W.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Moody, A. S

    Burden, T. W.

    Hicks, C.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Morley, R

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

    Holman, P.

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

    Carmichael, James

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Mort, D. L.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hoy, J.

    Moyle, A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hubbard, T.

    Murray, J. D.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

    Coldrick, W.

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Collick, P.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Collindridge, F.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)

    Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)

    Cooper, G.

    Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

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

    Janner, B.

    Parker, J.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe.)

    Crawley, A.

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

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Cullen, Miss

    Jenkins, R. H

    Pearson, A.

    Daggar, G.

    Johnston, Douglas

    Peart, T. F.

    Daines, P

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

    Piratin, P.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Jones, Jack (Bolton)

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Popplewell, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Keenan, W.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Davies, S. D. (Merthyr)

    Kenyon, C.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Deer, G.

    King, E. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Pryde, D. J

    Diamond, J

    Kinley, J.

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Randall, H. E,

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Ranger, J.

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Lang, G.

    Rankin, J.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lavers, S.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Reeves, J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Leonard, W.

    Rhodes, H.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Richards, R.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Levy, B. W.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Ewart, R.

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    1216

    1217

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Weitzman, D.

    Royle, C.

    Stubbs, A. E

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Sargood, R

    Swingler, S.

    Wells, W T (Walsall)

    Scollan, T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    West, D G.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn John (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Shacklelon, E. A. A

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Whiteley, Rt Hon W

    Sharp, Granville

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Wigg, George

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A B.

    Shurmer, P.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Silverman, S. S (Nelson)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Simmons, C J

    Timmons, J

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Titterington, M F

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Skinnard, F. W

    Tolley, L.

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

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

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Willis, E.

    Snow, J. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Solley, L. J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Woods, G. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Walkden, E.

    Vales, V. F.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Walker, G. H.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Stamford, W.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Steele, T.

    Watkins, T. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Watson, W. M.

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT SHARES ACCOMMODATION WITH LAND LORD.)
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, after "contract," to insert:
    "made on or after the first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine."
    This Amendment might conveniently be considered with two subsequent Amendments which, like this one, stand in the names of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Deritend (Mr. Longdon) and Ladywood (Mr. Yates). They are: In Clause 7, page 7, line 20, after "accommodation," to insert:
    "in common with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons where the occupation arises from a contract of tenancy entered into before the first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, or."
    In Clause 8, page 9, line 9, at the beginning, to insert "Except as aforesaid."
    They all relate to the same subject matter. It is a question of moving a certain section of tenants from the protection provided under Clause 6 to that provided under Clause 7. Clauses 6 and 7 both attempt to stop a gap in the principal Acts which was created by the decision of the courts in the case, of Neale versus del Soto. In that case and in other cases it was decided that where accommodation more especially kitchen accommodation, was shared either between the landlord and the tenants or between two
    1218
    tenants, the dwelling was not a separate dwelling within the meaning of the Act, and that therefore the protection of the principal Acts do not extend to the tenants. Clauses 6 and 7 endeavour to stop that gap in two days. The case of the tenant who shares with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons is dealt with under Clause 6. Such tenants are given only the limited protection provided under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which means that if a case has not already come before a tribunal for the determination of rents, there is nothing to prevent the landlord from giving notice to quit, and there is no security of tenure.
    Clause 7 applies to tenants who share accommodation. They receive the protection of the principal Acts, which means that they get security of tenure. The question of security of tenure is obviously extremely important. It seems a pity that the damage done by the case of Neale versus del Soto is not repaired to a larger extent. I can appreciate the argument which the Minister has advanced on other occasions so far as the question of tenancies shared between landlords and tenants are concerned. In these cases it is desirable that no discouragement should be given to owners of houses or tenants who wish to sublet to other tenants, and therefore it is felt that if the wider protection of the principal Acts were applied to any kind of tenancy it might discourage lettings, thus preventing the letting of accommodation which might otherwise have been available.

    1219
    That point is met in these Amendments because they do not propose to transfer all tenancies shared with the landlords so as to provide those concerned with the protection of the principal Acts, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7. In substance only existing tenancies—and the date of 1st February has been taken as the arbitrary dividing line—will be protected, but future tenancies are only to be protected under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, so that every inducement is given to landlords or owners of houses and tenants to continue to sublet.
    If these Amendments are accepted they will definitely improve the lot of the tenant who shares premises with the landlord at present. I know from wide experience that great hardship is involved in these cases on account of the lack of security of tenure. These people are subject to eviction and in many cases the consequence is that they lead a most unhappy life because that fact is exploited against them. I know it is said that in many cases a landlord who is tied to a tenant in the same house and who cannot possibly end the bond between them is in a difficult position. That may very well be so in certain cases, but from my own experience the number of cases in which the tenants are faced with hardship and are victimised on account of their lack of security is far greater. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister, by accepting these Amendments, to give the added protection for which I ask.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of Order. Without wishing to be in the least obstructive, but merely seeking information, may I ask if it is possible for the hon. Member to move all these Amendments at this stage? I quite appreciate that, for the convenience of the Committee, they can be discussed together, but can they be moved at this stage?
    The Temporary Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member was moving the first one and reciting the other two for the greater convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. J. Silverman: That is so.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not so understand it. If that is so, I beg the pardon
    1220
    of the hon. Member and I beg your pardon, Mr. Butcher. I merely sought to clarify the situation.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: The Amendment which my hon. Friend is seeking to insert here is one which I fear we cannot accept. There is a clear distinction between the case of the tenant who is sharing with the landlord, and the case of the tenant who is sharing with other tenants. In fact, my hon. Friend has agreed that that is the position. It would. be quite an arbitrary decision to establish this date line which would make a further distinction betwen different classes of tenants sharing with the landlord.
    It is quite well understood in the Committee that where these agreements have been made between tenant and landlord they are essentially, by their nature, very much subject to change. Circumstances may alter very considerably, and we feel it would be unreasonable to attach to those agreements the full provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts. Had the landlord known the position at the time it would have made it very difficult for him to accept tenants on those sort of terms. Although my hon. Friend has been careful to assure us that he did not mean this to apply to future cases of this sort—
    Mr. J. Silverman: It does not.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Although that is so, we think it would be unfair to make this purely arbitrary decision between one group and another. I would remind the Committee that the tenant will have the very real protection of the 1946 Act, which protects him against unreasonable rent, and should unreasonable rent be charged, the excessive—
    Mr. J. Silverman: It does not prevent him from being evicted, which is the important point.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: It would not prevent eviction where no application has been made on unreasonable rent. I realise that there are hardships on both sides, but we have to be reasonable about this.
    In our view it would be unfair on the landlord, who has come to this agreement in sharing with tenants, to put him into this special category. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this point, because we have already gone a good way to

    1221
    meet cases of difficulty of this sort and we feel it would be unreasonable to go further.
    Mr. J. Silverman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT SHARES ACCOMMODATION WITH OTHER PERSONS BUT NOT WITH LANDLORD.)
    7.15p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, to leave out "living," and to insert "shared."
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the next two Amendments in page 8, namely, to leave out subsection (5) in line 21, and to leave out "living" and to insert "shared" in line 31, were taken together. They have been put down for exploratory purposes and to obtain, if possible, a clear exposition of the effect of this Clause in certain particulars.
    Having read the Clause several times, I feel that it will add very considerably to the difficulties which lawyers have to face in dealing with the Rent Restrictions Acts. I must refer to the other part of the Clause to enable the points to be made clearly. In the first place, the Committee will see that "separate accommodation" is referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1). In paragraph (b) one notices the phrase "shared accommodation," and paragraph (c) provides for the reversal of the authority which decided that where accommodation was shared it was outside the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
    On finds in subsection (3) that the shared accommodation, if I understand its effect correctly, shall not be deemed to be let for the first time in consequence of its being left for that shared accommodation; but in subsection (4) one finds an entirely new expression inserted, namely "living accommodation." So that we have in this Clause, "separate accommodation," which is presumably living accommodation; "shared accommodation" and yet another phrase, "living accommodation" which subsection (5) seeks to define in a fashion which, to me at least, is almost
    1222
    incomprehensible. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain what is meant by paragraph (a) of subsection (4). It is there stated that:
    "Any such change of circumstances as is mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection"—
    that is, subsection (3)—
    "being a change affecting living accommodation used by the tenant in common with others, shall be deemed to be an alteration of rent."
    How can a change of circumstances be deemed to be an alteration of rent? To what extent will the rent be altered by such a change of circumstances? How much will it be increased or decreased? There does seem to be something wrong in the drafting of that subsection. I entirely fail to see how it can said that change of circumstances in itself amounts to an alteration of rent.
    When one goes on to subsection (5), which is also dealt with in these Amendments, and which seeks to provide for the definition of the expression "living accommodation," it really is most difficult to see what it means, having regard to the fact that the earlier part of the Clause seeks to divide the accommodation occupied by the tenant into two categories, the separate accommodation of which he is in sole and exclusive possession, and the shared accommodation. This "living accommodation" apparently
    "means accommodation of such a nature that the fact that it constitutes or is included in the shared accommodation is sufficient to bring the tenancy within paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) of this Section."
    It may be necessary to have these three different types of accommodation referred to and separately defined in this one Clause—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to convince us that it is—but I should have thought that great advantages from the point of view of administration and the determination of cases would ensue if we could reduce these three categories to two, "separate accommodation" and "shared accommodation." The addition of this third category, "living accommodation" is bound to cause difficulty and confusion. I cannot see what "living accommodation" is meant to cover which is not already satisfactorily covered by the expressions "shared accommodation" or "separate accommodation."
    Mr. Blenkinsop: This Amendment is not a matter of very great concern. As

    1223
    a matter of fact, as at present drafted, it is almost meaningless, simply because the Bill—
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did point out these three Amendments had been put down merely as a peg on which hang a request for an explanation. I must say, with great respect, that the hon. Gentleman will be wasting the time of the Committee if he occupies time in pointing out defects in Amendments which are merely put down for the purpose of eliciting an explanation.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: In the past the definition of "living accommodation" has been difficult because of the varied circumstances taken into account by the courts. The intention in this Measure was to ensure that the definition of "living accommodation" should be so broad as to cover the interpretations the courts may put upon it. For example, what may be regarded as living accommodation in one case is not necessarily living accommodation in another.
    It is not clear to us why, where accommodation is shared changes in what is not living accommodation in the ordinary sense of that term—for example, in bathrooms, coal cellars, and so on—should automatically lead to an alteration in rent. Where there have been changes in the living accommodation it is clear that, whatever the changes may be, there does attach a complete change in the whole tenancy agreement. By making this distinction between living accommodation and shared accommodation we are trying to ensure that minor changes in the use of shared accommodation—it may be, as I say, a bathroom or a coal cellar—should not be a matter of issue, whereas a change in living accommodation is clearly at matter which concerns us.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that living accommodation is equivalent to separate accommodation?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, but the difficulty in attempting to define precisely what is living accommodation would be that a change in interpretation in the courts might necessitate an alteration in the Bill. In drawing this definition as widely as possible we are seeking to avoid that difficulty. I do not think that
    1224
    there is very much in this. We should be glad to be able to meet the hon. and learned Member as far as we possibly can, but I hope he will appreciate that we are anxious, by this definition of "shared accommodation," to ensure that the minor issues should not be raised as matters of consequence.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I feel that the Committee will be rather disappointed at the reply which has just been made by the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to the lucid request of my hon. and learned Friend for an explanation of certain matters in this Clause. I must, as a lawyer, protest against the terms in which the Clause is at present cast. It is sometimes suggested that lawyers like elaborate and even ambiguous phraseology; I have never myself found that to be true; and must say that I have rarely met in any Act of Parliament provisions quite so ambiguous and difficult to comprehend as some of the provisions in this Clause. I do beg the Parliamentary Secretary to try, between now and the Report stage, to get this Clause redrafted in a more workmanlike form. If the Clause in its present form is enshrined on the Statute Book it will be a disgrace to this Committee.
    My hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to subsection (5), which defines "living accommodation." So far as I understood the Parliamentary Secretary—and I am quite willing to believe that I may have imperfectly understood him—this definition is cast in deliberately wide terms. It seems to be cast in such wide terms as to be virtually meaningless to anybody attempting to construe it. It is. in my submission, very bad draftsmanship to have this very widely and loosely phrased definition referring back to subsection (1,c). Reading those two provisions together is, to say the least, singularly unenlightening, even to those whose customary practice it is to have to read and understand these things. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has most inadequately answered my hon. and learned Friend's request, and I should like him to assure the Committee that he does not really feel that degree of complacency with this Clause as at present drafted which his words have so far led us to suppose.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must confess that I am a little disappointed at

    1225
    the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my request for an explanation. This Clause appears to expand the area of obscurity already around the Rent Restrictions Acts, and if anything the Parliamentary Secretary's reply sought to expand it a little further. In spite of his explanation, I have been looking at the Clause once again, and I should like him to tell me whether this is not the position. If it is the position, then perhaps a little redrafting would make it clearer and we could pass on.
    One starts with living accommodation in a separate dwelling-house; that will bring the premises within the Rent Restrictions Acts, provided the other limits apply. If the living accommodation in a separate dwelling-house can, for the purpose of the points about which I am asking an explanation, perhaps be ignored, are we concerned here only with the living accommodation in the part of the premises which is shared; and is the whole effect of subsections (4) and (5) that, where living accommodation is shared, as distinct from, say, a passage between different tenants, that should result in an alteration of the rent? It occurs to me that that may be the meaning of this obscure Clause, that you should not take into account the sharing of a passage as bringing about an alteration of rent, but the sharing of anything coming within the definition of living accommodation. If that should be the intention, I think the Clause is extremely obscurely drafted.
    7.30 p.m.
    I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm whether that is the intention, and if it is, to make every endeavour to clarify the drafting between now and the Report stage. It is rather nonsense to say that a change of circumstances, as set out in subsection (4), shall be deemed to be an alteration of rent. That does not seem to me to be correct drafting. I should like him to say whether I am correctly interpreting now the intention of this subsection, and also to try and put it in simpler and clearer language between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly put the point. The whole object of this subsection is as he suggests, that we sould ensure that, when changes occur where living accom-
    1226
    modation is shared, there is opportunity for regarding that as, in fact, part of the change of rent; but we also want to ensure, as he suggested, that the other matters I have mentioned—he referred to a passage, I referred to a coal cellar—should not be regarded as coming within the ambit of that change. As I am advised, that position is provided for under this subsection as drafted, and although careful consideration has been given to it, it has not been found possible to bring forward any simpler or clearer wording to accomplish that design. Therefore, as advised, I am bound to stand by the wording as it is to accomplish precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I hope I misheard the Parliamentary Secretary. He mentioned two points, a passage and a coal cellar. One may be of no material value in shared accommodation; but in an extreme case, to deny somebody access to a coal cellar might be a very real disadvantage. I do not quite know how far we are getting. The other point is this. When he first spoke, he gave the impression that this was drafted ambiguously and he admitted—
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Broadly.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes. I think loosely was also an expression used. He seemed to imply that that was done in order not to upset the effect of previous legislation. I hope he did not have that in mind, because that is something we could not possibly accept.
    Mr. Molson: The Parliamentary Secretary, as a result of his two speeches, has made us understand what the Government wish to achieve. With the best will in the world we have not been able to understand this Clause by ourselves. This is an operative Clause, which all the tribunals in the country will be required to understand. It is therefore of the utmost importance that it should be drafted in such a way that they are likely to be able to understand the intention of the Government, which I do not doubt the Committee will accept. The Parliamentary Secretary said he will have to stand by this drafting. I hope he means—and I appeal to the Minister, who has just come in—that he stands by the sense of this Clause, and that an

    1227
    effort will be made to try and redraft it so that it will be much simpler, and likely to be understood in the same way by all the numerous tribunals.
    Mr. Bevan: I apologise to the Committee for not having been here. There will be no difficulty on the part of the tribunals in construing this language, because it is not new. It is almost completely imported from the Act of 1920, which, speaks of limitation of accommodation as of itself an alteration of rent. In Section (2) (3) of that Act, it is stated:
    "Any transfer to a tenant of any burden of liability previously borne by the landlord shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as an alteration of rent."
    So the same principle is followed as here, because obviously if a person has had the benefit of certain accommodation which was of advantage to him and that accommodation has been withdrawn, it is tantamount to an increase in rent, because actually he is paying the same for less. Although the language here is obscure, it is no more obscure than it has been since 1920. Although I say at once that I will look at it to see if it can be made clearer still—for I see no reason why we should not be as clear as is physically and intellectually possible—I hope that if we do not succeed in doing so I shall not be charged with not having fulfilled a pledge.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely the Minister does not suggest that the wording in subsection (5) and the reference back to subsection (1, c) is taken from previous legislation?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The words "alteration of rent" are found in the 1920 Act, but I should have hoped that we might have made some progress. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will look into this, and I want to make one suggestion, because we do want to get it as well drafted as possible. If it is not well understood it will give rise to more litigation than any other part of the Bill. The suggestion I put to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration is this: that he should seek to emphasise in this subsection that, where the phrase "living accommodation" is used, it is not meant to apply to the whole of the occupation held by the
    1228
    tenant. I think that is one of the things that misleads people in reading it. He has assured the Committee, but it is not easily perceptible. It was not until we had heard the Parliamentary Secretary twice that it became clear to us. I think a little redrafting may make it easier for the people who will have to act on this Statute, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the attitude he has adopted to what we have said.
    Sir J. Mellor: May I remind the Committee that the Act of 1920 has had to be construed by the county courts, and not by tribunals of this character, which is quite a different matter? May I also remind the Minister of the comments of the Ridley Tribunal on the chaotic condition of the law, and the great difficulty of anyone understanding it?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(POWER OF TRIBUNAL UNDER ACT OF 1946 TO EXTEND SECURITY OF TENURE.)
    Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the beginning, to insert:
    (1) Section five of the Act of 1946 shall be read and have effect as if for the word "three" there were substituted the word "six."
    I would like to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment standing in my name at the bottom of the page, in line 21, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 26. It is consequential upon this Amendment.
    In Section 5 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act of 1946 power is given for tribunals to postpone the operation of notices to quit served on tenants who have made application to a tribunal. The maximum period of postponement is three months. In other words, the tribunal can give three months' security of tenure by postponing any notice to quit for that period. It is proposed in this Bill to extend that power by three-monthly periods thereafter. My Amendment proposes to extend that three-monthly period of security of tenure to
    six months, in the first instance. The

    1229
    alternatives are not necessarily three months or six months, but it can be up to six months, in the first instance. I propose that from that period, thereafter, there should be power to extend the period for three-monthly intervals.
    My second Amendment proposes to delete a paragraph completely. The proviso laid down in the Bill makes it clear that there is to be no extension for successive three-monthly periods if the full period of three months was not given in the first instance. In other words, if the tribunal gave only two months' security of tenure it would have no power to extend such security for a further period. My second Amendment proposes to give the tribunal power for this further extension of security of tenure or, in other words, if instead of giving six months' security of tenure the tribunal decided to give only four months, then the tribunal would have power under my Amendment at the end of that four months to extend the security of tenure by further three-monthly periods.
    What the Amendments seek to achieve is, first, to extend the period of security of tenure from a limit of three months to a limit of six months; and secondly, where in the first instance the tribunal decide not to give the maximum but give any period up to the six months, instead of being deprived of the power to give a further extension of security the tribunal should have the power to extend security of tenure by further three-monthly periods.
    This is a rather difficult and complicated matter to explain, but I think the Minister will understand my point, the essence of it being that the tribunal should be allowed to grant up to six months' security of tenure instead of the present maximum of three months and that where, in the first instance, a lesser period is granted the tribunal should have power to give a further period of security of tenure if they think it desirable.
    The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in page 9, line 20, at the end. to insert:
    1230
    "so however that the said period shall not exceed six months from the date of the reference to the tribunal."
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We find it a little difficult to discuss together, Amendments which are diametrically opposite. We have had a little difficulty with that before and, if I may say so, it puts us, and I think it puts the Committee, in rather a difficulty, because there are two arguments going on contrary to each other.
    Mr. Bevan: I would like to support the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in that view. The purpose of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is to extend the power of the tribunal and to give more security of tenure. The purpose of the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is to give less power. I think it would cause less confusion if we dealt with the Amendments separately.
    The Temporary Chairman: If it is the wish of the Committee we will adopt that procedure.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: In that case, I will deal with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The position is very simple and I do not think we need spend much time on it. When the Act of 1946 was a Bill and was before the House, I was warned by many of my hon. Friends that the security of tenure was not sufficient, that tenants who went to a tribunal would be victimised and that many tenants would be deterred from going to a tribunal for fear of victimisation. I was not unsympathetic to that contention, but I was exceedingly anxious that such security of tenure should not be given to tenants as would make landlords frightened to provide furnished accommodation and, therefore, would limit the amount of accommodation available, especially in London. Nevertheless, it has been obvious that a great deal of vindictiveness has taken place on the part of some landlords and some principal tenants and, therefore, that further protection is required. But I would ask my hon. Friends to keep in mind that although this Bill gives further protection it is still necessary not to give such security of tenure as would frighten

    1231
    people away from providing accommodation. I consider that in the Bill we are doing all that is necessary to satisfy the two purposes.
    Turning to his point about the first application, obviously if a tribunal has not given three months' security on the first application then it has already taken into consideration all the factors and there is no reason at all for a second application. It will have decided on the first application that in these circumstances two months' security is enough. We must keep before our minds all the time that when people are sharing accommodation exceedingly bitter personal friction can arise, especially when they are sharing furnished rooms and common accommodation. I need not emphasise, because we all know it so well, that it is difficult enough for men to agree together for long. When women have to share the same kitchen the most frightful circumstances can arise. Indeed, so temperamental are they, that they can change over-night and there can be unpleasantness before three months have passed. If we are to give six months for domestic strife to mature, heaven knows what might happen. I suggest, therefore, that the renewal of security for three months at a time is all that is necessary in the circumstances and I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. Sparks: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to move, in line 17, after the word "served," to insert the words:
    "whether before or after the reference to the tribunal."
    I move this Amendment more for the purpose of getting an explanation of the position than for the purpose of insisting upon it if it should be contested. This is an extremely important Clause of the Bill. Although my right hon. Friend said that the present extension of the notice proposed under the Bill is sufficient, nevertheless it is highly important that we should give security of such a nature that it is real security. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can help me, but I am not sure whether the Clause as it stands applies to a case where notice has been given
    1232
    before a tribunal is actually called upon to deal with the rent.
    A person who is aggrieved about the rent negotiates with his landlord. In the course of those negotiations the landlord serves him with a notice to quit. In present circumstances, as soon as that notice to quit is served the security of the tenant is completely gone, irrespective of the result of the tribunal findings. I think that is the position under the law today. A tenant who gave notice for the reference to the tribunal was covered to the extent of three months, or such period as the tribunal decided; but a tenant who was given notice immediately before the reference was made by him was deprived of any security at all.
    Mr. Bevan: I think I can allay my hon. Friend's apprehensions. I have put down an Amendment which seeks to secure that the tenant is secured in his possession until seven days after determination by the tribunal—after determination, so it does not matter when the notice is.
    Mr. Janner: This is not merely my case. I do hope my right hon. Friend will make this Clause as clear as he possibly can, because I have been approached by the tribunal in my own constituency about this matter, the chairman of which is a very experienced lawyer, and a man who has had a considerable amount of experience in the conduct of the tribunals. His fear is this. He says, for example, that in Leicester itself they have had several instances in which notices to quit have been served a few hours before the applications were made because the applicants had foolishly informed their landlords of their intention to make the applications. I hope the Committee can see how very important this is. Of course, if my right hon. Friend assures me that his Amendment which he has put down will cover the point, irrespective of when the notice is served, irrespective of whether it is served before or after application, I shall be prepared to accept the position.
    Mr. Bevan: I must not be assumed to have accepted that interpretation. We are not concerned with the notice upon the tenant but with the notice to the tribunal. First the tenant must have made application to the tribunal for the rent to be

    1233
    reduced. The purpose of my Amendment is that once that notice has been served on the tribunal to review the rent the person cannot be ejected until at least seven days after the tribunal has adjudicated.
    Mr. Janner: I am sorry to persist, but will my right hon. Friend say whether that means that if a notice to quit has been served before the applicant makes his application, what he now says applies. It does not apply today. This is a very important matter. I do not think there is anything between us really, but we ought to know that. It does not apply today.
    Mr. Bevan: The answer is that it ought not to. I cannot understand my hon. Friend. This is not a Bill for the purpose of giving security of tenure. It is a Bill for the purpose of fixing reasonable rents for furnished lettings. A landlord may serve a notice upon a tenant, but the tribunal is not clairvoyant. The tribunal comes into operation only when it is invoked. It would obviously be unreasonable for a person who is in occupancy of a furnished letting to frustrate the intention of the landlord, who may properly want to get rid of him. We must not always assume in these circumstances that the persons occupying the furnished lettings are invariably the persons with justice on their side. Remember, we are talking about shared accommodation and about principal tenants—persons who are tenants, not landlords only. As soon as a notice is served on a tenant, according to my hon. Friend's desire he can immediately frustrate that by application to the tribunal for review of the rent.
    We have sought to see to it that a notice does not run out and that a tenant is not put upon the street before the tribunal has had an opportunity to arbitrate. What my Amendment proposes, therefore, is that as soon as the notice is served on the tribunal asking for an arbitration the tenant is protected for seven days after the decision.
    Mr. Janner: I do not understand why the Minister has adopted that attitude. This trouble has arisen because of the fact that at the present time, if a landlord gives a tenant notice to quit, and the tenant puts in his application to the tribunal to have the rent properly
    1234
    assessed—it does not matter if it is only an hour or two beforehand—the tenant is not protected.
    Mr. Bevan: Why?
    Mr. Janner: That is precisely what I am trying to argue in my Amendment. This is the whole purpose of my Amendment. I see now the Minister does not intend to concede it. I will explain to the Minister why. If two people are negotiating for the purpose of fixing a rental, and if the landlord chooses to serve a notice upon the tenant, knowing he will most likely go to the tribunal, if he serves a notice only an hour before the tenant puts in his application, the tenant is deprived of the rights which are allowable if the notice is not served. I am talking of a term which is still current. If I can be assured that that notice will not deprive the tenant of his right to go to the tribunal, I shall be satisfied. If not, I think the Committee ought to insist that the matter should be dealt with in a manner that will afford the tenant reasonable and proper protection.
    Mr. Sparks: There is something in the point advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). Many people come to me about this sort of thing. If a tenant feels that the rent he is paying for shared accommodation is too high the only way he can get protection for himself is to go straight to the tribunal without saying anything to the landlord. If there is a preliminary discussion between himself and the landlord, as in many cases there is, and the landlord refuses to reduce the rent, and the tenant still thinks it is too much and says, "I think I shall go to the tribunal," the landlord serves notice on him straight away and the case is not referable to the tribunal. There are cases in which tenants have been deprived of access to the tribunals because, before applying to the tribunals, they have first tried to reach agreement with their landlords, and in which the landlords have "put one over them" by giving them notice to quit before they could go to the tribunals.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I have listened to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and the Minister very carefully, and I have been frying to make up my mind which of

    1235
    them is right in regard to the main purpose of the Bill. I think that on this occasion the Minister is right, and that it would not be right for those of us who opposed the Minister on other occasions not to say that we believe he has adopted the right position. On the other hand, the hon. Member for West Leicester is a lawyer and the Minister is not. Can the Minister tell the House that he has the legal authority behind him for the statement which he has made. I think that he probably has, but this is a very complicated matter, and there must be a certain amount of sympathy with the position taken up by the hon. Member for West Leicester. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to have the assurance of the Minister that he has gone into this matter very carefully and that he has legal authority behind him for stating that this Amendment ought to be rejected.
    Mr. Bevan: A Minister does not speak at this Box on these matters unless he is reasonably assured that what he is saying is correct. Must I always say that I have consulted a lawyer before I make a statement? It is an unreasonable question, and I do not understand the purpose of the intervention.
    Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I am afraid that he deliberately makes me explain further. This is a very complicated legal Bill, and we have not the advantage of one of the Law Officers sitting on the Front Bench opposite. I did not want to complain on that point, but when the Minister answers me in such a fashion as he has done, I am bound to stand up for my position. This Amendment has not been raised by our side; it has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, and it seems to be only common courtesy that when I think that he is right I should get up and say so. If he does not like my doing that I might adopt a different attitude next time.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "so however that the said period shall not exceed six months from the date of the reference to the tribunal."
    After the long wanderings in the jungle of the law, we now come to a fairly
    1236
    straight-forward and simple point. Our discussion of this Bill has raised my admiration for His Majesty's Judges very much. I hope that it will be possible for us to reach agreement on this simple issue. We have now passed out of the stratum of great landlords and property owners altogether, and we are on the stratum of comparatively humble people with lodgings or lettings of one kind or another. The Minister has indicated that he fully appreciates this point. In these circumstances, I am sure that the Committee will agree that the burden of hardship is likely to be as much on the side of the person who is providing the rooms as on the side of the person who enjoys the rooms. What the Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that if the period is extendable it should not be extendable beyond a total period of six months.
    The Minister has spoken on this matter twice. He spoke on it on Second Reading and he spoke eloquently just now on the previous Amendment of the danger of tying people together as militating against anyone taking the risk of letting someone share accommodation. The Minister will be familiar with the play of Mr. Bernard Shaw called "Getting Married." In that play, two people decide to get married, but after reading the marriage service and realising the obligations which it would put upon them they find that it is not a thing which they can undertake at all. I myself have provided some house property for people to live in. I must say that if I had read the Statutes which govern these things, I, like the two people in "Getting Married," would have come to the conclusion that it would be better to turn the thing down and avoid the risks which are apparently inseparable from such an undertaking.
    Surely six months is a long enough period. This is a problem of human relations. The right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will know the difficulties of even binding people to employment, and the haste with which Parliament seeks to remove that bond at the earliest possible moment. This is a much more intimate bond which is being inflicted upon people. Someone with only a separate bedroom who has a right to share the table of the person with whom he is living, might find under the present provisions of the Bill his rights indefinitely extended. Is that going

    1237
    to favour the provision of accommodation or militate against it? I think that it will militate against it.
    The Minister spoke of the possibility of women quarrelling with each other. He will remember the eloquent lines of Kipling:
    "Two women in one house,
    Two cats and one mouse;
    Two dogs and one bone,
    Which I will leave alone."
    This he is not going to leave alone. He is going to give the tribunal power by force of law to yoke these people together indefinitely. I say that in these circumstances I think the Minister is taking a risk which he himself has looked at before and quite properly refused to undertake. He says that instances of vindictiveness have come to his notice. We cannot legislate against human nature. To make an indefinite period of sharing a thing as close and personal as the house in which one is living, is for the legislature to press the powers of the House further than they should reasonably go. I do not wish to press the matter and delay the Committee, because the Amendment is clear and simple. We think that the present position will be fully met by a possible six months' extension, and that the indefinite extension contemplated in the Statute goes far beyond what is reasonably desirable.
    Mr. Bevan: If the conditions described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) followed from the application of the Bill in its present form, then I should certainly accept what he says. I imagine that it will work quite differently. If the application to the tribunal was in respect of families sharing accommodation with each other, and they were quarrelling and on bad terms, I doubt whether under such conditions the tribunal would perpetuate the security of tenure and keep them together. In fact, the tribunal would take into account the antipathy existing between the two families as a reason for wanting a separation, and the law would give as much notice as possible for other accommodation to be found. If I accepted the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would go far from providing what he himself wishes to obtain.
    1238
    There is a lot of accommodation which is not necessarily shared accommodation. In fact, I suppose that in some parts of our cities the vast majority would be accommodation where the landlord is not himself or herself in close personal relationship with the aggrieved tenant, but where they have acted maliciously because the tenant has asked for the arbitrament of the tribunal. In such a case there is hardly any reason why security of tenure should not be given.
    This is essentially a matter so much of looking at the immediate facts of the case, that we can safely leave it to the tribunal. Where the juxtaposition between the aggrieved parties is a personal one, then separation at the earliest possible convenient time is the only answer. Where the juxtaposition is not personal but merely legal, the landlord ought not to be given the power to destroy the security of tenure of the tenant merely because the tenant has taken him to the tribunal and has got a decision. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, on reflection, that the solution that we have arrived at would meet the varying conditions.
    Mr. Hare: I do not think that the Minister has convinced the Committee with his argument. He is giving the same rights of security of tenure to furnished tenants as already exist for statutory tenants. That cannot be his intention. It cannot be right or fair that such an arangement should be made possible by the Bill. The Minister has stressed the danger of domestic strife as he called it, and of unhappiness within a household. He showed himself supremely human. He also stressed the fact that this was not a Bill to give security of tenure. He made that clear in the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). If that is so, I cannot see how he can logically bring in something which is quite new, which is to give furnished tenants, if the tribunal decides to extend the period of grace to a further three months, the same rights as at present exist for ordinary statutory tenants.
    Mr. Bevan: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that there is a fundamental difference between the case where two aggrieved parties are in close relationship with each other, and the case where they

    1239
    are not? There is no reason at all, on the grounds advanced by the hon. Member, to permit a landlord who is not in direct personal relationship with the tenant who has taken him to the tribunal to get rid of the tenant. That is merely acting on vindictiveness. The tribunal can decide where the relationship is personal, to end it and not to give security of tenure.
    Mr. Hare: The Minister is trying to convince me I think from what he has just said that it is fair that there should be a reasonable period in order to give security of tenure to the tenant of unfurnished accommodation but in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is introducing an element of security of tenure for the tenant of furnished accommodation, which is quite new and is not in any way desirable.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman is approaching this rather difficult problem from the wrong end. He has put forward a case and his words were, as near as I can remember them, that the tenant ought not to have his security taken away. The Act of 1946 was not intended to give security of tenure. The three-months period was to protect the tenant who was in dispute with his landlord over rent. The basic principle of the 1946 Act was to see that only fair rents should be charged, and the purpose in regard to security of tenure was ancillary. The proper way to approach this question is not by the Amendment, in which one is taking away security of tenure from the tenant. The proper question is: "Are you not taking away from the landlord a right of possession of his own property?" We are not dealing here with wealthy landlords of landed estates but with furnished lettings and people who are very often in a very small way indeed and are often in close juxtaposition through having only one small room.
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. and learned Member refers to the letting of one room in the house. He does not address himself to my argument. These tribunals are composed of experienced people. Does the hon. and learned Member think they will go on giving an additional three months to tie two families together who are living in the same room? The hon.
    1240
    and learned Member must think they are cretins.
    Mr. Marlowe: The tenant may be living in one room. I did not mean that the people were all living in one room. I was talking of the case where the tenant is the occupier of one room. It is a case which often arises before rent tribunals every day of the week. The right hon. Gentleman's interruption was unjustified.
    Mr. Bevan: I spoke of the two parties being in close personal relationship with each other—in other words, under the same roof, passing each other many times a day. In the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind of a person living in a small room in a small house, the parties would have every opportunity of quarrelling with each other. Those are circumstances which would naturally appeal to the tribunal in determining whether to give an additional three months. Is not that case wholly different from the other circumstance where the two families are not in personal relationship? I hope we are not going to spend so much time over small points as we are now doing, because we shall be an awfully long time before we get to the end.
    Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman anticipated the case which I was going to make. The right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to cast upon the tribunals not only a duty which was not cast upon them by the 1946 Act, but an entirely novel duty. He is asking these tribunals to go beyond the original function, which was (a) to see that the tenant had a fair rent and (b) to give the tenant security of tenure. He is saying, regardless of what any Statute has said, that part of the function of the tribunal is to decide whether people are living happily together or not. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman sighing. I can quite understand his sighing. I can understand anybody who is required to discharge that duty sighing very heavily. The right hon. Gentleman is going to make these tribunals into courts of morals.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes. I always know when the right hon. Gentleman turns his back that he knows that an argument is too much for him.
    Let me develop my argument. Let me put before the Committee instances of a

    1241
    kind which anybody who has practised in the Divorce Court will have come across frequently. It is the case where the lodger has disturbed the matrimonial peace. Suppose you have a case where a man and his wife are living in a house, and they rent a room to a lodger. An affection springs up between the lodger and the wife. I am putting forward a serious case where there are two possibilities. One is that there is an affection between the lodger and the wife and the other is that, perhaps quite wrongly, the husband imagines there is. Suppose that case comes before the tribunal. It will come before the tribunal when application is made to the tribunal, and in those circumstances the tribunal has to decide the merits of the case as between the husband and wife. The husband may wish to get rid of the lodger and the wife may wish to retain him.
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) were a member of the tribunal, how would he decide that case?
    Mr. Marlowe: I can give the right hon. Gentleman two answers. The first is that his remark strongly supports our contention that lawyers should be on the tribunal and the second is that his question reinforces my argument that this imposes on the tribunal an impossible task. My point is that this imposes a task which the 1946 Act never presupposed. We have put forward a reasoned case why security of tenure should not be given for too long, that is to say, that a compulsory relationship between the people should not last indefinitely but have a limit—we suggested six months. The only
    answer the right hon. Gentleman has given is that the tribunal will decide it. Our reply to that is that it is an impossible task for the tribunal.
    Colonel Dower: I do not intend to go into details of domestic bliss and other arguments which have been put forward, but wish to tackle the Minister on the more difficult side of this matter. I want the Minister seriously to consider that, even in a case where people do not live together, there may be a temptation to make vexatious appeals to the tribunal. If an extension of three months is given, that may go on indefinitely.
    Mr. Bevan: No.
    Colonel Dower: I am glad to be put right by the Minister but I want him to avoid vexatious appeals being made by people who would not otherwise overburden the tribunal.
    Mr. Bevan: We are making exceedingly heavy weather of a very simple point. The tribunal will have the two parties before them and all these matters will be discussed. These are really matters of common sense. They will not involve matters of fundamental principles of jurisprudence but matters which any ordinary men and women can decide among themselves. If the appeal is vexatious, the tribunal will not give an additional period. I think the time is ripe for us to get on to very much more important matters.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 276.

    Division No. 63.]

    AYES

    (8.27 p.m.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

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

    Gage, C.

    Low, A. R. W

    Bower, N.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    McFarlane, C. S

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R

    Butcher, H. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Challen, C

    Grimston, R. V.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Clarke, Col. R.S.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Conant, Maj R. J. E

    Harvey, Air-Comdre, A V

    Manningham-Bullar, R. E

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

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

    Marlowe, A. A. H

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maude, J. C.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin gh, W.)

    Molson, A H. E

    Digby, S. W

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

    Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

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

    Jennings, R.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L

    Drayson, G B

    Keeling, E. H.

    Osborne, C.

    Drewe, C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Eccles, D M

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

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

    Scott, Lord W.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C N.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

    Mr. Studholme and

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Foot, M. M

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Albu, A. H.

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McKinlay, A. S

    Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    McLeavy, F.

    Anderson, A (Motherwell)

    Ganley, Mrs C. S

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Gibbins, J

    Mainwaring, W H.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Gilzean, A.

    Mallalieu, J P. W (Huddersfield)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mann, Mrs J

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Grey, C. F

    Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

    Baird, J.

    Grierson, E.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Balfour, A

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Medland, H M

    Barstow, P. G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)

    Mellish, R. J

    Barton, C.

    Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)

    Messer, F

    Battley, J. R.

    Gunter, R J.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Guy W. H.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Benson, G

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Beswick, F.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mitchison, G. R.

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

    Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

    Moody, A S

    Bing, G. H C.

    Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R

    Morgan, Dr H B.

    Binns, J.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Morley, R

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Hardy, E. A.

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Harrison, J

    Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

    Boardman, H.

    Hastings, Dr Somerville

    Mort, D L.

    Bowden, Flg Offr. H. W.

    Haworth, J

    Moyle, A.

    Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

    Henderson, Rt Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Murray, J D.

    Brook, D (Halifax)

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Naylor, T. E.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hicks, G.

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

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hobson, C R.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Holman, P

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

    Burden, T. W.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Oliver, G. H

    Burke, W. A.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Paget, R T

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

    Hoy, J.

    Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Byers, Frank

    Hubbard, T.

    Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)

    Carmichael, James

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Parker, J

    Champion, A. J.

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

    Parkin, B. T.

    Chater, D.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Hynd J B. (Attercliffe)

    Patton, J. (Norwich)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Pearson, A.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Irvine W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

    Peart, T. F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Poole Cecil (Lichfield)

    Collick, P.

    Jannner, B.

    Popplewell, E.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Jeger, G (Winchester)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Price, M Philips

    Crawley, A.

    Johnston, Douglas

    Proctor, W T

    Cullen, Miss

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Daggar, G.

    Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    Daines, P.

    Keenan, W.

    Randall, H. E.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Kenyon, C

    Ranger, J.

    Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Kinley, J.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Davies, R.J. (Westhoughton)

    Kirby, B V

    Reeves, J

    Davies S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Deer G.

    Lang, G

    Rhodes, H.

    Diamond, J

    Lavers, S

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Dodds, N. N

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Levy Miss J (Cannock)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Dumpleton, C W.

    Levy, B W.

    Royle, C.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

    Scollan, T

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Lewis, J (Bolton)

    Scott-Elliot, W

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

    Lindgren, G S.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Sharp, Granville

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Evans, E (Lowestoft)

    Longden, F

    Shinwell, Rt Hon. E

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lyne, A. W

    Shurmer, P

    Ewart, R.

    McAdam, W.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Fairhurst, F.

    McAllister, G.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Farthing, W J.

    McEntee, V La T.

    Simmons, C J

    Fernyhough, E.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Skeffington, A. M.

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

    McGovern, J.

    Skinnard, F. W

    Follick, M.

    Mack, J. D.

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

    1244

    1245

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Timmons, J

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Snow, J. W

    Titterington, M. F

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Tolley, L.

    Wigg, George

    Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir Frank

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

    Sparks, J. A

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Stamford, W

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Steele, T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Stross, Dr B.

    Walker, G. H.

    Willis, E.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    Swingler, S

    Warbey, W N.

    Woods, G. S.

    Sylvester, G O.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Yates, V. F.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Watson, W. M.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Weitzman, D.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    West, D. G.

    Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wiltons.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out "under this Section," and to insert:
    "being made under this Section—
    (a) the notice to quit to which the application relates shall not, unless the application is withdrawn, have effect before the determination of the application;
    (b)."
    This is the Amendment to which I made reference some little while ago, and there are three consequential Amendments to it. It seeks to provide that the applicant to a tribunal shall not lose his tenancy because it will have expired before the tribunal has arbitrated. It in-tends to preserve the security for seven days at the very least after the tribunal has reached a decision.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 31, leave out "to which the application relates."
    In line 34, at the end, insert:
    "(c) if the Tribunal refuse a direction under this Section, the notice to quit shall not have effect before the expiration of seven days from the determination of the application."
    In line 37, leave out subsection (4), and insert:
    "(4) Where on an application under this Section the tribunal have refused a direction under subsection (2) thereof, no subsequent application under this Section shall be made in relation to the same notice to quit."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) This section shall not apply in any case in which the circumstances set out in the First Schedule to the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, apply."
    This is quite a short point, namely, to exempt from the extra protection afforded by this Clause to the tenant of furnished
    1246
    accommodation where the rent has been referred to a tribunal, cases where an order for possession without proof of alternative accommodation could be made under the principal Acts against the tenant of unfurnished accommodation; that is to say, where the tenant has defaulted, or where the landlord would have the right of entry under the 1933 Act, for instance, for the use of an employee.
    Mr. Bevan: We think this ought to be left to the good sense of the tribunal. If we accepted the Amendment, it would only lead to uncertainty as to what lay within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and we would prefer that ambiguity not to exist.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is an old discussion. I do not wish to divide the Committee on this point, because we have made our case frequently that the tribunal is entitled to some direction from the House, and we think so here. There are, however, important issues at which we wish to arrive and we are, therefore, willing to let the Amendment be negatived but I do not withdraw it.
    Mr. J. Foster: Is it proposed that the Ministry of Health should give any indication to the tribunals as to what circumstances they can take into account? I have been told that there has been so much uncertainty about this that the tribunal at Marylebone has issued a book stating which circumstances they take into account. Would it help if someone specified those?
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Hogg: I desire to put to the Minister a point which I should have put to him on an earlier Amendment. I did not do so then because I thought the atmosphere was, perhaps, a little too hilarious for it to be taken as seriously as I should desire. I have been impressed in the Debates on the various Amendments to the Clause by the fact that there is a fairly general comprehension, I think, on both sides of the Committee of what the purpose of the Clause is, and a wide measure of agreement on the kind of object which is required to be effected; but I retain myself a certain amount of genuine doubt as to whether there would not have been a simpler and better way of achieving this object.
    May I recall the Committee for a moment to the history of the matter? We are all agreed that the tribunal determines the reasonable rent of furnished lettings and we are all agreed that, because of the fact that it may reduce the rent, it is necessary to give the tribunal power to prevent its decision being flouted by a landlord terminating a furnished tenancy, which he could otherwise do, and thereby getting rid of a tenant in revenge for his applying to the tribunal.
    Under the 1946 Act, as we know, the tribunal has authority to give protection up to three months. For various reasons, that was found to be unsatisfactory because, in the present housing shortage, three months is not a very long time. In practice, the Minister had to resort to what I think he would agree was the somewhat questionable device of supplementing the powers of the tribunal by requisitioning the premises if it was thought that the landlord was taking advantage of the shortness of the period in order to get the tenant out unreasonably immediately after the expiration of three months. He now seeks to get from Parliament, and, on the whole, he has been conceded, the view that a wider measure of protection ought to be afforded by law than the three months which was given by the Act to the tribunal. He has accordingly provided that the tenant may apply from three months to three months in suitable cases to have that protection extended indefinitely.
    I think we would all agree that that may give rise to difficulties, especially
    1248
    as we have to remember throughout that the tenant has absolutely no deterrent at all against making frivolous applications to tribunals. He can put the landlord to a great deal of embarrassment and fear, even in cases where there is no reasonable case, by going to tribunals for a determination of the rent. He has a clear prospect of success if he does so and nothing whatever to fear if he fails. On the assumption that he succeeds in getting a small reduction in rent, it is, of course, possible for him to be afforded—and he may be afforded, even in such a case—reasonable security of tenure. The question is whether it ought to be open for him or be left simply to the tribunal to go on from three months to three months renewing that security.
    I am not altogether satisfied that that is reasonable and for this reason: the Minister very properly observed in an earlier Amendment—proposed, I think, by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks)—that we are not in this Clause discussing the proper security which ought to be given to tenants of furnished lettings in general. That is not our question and the Minister, quite rightly, said that this is not a Clause for effecting such a purpose. It would, therefore, not be proper to look to this Clause to give to a tenant a greater security than he would have had if he had not applied to the tribunal at all. That, I think, will be common ground between all those who have studied this matter. I am driven to wonder whether the effect of the Clause at present may not be in practice to give such a protection in such cases for an indefinite period.
    8.45 p.m.
    I should not have raised this point had I not been of the opinion that there is both an easier and a better way of securing the objective, and that is by taking the question of security of tenure out of the jurisdiction of the tribunal altogether and placing it within the jurisdiction of the county court, as under the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Committee will be aware that under those Acts the county court can suspend the operation of a possession order for any period for which it thinks reasonable. I cannot help thinking that that is what should have been done here once it was established, as I think it has been established, that the three months' arbitrary maximum supplied by the old Act was not adequate,

    1249
    and that the real procedure should be to leave the landlord in such a case to seek his remedy in the county court, as he would have to do, and to provide that the county court judge, where an application had been made to the tribunal, should not make an order for possession unless he thought it reasonable and upon such terms as he considered reasonable. That would give a greater degree of security and finality to the matter. It would protect the tenant and the landlord and would avoid the rather extraordinary situations which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested.
    I do not want the Minister to give a considered reply to this matter now, because I should have given him notice that I was going to raise this point, but I hope he will bear it in mind as a suggestion which is not unfriendly to the principle of the Clause and that he will consider it before the matter reaches another stage.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)
    Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, at the end, to add:
    "and every such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    The Clause provides that
    "Any power to make regulations or an order conferred on the Minister by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that such statutory instruments shall be subject to annulment by Parliament. This is a reasonable proposal. It is quite probable that the Minister will pray in aid the fact that in the case of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, there was no provision for orders and regulations to be subject to annulment, but it is desirable, especially as this is a much wider Measure, that any orders and regulations made by the Minister, which must be made by statutory instrument, should not only be subject to the provisions regarding publication of the Statutory Instruments Act, but also should have to be laid
    1250
    before Parliament and be subject to review and annulment if disapproved. That should be the normal course when an Act of Parliament makes provision for a Minister to issue regulations and orders under it.
    If the Minister has any special reason against that course, then the onus should be upon him to show that there is no occasion for Parliament to review his orders and regulations or to have the opportunity of annulling them. I think that prima face it is the right of the House of Commons to have the Minister's orders and regulations laid before it and that the right should be available to hon. Members to move Prayers against them if they consider that course desirable.
    Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member has pointed out, what we are doing here is merely to follow the procedure laid down in what is the principal Act for the purpose of this Clause of the Bill, that is the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. As we have already covered 83 per cent, of the population by these regulations and orders, it does not seem reasonable that we should alter the whole procedure for the remaining 17 per cent., especially as they will be in areas of scattered populations where probably we would have to join a number of districts together, or attach districts to existing tribunals. Although, generally speaking, I would agree with the hon. Member, it does not seem to me that in this case there is a special point in making the proposed alteration.
    Sir J. Mellor: I wish to point out that this is not only a question of making orders in regard to areas, but of particulars described under Clause 4, particulars in regard to terms and conditions of tenancy which have to be registered by the local authority. That is the kind of point which the House of Commons should have an opportunity of considering. I would also point out that under this Bill the principal Act is not the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, but the principal Acts are the whole series of Rent Restriction Acts.
    Mr. Bevan: It is for the purposes of the Act of 1946 that these tribunals are set up.
    Commander Galbraith: In view of the very great difference between what we

    1251
    are doing here and the Act of 1946 and that the right hon. Gentleman has actually admitted that he would like to see such matters generally coming before the House, although he does not want that in this case, would it not be wise to reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage? If he will give an assurance of that kind, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will give an assurance that he will look at the question of whether he has to worry about 17 per cent, of the population when we have already swallowed 83 per cent., I will certainly look at it again, but we do not want to clutter up the Business of the House unnecessarily. This has worked well so far and I have not heard the slightest objection to it. I think this the simplest procedure and in no way are the rights of the House overridden. Regulation-making power of this sort is quite common in such matters and it is not usual to bring such matters in detail before the House. I will certainly have a look at it to see whether it is desirable, but I hope I shall not be taken as having given any promise.
    Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to look at it seriously in view of what has been said and, in those circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the Amendment.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman promises to look at the matter. It will in no way add to the trouble involved, because, in any case, these instruments have to be printed and published. It only means their being formally laid and subject to annulment by Prayer, if any hon. Member thinks fit to move a Prayer during the first 40 days after they are laid. 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 13.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 10,
    1252
    line 29, to leave out "relevant part of the letting," and to insert "rental equivalent."
    This, and the five following Amendments, are designed to bring Clause 13 into line with Clause 2, as amended. Hon. Members will remember that as a result of the Amendments to Clause 2, provision is made to ensure that the rental equivalent will be deducted when there is a new letting to a new tenant.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in line 31, to leave out from "expression," to the first "the," in line 32, and to insert:
    "'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered divided by the number of rent-periods between."
    Commander Galbraith: The words seem a little difficult to understand. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a little further explanation of exactly what they mean?
    The Lord Advocate: If the words are read in conjunction with the Clause as originally drafted, and if one has in view the terms of the Amendments to Clause 2, I do not think any of the hon. Members who understood the Amendments to Clause 2 will have any difficulty in understanding these Amendments. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) was not present when the Amendments to Clause 2 were discussed.
    Commander Galbraith: That was a long time ago.
    The Lord Advocate: It may seem a long time ago, but it was not really a long time ago. I do not want to weary the Committee in going over the effect of these Amendments, as it was fully explained in relation to Clause 2. The effect of the Scottish application Clause is to spread the rental equivalent over the period of that part of seven years as is apposite to the particular case. While I agree that in reading these Amendments in the abstract it may be difficult to understand them, if they are fitted into the context, they are perfectly comprehensible.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: In line 34, leave out "ending," and insert:
    "the following date (in this Section referred to as the 'relevant date') that is to say."
    In line 37, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."
    In line 39, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."
    In page 11, line 4, leave out "(5) and (6)," and insert "(4) and (5)."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir William Darling: It will be observed that this Clause is described as Clause 13, an unlucky number, and I think an unhappy circumstance. This Clause is arranged to apply this Bill to Scotland and is a matter of considerable regret. There is a growing feeling in the House of Commons and in the country that the attachment of Clauses which have a special application to Scotland, to English Bills may be a matter of administrative convenience but is not always desirable from many points of view.
    I notice, for example, that under Clause 12 the power to make regulations is given to the Minister of Health in England and Wales and the same power is given to the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. I am among those who would have debated whether it is desirable to give the same extensive and wide powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland as, to the right hon. Gentleman in England. That is a point on which a division of opinion might have been permitted. Again, in Clause 4 the local authority is responsible for providing the rates but in Scotland the tribunal is charged with that duty.
    There must be come explanation, some justification, of this variation. I was struck by the Minister's observation a few minutes ago that 83 per cent, of the people of this country were already covered, and that being so we need not worry about the other 17 per cent. It is that which brings me to my feet. The population of these islands is about 50 million, of whom some five million are in Scotland. If the Minister does not intend to worry about 17 per cent. of his own countrymen, I would direct
    1254
    his attention to the fact that five million people in Scotland, some 10 per cent, of the total, will want to know the reason why. Coming, as the right hon. Gentleman does, from a small, vital country, I am certain that had circumstances been different he would have put forward with even greater vigour than I can command the view that I am putting forward.
    9.0 p.m.
    If there is to be a separate legislative system in Scotland, a separate method of conducting our affairs, habits of thought and action in this important domestic matter of the relations of landlord and tenant, then in spite of the urgency of the time factor, it would have been more courteous and respectful to Scottish public opinion if we had had a separate Bill which would have met the views of Scottish public opinion, even if the Government had had their way. The attempt to attach Scotland to England in this way is offensive to an ancient country and is not necessary. I am sure that in saying that I command a good deal of sympathy on the part of people of other nationalities.
    The terms of reference of this Bill cover houses of three kinds, those the rateable value of which does not exceed £100 in London, £75 in England and Wales, and £90 in Scotland. That is a wide variation, and yet here we have Clause 13, by which Scotland is made to cling most reluctantly to the tail of England. When one looks at the Schedule one sees that of the three minor Amendments it contains two deal with Scotland. Scotland is tacked on to an English Bill by Clause 13, and yet the major alterations of law—two-thirds of the minor Amendments effected by the Schedule—relate to Scotland. I do not think it is fair to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is an urbane, tolerant, accommodating Minister, or to the Lord Advocate.
    It is a suggestion, in my view, that these distinguished Members of the Government are not able to conduct a Bill of their own. I should be the first to challenge that assertion if anyone made it. It is unfair to take up the time of English Members with what are Scottish matters of a difficult and specialised character. Therefore, I suggest that Clause 13 should be agreed to only on the very strict understanding that on

    1255
    future occasions legislation affecting Scotland should not be effected by a Clause of this character in what is a purely English Measure.
    The Lord Advocate: I find it difficult to understand the righteous indignation of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). He apparently feels that it is entirely out of place that legislation affecting Scotland should be incorporated in a Clause at the end of a Bill which is primarily concerned with England. I understand that to be the tenor of the hon. Member's argument. I could have understood that argument if it had stood in isolation, but I find it difficult to reconcile with a Bill which I have before me. It is a Private Member's Bill which affects the United Kingdom. It has a long Scottish application Clause, and I find that the first supporter of the Bill is the hon. Member for South Edinburgh.
    Sir W. Darling: Inconsistency is not the monopoly of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The Lord Advocate: I think we can
    agree to be inconsistent. But before the hon. Gentleman makes attacks of this nature, he should see matters in a proper perspective. He will remember that we had rent tribunals in Scotland for three years before England had them. It has taken England three years to come abreast of us. Now that they have done so, and we feel it desirable that we should move ahead, we have no objection to England coming along with us. It shows a progressive spirit in England which we are all delighted to see. I am sure that if the hon. Member appreciates the missionary spirit which has characterised the Scots throughout the centuries he will realise why we are doing this.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 14.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 39, at end, insert:
    "'premium' includes any fine or other like sum and any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty and no longer."
    A few moments ago the right hon, Gentleman appealed to the principal Act and suggested to the Committee that we should stick as closely as possible to the principal Act. That is what I am suggesting we should do in this Amendment. The Committee will remember that the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, was originally to end by 31st December, 1947, and has since been extended to 31st December, 1950. Here we have the principal Act extended until 31st December, 1950. We have tribunals dealing with matters of furnished lettings and the matters in this present Bill, and we suggest it is only reasonable that the limitation of time should be the same in each case. For that reason we have put down this Amendment.
    Further than that, is there not something wrong in having this a permanent Act? Does it not suggest that the situation which we are trying to meet at the present moment is to be permanent? Are there not to be some limits to the operation of this particular Bill, instead of putting it on the Statute Book as a permanent Measure? Surely by doing that we are suggesting to the people of the country that the housing shortage will remain permanent, and that is something we do not expect, or at least we hope will not happen. Indeed, according to—what shall I call them—all the things we are led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself in regard to housing, we should anticipate that by the end of December, 1950, the position may well be changed to such an extent under his guidance that the housing shortage will almost have disappeared. In those circumstances, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that it is a reasonable Amendment and will, no doubt, be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. Bevan: The Amendment which has been moved could, of course, be accepted without any very great danger. Nevertheless, I see no purpose in doing so, because the Ridley Committee itself, I believe with complete unanimity, said that rent control would have to last for at least ten years after the war. If we accept this

    1257
    Amendment, we would have to continue it under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, should it prove necessary. I see no reason why we should attach so much legislation to that Act.
    Furthermore, in some of the great cities it will be some time before we can dispense with protective legislation of this sort, not merely because of the absence of accommodation, but because we shall be going into slum clearance, and it will still be necessary to protect certain tenants, because slum clearance, until it is completed, will always bring about a certain shortage of accommodation. That is always a problem in these great cities when re-development is started, because it is necessary to destroy accommodation in order to provide sites for the building of modern homes in place of the slums. Certain restrictions on accommodation will be necessary for some time to come as a result of the general housing operations. I suggest, therefore, that in the circumstances it is not wise to insert December, 1950, in this matter.
    I was, of course, rather optimistic originally because I had accepted certain figures from the previous Government. As I said before, I was led to believe—not with much credulity, I was sceptical about the figure—and so was the country, that if we provided 750,000 additional homes we would meet the gross need for accommodation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Houses."] No, 750,000 additional homes. Hon. Members must get the facts right. I should be out of Order in explaining this at any length; I refer to it only because the hon. and gallant Member himself made reference to it. They were not houses; they were homes, because some way had to be found of distinguishing flats. They also computed in that estimate re-occupied war-damaged houses. Now that we have lifted the standards of the population, now that there is full employment and people are more prosperous than they were, and now that the two million unemployed before the war are in employment and wanting homes, we find that our success has exposed a larger problem than hon. Members thought existed. I do not want to add anything further to what has been said. I notice the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is restless in his seat.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I had no intention of interrupting the Minister, but as he seems to wish it, let me ask him this. Does he suggest that there are more people in employment now than when he made this prophecy about 1947 seeing the end of the stringency in the housing position?
    Mr. Bevan: I am speaking of the prophecy of which I was the victim. I am speaking of the prophecy which we inherited. We are now seeking, by asking local authorities to sift their lists, to find a more realistic picture of the housing need disclosed by the fact that what was before the war a need has now become an electoral demand.
    For the various reasons I have given, I suggest that these tribunals will be useful for some time to come. Indeed, they are providing us with very good experience, because suppose, subsequently, we want to apply the Ridley Committee's recommendations, suppose we reach the time when there is roughly a free market in housing, when there is a more reasonable relationship between supply and demand: we might then want to use these tribunals, or something like them, or something they will grow into, in order to charge them—I am not, and. I cannot, argue the merits of the case now—with the task of carrying out the major rent control Act when it is put upon the Statute Book. I suggest that it would be unwise to put so short a limit on the life of these tribunals. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.
    Sir J. Mellor: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Ridley Committee considered that their Report could not be implemented until there was a free market in houses? When the Ridley Committee said they thought that rent control would have to continue for 10 years, they believed that there might not be a free market during that period.
    Mr. Bevan: I said no such thing. The hon. Member ought not to try to impute those words to me. I was merely suggesting a number of possibilities, and I said that we might charge these tribunals with whatever functions we put into the major alteration when we make it. I am merely making this animadversion at the

    1259
    moment in order to suggest that we ought not to put so short a period on to the lifetime of the tribunals.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hogg: The Minister has utilised this Amendment ingeniously, from the point of view of the rules of Order to build up one of his famous "Tipperary alibis" of the past. I think there is a better reason for resisting the Amendment than the Minister has given. This Bill is in fact a piece of mosaic fitted into the structure of the Rent Restrictions Acts and into the Act of 1946 which, when it is passed, will become an integral part of that legislation. I do not think it is practicable, once that is achieved, to put a different term to the currency of this Bill than the term of the principal Acts to which it relates. I think the result would be chaotic from the legislative point of view, and I suggest to my hon. Friends that the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am afraid that I must pursue this point further. I understood the Minister to say that the Government would probably have to continue the Measure provided in this Bill perhaps for 10 years because there would not be until after that period a free market in houses. Surely the whole basis of the Ridley Report was that there should be early general legislation. This Measure, to put it at its highest, is a stopgap, a piecemeal Measure. The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the report of the Ridley Committee and I think it is only fair that I should call the attention of the Committee to what they recommended. They said:
    "In our opinion it is urgently necessary that the present chaos of overlapping Statutes should be replaced by a single comprehensive Act …."
    and further:
    "The evidence we have received convinces us that the difficulties and anomalies produced by the present system of control causes widespread and legitimate resentment, and we are satisfied that the time has come for a determined effort to remove them."
    That report was over three years ago, and it seems to me perfectly fantastic for the right hon. Gentleman to pray in aid what the Ridley Committee said to justify his contention that it may be necessary
    1260
    to continue in effect the provisions of this Bill for another 10 years. That seems perfectly fantastic. In the case of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, this point of duration has been dealt with under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on two occasions. Two years running it was put into that Bill, and now it is carried on to the beginning of 1950. That surely is the appropriate course to take with this Bill. I cannot see in the Ridley Report the slightest justification for the arguments of the Minister. I find everything in the Report directly opposite to them.
    Mrs. Ridealgh: I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment. In Ilford we have about 25,000 people who are overcrowded and need re-housing. At the rate of re-housing in Ilford the most that can be given accommodation by the end of 1950 is about 3,000. I hope he will resist this Amendment so that the other 22,000 will have some protection.
    Commander Galbraith: I have been very much disappointed in the Minister's last reply. He is being highly inconsistent. I think that when he advises the Committee to stick to the principal Acts on the previous Amendments, and then tells us to depart from them here, he is inconsistent to a degree. What is more, it shows a complete lack of faith in his own abilities. [Interruption.] Certainly he has shown great lack of faith in himself tonight, although on other occasions he always seems to have the proper amount. The point is, did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the country that before the General Election of 1950 he would have solved the housing problem? Did he not make that declaration? We are giving him six months longer than that, although of course for that six months he will not be in office. We are giving him longer than he asked for, yet he tells us that he cannot accept the Amendment. I am disappointed in him. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen very far in my estimation. In spite of that, I will accept the advice of my hon. Friends and on this occasion I will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(PROHIBITION OF PREMIUMS ON GRANT OR ASSIGNMENT OF TENANCY.)
    (1) A person shall not, as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy to which this Section applies, require the payment of any premium in addition to the rent.
    (2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a person shall not, as a condition of the assignment of a tenancy to which this Section applies, require the payment of any premium.
    (3) This Section applies to any tenancy of a dwelling-house such that when the dwelling-house is let under the tenancy it is a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply.
    (4) Where before the commencement of this Act a premium has been lawfully required, and paid, in respect of the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy to which this Section applies, then notwithstanding anything in Subsection (2) of this Section on any assignment of the tenancy or an immediately succeeding tenancy a premium may be required of an amount not exceeding the amount which bears to the premium paid on the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy the same proportion as the period beginning with the date at which the assignment takes effect and ending with the relevant date bears to the period beginning with the said grant, continuance or renewal and ending with the relevant date.
    (5) For the purposes of the last foregoing Subsection—

    (a) a tenancy (in this paragraph referred to as "the later tenancy") shall be treated as immediately succeeding another tenancy (in this paragraph referred to as "the earlier tenancy") if, and only if, the dwelling-house has been let under a tenancy or tenancies to which this Section applies throughout the period between the beginning of the earlier tenancy and the beginning of the later tenancy, and at no time during that period has the landlord granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began;

    (b) the relevant date is the date which would be the relevant date for the purposes of Section two of this Act if the application to the Tribunal therein referred to had been made at the date when the assignment mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection takes effect, so, however, that if on such an application the Tribunal have under paragraph (a) of Subsection (4) of the said Section two determined a later date, the relevant date is the date so determined.

    (6) Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (2) of this Section, an assignor may, if it is so agreed, require the payment by the assignee—

    (a) of so much of any outgoings discharged by the assignor as is referrable to any period after the assignment takes effect;

    (b) of a sum not exceeding the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the assignor in carrying out any structural alteration of the dwelling-house; or

    1262

    (c) where the assignor became a tenant of the dwelling-house by virtue of an assignment of the tenancy thereof, of a sum not exceeding any reasonable amount paid by him to his assignor in respect of expenditure incurred by that assignor, or by any previous assignor of the tenancy, in carrying out any such alteration as aforesaid.

    (7) Where, under an agreement made after the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, any premium has been paid which, or the whole of which, could not lawfully be required under the foregoing provisions of this Section (or, if the premium was required before the commencement of this Act, which could not lawfully have been required if this Act had then been in force), the amount of the premium, or so much thereof as could not lawfully be required or have been required, as the case may be, shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was paid:
    Provided that where the premium was paid under an agreement made since the said twenty-fifth day of March and before the commencement of this Act, and the premium could lawfully be required under the enactments hereby repealed, the agreement shall without prejudice to the operation of this Section, be voidable at the option of either party thereto.
    (8) A person requiring any premium in contravention of this Section shall be liable ore summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order the amount of the premium, or so much thereof as cannot lawfully be required under this Section, to be-repaid to the person by whom it was paid.
    (9) Section eight of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, is hereby repealed; but, without prejudice to the operation of Section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, nothing in this Section shall be construed as affecting the operation of the said Section eight as respects anything done before the commencement of this Act.
    (10) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this Section shall render any amount recoverable more than, once.—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause, like many of the Clauses in this Bill, is not very easy to understand at first reading. Nevertheless, I think I may be able to put the Committee in possession of the intention of the Clause in a very few words. It was pressed upon me in the Second Reading Debate that the time had come, and that indeed it would be consistent with the other parts of the Bill, to abolish all premiums on the assignment of a rent-controlled house. This Clause is the fulfilment of a pledge I gave on that occasion. It abolishes all premiums, those which were legal and, if I may use an

    1263
    Irishism, those which were illegal. It abolishes the illegal premium for a second time, if I may use that phrase; it makes it final that in future it will not be possible for people to charge on assignment of rent-controlled houses.
    There is, of course, one qualification. It will not be possible for a landlord to charge on assignment to a statutory tenant, but it might easily happen that a contractual tenant will have secured under the terms of this Bill a rental equivalent of reduced rent in respect of a premium which had been paid. It will be possible, therefore, for that tenant, if he becomes an assignor, to charge a person acquiring the tenancy from him a premium to the remaining value of the reduced rental equivalent. That will be the only circumstance in which it will be possible for a premium to be charged and, of course, it will be an extinguishing category, because it cannot apply after the Bill has become an Act, because from that point onwards no further premiums can be charged.
    It may be said that there is one injustice done, because in the event of a premium having been paid to a tenant and the tenant having disappeared, it would not be possible for a person having paid the premium to pass it to anybody at all, but it is not practicable in these circumstances, where we are intervening in a series of running contracts, to prevent some sort of hardship falling upon somebody or other.
    I considered the possibility of giving a right of action on the part of those who had paid premiums to tenants who had disappeared, but I came to the conclusion that the onus of proof would be much too difficult and that the persons who had paid the premium would at least have this relief—if they wanted a new tenancy or moved from where they were at the moment to somewhere else, they would be protected from having to pay a premium for new accommodation. That is about all one can do for that category of persons.
    Once we intervene in a running chain of contracts of this sort it is absolutely impossible to do other than that. Indeed, it certainly would be a Gilbertian situation to try to relieve the hardship of those who have paid a premium by
    1264
    giving them the right to pass the hardship on to somebody else. The hardship must stop at some point or another. It seems to me that we have taken all the practicable steps that can be taken to end this mischief. Of course, as hon. Members know, it always was illegal to charge key money.
    Mr. Hogg: For a landlord.
    Mr. Bevan: For a landlord to charge key money. This new Clause merely makes it equally impossible for a tenant to charge key money. I have not been able to resist the contention that what was true of a landlord should also be true of a tenant, because the tenant is able to give only what the landlord gives, that is, occupancy, and he has no more right to charge a person a premium for that value than the landlord himself. Therefore, it seems to me, in all the circumstances, that the time has come to put an end to this mischief, which has caused a considerable amount of ill-feeling and much hardship, and has aroused a great deal of public indignation.
    Mr. Hogg: I think it would be churlish on my part if I did not express my gratitude to the Minister for having taken to heart certain criticisms which I made on Second Reading of the Bill, which criticisms were, I think, echoed from all sides of the House. I think he certainly has done his best to deal with an admitted evil. I certainly did not realise at the time when I voiced those criticisms that what would come out would be anything quite so complicated as this particular new Clause. I think that was probably due to the fact that although one is always discovering about this subject that it is complicated, as one knows it to be, it is always a little more complicated than one thinks.
    I wonder whether the Minister has really been right in giving so little sanction to the case where a premium, illegal under this Clause, has in fact been charged. I can see one argument against giving such a sanction. I think it is important to remember, where an illegal premium has been charged by a landlord on the tenant, or by a tenant on another tenant, that both the person who charges and the person who pays the premium are to blame. Language is sometimes used in this Committee which

    1265
    lends force to the view that the landlord, or the person charging the premium, is to blame, and the person of whom it is charged is not to blame. I think it is important to rid oneself of that idea. The person who pays the premium is always jumping the queue of other people who need housing accommodation.
    9.30 p.m.
    It is vital, therefore, to realise that the person who pays the premium, although one may tend to look upon him as exploited, is himself morally to blame and not a person to be encouraged. I can see, therefore, the force of the argument that it would be a mistake to give to the person paying the premium the right of recovery of what had "been charged. The difficulty I find about that is that under the principal Acts a similar right of recovery is given as against the landlord in certain cases. I think that the arguments are nicely balanced as to whether that was a wise provision or not. What I am not happy about is the apparent anomaly of giving it under the principal Acts and not under this Bill. My difficulty is further increased by the fact that I am not altogether impressed by the two arguments which the Minister put forward. The first was that in certain cases the person charging the premium might have disappeared, with which I agree, and the second was that the difficulty of establishing an illegal payment, which was what I understood the Minister to mean by the phrase "onus of proof." might be too great.
    I think that a course on those lines could be pursued in both cases. If the person charging the premium had disappeared then no action could be brought, but there must be many cases where such a man could be found and an action ought to be brought if for no other reason than that it is thought desirable to impose a penalty. Moreover, the difficulty of establishing the stated facts is never as a rule considered a good reason against giving the right of action to the person who actually succeeds in overcoming the difficulty. In many cases it would not be difficult to establish payment. In fact, I am constantly surprised at the way in which, in spite of elaborate precautions taken to conceal an illegality, it keeps on peeping out and can be established by legal methods of evidence more often than not.
    1266
    I am not absolutely sure that where a tenant charges an illegal premium the right of recovery ought not to reside in the landlord. After all, it is he who has been exploited in this matter. The Act will have deprived him of what would have been his property. The tenant has proceeded to capitalise the value of what has been taken away from the landlord to his private advantage, and that we now can see is wrong. We also see, as I think the Minister agrees, that the person paying the premium may be equally to blame because he is the temporary owner, and where the tenant charges an illegal premium, one is driven to the conclusion that the landlord who has not charged it but who has been deprived of his property by the Act is the one person who ought to have the advantage.
    I do not intend the criticism that I have offered of this new Clause to detract from the genuineness of the gratitude which I have already expressed to the Minister. I am not always prone to expect from the right hon. Gentleman an undue willingness to accept suggestions from this side of the Committee, and when he does so I think that it is right to give him encouragement to do so again.
    Mr. Janner: This is a complicated matter, but I wonder whether between now and the Report stage, the Minister might not take the opportunity of reconsidering the position to see whether he can reduce his very long Clause to a much smaller space. I cannot see, for example, why it is necessary to have the last three lines in subsection (5, b) in view of the fact that there is already provision for extension to a later date in the original tenancy itself. Perhaps we shall have an explanation of that later on. I also think that the words of a later Clause which I hope to move might be utilised to some extent in reducing the verbiage of this new Clause. Nevertheless, I think that the Committee should be very grateful indeed to the Minister for having realised and put into the Bill the important provisions, with regard to the prevention of the imposition of premiums on assignment and I want to thank him, in view of the fact I had already a new Clause down on this matter, for accepting practically all that is in my new Clause, there only being in his new Clause certain embellishments which appeal to him.
    Mr. J. Foster: Without intending any disrespect to the Minister of Health, may I say that I am glad to see the Solicitor-General on the Front Bench because there is one proviso which puzzles me very much and I should like him to explain what it means. Subsection (3) of the new Clause makes very difficult reading in conjunction with subsections (6) and (7) of Section 12 of the Act of 1920. The point is whether it applies, for instance, to houses which are let at two-thirds of the rateable value which are outside the principal Act.
    It is confusing, because the subsection jumps from tenancy to dwelling-house and back again from dwelling-house to tenancy. The Minister will see that subsection (3) is in itself difficult to understand because it says:
    "(3) This Section applies to any tenancy of a dwelling-house such that when the dwelling-house is let under the tenancy it is a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply."
    If that subsection stood alone it would rather mean that if one let a house at less than two-thirds of the rateable value the proposed new Clause would not apply to it because it is not a tenancy to which the principal Act would apply. In Subsection (6) of Section 12 of the principal Act we find:
    "Where this Act has become applicable to any dwelling-house … it shall continue to apply thereto whether or not the dwelling-house continues to be one to which this Act applies."
    Then if we look at subsection (7), which is the one dealing with the two-thirds of the rateable value, we find:
    "Where the rent payable in respect of any tenancy of any dwelling-house is less than two thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply to that rent or tenancy … and this Act shall apply in respect of such dwelling-house if no such tenancy existed or never had existed."
    That makes the position difficult to understand, because under subsection (7) it says that if one lets a house at less than two-thirds of the rateable value one can disregard that tenancy, but that one shall deem that the dwelling-house is within the Act. If we deem that the dwelling-house comes within the Act, under subsection (7) it must mean that if you let the house for two-thirds of the rent, although it is not a tenancy which would bring the house within the Act we must deem the dwelling-house to be within the Act. I find the matter very
    1268
    confusing and I would like the Minister to explain how those three subsections go together.
    Mr. Bevan: I am sure that the hon. Member has a point with which he is struggling. I would struggle with it myself if he could bring it out into the light. So far, I am not able to understand what the point is that he wishes to put to me. He must put me in possession of his problem if I am to attempt a solution.
    Mr. Foster: The difficulty is that the thing is very involved.
    Mr. Bevan: I agree.
    Mr. Foster: As I see it, and putting into my own words, subsection (7) of Section 12 says that when you let a dwelling-house at less than two-thirds of the rateable value you can disregard that tenancy, but the dwelling-house comes within the province of the principal Act, although the tenancy does not. I think that follows, because it says that the Act shall apply with respect to such dwelling-house as though no such tenancy existed or had ever existed. When we turn to the new Clause we have to read in "not less than two-thirds of the rateable value." It says that the Section shall apply to any tenancy let at two-thirds of the rateable value, but only if the tenancy would be one which, if applied to a dwelling-house, would make it come within the principal Act. It looks as if it does. If that is so, it would attack the security of building societies and so on.
    Mr. Bevan: As I understand it, this applies to a tenancy which is within the Act and not to a tenancy which is not within the Act, but if that be not the case, we will have another look at it. I will have a private conference with the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) in order to extricate all of us from the embarrassments which might occur.
    Mr. Foster: Perhaps I might add a rider. If the Minister looks at the new Clause he will see that it applies to a dwelling-house. That is the difficulty. It is not only to a tenancy within the Act; it is to a tenancy which, if applied under the principal Act, would put the dwelling-house in.
    Mr. Binns: I want to know what a premium is. I have not yet

    1269
    heard a discussion about what a premium is. It appears that some landlords are in the habit of allowing a tenancy to be taken on the basis of substantial structural alterations or other works being done by the person who receives the tenancy. Many of us are afraid that it would be possible for landlords not to charge a premium in terms of money but to charge an equivalent in terms of the work which is to be performed by the tenant. It would be helpful if the Minister would elucidate that point.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: While I welcome the attempt which the Minister has made in his new Clause to carry out what was wanted on all sides of the House, I ask him if it would be possible to reconsider the drafting of subsection (5, a). The Minister will agree that this is a Clause which should be understood by the general public. It is not a Clause specifically for the courts, but something which must be made crystal-clear to every landlord, tenant and sub-tenant. Subsection (5, a) is one of the crucial points of the new Clause, and yet it is very obscure to the ordinary layman's mind. However, I do not say that there is anything wrong in its intention. It would be very helpful if the Minister would put it into plainer English which common people like myself can understand.
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly I will have a look at this again. I have looked at it and looked at it and looked at it, but, as has been said before, the more one looks at these Acts relating to property, the more complicated they appear. If the hon. Member is asking me to undertake the burden of making this Clause understandable to the ordinary layman, I had better hand in my "checks" immediately because I do not think that is possible. Indeed, I would not like to deprive all the eminent lawyers in the House of the happy hunting ground which this Clause might make for them. I will look at it again, but I am satisfied that great simplification will be extremely difficult to achieve if we are still to keep the Clause to what we require.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns) will notice on the Order Paper another Clause which we have put down to deal with excessive prices for furniture and so on. Where
    1270
    an excessive price is charged, that charge can be treated as a premium.
    9.45 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The view of the Opposition is that we are disposed to concede this new Clause to the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Concede?"] Yes, concede without a Division. That is a well-understood phrase and I do not think it lies in the mouth of hon. Members who have not borne the heat and burden of the day, to seek to prolong the heat and burden which the Minister and those of us on this side have endured all this time. As I say, we concede the Minister's Clause as an attempt to carry out what was desired by the House as a whole. Our position on this side of the Committee is that we do not regard a premium, as such, as an immoral or an undesirable thing, but there are circumstances in which, under the present excessive shortage, it may lead to abuses. If these abuses apply in the case of a premium demanded by a landlord, they apply a fortiori to a premium demanded by a person further down the chain who has done nothing whatever to provide the accommodation for which he is seeking to exact a payment. For that reason we urge upon the Minister that the Bill he has brought forward should be completed.
    It is true that this legislation is extremely complicated, and this Clause is no exception to the general rule. Indeed, from the merely technical point of view the Minister might be complimented on the way in which he has improved upon the style of all those who have cultivated the growths in this strange jungle hi which we have been forced to wander. I think it adds strength to the case made before, and which we have put down new Clauses to deal with, that it should not be left to the experience of mere neophytes to try to find their way about this jungle, for these problems, which genuinely puzzle the most learned of the Law Officers on the other side of the House and my hon. and learned Friends on this side, will be a little above the level of the technical equipment and competence of the tribunal which will have to decide upon and interpret these questions in addition to the many other questions which we have left over to them. However, we shall deal with that point later when we come to it.

    1271
    As the position stands, there is an opportunity for grave abuses in the originally perfectly reasonable and legitimate commercial practice of charging part of an annual payment as a lump sum; a process which was of advantage both to the landlord and to the tenant. However, I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that the payment of a premium is in every case simply a jumping of the queue.
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think there is any difference between my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself. We are discussing here an illegal premium charged for possession of a controlled house. There it must be said that the person who pays the premium is jumping the queue, just as the person who exacts it is exploiting a shortage.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I agree, but what we are also discussing is the making illegal of a thing which previously was legal, and I do not think it can be said that in those cases a person was jumping the queue, although I agree that anyone making an illegal payment is certainly doing so.
    We have one final test which can only be made by experience. It is whether this is administratively sound, whether it can be administered so as to operate without injustice to individuals and with the general assent of the community. Some hon. Members evinced doubts as to whether these things will be administratively possible, and even tonight one or two hon. Members have voiced objections, fearing that exceptions have been left which will lead to a sense of injustice in the community. For my part I would not desire the Minister to go further. We believe an attempt is here made which can only be decided by experience and, having asked for this during the Second Reading of the Bill, we assent to the attempt which the Minister has made to enshrine it within the Clauses of the Statute.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: In principle I welcome this new Clause which prohibits the payment of premium on the grant and assignment of a tenancy, but I am glad that the Minister will look at it again, and I should be glad if the
    1272
    Solicitor-General will do so as well. I wonder if it is completely watertight? I have a suggestion to make—and I take some credit for the fact that I make it in public rather than that I should do so to clients in private—in order to get round this Clause.
    It may be that by a conspiracy between a landlord and a tenant, money which amounts to a premium might still be extracted from the person in search of a flat or controlled dwelling-house, for what the Clause does is to prohibit the requiring of a premium as a condition of the granting or assignment of a tenancy. Assume that a person has a controlled dwelling-house of which he wants to dispose. As the Clause stands he could get round it in this way: He makes a bargain with the person wanting the house that the tenant will surrender his tenancy to the landlord if the person wanting the house will pay him £500. He surrenders it, and in that case there is no assignment. Then the tenant makes a bargain with the landlord that the landlord shall accept the surrender of the tenancy from him for £250, half of what the person wanting the dwelling-house has paid. In such a case it may very well be that, as between the sitting tenant and the purchaser, no premium has been required as a condition of the tenancy and that, as between the landlord and the new purchaser, no premium has been required for the granting of the tenancy.
    That kind of procedure might well be pursued by persons wanting to circumvent the Clause, and the courts may interpret a transaction of that kind as being outside its terms. I should like the Minister, therefore, to consider whether he can make the Clause all-embracing in its application so that it will cover surrenders and transactions of that kind between a crooked tenant and a crooked landlord to defeat its object.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I should like to make one comparatively small point. I am not entirely happy about the veto on all premiums. I do not differ from my right hon. and hon. Friends in their welcome to the Clause but there is one point which we ought to consider, and which I hope the Minister will consider between now and the Report stage. By an absolute veto on premiums in the case of rent restricted dwelling-houses, there

    1273
    is a danger that the housing of the people will be delayed and hampered.
    Let me quote an actual example which was brought to my notice last week-end. A man who is in possession of a flat had his family at home with him when he took over the tenancy. His children have since gone to a boarding school and the flat is much larger than he and his wife require. They would be perfectly prepared to part with possession of the flat if they could move into alternative accommodation without expense to themselves. My point is this: If there could be some limitation in subsection (1) to say that a premium not exceeding one year's rent, or something of that order, which would enable a family or tenant who would be prepared to move and make accommodation available to other people to cover the moving expenses, we should help the housing of the people in many more cases than might on the surface seem possible.
    Mr. Bevan: I certainly will look at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) but, obviously, for criminal offences we cannot do other than provide the normal penalties. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) there is a very simple solution. The vacating landlord could give a yearly tenancy.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts).
    Mr. Bevan: If it is illegal—
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Under the Clause as drafted it may not be illegal.
    Mr. Bevan: It may not be illegal; does the hon. Member wish to make it illegal?
    Mr. Roberts: It may not have that effect.
    Mr. Bevan: We will look into the point.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It is not a
    case of a landlord giving a year's tenancy, but of a restricted tenancy. The tenant would be quite prepared to divest himself if his expenses in moving to smaller accommodation could be made good. Here is a case of a flat which it too large
    1274
    for the present requirements of the present tenant, who would be quite prepared to move if he could have enough to cover expenses, but there is no inducement to him to move.
    Mr. Bevan: We cannot deal with the minutiae of every relationship. There is no reason why people should be allowed to charge a premium to someone else because they want to move.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(EXCESSIVE PRICES FOR FURNITURE, &C., TO BE TREATED AS PREMIUMS.)
    —(1) Where—

    (a) whether before or after the commencement of this Act the purchase of any furniture or other articles has been required as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of a tenancy to which Section (Prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of tenancy) applies, and

    (b) the price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles,

    the excess shall be treated, for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act and, so far as they continue to have effect, of Section eight of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, as if it were a premium required to be paid as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of the tenancy.
    (2) Where after the commencement of this Act any such purchase as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing Subsection is required as therein mentioned, the price demanded shall, at the request of the person on whom the demand is made, be stated in writing; and if, without reasonable excuse, a person required to give such a statement in writing fails within fourteen days to do so, or knowingly gives a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
    (3) Subsection (1) of Section nine of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, is hereby repealed, but without prejudice to the effect of any statement of the price of articles given under that Subsection before the commencement of this Act.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This proposed new Clause merely assimilates existing provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts as regard payments of an excessive character on furniture or other articles as a condition of the tenancy with the new provisions following

    1275
    the passage of the Clause with which we have just dealt. The only additional point raised in this Clause is the requirement that in future, if a condition of this character is required, it must be given in writing.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There is a point arising from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns), who has now left the Committee, which impels me to ask the Minister if he really means that this new Clause covers such cases as were raised, namely, where a landlord undertakes considerable repairs and makes those repairs a condition of the tenancy. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that such a situation would be covered?
    Mrs. Mann: I am glad to see that the question of furniture is covered, but the very important question of fittings arises here. In Scotland it has been well known that to charge a premium is illegal, but night after night we see advertisements in the newspapers which run like this, "Young couple require service flat"—or, "require accommodation"—"high price will be paid for fittings." The fittings may be just a nail in the bathroom, a towel rail or a laundry pole in the kitchenette. The price charged may be, and quite often has been, £100. It is really key money, but it goes under the guise of "fittings" and the operative word in all the advertisements is "fittings." I hope my right hon. Friend will make it very clear that fittings are covered by the word "furniture."
    Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) will look at the beginning of the new Clause she will see
    "whether before or after the commencement of this Act the purchase of any furniture or other articles …;."
    I think what she has described would be covered by those words. I will certainly make quite sure that that is so, because I agree with the point which my hon. Friend made.
    10.0 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: A point was made about decorations, etc. While it is obviously undesirable that the landlord should use decorations as an excuse for charging a premium, it is obviously desirable that a house should be decorated
    1276
    before a new tenant enters. In most cases the new tenant would be glad if such decoration were carried out, and would be willing to pay for it. Is that point covered by the words of this Clause?
    Mr. Bevan: I am not quite sure about that. I will look into it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into it because it will be a point of interest both to landlord and tenant.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(AMENDMENTS TO ACT OF 1946.)
    The amendments specified in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act, being amendments to the Act of 1946, shall be made in the enactments specified in the first column of that Schedule.—[Mr. Janner.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Would you permit me at this stage, Major Milner, also to deal with the new Schedule which stands in my name?—

    AMENDMENTS TO ACT OF 1946
    Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 34
    "Section four—
    In paragraph (b) of Subsection (1), after the word 'renewal,' insert the words 'assignment, transfer.'
    Section five—
    For Section five there shall be substituted the following Section:
    'If, before or after a contract to which this Act applies has been referred to a tribunal by the lessee or by the local authority (either originally or for reconsideration), a notice to quit the premises to which the contract relates has been or is served by the lessor on the lessee at any time before the decision of the tribunal is given or within three months thereafter and the period at the end of which the notice takes effect had not expired before the reference of the contract to the tribunal, the notice shall not take effect before the expiration of the said three months:
    Provided that—

    (a) the tribunal may, if they think fit, direct that a shorter period shall be substituted for the said three months in the application of this Section to the contract that is the subject of the reference; and

    1277

    (b) if the reference is withdrawn, the period during which the notice is not to take effect shall end on the expiration of fourteen days from the withdrawal of the reference.'

    Section twelve—
    Subsection (4) shall not apply to accommodation registered after the passing of this Act for the purpose of Regulation 68CB of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939."
    The new Clause is coupled with the proposed Second Schedule, and I would ask you to allow me to deal with them together.
    The Chairman: If the hon. Member is referring to the new Clause following the one which he is now moving, I must inform him that I have not been able to select it. It is quite inappropriate to this Bill.
    Mr. Janner: This is a Bill dealing with the Act of 1946. The only type of Amendment which I am proposing is in precisely the same terms in regard to the 1946 Act as have already been proposed by the Minister in regard to the principal Acts. I would ask you to reconsider your decision, Major Milner, because it is a very material point. The assignment of properties which fall within the principal Acts is dealt with, but we are not going to deal with assignments of furnished houses, which are equally important, and must be protected if we are to have a comprehensive Measure. The other Clause also deals specifically with a point in relation to the 1946 Act, namely, that the tribunals have not the power to assess the rentals because they are being assessed or not being assessed by the local authorities. There can be no question that these matters come within the purview of the Bill.
    The Chairman: I am not sure that I have altogether followed the hon. Member. It will be better if he would be good enough to confine himself to the first new Clause which stands in his name, and to the proposed Second Schedule, which apparently accompanies it.
    Mr. Janner: I take it that I am being allowed to speak about the first new Clause in my name relating to the Act of 1946 and the Schedule? I am anxious in regard to that matter that we should have the provisions of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act complying with the similar provisions in respect
    1278
    of the principal Acts relating to the stopping of premiums on assignments. In my view the principle was accepted by the Minister, after I had put down an Amendment to that effect, as one we ought to accept in relation to furnished lettings. The position with regard to furnished lettings at present is this. One cannot charge a premium at the time of letting, but a person who has taken a furnished letting can assign that furnished letting, and at the time of assignment can charge a premium in precisely the same way as the premium was chargeable in relation to the dwelling-houses which were outside the provisions of the principal Acts. The Minister has accepted the fact that this type of abuse should be remedied in relation to ordinary dwellings which are unfurnished, and I think that that should be extended to furnished houses covered by the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act.
    Mr. Bevan: May I say to the hon. Member, and to the Committee, that there is no disposition on my part to quarrel with what he wants and I am prepared to concede its inclusion on Report stage.
    Mr. Janner: There is only one other point in the Schedule and I think that perhaps the Minister will see his way to concede that as well. In regard to Section 12, it is stated:
    "Subsection (4) shall not apply to accommodation registered after the passing of this Act for the purpose of Regulation 68CB of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939."
    The purpose of that is this. The owners of houses can sub-let separate furnished apartments under this particular regulation which are not controlled by the rent tribunals but which are supposed to be controlled, in so far as the rent is concerned, by the local authority. I do not think that there are a large number of them. If there are a number whether large or small, there are two separate bodies assessing the amount of rent that ought to be charged. On the one hand, there is the local authority, and on the other the rent tribunal. I am given to understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that very many of those lettings which were made under this provision have been registered by the local authority without the rent being raised. It seems to me in those circumstances that there is no longer any need for the

    1279
    rent tribunals not to have jurisdiction over these lettings, and I would ask the Minister to say that he will consider that point also.
    Mr. Bevan: No, I cannot accept that point at all. It would be an entire breach of faith with many people who have shared their homes and registered with the local authority. To allow them to be reviewed by the tribunals would be a breach of faith, especially having regard to the fact that many good people came forward in 1945 and 1946 and shared their homes on condition that if they registered them with the local authorities no action would be taken. That is precisely what the hon. Member was putting before the Committee. I hope he will not pursue every small Lilliputian category of house to its last lair at 10 minutes past 10 at night. I have said that I do not consider that there is any real grievance in not giving the tribunals the right to review the lettings that have already been registered by the local authorities.
    Mr. Tanner: I am prepared to concede that. Although the Minister did not realise it, I wanted this to apply to those premises to be registered after the passing of the Bill.
    Mr. Bevan: That is a point so Lilliputian as to be almost non-existent.
    Mr. Janner: In the circumstances, and on the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(EXTENSION OF APPLICATION ACT OF 1946.)
    Within twenty-eight days from the date of the passing of this Act the Minister shall by order direct that the Act of 1946 shall have effect forthwith in every district consisting of the whole or part of the area of every local authority in respect of which district an order under the Act of 1946 has not been made theretofore and the Act of 1946 shall thereupon come into force in each of such districts.—[Mr. Janner.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.12 p.m.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I move this new Clause in order to point out that there are still a number of
    1280
    local authorities who have not exercised their right to apply to the Minister for the provisions of the 1946 Act to apply in their districts. I am told, and I believe it to be the fact, that some local authorities refuse to have anything to do with the 1946 Act. It is grossly unfair that in some districts tenants should not have, in consequence of the remiss action on the part of their local authority, the right to bring their case before the tribunal.
    This does not entail much difficulty for local authorities; all they had to do was to apply to the Minister, who I am sure would have encouraged them in their applications. It would not perhaps have been necessary to put a tribunal in their own district: another tribunal could have dealt with their cases. I know that the Minister is anxious to get all local authorities in. I do not want to press this if he thinks that they will come in in any case. I do feel, and others feel with me, that this is a matter which ought not to be confined even to the vast majority of authorities; all authorities should see that their tenants are protected.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In those engaging stories which we read in our youth about the steppes of Russia we were informed that the wolves usually pursued travellers for many miles over the steppes; from time to time the travellers hurled out one of their babies in the hope of stopping the wolves. The stories go on to explain that the wolves devoured those small morsels and were encouraged by them to pursue the travellers still more hotly, eventually completely devouring the inhabitants of the sledge. I commend this parable to the Minister, for the more he encourages the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) the faster do the wolves follow and the louder is their baying, and I feel that in the event they will completely devour the hopes we have of completing this Measure in a reasonable time tonight. For our part, we are opposed to this new Clause and feel that if it were accepted it would further slow up the promising progress we have made.
    Mr. Bevan: I also am opposed to this last application of my hon. Friend, and propose to keep my last baby on the sledge.
    Question put, and negatived.
    The Chairman: In view of what the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has just said, I presume he does not desire to move the new Clause standing in his name.
    Mr. Hogg: In default of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I should desire to do so.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(APPLICATIONS BY PROSPECTIVE BUILDER OR LESSORS.)
    (1) Any person applying for a licence to build any premises for letting for use as a dwelling-house may apply to the licensing authority at the same time as his application for licence to build or at any time prior to the first letting of such premises for an Order determining the standard rent of such premises when so let and upon receipt of such application and after hearing any representations made by or on behalf of such applicant the licensing authority shall determine the reasonable rent on the same principles as govern the tribunal under section one of this Act, and such rent when determined shall be the standard rent of such premises and no application shall be made thereafter to the tribunal in respect thereof.
    (2) Where any person has executed or caused to be executed work upon the improvement or conversion of any premises to which the principal Acts apply and to which section one of this Act would apply upon the letting thereof, the person who has executed such work or caused the same to be executed, or any person entitled to let and desirous of letting such premises may apply to the tribunal for an Order determining the standard rent in advance of such letting, and in such event the tribunal shall make an Order determining the reasonable rent, in accordance with the principles set out in section one of this Act, and such rent when so determined shall be the standard rent of the such premises.—[Mr. Hogg.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Minister's kindness in accepting a criticism I made during Second Reading emboldens me to ask whether he cannot see his way to accept this new Clause, to which at any rate some of us on this side of the Committee attach a good deal of importance. In the first place, I hope the Committee will accept my apologies for any inelegancies in drafting the Clause in its two parts. A person who has not the aid of the expert team of draftsmen that the Government can necessarily command, in seeking to draft Amendments, must do so with a grave
    1282
    sense of the obligations of the subject and of his own inadequacy. I shall seek first to explain to the Committee the object which this Clause is designed to achieve, and secondly, discuss the suitability of the machinery with which it is sought to achieve it.
    In the Second Reading Debate the Minister gave me courage to hope that he was not in any way seeking to discourage those who legitimately wanted to engage their money on building premises to let, or indeed in converting premises for the use of those who wish to take them on a lease. He further encouraged me to believe that he was not opposed to their receiving a reasonable return on their money. Indeed, he led the House to think—and I believe that he sincerely means it—that his aim in this Bill was to attack unreasonable arrangements designed to exploit a shortage, and not to discourage those who engaged in legitimate enterprise.
    I suggested on Second Reading that a great deal of uncertainty would be saved if it were open to those who sought to build houses to let, or to convert premises for letting, if they knew in advance what they would be allowed to charge. If they in fact risk their money, spend their money on expensive capital operations, and then fall victim to an attempt by someone going to the tribunal, and perhaps persuading the tribunal to allow a less sum than affords a reasonable return on the money, that would be a discouragement of legitimate enterprise. My object has been to see to it that those who seek to embark their money on legitimate projects of this kind should know in advance what a proper return on the money is thought to be, and once that is found and determined by the appropriate authority it could not be further questioned.
    I think we are all concerned as to what should be the appropriate authority if that principle is accepted. My own view is that in the case of new premises the appropriate authority should be the licensing authority, and I will tell the Committee why. A builder who seeks a licence to build ordinarily has to provide plans and specifications of the house he proposes to build to let, which ordinarily includes a statement of the rent he proposes to charge. If he does not provide those particulars, he does not get his

    1283
    licence. If he does provide those particulars, and if the licensing authority comes to the conclusion that the rent which he is proposing to charge is a reasonable one, prima facie it ought not to be possible to question that further, and he ought not to make a second application to the tribunal. In other words, the builder ought to get a licence to charge the sum which the authority giving him the licence to build allows him to charge in obtaining the licence to build.
    The second Subsection deals with conversion.
    I think it would have been legitimate, and it might even be considered better, to have applied the same considerations to that Subsection. I have not, in fact, done so, but I have instead allowed the person seeking to convert to go to the tribunal. My view is that there is something to be said for that difference because in the case of conversions there is not the same guarantee that the premises when converted will actually be let as in the case of new buildings. But I will say "Thank you" to the Minister if he will accept my objective, which is to give certainty in advance of what a reasonable rent will be, although I am not wedded to the particular machinery I have chosen in these two Subsections.
    I do not wish to prolong my speech. In fact, in my present state of health I do not think I could physically do so. I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration both to the objective behind this new Clause and the machinery with which we seek to carry it out.
    Mr. Bevan: I hope it will be possible to shorten the discussion on this new Clause. I admit at once that this is a point of substance. In fact, hon. Members will recall that I mentioned this matter on Second Reading. This, however, is not the appropriate Bill for this purpose. Under Section 7 of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, as the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has already said, the local authority agrees a maximum rent for a new house which they licence. That point is already covered by that Act.
    Where, however, it is an adaptation or a conversion, that is not the case, and as I understand it the desire of the hon.
    1284
    Member for Oxford is to try to secure that adaptations and conversions should be facilitated by giving those who wish to make them an idea of the profitability of their undertakings by fixing the rent. It is a desirable objective, but this is not the place where it can appropriately be secured, because this Bill does not deal with the provision of accommodation but rather with the fixation of rents. Very shortly, however, there is to be brought before the House, in fulfilment of the statement made in the Gracious Speech, a Measure dealing with reconditioning, and this point will be assimilated in that Bill when it is brought forward. I give the undertaking now that it will be regarded then.
    Colonel Dower: I should like to say how much we welcome the friendly way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met this new Clause. He realises that it is a point of substance and that if conversions are to be encouraged, as we want to see them encouraged, then this is one of the first and best ways of giving encouragement. I have not been entirely idle in this particular activity, and I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when this new Measure comes under his examination he should bear in mind that there are two most urgent things to be considered before anyone gets down to the very hard work of converting a large house into four flats.
    First, admittedly, is the question of the standard rent, because the person concerned will want to know beforehand what the expenses and returns are likely to be. Secondly, there is the point that assessments are altered as soon as the project is completed, and I hope that the Minister, when he examines this important subject, will remember that before anyone gets down to business and spends several thousands of pounds in alterations, a great deal of hard work has to be done—all the licences have to be dealt with, the plans, the builders and all sorts of other paraphernalia. The person concerned wants to know how the assessment will be altered.
    That is very important. The person is not questioning what it should be, but he wants to know—and at present no one knows—what will come under the Rent Restrictions Acts and what will not. One day something comes under the Acts and

    1285
    the next day it comes out, according to how the assessments are altered. It does lead to a tremendous amount of confusion. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this confusion prevents people from getting on with the work. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he brings forward his proposal, to meet these two considerations which discourage enterprise and conversion. People want to know what the assessment is going to be and what would be a fair standard rent to charge.
    Sir Ian Fraser: The Minister's conciliatory speech seemed to me to be satisfactory so far as the second part of this new Clause is concerned, for he indicated that he would consider the point of substance that has been made about conversions or adaptations. It was not clear to me, however, whether the statement was satisfactory in regard to the first part. He admitted that where application was made for a licence to build a new dwelling the price, including the rent, was before the licensing authority at the time when the licence was given. He half implied that that meant that the builder might take that to be the rent without further question, but he did not say so. Could he make it clear whether such a rent, having been approved, might subsequently be challenged in the courts proposed to be set up under this Measure?
    Mr. Bevan: I think it is quite clear—and has, indeed, been made clear on a previous occasion—that those properties cannot be challenged. The maximum rents would have been fixed by the local authority when the licence was given. What we are dealing with here, as hon. Members will recollect, is new houses built to let. There are not very many of them, for obvious reasons. Most of them are built for private ownership. Where the builder wishes to build a house for letting, the conditions of rental are attached to the licence. That is covered by existing Statutes. That is not a standard rent for the purposes of the principal Acts, and therefore cannot be taken to the tribunal. In dealing with reconditioning and conversions, which are outside this Bill, because the Bill is not for the provision of accommodation, I have undertaken to consider the point in succeeding legislation.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of the interesting observation made by the Minister that he was about to bring forward legislation, and that he would have regard to the principle of this new Clause, I think it may be possible for my hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion. I think it is true that, as a rule, one does not withdraw a new Clause on promise of consideration in subsequent legislation, but only on promise of consideration in the Measure itself. However, the Minister indicates that he expects his new Bill to come forward at an early date.
    I wonder whether it would be possible for him to give any indication when he expects to be able to produce that new legislation. Will it be before Easter, or after Easter? I am sure it would be of assistance to those who, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) said, are anxious to get on with the job if they could look forward to some period during the present building season when it would be possible to obtain such a ruling as my hon. Friends have desired. Could the right hon. Gentleman give an indication that during the coming building weather such a ruling will be given? I am sure that if we were given such an indication, my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw the Motion.
    Mr. Bevan: I am not master of the timetable of the House, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, and such a question in the ordinary way would be put to the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister, as the case may be. It is not for me to determine the time when Bills will be introduced; but I imagine it will be introduced before long. As to whether it will be a suitable means of getting building done this year will depend upon the facilities given for it to be put into law. Once Bills are introduced, of course, Ministers are only too anxious to get them on to the Statute Book, and I should welcome the cooperation of the Opposition in getting this Bill into law as soon as possible. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it ought not to be many weeks before the Bill is in the Vote Office. I should have thought a few weeks at the outside.
    10.30 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Minister will agree that the introduction

    1287
    and circulation of a Bill is much more in the hands of the Minister than the time at which it will either be submitted or passed through the House. The Minister has extensive powers with regard to the circulation of a Bill. I think that, with his suggestion of a few weeks, it would be possible for people interested to know where they stand. We are no more willing than the Minister to buy a pig in a poke. I understand that the pig in a suitable poke will be submitted at an early time, and as soon as the poke is slit and the pig taken out, we will be glad to give the Minister our opinion of its suitability for baking. We are assured by the Minister that it will be brought to market within a few weeks. I think my hon. Friends will find that not unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Hogg: I do not know what my right hon. and gallant Friend meant about pigs in pokes. If the Minister shows the same consideration to the Opposition as he has done on this new Clause, I can assure him that he will not find difficulty to any of his legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(PROCEDURE AND POWERS OF TRIBUNALS.)
    (1) The procedure of tribunals constituted for the purposes of the Act of 1946 and of section one of this Act shall, subject to such regulations, if any, as may be made in that behalf by the Minister, be such as the tribunal in question may determine, and every such tribunal—

    (a) shall, unless the tribunal otherwise order, at the request of any party to the reference or application and upon being satisfied that the interests of either party would be prejudicially affected, sit in public;

    (b) may take evidence on oath and shall have powers for that purpose to administer oaths;

    (c) may direct that the costs of an application, or such part of the costs as they think fit, shall be paid by the applicant.

    (2) On the hearing of any application—

    (a) the applicant; and

    (b) the landlord or the tenant or lessee of the house or part of a house or dwelling-house, when he is not the person making the reference or the applicant; and

    (c) the local authority when it is not the party making the reference under the Act of 1946,

    1288
    shall be entitled to appear and be heard as parties to the reference or application and to examine any witness before the tribunal and to call witnesses.—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause brings up a question of the greatest importance, and I think it would be wrong for us not to move it. It deals with the procedure and power of tribunals. The whole of this Bill hinges on the one question—the tribunals. We have pleaded with the Minister, unsuccessfully, to define the directions which he wishes given to the tribunals. He has founded himself very strongly upon the reasonableness of the tribunals, and I ask the Committee to consider the proposals which we bring forward to deal with the machinery of this reasonable body. I commend the attention of the Committee particularly to the permissive power given to this body, on whose reasonableness the whole of this legislation rests, to direct
    "that the costs of an application, or such part of the costs as they think fit, shall be paid by the applicant."
    These bodies are taking a more and more important place in our legislative structure. They are now going to be a permanent or quasi-permanent, part of our judicial machinery. I think it is high time that some more detailed code should be given to them than that which they have now; in particular, they should have these powers with regard to costs.
    Mr. Molson: If there had been no cases of applications having been made in a frivolous way and great inconvenience and loss having been inflicted upon a landlord, I should not think we had strong grounds on which to ask for an amendment concerning the powers and constitution of these tribunals. However, I heard of a case the other day which I would like to put to the Minister. This was a case of a flat being let unfurnished. Even gas and electricity were paid for by the tenant, but in spite of that fact, the tenant alleged that it was a furnished flat and that service was provided. Inquiries were made and the landlord said there was no truth in these allegations. In spite of that fact, the tribunal required the landlord to put in an appearance and answer the charges and claims which were made, with the result that the land-

    1289
    lord was obliged, for security's sake, to engage a solicitor and pay the bill of costs. In fact when the case appeared before the rent tribunal, the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction in the case. After that the matter was taken to the County Court and the landlord sought to secure a rent which had not been paid. He obtained an order for that rent, but of course not for the costs incurred in going before the tribunal. As a matter of fact, judgment was given but it was found impossible to enforce it.
    This is an example of how at the present time, with the tribunals constituted as they are, it is possible for frivolous and unsubstantiated claims to be made, claims which are vexatious and unreasonable and for which there is no redress. Under this Bill the scope and powers of these tribunals is to be greatly extended, and I suggest to the Minister that it is extremely desirable that the tribunals should be put on a far more regulated footing than they are at present and that in cases where landlords are taken before them, and where, in fact, the tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no reasonable justification, then the costs should be awarded to the landlord.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: May I briefly support what has been said about the new Clause? I think the Committee will agree that this is the time when it should review the procedure of these rent tribunals. They were set up under the 1946 Act simply to last for two years. I think I am right in saying that at the present time their procedure is regulated solely by the Furnished Houses Regulations, which lay down one or two items of procedure only and leave the rest to the discretion of the tribunal.
    The main new point which appears in the new Clause and is not within the present powers of the tribunal is the power to award costs, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). When the question was raised during the Debates in this House on the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, the Minister swept aside any suggestion of power to award costs in these proceedings by suggesting that the proceedings would be of a personal and domestic character in which the award of such costs would be unnecessary and out of keeping with the main purposes and functions of the Act.
    1290
    As many hon. Members know, that has not been entirely true in practice and some considerable matters are now heard by the tribunals and, a fortiori, will be heard before the tribunals under the extended powers in this Bill. I think it is clear in these circumstances that there should be a power to award costs.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Powers are not given to award costs to the landlord as well, and therefore it seems to me that this is one-sided.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I take it that the reason is that this Clause was drafted before the acceptance of the Amendment which gave the landlord the right to initiate proceedings, and since there is only one party which can initiate proceedings there is a case for restricting costs in this way. Hon. Members may shake their heads as much as they like, but there surely can be no point in allowing an award of costs to a landlord since he, by the very nature of things, could not make a frivolous application—the landlord could not at that time make an application at all. I think there should be this power to award costs, if for no no other reason than to act as a deterrent against those likely to make frivolous applications—that is, frivolous applications by tenants.
    Hon. Members may have within their knowledge a parallel which one finds in the proceedings before licensing authorities under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. In that Act, for some reason, no provision has ever been made in regard to costs and the result is that in many cases applications are made under the Act and people are put to some trouble and expense in opposing applications when they cannot recover their costs even if an applicant does not appear at the hearing. That is something which not infrequently occurs.
    I think there must be some sort of sanction of costs in respect of these matters. So far as that particular Act has been concerned, it has gone on for a long time without any redress having been obtained; and so far as the Housing Act, 1946, is concerned, there would have been this wrong going on for a long time without redress had not the Bill now before the Committee afforded a very welcome opportunity to put the matter right. I suggest, therefore, that

    1291
    it would be shortsighted not to accept the opportunity which is given.
    Mr. Bevan: I think right hon. and hon. Members will agree that we have gone along in an amiable way up to now, but if hon. Members are going to persist in this matter I really must dig my toes in. If I conceded this point, the tribunals would be so formal that a large number of people would be frightened of going to them. We are dealing in the main with people in furnished lettings; some hon. Members think that the new Clause is not applicable to the tribunals, but to the courts of law, but if costs are assigned by the tribunals the fear might be a deterrent to people wishing to appear before the tribunals. I would remind the Committee that Section 2 (6) of the Act of 1946, reads as follows:
    "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Section, a tribunal shall not be required to entertain a reference made otherwise than by the local authority if they are satisfied, having regard to the length of time elapsing since a previous reference made by the same party or to other circumstances, that the reference is frivolous or vexatious."
    10.45 p.m.
    So that the principal Act does attempt to deal with applications of the kind to which reference has been made. It is not always possible for the tribunal to know whether an application is frivolous until the landlord has been summoned to appear. I admit that that is the case; but I cannot accept so heavy an arbitrament, so grandiose an armament, as the assigning of costs to deal with the comparatively rare cases of that sort, a device which would have the effect of making the tribunals practically inaccessible to large numbers of people who might fear the result of going there. With regard to the other part of the new Clause, I think it undesirable so to formalise the procedure as to give these lay tribunals the effect of having in the main the appearance and austerity of a court of law.
    Mr. J. Foster: I will not speak for long. The Minister will probably appreciate, on reading it, that the Clause for the safeguard against frivolous appeals in the 1946 Act applies only as to the length of time which has elapsed.
    Mr. Bevan: And in other circumstances. The words are, "or to other circumstances."
    Mr. Foster: The other circumstances usually do not appear until they have started the inquiry. It is difficult to say whether they are frivolous until the tribunal has heard the case, except for the length of time. The other point is that I think the procedure of these tribunals does differ, and differs sometimes to the disadvantage of the lessee—the poor man. The Minister probably remembers that under the regulations made under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, there are set out in the First Schedule the questions which the tribunal can put to the lessor and the lessee. One of these questions is, What is the financial relationship of the lessor to the house—how much he paid for the house, what the mortgage is?—and so on.
    That information clearly ought to be communicated to the lessee. He cannot judge whether the application is likely to succeed or not, and cannot argue the application unless that vital information on the full standing of the lessor with reference to the house is communicated to the tenant. This is a point which goes to the protection of the tenant, and the right hon. Gentleman has made himself the champion throughout the evening of the tenant. The tribunals differ as to whether they should communicate any information to the tenant at all. I think that shows that some regularity should be introduced into their proceedings. There are other points which my hon Friends have adumbrated.
    The Minister, I think, is saying that this matter is not covered by the new Clause. He will find that it is covered by the regulations which can be made by the Minister. The new Clause says, "subject to such Regulations." The Minister can make regulations under this new Clause with regard to this procedure. It is part of the general argument. Anyone who practises in the courts sees the pathological side of these regulations. When injustice is caused, the people, tenant or landlord are, not unnaturally, very resentful. I do not think the Minister has sufficiently in mind the necessity for curing these cases and yet having an easy tribunal of which people are not frightened. He has not sufficiently in mind the injustices which are often committed. I ask him to bear these things in mind.
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think the Minster can accuse me of taking up an unreasonable attitude. I wonder whether he has given sufficient consideration to this new Clause and to the arguments with which he resisted it. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to three or four points mentioned in the new Clause. The first is that the tribunals should sit in public. My own view is that that is absolutely essential in any tribunal which is to administer public justice, unless there are overriding circumstances, as there sometimes are in cases of domestic disputes and other things, demanding a private sitting. We often hear in the House about justice seeming to be done as well as being done, and my own view is that the only way in which you can ensure that real justice is done, especially if you put your reliance, as the Minister does, upon an informal hearing, is the right of the public, in the shape of persons who wish to hear and in the shape of the Press, to hear proceedings which come before the tribunals of this country. I do not think this is erecting the tribunal into a sort of court of law of which people need be afraid. Here is something which is absolutely essential to the administration of justice, and I wish the Minister would take this point a little more seriously than he has done.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the 1946 Act, regulations already provide for hearing in public in roughly the same terms as this? To this extent it is accepted by the Minister.
    Mr. Hogg: I hope the Minister does accept it, but the way in which he has treated this new Clause does not lead me to think so. The second point is that the tribunal should take evidence on oath. I should like to see it abolished, for it brings religion into contempt and offers no additional safeguard, but one thing it does do, so long as it remains the criterion of formal evidence, is to bring into operation the sanction of the law of perjury. Is the Minister satisfied that a person who puts forward a deliberately false case can be punished as a perjurer if he does so to his own knowledge? I should like to be reassured on this point.
    The third and most controversial point is the question of means. Here I do not
    1294
    go all the way with the Minister. Costs are not necessarily a very large item. They may be as little as five shillings or ten shillings, but that may mean everything to a person who has been compelled to attend a tribunal out of his own time on somebody else's application. I do not think that in ordinary cases there should be an order for costs, but in cases of applications which are, in fact, frivolous, I think the tribunal should have the power to award costs. I know of many instances where the threat to a landlady, who may be a relatively poor old woman, by one of her own class who happened to be her tenant, to bring her before a tribunal, absolutely paralysed her with fear. Although the Minister cannot accuse me of having taken up a hostile attitude to this Bill, I say that there can be, especially in view of the Minister's attitude yesterday, a real burden of oppression in the case of an unscrupulous tenant, bearing in mind that he has nothing to fear by an application of this kind, and can terrorise a person, often of the opposite sex and of inferior economic position, into making concessions which ought never to have been made.
    The third point deals with those who have the right, to appear before these tribunals. I cannot see that anything would be lost by granting that part of this Clause. Perhaps the Minister does so already, or intends to do so, by regulations. These persons have a right to be heard, although they are not immediately parties to the reference. It would not add necessarily to the formality or expense of the proceedings. I attach the greatest importance to matters of this kind. I do not believe it is true that by informalising justice you necessarily improve it. The necessity for the observation of certain fundamental rules in judicial proceedings is an essential means of seeing that justice is carried out. That is the more so in cases like these, where the parties are not usually experienced in conducting argument, and are liable to be swept off their feet by an opponent with a glib tongue or aggressive manner. I wonder whether the Minister has given this matter adequate consideration, and I wish he would give it more.
    Mr. P. Roberts:
    The Minister is afraid that exorbitant costs would frighten a poor man away,

    1295
    but will he consider limiting the amount of costs which can be awarded by the tribunal to 20s., or some sum like that? I am much impressed with the argument that has been put forward by my hon. Friends, and equally by the argument of the Minister that to frighten off a poor man with costs might be detrimental to the intention of the Bill; but surely between the two there can be found a figure which might meet both points of view. I ask the Minister to consider such a suggestion.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to say a word in support of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. The Minister says that this might frighten people from making applications, but applicants who were not bringing forward frivolous and vexatious cases would have nothing to fear. This merely gives a discretionary power to the tribunal to award costs in proper cases. I do not think the fears which the right hon. Gentleman expressed have a solid foundation, and I should like him to say that he will give this matter further consideration. I think he will, if he accepts a Clause to provide for these matters, enabling these tribunals to function more fairly and more equitably, and to give greater satisfaction to all sections of the public who come before them. The tribunals would be strengthened by having this power put into their hands.
    Mr. Bevan: It is evident that the Opposition, having managed to get me to throw out a large number of babies from the sledge on the way to my destination, wish now to take the sledge itself from under me. I really must resist the new Clause, in spite of the persuasive way it has been moved and supported, and I think we might now make a little progress. Hon. Members will admit that we have discussed on several occasions yesterday and today the status of the tribunals, to what extent they should be formalised, and to what extent not. The Clause does not talk about making costs in the event of vexatious claims. It speaks about assigning costs, and powers of that sort give rise to apprehension in
    the minds of people who may come to the tribunal for justice.
    11.0 p.m.
    Moreover, the costs are not against the landlord; the costs are against the applicant. It is true it has been limited, because now the landlord can apply; but in fact in only a very few cases would he apply, and then it would be only where he wanted to make sure of what would be a reasonable rent for his premises and therefore what the value of the premises would be. In most cases under the Clause the costs would be against the applicant who is going to the tribunal for justice. Can hon. Members imagine anything more terrifying in a tribunal of this sort than giving evidence upon oath?
    Mr. P. Roberts: Why should they not tell the truth?
    Mr. Bevan: There is no argument that they do not tell the truth because they are not giving evidence on oath. On many occasions I have accepted what the hon. Member has said, but he has not said it on oath. He normally speaks the truth.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not dealing with my point. I agree in general with what he says about the oath, but where deliberately false evidence is given there should be the sanction of the Perjury Act.
    Mr. Bevan: That is a very strong instrument to use in such a case. I suggest that we do not want it here.
    With regard to the other point, the Act of 1946 gives the right for both parties to be heard. In this Bill it does not give the right for the local authority to be heard. If it is not a party to the proceeding, there is no reason why the local authority should be there at all. I am perfectly prepared to make regulations permitting that in this Bill, although I see no reason why it should be done. I hope, therefore, that we can get on now with the Bill. We have done very well so far.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 85, Noes, 230.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(APPEAL TO COUNTY COURT.)
    (1) Any person (including the local authority) who appeared before a tribunal constituted for the purposes of the Act of 1946 or of Section one of this Act on a reference or an application and is aggrieved by the determination of the tribunal thereon may, within twenty-one days from the date of the determination, appeal to the County Court for the county court district in which the house or part of a house or dwelling-house in question is situated, and the court, after hearing such of the persons who appeared as aforesaid as desire to be heard, may determine what rent is reasonable for that house or part of a house or dwelling-house or the period at the end of which a notice to quit which has been served shall take effect and may give any directions which the tribunal might have given.
    (2) The provisions of the Act of 1946 and of this Act relating to the notification of decisions by a tribunal and to the registration of rents shall apply to a determination by a County Court under this Section.—[Mr. J. Foster.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. J. Foster: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is the last baby which we want the right hon. Gentleman to throw from his sledge. It is one way of keeping the wolves at bay; another way is to read one of the new Clauses of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). The object of this Clause is to allow an appeal to the county court from the decision of the tribunal. We have heard at various stages the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that tribunals should not be formalised and that they should be allowed to wander at will without any specific directions and without bringing their minds to the precise questions at issue.
    I do not know whether it is realised that a tribunal can deliberately or by
    1300
    inadvertence misconstrue the Acts and there is no appeal from it at all. Instances have been known of tribunals completely misconstruing the purpose of the Acts. The only forms of appeal which lie are certiorari mandamus and prohibition. They allow decisions of the tribunal to be quashed by the superior court only if the court had no jurisdiction, or had deliberately refused to hear some case it should have heard, or heard some case it should not have heard. If it only included or excluded evidence, there is no appeal. The sense of injustice which is created, however, in the minds of the tenants or landlords when a tribunal, perhaps innocently, misbehaves in this way is very great. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he will not allow an appeal to the county court, which is an experienced court in these matters and which deals with questions analogous to this, under the Rent Restrictions Act. I ask him to consider whether it should not have a revising jurisdiction over that of the tribunal.
    11.15 p.m.
    The advantage would also be that the tribunals would have to give their reasons, and there is likely to be a feeling of injustice if the tribunals give their decisions without giving any reasons. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot allow an appeal to the county court, either in this form or in some modified form. I feel confident that there is an advantage in allowing an appeal in a restricted number of cases. There would not be a great number of cases where the county court would upset the tribunal on questions of fact; it would do so only if it were convinced that the tribunal misdirected itself so fundamentally that the county court did not

    1301
    consider the proper principles to be applied.
    Mr. Bevan: I am quite honestly astonished that the hon. Member has moved this new Clause, because the effect of it would be to put an end to the tribunals. To give the landlord the right to take the appellant to the county court after having been to the tribunal would murder the tribunal as an effective instrument to do its work. I am astonished that at this stage, after the long discussions on the 1946 Act and today, a Clause should be moved which would destroy the effectiveness of the tribunals as an arbitrator on facts brought before it.
    The county court is no better than a lay tribunal of this sort in assessing the facts. If the matters that the tribunal decides lie outside its jurisdiction, there already is an appeal to the courts, which has been done on several occasions; but where it is a decision about fact the county court ought not to be saddled with the mass of material which might go there. I think it would not go there, because in point of fact the tribunals would have less and less work to do.
    Mr. Foster: What is the Minister's attitude about appeals on points of law, because the provisions do not cover points of law except in a very few cases.
    Mr. Bevan: Once we allow appeals against the tribunals on points of law. Members in all parts of the House know that a forest of litigation would start at once and the tribunals would be lost in it. It is intended that these tribunals should be simple tribunals, arbitrating about matters of immediate and particular fact in the relations between families in a variety of different circumstances. I take the view that they are far more effective tribunals for this purpose than the county courts. We might as well go straight to the county court as to have an appeal to them on questions of fact. Exactly the same evidence would be regurgitated before the county court as was already heard by the tribunal. I must resist this new Clause because its effect would be to destroy the tribunals. If, after all this time, Members want to destroy the tribunals, they should really say it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I thought the Minister might perhaps have conceded a little more to us in view of the Explan-
    1302
    atory Memorandum to his own Bill, which indicates that this is something very different from 1946. It is his own Memorandum that says that, as a result of the passing of this Measure, the number of cases to be dealt with by the tribunals is expected to be doubled—28,000 cases a year. I think the Minister under-estimated the number of divergences that may easily arise, and are almost bound to arise, when this number of cases in all parts of the country is being considered by these purely lay tribunals. After all, in the case of the valuation courts, which are also lay courts under the Local Government Act, appeals are granted to the county courts. I think it is a philosophical problem with which the Minister is well acquainted that the difference in numbers brings about a difference in kind. These tribunals will be permanent courts dealing with from 20,000 to 30,000 cases and not temporary courts dealing with matters of furnished lettings. It is not possible to retain these tribunals outside the main legal stream of the country. We wish to come to a decision as rapidly as possible, but we are bound to put these points before the Minister. This is not a wrecking Clause, but is designed to see that a piece of machinery which is being set up cannot be divorced from the judicial system of the country.
    Sir I. Fraser: The Minister said the result of allowing appeals on points of law would be to provide a whole forest of cases. There is an exact analogy that will be familiar to him, namely, that of the appeal tribunals set up to deal with war pensioners' claims. The whole feeling on all sides of the House when these tribunals were set up was that they should be homely affairs, not particularly formal and not necessarily legalistic or following procedure in any well-defined form, but friendly tribunals to which men could come with confidence and get fair judgment. Fortunately, there is an appeal on points of law. Here is a situation where between 30,000 and 50,000 cases go to the tribunals and only a few score of cases go to appeal on points of law. Moreover, there is a value in allowing cases to go to appeal on points of law because one can get a directive from the superior court which comes to the tribunals and can assist in bringing about uniformity of judgment throughout the

    1303
    country. The Minister is misinformed in thinking that to allow appeals to go to the courts would lessen the value of the tribunals. On the contrary, it would make them more useful.
    Mr. Asterley Jones: I hope that the Minister has not said the last word on this matter. Clearly the new Clause is a little wide, but it is very unjust if there is to be, as there has been, no appeal when a tribunal has made a mistake on a point of law. May I suggest that he looks at the procedure which is adopted in appealing from a magistrate's court? It is a very cheap procedure and is by way of case stated, when all the facts have to be agreed and it is left to the superior court to say what is the law to be applied.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I agree with what has been said about the Clause being too wide, but I think there is no doubt that some provision should be made for appeals. There is a method of appeal, that of certiorari, but I do not suppose the Minister would pretend it is a cheap and easy method of correcting errors in the tribunals. There was no provision for appeal in the 1946 Act, but there should have been. Even if that were not so, the extension of the powers of the tribunals under this Bill would make it desirable for an appeal to be possible in the cases referred to by my hon. Friend in the future working of the tribunals. May I quote a short passage from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in one of the cases to which I have referred as coming from the divisional court? It is:
    "We cannot but think that if Parliament had intended by the 1946 Act to authorise tribunals set up thereunder in their discretion and by their unappealable decision to reduce the standard rent and over-ride the permitted increase, they would have expressed that intention in clear and definite terms; and it is supposed that, moreover, they would have provided that one member at least of each tribunal would have been a person having legal qualifications."
    In these circumstances, it is clear, on that very high authority, that there should be a provision for appeal. Finally, may I say that I am told that on one occasion, the Attorney-General said it was possible to see how well these tribunals had
    1304
    worked by reason of the fact that there had not been one single case of appeal from their decisions. If it had been possible for there to have been an appeal, he could hardly have made that so plain, because I feel that there would have been a number of appeals; although not the forest of appeals which has been suggested by the Minister. I suggest that we should pay some attention to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). The Committee must agree that nobody would contemplate the abolition of appeals in the case of Service pension awards. Why, therefore, should appeals not be initiated in the case of the rent tribunals?
    Mr. Marlowe: As so often happens, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to address his mind to the point. First, he said there was no appeal provided in the 1946 Act. That is true, but it created no precedent at all because this new piece of legislation is framed to meet an entirely different situation. Even if it were a precedent, we should be in a poor way if we were certain that we should have to spend the rest of our lives bearing the follies of the right hon. Gentleman over the last few years.
    Secondly, we are told that if appeals are allowed the courts would be cluttered up with appeals. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman must have a very poor opinion of the tribunals if he thinks that they do their work so inadequately that the courts will be crowded out with appeals. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he did not like lawyers, and that is hardly surprising. He is shrewd enought to know that a court of law does not easily tolerate the kind of rhetoric he believes in—the kind of rhetoric which believes in destroying the case of one's opponent when it has not been made. Furthermore, he is engaged in a course of undermining justice in this country and substituting "people's courts."
    11.30 p.m.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 194.

    Division No. 64.]

    AYES

    [11.5 pm.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Bower, N.

    Challen, C.

    Birch, Nigel

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

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

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

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

    Boothby, R.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Bossom, A. C.

    Byers, Frank

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Darling, Sir W Y.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Roberts, H (Handsworth)

    Digby, S. W

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Roberts, P G. (Ecclesall)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Low, A. R W

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lucas, Major Sir J

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Drewe, C.

    McCallum, Maj. D

    Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    McFarlane, C. S

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)

    Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Gage, C.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D, (Pollok)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Marlowe, A. A. H

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Marsden, Capt A.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

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

    Medlicott, Brigadier F

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Mellor, Sir J

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

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

    Howard, Hon. A

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Major Conant and

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Osborne, C.

    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Logan, D. G.

    Albu, A. H.

    Farthing, W. J

    Longden, F.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

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

    McAdam, W.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Follick, M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Foot, M. M.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McKinlay, A. S

    Bacon, Miss A

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

    McLeavy, F.

    Baird, J.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Balfour, A

    Gibbins, J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Barstow, P. G

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)

    Barton, C.

    Gilzean, A.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Beswick, F

    Grey, C. F.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Grierson, E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bing, G. H. C

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Binns, J

    Guy, W. H.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Blenkinsop, A

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Boardman, H.

    Hale, Leslie

    Monslow, W.

    Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pt. Exch'ge)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Moody, A. S.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col, R

    Morley, R

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

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

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

    Harrison, J.

    Moyle, A.

    Burden, T. W.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Murray, J. D.

    Burke, W. A.

    Haworth, J.

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

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

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Carmichael, James

    Hobson, C. R

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

    Castle, Mrs. B. A,

    Holman, P.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

    Champion, A. J.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Horabin, T. L

    Paget, R. T.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hoy, J.

    Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hubbard, T.

    palmer, A. M. F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Collindridge, F.

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

    Parker, J

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Parkin, B. T.

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

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Cove, W. G.

    Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

    Pearson, A.

    Crawley, A.

    Janner, B.

    Peart, T. F.

    Cullen, Miss

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

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Johnston, Douglas

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    price, M. Philips

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Keenan, W.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Deer, G.

    Kenyon, C

    Proctor, W. T.

    Delargy, H. J.

    King, E. M.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Diamond, J.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Randall, H. E

    Dodds, N. N

    Kinley, J.

    Ranger, J.

    Donovan, T.

    Lang, G.

    Rankin, J.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lavers, S.

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Rhodes, H.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Ewart, R.

    Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

    Royle, C.

    1298

    1299

    Sargood, R.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Scollan, T.

    Swingler, S

    West, D. G.

    Segal, Dr. S

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Symonds, A. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Sharp, Granville

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Shurmer, P.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Timmons, J.

    Willis, E.

    Skinnard, F. W

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Woods, G. S.

    Snow, J. W

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Yates, V. f.

    Sorensen, R. W

    Warbey, W. N.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Watkins, T. E.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Watson, W. M.

    Steele, T.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Bowden.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Division No. 65.]

    AYES

    [11.33 p.m.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Gammans, L. D.

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

    Birch, Nigel

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

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

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

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Boothby, R.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Osborne, C.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Bower, N.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Howard, Hon A.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr, J. G.

    Hulchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

    Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Byers, Frank

    Keeling, E. H.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Channon, H.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col M

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

    Low, A. R. W.

    Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

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

    Lucas, Major Sir J.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Vane, W. M. F

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Drewe, C.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Walker-Smith, D

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

    Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)

    Medilcott, Brigadier F.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gage, C.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lorn

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Major Conant and Mr. Digby.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Foot, M. M.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Albu, A. H.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Gibbins, J.

    Marples, A. E

    Awbery, S. S.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mellish, R. J

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Gilzean, A.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Baird, J.

    Gray, C. F.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Balfour, A.

    Grierson, E.

    Monslow, W.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Moody, A. S.

    Barton, C.

    Guy. W. H.

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

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Hale, Leslie

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Beswick, F.

    Hall Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Murray, J. D.

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

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

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

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Binns, J.

    Hardy, E. A.

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby)

    Boardman, H.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

    Hobson, C. R

    Paget, R. T.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Holman, P

    Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hoy, J

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hubbard, T.

    Parker, J.

    Burden, T. W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, M.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Burke, W. A.

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

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

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

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Carmichael, James

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Pearl, T. F.

    Collindridge, F.

    Janner, B.

    Porter, E (Warrington)

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

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

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Price, M. Philips

    Crawley, A.

    Johnston, Douglas

    Pritt, D. N.

    Cullen, Miss

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Pryde, D. J

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Keenan, W.

    Ranger, J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kenyon, C.

    Rankin, J.

    Deer, G.

    King, E. M.

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Rhodes, H.

    Diamond, J.

    Kinley, J.

    Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lang, G

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Donovan, T.

    Lavers, S.

    Royle, C.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Scollan, T.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Logan, D. G.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Longden, F

    Sharp, Granville

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lyne, A. W.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Ewart, R.

    McGhee, H. G

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Fairhurst, F.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Farthing, W. J.

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

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W)

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

    McLeavy, F.

    Snow, J. W.

    Follick, M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    1306

    1307

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Sparks, J. A

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Steele, T.

    Wallace G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Willis, E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Wills, Mrs E. A.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Stubbs, A. E

    Watson, W. M.

    Woods, G. S.

    Swingler, S.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Yatea, V. F.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Weitzman, D.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Symonds, A. L.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Taylor, R. J. (Horpeth)

    West, D. G.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.

    Timmons, J.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    NEW CLAUSE.—(ADDITIONAL DEFINITION OF TENANT UNDER PRINCIPAL ACTS.)
    From the date of the passing of this Act the expression "tenant" as defined in the principal Acts shall also include a widow of a contractual tenant who was residing with him at the time of his death or where the contractual tenant leaves no widow or is a woman such member of the contractual tenant's family so residing as aforesaid as may be decided in default of agreement by the county court:
    Provided that if such widow or any of the aforesaid members of the contractual tenant's family residing with him gives notice in writing to the landlord within twenty-eight days of the date of the death of the contractual tenant that such widow or member of the family does not desire to become the tenant each of such persons who give notice as aforesaid shall not be included in the expression "tenant."—[Mr. Janner.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I do not propose to take very long over this new Clause. I think it should be perfectly obvious that this is an anomaly in the principal Act which ought to be removed. As the position is today, if a statutory tenant dies the widow or some other member of the family, failing agreement settled by the county court, becomes the statutory tenant and continues in that tenancy if that person has been living in the house before. The position with regard to the tenancy where there is a contract, even if it is only a weekly tenancy, is that if the tenant dies while that contract is in existence, the widow has no right at all unless she happens to be the executrix or adminstratrix of the estate, and even then it is doubtful whether the court would permit her to remain a tenant.
    That is an extremely serious thing, because it makes a difference of such a ridiculous nature in regard to two people who are in precisely the same position except for the fact that notice has been given in one case before the tenant dies
    1308
    and in the other case the notice has not been given. These matters have been brought to the courts of justice, and there have been cases in which the judges have come to majority decisions. There have been dissenting judgments. It is obvious that some of the judges believe that a contractual tenant should have the right. I will give the Committee only one case which will show clearly how shocking it is that a system of this nature should prevail. The administrator of the estate of a deceased person had a notice served on him by the landlord. A sister of the deceased had been living in the house for a considerable period, and the court held, by a majority, that the sister was not entitled to remain, and she had to leave the house. If the notice had been given beforehand, all other things being precisely the same, with the sole exception that the Statute would have covered the tenant who was living there, the sister would have been able to remain.
    That position ought not to be allowed to continue. I am not sure the Minister is convinced yet. I am not particular about the wording of the Clause, which may require some alteration. I have merely put it down, in the same form as in one of the Sections of the principal Act—I think 12 (a) or 12 (b)—so that the matter shall be considered. I am quite prepared to have any wording the Minister thinks necessary. There are a large number of people who do not know this position exists, and when misfortune reaches them on the death of the head of the household they find themselves confronted with a situation which they never dreamt existed.
    Mr. Bevan: I must resist this new Clause, because it seems to me wholly inappropriate to try and put in a small amending Bill of this sort a proposal which ought to find its place in a much wider Measure. To try and vary the terms of contract to give the contractual

    1309
    tenant the protection the statutory tenant possesses under the principal Act, appears to me, in the circumstances, to be unnecessary and undesirable. There may be a point here to be dealt with at some time, but this is surely not the time, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press the matter further. I have considered it, and if I agreed to this new Clause there would be no reason why we should not have, by a succession of Amendments, what would amount to a major alteration of the principal Act. It was never intended to use this Bill for that purpose.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, to be reported.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

  PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
  Select Committee to consist of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection;
  Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
  Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions;
  Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them;
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Barnes.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R, J. Taylor.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

TANGANYIKA
  Food Production
  Food Production
  Agricultural Service
  Agricultural Service
SINGAPORE
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Prison Discipline (Whipping)
  Prison Discipline (Whipping)
  WEST INDIES (SUGAR PRICE)
  WEST INDIES (SUGAR PRICE)
  ADEN (POLICE ORDINANCE)
  ADEN (POLICE ORDINANCE)
  MAURITIUS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE)
  MAURITIUS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE)
ROYAL NAVY
  Civil Police, Rosneath
  Civil Police, Rosneath
  Dockyards and Ships (Wilful Damage)
  Dockyards and Ships (Wilful Damage)
  Removal Allowances
  Removal Allowances
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Imported Grain (Storage)
  Imported Grain (Storage)
  Groundnuts Scheme (Housing)
  Groundnuts Scheme (Housing)
  Ministry's Selling Prices
  Ministry's Selling Prices
POST OFFICE
  Parcels Service (Israel)
  Parcels Service (Israel)
  Savings Bank Deposits (Limit)
  Savings Bank Deposits (Limit)
  Sub-Office, Cardiff
  Sub-Office, Cardiff
  Letter Delivery, Brighton
  Letter Delivery, Brighton
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Aircraft Engineering (Dilutee Labour)
  Aircraft Engineering (Dilutee Labour)
  Weekend Passes, Leconfield
  Weekend Passes, Leconfield
  Officers (Retirement)
  Officers (Retirement)
  Aircrew (Promotion and Re-engagement)
  Aircrew (Promotion and Re-engagement)
  Weekly Pay Parades
  Weekly Pay Parades
  Civilian Employees, Singapore
  Civilian Employees, Singapore
CIVIL AVIATION
  Aberdeen—London Service
  Aberdeen—London Service
  Aircraft Maintenance Schedules
  Aircraft Maintenance Schedules
  Liverpool—Cardiff Service
  Liverpool—Cardiff Service
  ARAB REFUGEES
  ARAB REFUGEES
GERMANY
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  Jewish Property
  Jewish Property
  Western Frontiers (Adjustments)
  Western Frontiers (Adjustments)
  JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)
  JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)
  CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (TRIAL)
  CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (TRIAL)
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTION
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTION
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Scots Currency Notes
  Scots Currency Notes
  BUILDING MATERIALS (SUPPLY)
  BUILDING MATERIALS (SUPPLY)
  COURT WELFARE OFFICERS
  COURT WELFARE OFFICERS
  MONOPOLIES COMMISSION (INQUIRIES)
  MONOPOLIES COMMISSION (INQUIRIES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  POLICE POWERS OF SEARCH
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will make a uniform regulation applying to all police forces to allow a policeman to stop and search a person who may be conveying goods which may be reasonably suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained, such regulation at present being in operation in the London area, and in a few other areas in the provinces.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, the circumstances which made necessary the adoption of these powers in London and certain other areas do not exist equally in all parts of the country, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not feel justified in introducing general legislation on the lines suggested.
  LORD CALVERLEY: May I point out that ill-gotten goods may be obtained by a mobile gang? In Manchester, where these powers operate, the police can take reasonable action. In Oldham they have no such powers, while not far away, in Rochdale, they have. Just across the Pennines the people are helpless, and they wonder whether nothing can be done about the poultry "rustlers." Does not the noble and learned Viscount think that a general regulation should be adopted, applying to all the police forces, especially in areas such as Lancashire and Yorkshire?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am doubtful about that proposition. The law, as I think wisely, stacks the cards very much against the prosecution in order to be quite certain that an innocent man is not convicted. If we were to adopt generally the procedure
  856
  which now applies in London or in Manchester, or in various other places by reason of special circumstances, it would, of course, be much easier to proceed against a man; but I do not think that we ought, without exceptional circumstances, to depart from the broad general principle of proven guilt. It is open to any locality to make good their claims for these special powers. I believe the wiser principle is the one that we have adopted for many years—namely, that it should be the responsibility of a locality to prove their case by reason of their peculiar circumstances—rather than to extend the general law in this way.
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the explicit answer he has given, which goes some way, if not all the way, to meet the point.

RENT RESTRICTIONS
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER rose to call attention to the law relating to rent restrictions, to the injustice of refusing any relief to private landlords, while houses belonging to local authorities and statutory corporations are excluded from the operation of these Acts, and to the urgent need for a revision and consolidation of the existing Acts; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is nearly six years since I moved a Motion on these lines in your Lordships' House. It is to me a most unhappy thought that in all that time no real attempt has been made to relieve the great injustice which the Rent Restrictions Acts in their present form impose. I do not propose to deal with this matter except in broad outline, leaving noble Lords who have been good enough to give me their support to fill the gaps. I think it right to say at once that I have the privilege to be the President of a Federation representing small property owners throughout this country, and also of being President of an Association representing the larger property owners in London. My personal stake in this matter, however, is a very small one.
This question of rent restriction is closely related to the question of housing, and cannot be divorced from it. It is a question which I have always felt should

857
be dealt with by means of an all-Party approach, although I fear that this is now impossible. This is clear if one examines two propositions which are the essential tenets of the Socialist faith and which touch the very roots of this matter. The first is that if a tenant has paid rent for a number of years he has paid for the house. I am not suggesting that the Socialist creed is that he has acquired the house; but they say he has paid for it and that the landlord has little or no right in regard to it.
When I was at school (that time goes back, I am afraid, further than in the case of many of your Lordships) we were taught Euclid, in the course of which I learned the process known as reductio ad absurdum—an expression which was applied very often to my own exercises. I think that that is a process which might appropriately be applied to the proposition I have mentioned—the proposition that, by paying rent for a number of years, a tenant has paid for the property. It is not unreasonable to suggest, on that hypothesis, that a man who owes money to his bank has, after paying interest for a number of years, if not discharged the loan at any rate escaped the duty of repaying it; and the bank would not be able to make any upward variation in the interest charge. If the bank had lent at 3 per cent. and borrowed at 4 per cent. they would be in the unhappy position where they themselves would have to hear the loss. I do not think I need detain your Lordships further with a proposition such as that.
The second proposition is a little more specious, but perhaps more startling even than the first. It is this—and it is worthy of some examination: that for eight years landlords have spent nothing on repairs, and that therefore large reserves have accumulated out of which the deferred repairs can now be executed—even if repairs now cost twice or three times as much. This seems a very convenient doctrine. If we accept it, the landlord would but have to postpone indefinitely all repairs to be able to watch the growing reserves this process would create. Of course, such a suggestion is utterly unsound. Repairs can never be deferred, except at loss and risk. I doubt whether any property could be left for eight years, without anything being done to it, without its suffering damage because of the delay. In the case 4 older property it is
858
not a question merely of damage, but one almost of disaster. And when, in the end, it is realised that these deferred repairs must be done, the result is that much additional work must be done, too; and the cost is multiplied again and yet again. I suggest that the second proposition is no more worthy of consideration than the first.
The truth is that under rent restriction as now imposed, one section of the community is called upon to subsidise another. This is not the moment for me to discuss whether subsidies are right or wrong; but surely, if they are to be given they should be met through the broad basis of taxation spread over the whole community, and not by compelling one section of the community—not necessarily more prosperous—to support another. The extent of these subsidies can readily be seen if one looks at the nearest row of council houses. Many of your Lordships know far more about this type of property than I do. These houses, of course, are built with the aid of subsidies provided both out of the Exchequer and out of local rates. In the days before the war, when it was not easy to let a house, the landlord was in fact subsidising his own competitors. I am most anxious, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply will appreciate, not to make any point which I do not feel able fully to support. I accept that it is not an easy thing to assess rent between a council house and a rent-controlled property. I admit that in many cases the council houses are of a different and superior type, but none the less a comparison can be made. It is perfectly clear to anyone that the rent of the council house fixed in 1945, 1946 or 1947, with prices as they then were will be substantially higher than rent charged for the relative accommodation pegged to figures existing twenty, thirty or even forty years ago.
To see this picture in its true colours one must throw a little limelight upon it, but unfortunately not all the local authorities are anxious to receive this added illumination. But, when the limelight is turned upon them and we examine the matter on the basis of the increase in the cost of repairs which they are compelled to meet, we find a rather startling result. I am anxious not to weary your Lordships with statistics or with Statutes, but I should like to give a few short figures,

859
which I have extracted from the Press but which I have not specially selected in any way for this purpose, showing the increases in rent which local authorities have been compelled to make. We find that at Luton the increases range up to 8s. a week; at Weston-super-Mare they range up to 4s. 3d. a week; at Lewisham, 25 per cent.; at Wimbledon, 35 per cent.; at Lambeth the rent is fixed at one-fifth of the family incomes. At Hemel Hempstead, they have not merely increased the rents by 3s. 6d. a week but, in addition, have imposed a "lodger" tax of 2s. a week. Incidentally, a "lodger" includes the married sons and daughters. It seems to me that those who argue that large reserves can be created by not executing repairs are in this matter on the horns of a dilemma from which there can be no escape. For either these local authorities, with every known advantage—a subsidy from the rates, a subsidy from the Exchequer, with new buildings which do not require much maintenance, with rents fixed in regard to current conditions — should have accumulated large reserves, out of which repairs should be possible with no increase; or they are the grossest bunglers for not having done so and should not have any housing problems entrusted to them.
But, of course, the truth is that the local authorities are not to blame. The cost of repairs has risen to such an extent that they are compelled to make these increases. To say that repairs have risen three times is to give a not unreasonable figure. I believe I can substantiate this point, again without inflicting upon your Lordships details or statistics. I can do it quite easily by referring to the Report of the Girdwood Committee, established by the Minister of Health himself, in which it is stated that the cost of building had risen from 9s. per square foot in 1938 to 24s. in 1947. I am well aware that three times nine is rather more than twenty-four, but that is not the end of the story. Since 1947, when the Report was published, there has been a further increase in building wages. There has been a further rise in the cost of raw materials. Even so we have other factors to consider. I think your Lordships will agree with me that relatively it is always more costly to do repairs than to build.
Again, repairs have to be executed as and how it is possible to do them. They are often matters of urgency. The labour may not be highly skilled, the materials may be defective. A guttering of to light a gauge is perhaps employed. Before long, paint flakes off, ceilings crack, gutters leak, and (as many of your Lordships in your own homes, I venture to suggest, have had experience) the whole work has, at great cost, to be done all over again. It is plain that, with repairs so much inflated, the cost of the condition of the rent restricted owner is a most grievous one. As your Lordships know, some of these unhappy people—I hope your Lordships will not take exception to the expression, because I know that many are owners of this type of property—are in the unfortunate position that much of the property is controlled on rents fixed on August 3, 1914, or even earlier.
I am most anxious not to detain your Lordships, but I feel I must give one or two examples of what I have in mind. I am in this fortunate, or unfortunate, position, that I have received, quite unsolicited, a letter from a person of whom I have never heard. It is dated February 11, 1949. It shows how grievous is the position of these people. This woman says that she is a doctor's widow. She passes several observations on the Minister of Health, which I will spare your Lordships! She states that she has had to sell the whole of her war savings amounting to £540 to repair the roof of a rent restricted house. She adds: "I am a doctor's widow with £300 per annum." I am not exaggerating when I say that these people in a financial sense are being exterminated; they are being obliterated; they cannot continue.
May I turn to another example? It is a letter which deals with a less extreme case. It deals with the accounts of working-class houses in the North of England, property which has been rent restricted since the First World War. "It was possible, in spite of that, to accumulate some reserves. At the present moment all reserves have disappeared. They have been replaced by a bank overdraft of £500. The owners of the property have been driven to raise a mortgage to cover the anticipated short-fall. By no means can the owners rid themselves of this burden. A sale is out of the question: no one would purchase because they

861
would be buying an ever-increasing liability." That very accurately refers to the position not of one single owner, but of a carefully-managed estate which, in spite of rent restriction before the war, had managed to accumulate a small reserve.
May I trouble your Lordships with a personal illustration of my own? Mercifully, I do not own much of this property, but I have two cottages. I spent about £70 on them and imagined they were in a perfect state of repair. One of them became vacant; I had it re-examined and it was apparent that I would have to spend £150 on having the roof stripped and re-laid. I hope I am not behind your Lordships in accepting the obligations which circumstances impose, up to the limit of my financial resources, but I have had a most pathetic request from a young married man, begging and imploring me to allow him to live in this house. I wish I could have agreed. I am not putting this before your Lordships purely as a mercenary proposition. I am not saying merely that because of a controlled rent of 4s. and an expenditure of £150 I cannot let this man live there. That, in itself, is bad enough. It is a grievous thing and it shows the nonsense of saying that reserves can be established. But what I do say is that if I let this young man and his wife take possession of this cottage, and charge him any small rent you like, I can never turn him out, and I may well want the cottage for some person of my own choice. That illustrates once more the vicious principle of the unbridled operation of these Acts.
I mentioned in the letter which I quoted that the owners of this little estate would, in the end, have no option but to give the property away for nothing. That, in fact, has now begun to happen in Glasgow, where one thousand houses have been offered free. In Salford I am advised that they are being so offered is hundreds by their owners, and some of your Lordships, I believe, have knowledge that the process is spreading. It may be that the Minister of Health is not greatly concerned at the loss of the life savings of these people, many of whom sprang from the same humble walks of life from which he raised himself. That does not seem to concern him greatly, but even if he turns a blind eye to their financial sufferings, even if he is quite unmoved by their losses, he might at least be moved by the thought
862
that these houses, which once were habitable, are ceasing to be so. These people have not been able to keep them up; and at this very moment—I illustrated it, with your Lordships' indulgence, in my own case—when people are crying out for homes, when young couples are wearing themselves out in the anxious and cruel struggle to find a house, homes are allowed to fall into ruin and decay simply because the owner, who cannot afford to repair them, is denied the right to charge a reasonable rent for them.
I do not suggest, and I never have suggested, that rent restriction at this stage should be repealed, but I do suggest that it is not merely in the interests of one section of the community but very much in the interests of the whole community that this problem should, without delay, be solved. It might well be asked: If the case is a strong one (as I do not think even the noble and learned Viscount who will reply would deny that it is), why are the Government so strongly resisting any relief? They give two reasons. The first is that they cannot deal with this matter piecemeal; that it needs a single comprehensive Act. Secondly, they say that no Parliamentary time for such an Act can be found. I can leave it to your Lordships to decide whether legislative time has been altogether taken up with urgent matters. To turn to the first reason, your Lordships are well aware that not long ago the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act was passed. It is, of course, a perfect example of piecemeal legislation. At the present moment, a Commission is sitting and considering the restriction of rents of office premises, and inquiring into the problems of leasehold premises. Further piecemeal legislation is contemplated there. There are other examples which might strike your Lordships, to which it would not be proper for me to refer to-day. If we are to have this piecemeal legislation, why should it always be directed against the landlord, and why should his interest never be considered?
Your Lordships will remember that when the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act came before your Lordships as a Bill, it proposed the setting up of tribunals which were to have the power to reduce rents but in no circumstances to increase them. By your Lordships'

863
efforts, some minor modifications of that proposition were achieved, but it still remains the law. I have never heard or known of any tribunal in this country—and I have made searching and diligent inquiries—which has ever before been established with its hands fettered in this way. It has been said, I believe, that "Justice is to the weaker side inclined." If we call the tenant the weaker side (and he is not always that) I can only say that the scales have not been inclined; they have been tipped right out of balance. If they had any desire to be just, why did not His Majesty's Government, in the Act to which I have referred, grant relief to the landlord, who not only has rent restricted flats to let but has to carry the increased cost of the services which he provides?
That was a matter which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley (whom I am sure your Lordships will welcome as a participant in this debate), will tell you his Committee recommended should receive immediate attention. But it has been totally ignored, because it helps the landlord but does not help the tenant. We need not explore this matter very far, but let us take one or two other samples. If a tenant of a rent-restricted property is able (and it is not very difficult if he is a nuisance) to persuade his landlord to sell the property on the basis of its rent-restricted value, he can then vacate it and sell it with vacant possession and secure the whole of a not unsubstantial profit for himself. Any comparable transaction by a landlord would be described as an outrage, and no doubt a law would be immediately passed to stop it—and quite rightly, too. Again, a landlord has no power whatever to change his tenants. He may have some very bad tenants, but he cannot change them. The tenant is not in that position. Having obtained a rent-restricted tenancy, if he has any sense, when he feels the sands are running out he recruits a relation and puts that relation in—even a niece has been held to be sufficient. She can take it over and so deny the landlord the chance of possession, and force him to grant a subsidy which he has no wish to extend. The very basis on which this restriction is imposed is unjust, because it means that the more lenient the landlord has been the more severely he is
864
punished. To my mind, injustice, like the refrain of some orchestral piece—permeates every phase and feature of rent restriction as it now stands.
My Lords, the question is whether any solution can be reached. I have said that I am not myself a substantial owner of property. As this is a matter of the greatest moment in my view, I thought it right to ask the Chairmen of the two organisations of which I have the privilege to be President if they would express their considered views so that I might put them before the noble and learned Viscount who will reply. I have their letters here, but I do not think I need detain your Lordships by reading them, because, although in different words, they are much the same. They have both stated that they feel that the minor injustices on which I have touched—and to which other noble Lords will no doubt refer—should receive attention.
In regard to the general principle of rent restriction, they loyally accept it as a necessity in times of housing shortage, but they ask—and I trust that the noble and learned Viscount will not feel that it is an unreasonable request—that as a temporary measure they should be allowed such increase of rent as will enable them to keep their properties in a proper state of repair. Both of them assure me that if that increase were granted they would accept with the greatest readiness a restriction, or give an undertaking that the money so received would be spent on the repairs in question. So there would be no possibility of a landlord putting any money into his own pocket. They feel that they have a case for a greater increase, but they do not ask for it, because they are anxious loyally to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in curbing the tendency to inflation.
I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may feel that these demands—which, after all, are based on justice and are, I hope, moderate and temperate in themselves—can be granted or, at any rate, that some promise can be given that, in the future, they will be far more fairly and fully considered. If the noble and learned Viscount again has to disappoint me, I can only say—if he will not mind my saying it—that I hope political circumstances will relieve me of the obligation of once more bringing this

865
matter before your Lordships. Should those circumstances arise, or in the hope that they may arise, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to express my own personal creed in this matter. My creed is this: that even as the struggle between capital and labour can be happily resolved, so I feel that the conflict between landlord and tenant need not be eternal; it should be possible for them to meet together, each through their own elected representatives, to agree a fair rent for a standard basis of accommodation, and also to curb rapacity and extortion wherever such may exist. It is in this hope that I have spoken and in this spirit that I urge His Majesty's Government not to resist demands which I believe not merely justice but the common interests of the community impel them to accept. I beg to move for Papers.
3.4 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for having raised this very important subject. Following his example, I make a declaration. I declare that I am not a president of even one property association, let alone two. I have no property interest other than the house in which I live. I was surprised that the noble Viscount should have thought it necessary, out of his profound knowledge of the principles of the Socialist Party, to give your Lordships an impression that is quite erroneous—that is, that we believe that by reason of having paid rent for many years we are entitled to the property concerned. As a Socialist of many years standing, I may say that I have never heard that principle enunciated before. I hoped that the subject would be approached from an objective angle, as one which is of great complexity and which has confounded even those members of the public who are entitled to be addressed as "learned." I would not suggest that the members of your Lordships' House who are entitled to be so addressed are confounded by any law, but it is a fact that lawyers generally have been confounded by the complexity of the laws of which we are now speaking. There are times when I, myself, am entitled to be addressed as "learned," but I sometimes suspect that the barristers who so address me—especially the fledglings—expect it to be tacitly understood that the word
866
should be in inverted commas, with a pronounced question mark in brackets immediately after it.
The noble Viscount alleges certain injustices and anomalies, and no one who has studied the subject even cursorily will deny that anomalies and injustices do exist. If we wanted a sort of official confirmation of that, we have only to look at the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to which the noble Viscount has referred. That Report, as your Lordships know, was issued in 1945. As the noble Viscount has said, there is general agreement that restriction and rent control are necessary. No one would advocate the free and unfettered play of the law of supply and demand. That freedom, that divinely inspired freedom (if we are to believe what was said by the leader of the Liberal Party in another place, when he broadcast last Saturday), applied to this particular problem would inflict great hardships on the people, would upset the social and economic life of the country, and might create most serious disorder, if nothing worse. That, however, is accepted, I believe, by everyone in this House.
The noble Viscount asked that there should be some trimming and adapting; that we should endeavour, as it were, to relieve the shoe-pinching that we know is taking place. For my part, and having regard to what the noble Viscount has said—again I emphasise that I am speaking as a Socialist—I find it extremely difficult to understand this discrimination against one class of property holders, while other classes of property owners are allowed to fleece the public to their hearts' content. The other classes of property owner of whom I speak include not only owners of bricks and mortar but also owners of goods and merchandise, who are allowed to exploit us without let or hindrance. But there is, undoubtedly, a class of person who is experiencing hardship under these laws, and that is the class of aged people who, by reason of their thrift, believed they were providing a modest income for the evening of their lives.
Few of us who are consulted from time to time by people with regard to their difficulties have not come across cases of aged people—very often widows—who were entitled to believe before the war that they would at least be able to live

867
free from anxiety in their old age. Instead, they have found that, by reason of the freezing of their income at the normal cash rate of 1939, or earlier, it is extremely difficult for them to live even at the modest standard which they had set for themselves. At the same time—and in fairness this should be noted—the tenants of those houses have, in general, had an increase in wages; they have been able to earn more by reason of the full employment of the time and in many cases the number of wage earners in the family has increased, as it usually does in any period of ten years. So it has to be admitted—and I do so freely—that quite a number of small property owners have real grievances, of which this House should take notice. These grievances, whether they be the grievances mentioned by the noble Viscount in respect of the increased cost of repairs, services and maintenance of larger properties, or grievances felt by these smaller owners, should be looked at and mitigated or removed, if it is possible to do so. That should apply, however the grievances arise. If they arise owing to the operation of precise laws, then I submit that the Legislature that passed those laws should regard it as an elementary duty at least to try to remove these grievances.
But it is wrong to assume that all landlords are suffering hardship—I think the noble Lord would probably grant me that submission. It does not seem long since we were thrilled by the valiant deeds of the men of London. The Battle of London was fought and won. The City of London was left scarred and battered. The devastation and destruction which was caused in the City, to the sight of which those of us who pass it nearly every day are now accustomed, still appals our provincial brethren when they see it for the first time. There must have been great hardship, and even distress, caused to property owners by the damage in the City—which, of course, has its counterpart in other parts of the country. The aggregate loss must be enormous and the provisions of the War Damage Act afford little compensation to the people who have suffered. The owners of property which came through undamaged are enjoying huge profits only because they are more fortunate than their neighbours. The premium scandal,
868
which was the subject of a debate in another place yesterday, did not arise accidentally. It would have been impossible without the operation of the law of supply and demand, which is sacred to the noble Viscount. I do not complain. Under the present system they are entitled to, and the application of the principle of private enterprise demands that they shall, profit by the misfortunes of others. That is the system and anything else would be regarded as utter madness.
But let us examine this. It is within my own knowledge that leases are being negotiated in the City of London to-day which will return to the owners of property, within five years, the whole cost of the property. Some millions of pounds are involved in this. The noble Lord spared your Lordships figures, and quite rightly, and I will merely say that I have chapter and verse for what I am now saying. I can say, quite plainly, that individuals, let alone associations such as that for which the noble Lord speaks, will be able to cash in to the extent of £1,000,000, or more than £1,000,000, on the present situation as it exists in the City. But this is not confined to the City of London. Only yesterday I was concerned in the renewal of a lease in the West End, in which the undertaking with which I am concerned is being asked to pay 26s. a foot against a price of 17s. a foot which is now being paid—an increase of 50 per cent. We may be told, and I rather suspect we shall, that it is not possible by law to ensure that there shall be no anomalies and injustices arising out of those laws; but it seems to me, a layman in these matters, that it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme to prevent huge fortunes being made out of a war which has inflicted such great loss on the nation. Some scheme of equalisation should be possible.
From what I have said the House will realise that I am supporting the Motion put down by the noble Viscount. I would welcome a survey of this subject, but not wholly for the same reasons as the noble Viscount. Let us look at the tenant's side of this question. The noble Viscount seemed to suggest that the iniquities were all on the side of the tenant. I hope to show the House that there are hardships to those who occupy

869
houses, and, in particular, to the widows and families of those who have been tenants of houses. I hope to go further and show the Government that there is an urgent need for an amendment of the law, and that they should take the opportunity of amending the law while the Bill which is now in another place is passing through that place. Your Lordships will forgive me if I appear to be speaking on elementary matters, but you will know that statutory tenants are protected and that the widows and families of statutory tenants are protected when a tenant dies. But I am not sure that we appreciate that the great mass of weekly tenancies are not statutory tenancies. Nothing has happened to make them statutory tenancies. They were, and still are, contractual tenancies, and the position of the dependants of a contractual tenant is totally different from that of a statutory tenant.
I want the House to be seized of what I regard as the imminence of a concerted move—I think I should be justified in calling it a conspiracy—to defeat the purpose of legislation passed by your Lordships in this matter. The contractual tenancy of which I have spoken forms part of the estate of the deceased person, and on his death it immediately vests in his personal representative or, if he dies intestate, in the Probate Judge, under Section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act. There it stays, vested in the Probate Judge or in the executors, until a grant of administration is taken out and the property is transmitted to the beneficiaries. In this connection an excellent exposition of the law on the matter was given by a Mr. Widgery, barrister at law, in a lecture at the Law Society's Hall on October 27 last. The lecturer appears to have assumed, in my view accurately, that the lawyers present to listen to him were more likely to be consulted by landlords than by tenants.
If your Lordships will permit me to quote his exact words you will then be able to judge for yourselves on that particular point. I have here the notes of the lecture. It seems to me that as members of the Legislature we should appreciate the approach that is being made to this subject by the legal profession at this time. The lecturer said:
"From the landlord's point of view, if he wants to get the tenant out"—
870
not if the tenant wants to remain in, but if the landlord wants to get him out—
"his remedy is to terminate the contractual tenancy before it has become vested in a person residing in the property. If you"—
that is, the lawyers to whom he is lecturing—
"are acting for the landlord and on the death of a contractual tenant you want to determine the tenancy and get the family out altogether, the thing you must aim to do is to determine the contractual tenancy before that tenancy has got itself vested in a person living in the property. If you can do that, nobody claiming under the tenant has any right to the property at all and you can have vacant possession straight away. But you have to be quick."
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I do not wish to handicap the noble Lord in any way, but I would like to point out that when the contractual tenancy is terminated, it becomes a statutory tenancy, and you are back where you started.
LORD KERSHAW: If the noble Viscount will be patient, I propose to quote from two cases which form the basis of this lecture. The lecturer continued:
"If the deceased died intestate you can determine the contractual tenancy while it is vested in the Probate Judge. You do that by a notice to quit, addressed to the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division."
The lecturer goes on to say that by then—which was last October—there had been a flood of these notices sent to the President. He went on:
"If the deceased left a will, then first of all the property goes to the executors, and if you are quick you can terminate the tenancy whilst it is in their hands."
As I said, the lecturer quoted two cases. The first was Thynne v Salmon (1948, 1 King's Bench Division, page 482). In that case the contractual tenant died, leaving two sisters; one had resided with him and one had not—probably a married sister living with her husband. It so happened, quite fortuitously, that the non-resident sister took out letters of administration. The landlord was quick, and gave notice to her to terminate the tenancy; and it was held on appeal that that was in order. The result of it all was that neither of those two sisters was entitled to continue the tenancy.
The second case is a little different. It is the case of Smith v. Mather (1948, 1 All England Reports, page 704). In that case, the tenant, Mrs. Mather, died intestate, and no letters of administration were

871
taken out. The landlord served a notice on the President of the Court. A son and daughter had resided with this good lady from the beginning to her death, and they thought—as perhaps many of us thought—that they were entitled to succeed to that tenancy. But it was a contractual tenancy, and had never been made a statutory tenancy; and it was held by the Court of Appeal that the tenancy had vested in the President, to whom notice to quit had been properly and effectively given. If that is right (and if it is not, I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and all your Lordships, with your customary kindness, will forgive a layman for having gone wrong) then most tenants of small cottage property are in this particular danger. When the father dies, if the landlord is quick he can get the family out, because most people of that calibre do not take out letters of administration, except in cases—as so many of us know—where they have a small deposit, perhaps in the Post Office Savings Bank, which cannot be recovered until letters have been taken out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He is perfectly right in his statements. Those are two decisions of the Court of Appeal. But his last proposition should be qualified by saying that it applies only to a contractual tenancy.
LORD KERSHAW: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I see that I did not make it clear. Most dependants of tenants of cottage property—I use the word "most" deliberately, because my experience is fairly wide amongst that class of person—will not have been given notice to quit, and therefore the contractual tenancy still remains. I think it should be made clear that although the person has continued week by week to pay his rent, and the landlord has not given him notice (because there is no purpose in giving notice if the house is to be let again; the control of rents makes that not worth while), most of the tenants of weekly tenancy properties will be in this particular danger if the breadwinner of the family dies. There would be no purpose in the landlord evicting the tenant for the purpose of re-letting the house;
872
but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster rightly said, the selling value of a house with vacant possession is much greater than the selling value of a house without vacant possession. So we are already beginning to see a flood of these notices going in to the President, and they are sent only if it is intended to sell the property.
That is the point. Having evicted these people, the landlord sells the property for twice, and sometimes for three or four times, the value the property would fetch with the tenant sitting in it. I gather from the noble and learned Viscount that I am not very much off the rails in what I have been saying—but if what I have put before your Lordships to-day with regard to contractual tenants is substantially correct, then I beg the Government seriously to consider putting some Amendment in the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill, which is now on its passage through another place.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Is the noble Lord in order in discussing a matter which is before another place? I carefully avoided all reference to it.
LORD KERSHAW: I have not been long enough in this Chamber, or indeed in the Houses of Parliament, to be able to distinguish readily between what is proper and what is not proper in that sense. But I hope the Government will take the earliest convenient opportunity of amending the law in respect of contractual tenancies, to bring them more into line with the law as it applies to statutory tenancies. I would like them to do that before the scandal and real hardship (which will accrue more and more as the landlords understand their power) becomes a real public mischief.
3.32 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this matter, in that I am the landlord of a few controlled properties in Scotland, though up to date I have not put on any weight as a result of being such a landlord. On the contrary, some years ago, through having to meet a large bill for repairs, I made a loss of £16 on my properties. That being so, I feel that I am fully qualified to be a member of the Labour Party. The question as to whether the Government ought to do anything about rent restriction is almost apostolic in antiquity. The noble

873
Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, deserves the gratitude of many people for his persistence in pursuing this subject, and also for the clear way in which he has over and over again explained the fundamentals of the position. I feel, however, that he, and those who support him in raising this subject, are addressing a brick wall.
I remember that Aristotle used to say that he always liked addressing a brick wall, because it was the one thing that never answered him back. However, I have an idea that the Government are not quite so Aristotlean as that! But we are indeed up against a brick wall. The Lord President of the Council is reported to have said that to revise the rents of 8,000,000 dwellings in this country would raise a fierce and bitter resentment among a large section of the community. I agree with that statement, so far as it goes, but let me put the matter in another way. If a candidate for any political Party were to stand on the platform at a by-election or at the next General Election and say: "I believe in doing justice to landlords and tenants, but the effect of doing such justice will be to increase the rents of 80 per cent. of the dwellings in this country," that candidate would have no chance of receiving the majority of the suffrages of this country.
That is really the crux of the whole matter. I am not a Party politician but I am a psychologist, and I can see deep down into the bosoms of the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord on the Labour Benches; and in those bosoms there is an exquisite admission that they agree with every word which has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster—that they would like to carry out his proposals but do not think it expedient to do so at the present time. Let me make one suggestion, although no doubt it will be regarded with derision by the Government. There are fair-minded people in every political Party, and every fair-minded person knows that the present standard rents are far too low. May I suggest that the Government should convene an all-Party conference so that we try to thresh out some general measure which will receive the support of all Parties? If they would do that, when a candidate stands up at the next General Election, and is taunted with having voted in favour of a measure which increased the rent of
874
many houses in this country, he would be able to say: "Well, my colleagues are all in the same boat." However, I have not the remotest expectation that the Government will follow that suggestion.
None the less, the position is a serious one. If no atomic bomb intervenes in the interval, it will, from the numerical point of view, take at least twenty years to make up the leeway in house building. That is to say, from the numerical point of view it will be another twenty years before there are sufficient houses in this country for the population. However, during that twenty years the physical condition of some 8,000,000 controlled houses will be rapidly and visibly deteriorating, owing to the fact that the unfortunate landlords are unable, for financial reasons, to carry out the necessary repairs. That is indeed a very serious position and, therefore, I support the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, in making his appeal to the Government to do something about this matter.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Buck-master for having initiated this debate. I feel that we ought to take every opportunity of discussing this subject, and I hope very much that we may receive a statement on behalf of the Government as to what their policy is to be. I have had the opportunity recently, along with some others, to spend a good deal of time on two Committees who studied all the details of these Acts and tried to advise the Government on them; and while I would not attempt to go into any detail, I would just like to remind your Lordships that some of the real difficulties, hardships, and confusions do not result from any deliberate policy which was behind the Acts when they were passed, but have grown up in the process of time.
The first is the very great difficulty in any case of dispute or doubt in ascertaining what the rent of any house is and by what means it should be ascertained. There are several categories of rent control. The original 1914 Rent Restrictions Act was one. That Act provided for a permitted increase of 40 per cent. over the original rent. Many houses are still controlled by that Act and by all the Acts which have been passed since.

875
Some of the houses which are controlled did not happen to be let at the time of the passing of the original Act, and had not been let for many years; therefore it was necessary to find out what the rent of the house or cottage was when it was last let, which might have been forty, fifty, or sixty years ago. Further, a number of these houses were decontrolled after the Act of 1920, vacant possession giving de-control—a bad system, but it operated. Rent control was the subject of another Act in 1939, which brought under control a whole new series of houses, many of which had been built or let for the first time since the original Act. If we do not insist on consolidation, there will later on be many complications.
In addition to these Rent Restrictions Acts there are other methods of legal control of rents, particularly in rural areas where houses are let under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act; others are let for service occupation, their rents being controlled and decided by the agricultural wages committees under the Agricultural Wages Board rulings. There are also houses which are occupied under what I think are called "service occupation," which means that they are in fact a tenancy: they are let on condition that the occupier works for the employer. I think that that is the definition of most of the houses occupied by employees of railways and other public utilities. The conditions under which the houses are controlled are different. Then there are the local authority houses, which are not subject to any legal control but are subject to a financial or taxation policy control by the Government through the local authorities. These are subsidised by the taxpayer and by the rates, and there have been many opinions as to the desirability or otherwise of including and of further subdividing that latter category. The houses built by housing associations, who under certain definitions of the Housing Act of 1936 have special powers for the receipt of subsidies and for assistance from the rates, are not at present controlled.
Your Lordships will see how formidable this problem is. It is not only the lawyer who must learn all these things by heart; the average man also needs to know something of them, for they are the
876
cause of a good deal of difficulty and misunderstanding to both tenant and landlord. I have said nothing yet as to the different amounts paid in rent for these varying classes of houses. I am speaking now of the legislation and the items which have to be understood and worked out. It is not surprising that there has been an enormous number of decisions in the courts, both on the interpretation of these Acts and on their relationship with each other.
There are further complications in the matter of obtaining possession of houses for one cause or another. That also has changed very considerably through the various Acts. At one time there was the system of getting possession by the house becoming vacant. There is also the question of an owners' right to occupy his house himself in certain conditions, and of the great hardships which that has led to in so many cases. Then there is the parallel of the rural house—the special arrangement under which owners, through the agricultural executive committees, can obtain occupation of a house for the use of an employee. It is all very confusing. There is a further complication in the possession by a tenant of the right to become a statutory tenant. I was not familiar with the cases which were exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, and I am bound to admit that I did not think he was right; but I would not like to make any categorical statement on such a matter. I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to give us a legal interpretation of these principles later in the debate.
A further difficulty arises in this matter, and that is that when a tenancy becomes not contractual but statutory, there are provisions in the Acts whereby certain specified relations of the tenant have a right to it. In fact, I think it is true that since the original control measure in 1914, many cases have occurred in which this kind of tenant has died and his widow, daughter, or son, has succeeded to the statutory tenancy; and I think I am right in saying that when that person dies there is no statutory successor, and the house becomes free. I repeat that that is very illogical. There is the further complication that some of the houses have been re-let at different times from 1914 to 1939, so that a series of dependent statutory tenancies, all overlapping, have

877
grown up. That again, I submit, is one of the complications which we should do well to avoid. There is a further distinction between categories of houses. The earlier Acts up to 1939 permitted increases up to 40 per cent. on the standard rent, to allow for the increased cost of repairs (if the repairs are certified by the local authority not to be satisfactorily carried out that 40 per cent. can be withheld by the tenant) whereas there is no 40 per cent. increase for houses which have come in under the 1939 Act. Some of the 1939 houses have not in fact been vacant since the beginning of the war. It is probably true that in some of these cases there should be a certificate of disrepair—which is a further argument for putting all these Acts together into one. The last Committee of which I was a member made some suggestions on this matter, but I do not want to labour the point.
It is of interest, perhaps, to refer briefly to the broad principles of what we suggested. First of all, we said that, if any sort of improvement or success is to be achieved, there must be one new comprehensive Act to cover the whole subject. That has been said so often and by so many. We said it in our Report as strongly as we felt we were able to. We said that if that was not done, we did not recommend anything at all. I think we said that we had no confidence in any of the other suggestions which we made unless the whole problem was tackled. That is why I have given your Lordships some detail showing that that was the problem in our minds, that we should simplify and consolidate the whole system.
Having done that, we suggested that the problem should be solved in three stages. First, we suggested that there should be a registration of all the rents which were then being paid. They could be disputed at law and, therefore, they could be held to be either too high or too low. As a starting point, we suggested that all the existing rent payments should be registered by local authorities. We would then have what would be called a registered rent, to which should be added rates, if paid by the landlord for the tenant. That would become recoverable rent. We took that as a starting point, that there should be a rent register of what was the rent in each particular case. Then we said: "Let us try to
878
level all these rents so that they are all fair, one house to another, up one side of the street and down the other side." We had cases quoted of houses in the same street, of the same construction and of the same age, attracting rents which varied by an enormous amount—some of 4s. or 6s., still under the original control, and others a matter of 18s. or 20s. They were identical houses, and the difference was due simply to the accident of the historical result of this legislation.
We said: "Let us get these rents equalised in larger areas. They will all be under the same Act, and will all be subject to the same details. We will get them all equalised by means of the tribunals which we propose." We argued as to the number of tribunals which we thought would be necessary for the country, and the various areas which they should cover. We suggested this in view of the experience which had been gained by the furnished rents tribunals in Scotland, which had been in existence for a long time. We had clear evidence that the procedure adopted there had been satisfactory. Since then, that system has been extended to England. From what we learned from these tribunals we thought they could be extended to England, not only as regards furnished rents but also unfurnished rents. We proposed that they should be tribunals to establish values, rather than to decide points of law. We also said that on points of law there should be an appeal to the courts. We did not want the tribunals to act as judges of fact, of what is right or wrong, but simply as assessors of what the property was worth.
I note that this afternoon there has been some discussion or the question of the cost of repairs. With your Lordships' permission, I might refer to the sort of instructions we said should be given to the tribunals in assessing the level of the rents at which they should try to aim. It was quite a long definition, but at the end it said:
"The rents should be decided on purely ordinary terms as to conditions"
and so on, including amongst other things the
"expenditure necessarily entailed on the parties, on the assumption that they are fulfilling their respective obligations under the tenancy agreement as regards property or any other matters, and the general level of the

879
rents in comparable houses in the district which are kept in good repair."
I do not know whether that would be a good definition under which to invest a tribunal with legal power. We certainly intended it to mean that, whoever has the obligation of repairing the house, the rent should be something which would enable the landlord to do so; that it should compare with similar houses in that neighbourhood—"neighbourhood" meaning a fairly large area in which the general level of houses of that kind were kept in good order.
We intended that the outgoings on the house should be met, but we made a further point. This was that, if the outgoings on the house were not used in the right way, and if the house was not kept in repair, we would extend the provisions of the earlier Acts to cover all houses within the Acts. We said that under this new comprehensive Act we would revive the old tradition that the 40 per cent. reduction for repairs should be allowable on a certificate from the local authority. I think that is a material point which has been a little overlooked in some of the arguments which have been used in various places against any possible increase, and indeed in the other arguments as to the use of the money by the landlord if he gets it. That was the second stage: to equalise these rents on the basis that the houses were kept in proper repair, but otherwise to reduce them.
There was a third stage, which we thought might come some three years later. We thought it would take a long time to get all these houses levelled up. Had the Act been passed at the time, this stage would have been starting about now. The third stage would be to appoint a purely technical committee to advise whether or not the actual cost of building a house warranted any further increase. A decision could then be arrived at as to what increase would be made on that score, for the cost of keeping the properties in repair. I much regret that a move has not been made in that direction by now, because I think a lot of that ground would have been covered. Whether or not, when the houses had reached some sort of level, we should find that the increases had been so great during that process as many had anticipated, I do not know. I am in-
880
clined to think that the rents of quite a lot of what I might call the 1939 Act houses would have come down. I think it is true that even more of the pre-1939 houses would have gone up, but I believe the total effect of the movement would not have been anything like so great as the total amount of increase all over the country is widely thought to be. That is only an expression of opinion, based on a recollection that I have of the figures which we were able to obtain for the discussion on this Report.
I think it is material to refer to the cost of repairs and the building of houses. Indeed, some of your Lordships have already done so. To illustrate the difficulties which some people encounter, I would stress that there are a large number of fairly small owners who may be, for instance, well-off retired people, who perhaps have a small amount of capital invested in one or two houses. This is an important point, as there are a great many of these people, and they have no resources upon which to come and go. Figures were published, I think, in the White Paper on National Economic Resources, published in November, 1948, which showed that the national income and expenditure could be divided into various categories. One set showed that the increase in rents paid throughout the country was very slight—an increase of about 15 to 20 per cent. Deducting from that the increases in rates, which were included, and the increased cost of local authority houses due to the rising of rents, an estimation was made that probably the rents of one sort or another of non-local authority houses have gone up since 1939 by something like 5 to 10 per cent. The statement has been made in another place, however (I think by one of the members of the Government), that the purchasing value of the pound is something like 38 per cent. of what is was in 1914 as compared with 64 per cent. in 1939. That shows a very considerable drop in the relationship between the two, and indicates that the percentage of personal income which is used up in rent by any family is very much less than it was.
There are, of course, the well-known facts about the increase in the cost of building materials. In 1945, when our Committee was busy, we had evidence to show that the costs of building had

881
gone up by something like 75 per cent. since before the war. We thought that was quite a lot in those days, but it is a great deal more now. It may not be three times as much, but I think it is something very near it. Apart from the question of local authorities raising the rents of their houses built before the war, as they are entitled to do, not coming within the Rent Restrictions Acts, it is common knowledge that they have been forced to ask for very much higher rents for the houses they have built since the war ceased, because of the increase in costs and prices of all kinds—and this is so, even with a subsidy. Local authority houses are admittedly of a higher standard than they used to be, and including the rate contribution the rents of new council houses often range from 12s. to 15s., whereas the houses which were built before the war were let for something like 5s. to 6s. It is interesting to me to remember that many people, including one or two members of our Committee, suggested that local authority houses should come within the Acts. Had they been so included, what would have happened to the housing accounts? What would have happened to the Exchequer subsidy which local authorities received, if they had not been able to increase the rents to meet the extra costs of building?
I hope it can be generally agreed that a new and a complete Act is needed, and I regret that the Government have not taken any steps in the matter. There were two members of the present Government sitting on the Committee of which I was Chairman, and we were entirely agreed on our main recommendations on the general policy which I have outlined. One or two members made reservations on important but minor points. I feel it is not quite right to say that there is no Parliamentary time for a comprehensive measure, when we think of the Parliamentary time that has been spent on many other matters, not all of which are quite so near the lives of so many people at the present time. I would have liked to see this matter tackled seriously some time ago. It was a good comment that our proposed system of tribunals would have been difficult administratively, and that it would have been difficult to set up enough of them to cover the whole area, to provide them with offices, staff,
882
organisation, and so on. But, again, we have the lesson of the legislation which has been passed during the last three years and which has involved the setting up of a great many more and a great deal larger administrative bodies than is here contemplated. I refer particularly to those organisations which have been evolved in the nationalisation of different industries, and under the Town and Country Planning Act and so on. A great deal of Government administration has been successfully launched on its way—much larger than anything we proposed—and therefore I feel that the remark about administrative difficulties is not really a valid argument.
I feel that the effects of these Acts, if allowed to go on in their present state of confusion and almost chaos, rather than being of assistance in the housing situation will tend to make it more and more difficult. In many cases people get into a house and will not move because they have certain rights in it. Probably the general housing pool would be far better served by more elderly people, whose children have grown up, moving into a smaller house; but there is a very natural tendency not to do that if they can help it. That is only one example. There are plenty of minor troubles and adjustments of that sort which could so easily be met and which in the majority of cases are uncontroversial. The only controversial point which has arisen is as to what should be the proper level of rent increase, if any, to meet the cost of repairs. All these other things are matters of argument and of a different viewpoint. They are matters of policy which have nothing really vital and controversial about them, and if they were attended to it would do much to simplify and make easier the lives of many ordinary people. I hope very much that the noble and learned Viscount, when he comes to reply, will give us some indication of the Government's intention to make a real attempt to sort out these complicated pieces of legislation.
4.7 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I am sure many of your Lordships have been extremely interested to hear what my noble friend, Lord Ridley, said on some of the points raised in the Report of his Committee, and I, too, hope that the

883
noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will give some indication of what the Government's line will be on that Report. It is quite useless to say that the Government cannot set up rent tribunals. They have in the last four years set up all over the country every sort of board, much larger than any rent tribunals could possibly be. Therefore, the statement that rent tribunals cannot be set up, when this mass of boards have been established, carries no conviction. Many of your Lordships will have noticed with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, referred to elderly people who were not able to live on the proceeds of their pre-war rents. I think he said that the cost of living had made it impossible for them to do so. Well, the Minister of Health has said that during the war years, when taxation was as high as it is now, if not higher, owners could have built up reserves out of which to repair their properties. The Minister of Health has said that these people, the owners of property, can build up reserves, but the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, says that they are not able to live on their small pre-war rents. Obviously, there is a discrepancy between those two remarks, and I think your Lordships will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, in preference to accepting the quite ridiculous remark made by the Minister of Health.
But I should like for a few moments to approach this subject from another point of view—namely, from the point of view of the occupier. We have heard with interest and conviction—which I am sure the speeches have carried—of the great anomalies and difficulties facing owners in maintaining their properties. Nobody has spoken of improving them, but simply of maintaining them. But may we for a few moments look at the matter from the point of view of the occupier?—the occupiers of these countless thousands of houses which are now deteriorating day by day.
To give your Lordships an illustration of the size of the problem, I would refer to the Report on British households which was issued by the Ministry of Information in 1947. In this Report, it was stated that 13 per cent. of all British households live in local authority houses, while 70 per cent. of such households live
884
as rent-paying persons in houses rented not from local authorities but from other sources. That indicates the enormous extent of this problem. We have 70 per cent. of British households living in rented houses, not let by local authorities, and to-day, of course, it is of these houses that we are particularly speaking. The position seems to be that the occupiers, the ordinary families, in many cases to-day are living in extremely sub-standard houses. What is more, we have been told that they are likely to continue doing so for the next twenty years. Lord Meston, I think, referred to a building programme of twenty years, which means that it will take twenty years to carry out the rebuilding and provision of new houses needed in England. For twenty years these families will continue to live in these sub-standard houses with, under present legislation, small hope of their being improved and precious little hope even of their being properly repaired.
That, I think, will impress your Lordships with the importance of this problem. One would have thought it would appeal to the present Government, because this is a social problem of very great magnitude. Debates in your Lordships' House during the last six months have on more than one occasion related to the deplorable effect on family life of people having to live under these miserable housing conditions. I believe that it is undoubtedly the cause of much of the crime which is dealt with in the law courts to-day, and I am convinced that all the free education and social services now provided will do little to ameliorate the state of those families during the years in which they have to live in these houses which are going from bad to worse. I would ask the Government, most earnestly, whether they do not feel strong enough to make at least some move in this matter. It is not necessary to increase rents in order to help to improve housing conditions. There are many other financial methods of attaining that end. It would be possible substantially to increase the repairs allowance, for example; and, of many methods, that, to my mind, is probably one of the best ways of dealing with this question, because it is important that any additional money which becomes available to the house owner, shall be ex-

885
pended on repairs and improvements. That was a point which was very clearly made by the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master, in his opening speech.
Another method which could be employed would be an extension of the method provided for, I think, in the Finance Act of 1943 or that of 1942, whereby a considerable rebate of income tax is payable on all improvements to agricultural buildings. It is a fact that in this country to-day it is financially easier to provide improved accommodation for cows, under the operation of various agricultural grants and provisions of the Finance Act, than to improve living conditions for human families. That is well known to almost all members of your Lordships' House who take an interest in these matters. The two methods which I have mentioned would avoid any suspicion of an increase in rent—not that, as at present restricted, all rents are on a reasonable level; they are not. I am convinced, and no doubt many of your Lordships are also aware of this, that in many working-class houses today sums amounting in the aggregate to £20 and £30 a week are being taken in by members of the household. A rent of 2s. 6d., 3s. or 4s. a week is positively derisory when compared with the gross family income of such households. Therefore, I am quite certain that in many instances rents are too low when compared with the wages coming into the houses.
The proof of this can readily be demonstrated, I think your Lordships will agree, if you consider the millions that are being spent every year on football pools, dog racing, horse racing and cinemas and, indeed, on all the quite unessential things of life. Rent, in many instances, accounts for only a tiny proportion of the total family expenditure in the case of families living in rent-controlled houses. So I think that if this problem is regarded as a social problem, if the question to which attention is devoted is how to improve in a reasonable manner the miserable living conditions of many families, it becomes impossible to understand why the Government will take no effective action. The suspicion therefore remains that it is for purely political reasons that they will not take action.
4.18 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will read five or six lines from the Ridley Report, paragraph 78:
"We think it is true to say that except for a year or two before this war, and in some parts of the country not even then, there has been no free market for housing within the controlled limits since 1914. There were always more would-be tenants than houses available, and so rents of uncontrolled houses were maintained at a high level."
The interests of the community are served by cheap and abundant supplies of the things that are wanted. When we do not get cheap and abundant supplies, what do we do? In war, when victory is dear and scarce, we look to the generals. In peace, when coal is scarce and dear, we turn our attention to the Coal Board. When we do not get cheap and abundant houses, we have to decide what to do. I think it would be fair to say that every Government since 1914 has had a finger in this unholy pie, so we reluctantly turn from the first objective, the Minister of Health, and consider the system he has inherited. Surely, there can be no greater indictment of the folly of control over all these years than the words I have read from the Ridley Report. We have played fast and loose with the law of supply and demand and, of course, we have reaped our fair and just reward. In thirty-five years we have not had cheap and abundant housing, and the conditions with which the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, wrung our withers is entirely clue to that fact.
What is it that we really want? Surely we want a complete freedom of consumer choice. We desire that the consumer should be able to buy or rent a house to suit his taste, in a place convenient to him at a price within his means; and if his means are not sufficient we, as a community, have to see that they are sufficient. At the same time, we want competition to supply these amenities, but that competition should not be so intense that the stream of supply is frozen. It would be hard to find a situation further from that ideal than that which we have achieved at present. In fact, the housing conditions of Moscow, where control is complete, would seem to be only one degree further removed from the ideal. The measures of control have resulted in a system

887
whereby nobody would dream of supplying a house to let to weekly tenants except as a means of obtaining their services for himself. It is left entirely to the public authorities to supply this need and to the extent they supply the need, the burden on our finances is the greater. There is no incentive to supply the need. I assume we agree that the long-term ideal of a free market is what we really want. I submit that our only chance of wiping off this fearful reproach that I have read from the Ridley Report is gradually to undo the whole system of controls.
Ultimately the price of accommodation must hear some relation to the replacement cost, and must not be based on historic value, as at present. Until this is done, we shall never get away from the enormous disparities of rent which exist at present for equal or similar properties and which by themselves create such a great fixed interest in controls. The process of adjustment will be a difficult one, but as a community we have to face it. Once the new principle is accepted, houses to let will begin to attract private savings, which to-day are ceaselessly looking for outlets which are reasonably secure and which can safeguard the investors against depreciation of the value of money—as in fact they did before the First Great War. We should then expect to find that the amenities supplied varied according to the rent. What an excellent thing in a system which is always searching for incentives!
Moreover, when the supply was created, we should perhaps get somewhere near that mobility of labour which is the ideal of the economist but which has so far been an idle dream. At the moment, everyone who has a house rented at a cheap rent has a fixed interest in staying where he is. There is no inducement to change his job, because the improvement may well be wiped out by the loss of his fixed interest in a cheap house. Of course, even in a free market, we should probably have to have some protection for the sitting tenant, because he is always more squeezable than the landlord. Nevertheless, it would not require the present enormous apparatus.
Did the Ridley Committee agree that this is the kind of ideal we should aim
888
at, and what means did they suggest? In 1945 they recommended that it should be assumed that rent control would be necessary for ten years—that is, up to 1955—but that there might be a partial decontrol in the interval. They proposed to set up rent tribunals to determine fair rents, but they never defined what a fair rent should be. Should it be based on historic value or on replacement cost? I think that by implication the Ridley Report meant historic cost plus an allowance for depreciation. I do not think this would ever lead to the free market and a supply of houses to rent, but at least there would be some form of justice in it and one could agree on its merits. In addition to rent tribunals, the Ridley Report recommended a technical committee on the cost of repairs. By these two means the providers of houses would undoubtedly secure amelioration of their position, but I still do not think we would get a free market.
The awkward question of what is a fair rent would still remain unanswered. I believe that Parliament would have to appoint another Committee to answer that question. The decision might be that the rent should be the historic rent plus repair allowances, or it might be replacement cost less depreciation. The one would lead to more justice than there is at present, but the other, I am convinced, is the only road to the free market which will give a plentiful supply. I appreciate the enormous difficulties His Majesty's Government have in this matter, but sometimes one has to make a compromise with one's past in the interests of one's supporters. If the Government do not do something about the chaotic state of the rent control laws, I think they can say good-bye to any chance of a plentiful supply of houses to rent. I am not privy to all that goes on in the bosom of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but to-day I seemed to see passing through his mind all sorts of thoughts about three and a half years of Parliamentary time frittered away on idle nationalisation measures when this great task awaited the Government. I think it would take years to bring this about, and the measure of transition would require the good will of all Parties. I submit that we must ultimately get away from the present system of subsidised wages. Men

889
must earn enough to live in houses which other men can afford to provide for them. The first step towards this is to provide a decision on the question of what is a fair rent.
4.30 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I intend to intervene in this debate for only a short time. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Buckmaster on having put down this very important Motion today. The purpose of my intervention is to say a few words on the important question of repairs. I gather from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, that he considers it a very important matter. I am not a landlord myself, but I have always been interested in housing and have spoken in several housing debates in your Lordships' House during the last two or three years. One cannot help seeing the terrible depreciation of existing property to-day. I agree with my noble friend Lord Meston that it is going to take a great number of years to meet the demand for new houses. Meantime, we do not want to let the existing 8,000,000 houses get into a bad state of disrepair, which they are doing, and deteriorate into further slums.
The Government recognised the fact that building costs had gone up tremendously when they gave a concession on war-damaged houses of 40 per cent. over the 1939 prices. Having given that concession, I cannot understand why—unless the reason is entirely political, which it ought not to be—they cannot do something in the way of first aid to help the poor unfortunate people who are finding all their savings going on the repair of houses. On the long-term policy of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I agree that all these rent control Acts ought to be put into a comprehensive Act, but that will take time. I regret very much that it has not been done before. What is needed are some concessions to help the poor people who cannot find the money out of the rents to keep the houses in repair. It is not as if wages are not good to-day. As the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, said, there are often several wage earners in a house, all earning good money. I think they can afford, without hardship, a little more money to enable the landlords to put their houses into repair, which naturally they wish to do.
4.32 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Buckmaster for returning once more to the charge on this very important topic—important to hundreds, nay thousands, of small property owners. He last raised the matter in your Lordships' House, if I remember rightly, on November 18, 1947. In a previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, was much more optimistic as to the time the Government would take to deal with the matter, but on the occasion of that last debate, while the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, was not very optimistic, he did say this:
"We are deeply conscious of the problem here involved. It is a very real problem. We are anxious to deal with it, but it is a long, complicated, difficult and probably contentious task. There is no chance of dealing with it in this Session"—
that was the Session of 1947–48—
"and I cannot say whether there will be a chance of dealing with it next Session …"
The next Session happened to be the very short one of a fortnight, and there was not much chance to do anything about it then. The noble and learned Viscount went on:
"But it is quite obvious that sooner or later, however difficult and however lengthy it may be, it is a task that any Government will have to face and must attempt to solve."
This debate will be justified if we can get some further assurance from the spokesman for the Government this afternoon. It is a problem which the noble and learned Viscount then realised that "any Government will have to face." What we should like to know is how the Government are going to face it, and when. I have not the powers that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, thought he might have, of seeing what goes on in people's bosoms or their minds, but I fancy that if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has not already arranged with his colleagues in the Government to give us something very definite, if he were quite truthful and honest he would rise in his place to-day and say: "In the year before an Election? Not on your life!" But that really would not be good enough, because every year that passes with the small property owner not having enough in his pocket to keep these houses in repair, we are doing more than any of our ancestors

891
did to create slum property in this country. That is what is happening every day with masses of these houses, whether they belong to individuals or to housing associations. At the moment some of these housing associations are having great difficulty in making ends meet.
The Minister of Health has said that he will look into their problems, and I hope he will. In a great number of cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, said, the owners are people whose father or husband invested money in property; they hoped to get a small income from it, but now find they have not enough coming in to keep the property in good repair. It is no use the Minister of Health saying that the property owners—at any rate, the smaller ones—ought to have enough in their pockets out of funds accumulated in war time to be able to do the repairs. Although they may not have been able to do the repairs during the war, due to lack of labour and materials and for other reasons, the cost of repairs does not decrease by their being left un-done. It saves money in the end to deal with the repairs when they first arise, rather than to have to deal with delayed repairs at the end of a war. If owners had been able to carry out these repairs during the war years, they could have completed them much more cheaply than they can carry out the accumulated repairs to-day.
Here is further evidence that the Minister's words on this subject do not hold water. It is extraordinary how one finds that properties to-day are just being handed over to someone else. In Glasgow, for instance, during last year alone, no less than 936 properties were abandoned to the local council. The property owner no doubt said: "I am sick of this. I cannot get enough in rent to keep my property in repair. I will hand it over to the council." As a matter of fact, the council had to set up a sub-committee for the purpose of dealing with the problem of houses that were handed over to them. I have numerous figures here from Salford, Merseyside and other parts of the country, which I believe are genuine figures, showing that what the various landlords receive by way of rent will not pay for the proper repairs, and meet other expenses, such as those of collection, incidentals, Schedule A income tax, and so on. From another set of figures,
892
which I received from a completely different source, covering a large number of cottage properties, the outgoings represent no less than 95 per cent. of the amounts that are taken in rents. Therefore, there is here a problem which must be tackled.
The local authorities put up a very good case to the Government and said: "We cannot go on"—I suppose they asked for an increased subsidy if they had to go on—" keeping our housing estates in order unless we are allowed to increase the rents." The vast range of local authority estates are not rent controlled at all, as your Lordships know. All over the country, local authorities, whatever the political complexion of the majority of their members may be—whether they are Conservative-controlled, Socialist-controlled or Independent-controlled—are quite rightly not increasing the rates of the poorer people who live in the other houses, but are instead raising the rents of the houses which come within their housing schemes.
There is the policy laid down by the Government in regard to nationalised industries. The railways have to pay their way, even though it means raising freight or passenger fares; the Coal Board has to pay its way, even though it means raising the price of coal to the consumer, and the local authorities have to pay their way in housing. The only people who are not allowed to receive anything like a fair return and keep their property in order are this little group of people who own rent-controlled houses. In that respect the Government say, so far as I can make out—unless we get a different point of view from the Lord Chancellor to-day—"We are not going to do anything much to help them." Unless something is done, more and more slums will be created in this country, and the housing problem will become more and more difficult every year. We should all agree that the ideal solution of rent control would be to have a supply of houses equal to, or rather more than, the demand, when automatically, through the law of supply and demand, rents would fall. I am not suggesting—and I think nobody would think of suggesting from this Box—that in the present state of the supply and demand of houses we should repeal the Rent Restrictions Acts. Those Acts were enacted quite rightly in the 1914–18 war and were continued during

893
the following years, although, as supply began to meet demand, we were gradually taking out categories of houses—which I think was the right way.
There must be methods of dealing with this problem. First, let us realise that if there were to be a small increase of rent on these rent-controlled houses, the rents would still be far cheaper than those paid by people living in local authority houses. Very few of the rents would come to anything like 25s. or 27s. 6d. per week, which people are paying at the present moment for local authority houses. There is another way (although I do not advocate this as completely meeting the problem, because it would not meet the case of the small owner who does not pay much in the way of tax) which would certainly help the big housing associations. It is that they should be given a rebate on the income tax assessments on their houses, just as was given to industrial undertakings and to Agricultural holdings (as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton) under the last Budget presented by Sir John Anderson. That rebate could easily be applied to money actually spent on repairs to houses, and in that way something could be done to help keep some of the houses in a proper state of repair.
We have had a long debate this afternoon, and I do not want to detain your Lordships much longer, but I would like to refer to one or two of the remarks in the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, with the greater part of which I agree. In the early days of the Rent Restrictions Acts nobody had thought of this method of serving a notice to quit in the interregnum, when the existing contractual tenant had just died and another tenant had not yet acquired the full tenancy rights because they were vested in some official of the court. The probable reason why that method has been invented now and was never invented before is that people will always try to find a way out when things are pressing most severely upon them. That is why ingenious people have gone to the trouble of finding a way out which they never attempted in the early days of rent restriction Acts—when, by and large, owners were allowed a charge for repairs which, in fact, met the bill.
The vast majority of tenants in this country are good clean tenants. Here
894
and there you find tenants who will make any house into a slum after they have been there for a few weeks; but the great majority of the people are good tenants, and if the landlord is getting a fair deal he would normally like the son or daughter of an old tenant to continue in his house. He knows that the family are satisfactory as tenants. It is only when the law is pressing most unfairly on these small landlords, as it is at present, that they try to have this ingenious procedure invented for them, and eventually to make use of it. The duty of Parliament and of the Government is to see that the law is fair both to the tenant and the landlord, so that both get an absolutely square deal: that the one gets a reasonable but not excessive return on his money—that he gets at any rate enough to be able to keep his property in repair, not only for his own sake, but for his tenants' sake—and that the tenant gets a decent house at a fair and reasonable rent. That is not the way that the Rent Restrictions Acts are working at the present time. I hope that we shall hear from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that the Government intend, and intend very quickly, to right this wrong.
4.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master has returned to the charge, and as a result we have had a very interesting discussion. I sincerely wish, for that reason, that I could say something to send the noble Viscount away happy, but I am afraid he will go away, after I have spoken, more unhappy than he was when he came, because he is really asking for something which is impossible at the present time. It is, of course, a difficult topic, and if I were to answer all the questions raised by noble Lords, I should keep your Lordships here for an unconscionable time.
The noble Viscount reminds me of a man who has fallen amongst a lot of thieves, who have beaten him up, smashed his head in, knocked his eyes out, broken his legs and incidentally taken his pocketbook; and the only grievance he has is about the pocket-book. Of course this shortage of houses is causing great hardships and terrible suffering. The county court judges who have to determine these cases all complain of the heartbreaking

895
nature of their task when they have to turn some unfortunate person out to make room for someone else to go in; they come to me and complain bitterly about this jurisdiction which is thrust upon them. And the only grievance which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has expressed is the grievance of landlords who are not getting enough rent! I agree that in certain cases—by no means all—this legislation does bear hardly on landlords. But really, my Lords, that is a small matter as compared with the frightful hardship that is entailed upon tenants. Personally, I am neither a landlord nor a tenant. I do not own an acre of land, in Middlesex or anywhere else. The only chance I shall ever have to own an acre will be, I think, in Utopia. But if any of your Lordships has had to launch out a son or a daughter, and tried to find a small, modest house for them in the last few years, you will recall what you have come up against: the extortion that is being practised by some unworthy people—I am not for a moment abusing landlords as a whole—has been absolutely scandalous. Every noble Lord in this House, in his heart of hearts, knows that to be true.
What are we trying to do? We are trying to improve these Rent Restrictions Acts. In 1946 we dealt with furnished houses, in which there was a shocking ramp. A man would put a few sticks of furniture into a house, just enough to make the idea of furniture not completely illusory. He would then say, "This is a furnished house," and would then let it for an exorbitant sum of money. We dealt with that problem. At the present time (though I am not of course going to refer to it in this speech) we are trying to deal with the evil of premiums. Does anybody doubt that that has been a scandalous thing, too? Everybody knows it, and we are trying to deal with it. I agree that the time must come when we deal with the question of the landlord's rent—but first things first. The landlord's hardship is nothing like so great as the tenant's hardships at the present time.
Let us for a moment discuss the landlord's rent. I do not believe we can deal with this matter by simply taking a flat rate by which to increase the rent. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and his
896
Committee blew any such idea out of the water. They took a group of selected cases and compared the rents with the fair value. They found that in 4 per cent. of the cases the rents were under 50 per cent. of that value, and in 9 per cent.—more than double—were 150 per cent. over the value. They pointed out with irresistible logic that if a flat rate increase over the whole field were given it would involve an increase in a large number of cases that cannot possibly deserve it. Therefore they said—and I think they were right—that the only way to deal with this subject is to have a review over the whole country of every house; and they pointed out that there were 10,000,000 houses. If Lord Buckmaster had his way, and local authority houses were brought in, it would make something like 13,000,000 houses. Lord Ridley's Committee contemplated that we should want 200 tribunals. We have 77 tribunals now, in connection with the furnished house legislation. They contemplated that it would take three years to deal with the matter—and in my opinion that was a most optimistic view. Now, when we are having all these alterations in the law—and very necessary they are—is this the time to start upon that survey?
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, claimed to be a psychologist and said he had looked into my bosom. I do not know what is in my bosom; I should have thought it was there that I kept my emotions; but to my regret I now find it is full of thoughts about rent restriction and nationalisation Bills. I wish he had looked into the bosoms of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I should like to know this. Are the Tory Party asking us at the present time—I repeat "at the present time"—to start an investigation into the appropriate rents to be paid for 13,000,000 houses in this country?
LORD LLEWELLIN: What we are doing is asking the Government, upon whom the initiative lies, what they are going to do about this problem. That is what I am hoping to hear from the noble and learned Viscount, if the Government are men enough to take their own responsibilities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite follow that. I will deal with that in a moment. But I was asking the noble

897
Lord, Lord Meston, to look into the noble Lords' bosom. I want to know whether in that bosom there is a desire that we should now set up 200 tribunals to investigate the appropriate rent to be paid for 13,000,000 houses, because, if that is in their bosom, it is not in mine. I do not believe that you can contemplate doing any such thing at the present time—not merely, mainly or at all because we are within a year, or approximately a year, of a General Election, but because the whole state of the law about this is at present, as is quite plain, in a state of flux. Unless you have some reasonable stability and certainty in your law, it is no good trying to fix what the rents are to be. Therefore, I decline altogether to contemplate such a thing at the present time.
I have conceded, as I must concede, that there is some hardship to some landlords, and I have stated—and I believe it to be the fact—that the only way to remedy that and find out who those landlords are is by starting upon this vast inquiry. I do not think—I say this frankly—that the hardship to the landlords as a class is anything like so great as has been made out. I will give your Lordships these figures which I have and which your Lordships may take as authoritative. If you take a rent-controlled house five years before 1939, occupied by a statutory tenant, and you take that same house to-day, still occupied by that same statutory tenant, that house to-day will sell for at least 50 per cent. more than it would have sold five years before 1939. Probably I am taking too conservative a figure. It might sell for 100 per cent. more. Your Lordships may take my figures as correct; they come from the Inland Revenue values. I cannot see how this great hardship arises.
LORD HAWKE: Is that with vacant possession or without vacant possession?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Without vacant possession. I am taking, the case of a house occupied by a statutory tenant five years before 1939, and the same house occupied by the same statutory tenant to-day. Those are the figures that I am given. I cannot myself vouch for them. I take the figure as 50 per cent. If it were free possession, I think it would be more like 200 per cent. or 300 per cent.
LORD HAWKE: is the sale to the tenant? That would make all the difference in the world.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am taking houses at prices obtainable today, if you desire to sell a house to the highest bidder. If that figure is right, or even approximately right, it seems to me to follow that people who have invested in that particular class of property are better off than people who have invested in other classes of property. If a man complains that he cannot get enough rent to do the repair, surely the remedy is to sell the property? So much for that.
Therefore, I would say this. We shall go on at the present time trying to reform this legislation piecemeal, for I agree we must do it piecemeal. We must try to Lind out where the shoe is pinching and put that right. A few years ago, we did it with furnished premises; we are now extending it further in an attempt to deal with premiums. When we have the law worked out to a more or less satisfactory state, then will be the time—and not before—to consolidate. I cannot help feeling that there is a little confusion, both in the Ridley Report and in this Motion, with regard to what consolidation means. Consolidation is a most desirable thing, because it involves little or no Parliamentary time. It is simply putting together into one Statute what is already in a series of Statutes, so as to make it a matter of convenience for everybody to refer to. But the draftsman who is consolidating has to go before the Consolidating Committee. He has to be able to lay his hand on his heart and say: "I have reproduced exactly the existing law." If there is a doubt in the existing law, he has to be able to say: "I have reproduced the doubt," and he calls the attention of the Committee to that fact.
The talk in the Motion before the House of "revision and consolidation" is short-circuiting into one two wholly different conceptions. I think the same criticism might be made of the Ridley Report in this respect. If you are going to revise or alter the law, you must do that first of all by ordinary legislation. We are now, in fact, in the process of altering the law by a Bill which is at present under discussion in another place. But it is impossible to combine the pro-

899
cess of revision with the process of consolidation. First of all, you must make it plain what your law is to be; and then, by all means, consolidate. I agree—I realise this now more strongly than I did when we spoke on this matter before—the need for revision. And, when that revision is over, when we have more or less reached calm waters, then I for one admit frankly that there will be a strong case for consolidation.
It is a tremendous task. I will take your Lordships frankly into my confidence and say that there are two immense tasks at the present time which confront any lawyer. One is the consolidation of the Income Tax law; the other is the consolidation of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Both of them will take a very long time. Action in either case would mean that we should not be able to do any other consolidation for a very long time. Therefore, quite frankly, I hesitate to embark on either of those tasks, because even if it were only consolidation, it means that we would have to stop all our efforts at consolidation of other matters. However, that is a matter which obviously must be considered.
As I said before, I am in favour of consolidation when, and only when, revision has been finished. It is idle to try to consolidate at the present time, when the law is changing, not every day but rather every rear, and when it is likely, in my view, to go on changing. Therefore, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I am not willing at the present moment to undertake a revision involving the immense task which the Ridley Report recommended. I do not believe that any other Party is willing to do it. I invite correction if I am wrong. If the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, wants to say that his Party wish to do it, I invite him to rise, and say so.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, surely the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor realises that the present Government are the only people who are in a position to do anything of the sort at this time. It is up to them to say what they, as a Government, will do. I have not the slighest doubt that in a year or eighteen months' time we shall be quite prepared from those Benches opposite to answer that question!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gather from that reply that at the present time the noble Lord is not willing to take it on.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount allow me to say a word with reference to the question of consolidation in our Report? We did not, in fact, phrase it as recommending that, but we said that all the Statutes should be replaced by one single comprehensive Statute. We carefully avoided suggesting consolidation before revision—at least, we certainly intended to do so. What we had in mind was that there should be a great deal of change following upon what we suggested in the Report, and that there should be one Act; but that it would not be so much a question of consolidation as of omitting altogether a lot of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it is not a Consolidation Bill the noble Viscount will see what sort of a Parliamentary task is involved there; it would indeed be immense. I gather that the complaint has been that we have been bringing in too much legislation, not too little, and to bring in this if it is not consolidation would be a truly immense task.
My Lords, that is the position which I am bound to take up. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, enunciated the most extraordinary proposition of Socialism I have ever heard. I should be interested to hear where he got it from, because it is always well to try to understand the point of view of the other side. I have never heard of it in all my life, and I have been a Socialist now for twenty years. He said the position is that, by paying rent for a house, after a certain time (I do not know what time) the house becomes yours. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no such doctrine in Socialism—none whatever. He puts the analogy of the bank payment. You may have to go on paying interest to a hank, and I quite agree that the payment of interest does not mean the debt is wiped out—of course it does not. But I would like to know whether the noble Viscount will tell me to what source he has gone.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: With pleasure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would like to know to which source he went

901
for that doctrine, because I can assure him that it is a doctrine of which I have never before heard. The next proposition the noble Viscount enunciated was that the mere fact that a fund for repairs had been accumulated was regarded as an answer in itself to this question of the increase of rent. I do not agree with that at all. I agree with the old adage "A stitch in time saves nine," and even though a man put aside a fund every year for repairs I agree that the rise in the cost of repairs might beat him. But in fact, of course, as the Ridley Report points out, there were not a few cases in which, instead of trying to put aside any fund, the landlord regarded the whole sum as being merely an addition to his income; and when the 25 per cent. increase to the rent was made, expressly for the purpose of dealing with repairs, some landlords simply accepted the 25 per cent. as part of their ordinary income, and did not put it aside for repairs at all. Those are the facts.
My Lords, in conclusion, the noble Viscount wanted to know what we are going to do. It is this. We are going on with these reforms in order that we may bring under the shelter, under the umbrella of the Rent Restrictions Acts, all those persons whom we believe to be in need of protection. Lord Kershaw, in his interesting speech, referred to the contractual tenants. That is obviously a matter we shall have to keep in mind. I have no authority to say anything about it, but if that abuse becomes widespread it is exactly the sort of thing we shall have to deal with. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, bases his question largely on the fact that local authorities and statutory corporations are excluded from the operation of the Act. I do not know what he means by "statutory corporations," unless he has in mind the case of the cottage belonging to the railway company.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I had.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was the cottage which was said to be Crown property. So far as we are concerned, such a case was never put forward by the railway company themselves, and never will be put forward by any of these public corporations, who do not want to be in any such position. That is another matter with which, if necessary,
902
we shall have to deal by legislation. So far as local authorities are concerned, I have looked into the figures, and I believe it to be right that the rents charged by local authorities for comparable houses are substantially less than the rents charged for that class of house belonging to private owners. That is the information I have, and that is to be coupled with the reason which we were given in the Ridley Report, where they dealt with this matter. The Ridley Committee did not recommend that the Act should be extended to local authorities, who by Statute have to take a particular class of tenant—for they cannot select their tenants in the way that ordinary people can. That Committee recommended, and I agree, that the Act should not extend to local authorities. So I think that the terms of the Motion;
"To call attention … to the injustice of refusing any relief to private landlords while houses he longing to local authorities and statutory corporations are excluded from the operation of these Acts. …"
are really a misconception of the true position. With regard to
"the urgent need for a revision and consolidation of the existing Acts"
I have pointed out that they are two wholly different things, and we are at the present time rapidly engaged in revising the existing Acts. That is the Motion of the noble Viscount. My Lords, I devoutly hope that we shall soon reach a better state of equilibrium, although perhaps not complete equilibrium, between the available number of houses and the number of people who want to be housed. I am not sure whether Lord Hawke went so far as to say that control ought to be abolished to-day.
LORD HAWKE: No, I did not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not think the noble Lord did. He thought that the shortage of houses was due to the fact they were under control. He forgot Hitler; he forgot the bombs; he forgot the war; he forgot that building had ceased for about five years, and that during those five years a large number of houses had been knocked down. Surely Ell those things have some bearing on the shortage of houses to-day.
LORD HAWKE: I really cannot allow the noble and learned Viscount to get

903
away with quite so much as that. The passage in the Ridley Report which I read was to the effect that there has been no free market for housing within the controlled limits since 1914.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I realise that the noble Lord read from the Ridley Report, but after that he became more expansive, and used his own words and he attributed the trouble to the control.
LORD HAWKE: Since 1914.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To the control. I suggest only that there are other considerations besides control which have had some slight bearing on this matter. My Lords, we shall go on revising the existing law. I hope that in the course of our revision we shall be able to deal with hardship to all the lieges, whether landlord or tenant. But I am hound to say that at the present time the far more pressing hardships seem to me to be those applying to the tenant. It is those that we must remove in the first instance, so I regret to tell your Lordships that I cannot accept this Motion.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I have no wish to detain your Lordships, but there are some things which must be said and, indeed, must be plainly said. If I may, I would like to deal first with the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kershaw, who courteously forgave me for interrupting him. His point, as I understand it, is that in the case of a contractual tenant, if notice is given at the appropriate moment after the death, the landlord may, if fortunate, secure possession. I believe that to be so; but of course tenants are not always dying and the landlord has to seize the psychological moment to achieve his purpose.
To turn now to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I agree there may be imperfections in the wording of my Motion; that I am not prepared to dispute. The noble and learned Viscount has a wide knowledge of these matters, and I did not seek legal advice in the wording or phrasing of the Motion. But that its purpose and its meaning are plain to every one of your Lordships is, I think,
904
absolutely true. I cannot, unfortunately, accept many of the statements which the noble and learned Viscount made, and I feel that many of your Lordships are with me in this. In the first place, I would like to make it plain that, while I have no objection to being knocked over the head, I am not, and never have been, primarily concerned with my pocket. There is not one single word in the speech which I have made this afternoon which suggests that I or the Associations of which I am privileged to be President, were seeking a personal gain.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I gave the noble Viscount or anybody else any such impression, I am very sorry. It is the last thing I would think or say about the noble Viscount. I certainly had no such intention at all.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I have been trying to put forward a temperate and moderate solution of this problem. In attempting to express the views of the bodies of which I am privileged to be President, I hope I made it plain that they were asking only for an increase which would enable property to be maintained in a habitable state, with an undertaking that the money would be so spent. They were not asking for a profit of any kind.
The noble and learned Viscount has quoted Inland Revenue figures. It is not the first time that I have had to dispute Inland Revenue figures. I do not like mentioning my own affairs, but perhaps I may be allowed to tell the House of this experience. I had two brick-built semi-detached cottages on a main road in the country. In front of those cottages there was main water and electric light. The cottages were controlled, the rent being, I think, 1s. 11d. a week plus the permitted increase of 40 per cent. With what little wisdom I possess, I took steps to divest myself of controlled property—which, according to the noble and learned Viscount, brings in much unearned increment and profit. I put the cottages up to auction, but the best hid that I received for those two brick-built cottages in reasonable repair was £70. With some effort, I managed to sell them privately for £50 apiece. I say, without fear of contradiction, that to suggest that

905
restricted property commands a higher price than it did before the war is contrary to the facts, except possibly in the case of certain selected urban areas. The proposition which the noble and learned Viscount put forward is one which I have never heard before, and in the cases which I have mentioned is surely not in accordance with the facts.
In regard to the local authority houses, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount. I ought to have made it plain that I was not seeking that these should be subjected to control. My purpose is to accept control while it is essential, but not to extend it. I have never tried to be unreasonable in this matter. There are in fact 8,000,000 rent-restricted houses, and the figure would be raised to 13,000,000 only if we added the local authority houses, which, of course, I had no intention of including. My purpose was to show that the exceptional increases in rent which local authorities are compelled to charge to cover repairs show conclusively that the landlord of rent-restricted property cannot maintain it properly.
That leaves me with the only other point to which the noble and learned Viscount referred—namely, the difficulty of getting homes. I think your Lordships would agree that I did my best to make it abundantly plain that even where the landlord is prepared to help and to accept an uneconomic rent, he cannot let houses because he is unable to regain possession. The Rent Restriction Acts operate inevitably and inexorably against the provision of houses for our people, and they have always operated in this way. In view of the attitude which the noble and learned Viscount has taken up—I say frankly that it has caused me some surprise, for while I did not expect him to agree with me I scarcely expected him to take up such an attitude— I will not detain the house further. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HUMANE SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS
5.25 p.m.
LORD DOWDINGhad given notice of his intention to call attention to the unnecessary suffering still being inflicted on animals slaughtered for food; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is nearly a year since I addressed your Lordships' House on this subject, and I think the time has now come when another word may be said upon it. Things are much the same as they were a year ago, but there is one notable exception: I refer to the protection which has now been given to sheep and lambs. At the time when I spoke before, there was no statutory protection for sheep and Iambs; the matter was left to the decision of the local councils. It is true that due majority of local councils did give that protection, which was to the effect that sheep and lambs must be stunned before they were killed, but there were thirty-one local councils in charge of slaughter-houses who refused to accord that protection. In March of last year, a confidential letter was sent out from the Ministry direct to slaughterhouses, short-circuiting the local authorities and giving them instructions that sheep and lambs were to be stunned before being killed.
That, in my opinion, was a very desirable action, but it was not perhaps so desirable that the injunction should be communicated in a confidential form. I therefore put down a written question in May of last year and I received an answer. The effect is that that instruction is now on public record. So, if effective inspection of slaughter-houses is in operation, the situation is satisfactory in that respect. Broadly speaking, it means that in no licensed slaughter-house, except under Jewish rites, to which I shall refer later, can any animal be killed with the knife without first being stunned. In other respects, however, the situation in many places is lamentable. There is serious seasonal overcrowding and the condition of some of the buildings is disgraceful. The noble Earl who will follow me is going to deal with this part of the matter, so I will not elaborate it further at this late hour.
But I do wish to refer to the Lucas Report which has now been out for over a year. In fact, a year ago I was told that it was being intensively studied with

907
a view to action, and I would like to ask what are the plans and what is the time-table for the action which is to be taken with regard to slaughter-houses as the result of that Report. I would raise one small matter. The Report stated that in 1939, at the beginning of the war, an experiment was projected: that three experimental slaughter-houses or abattoirs should be built as a preliminary to settling on a national scheme. I hope progress will not be held up by a continuation of that experiment. We have had quite enough experience with our own model abattoirs, and if we had not enough of our own then foreign countries could give us what we need. It is very important that a plan should be devised and put into action as soon as possible.
So much for animals that are now killed inside slaughter-houses. But there are a very large number of animals which are killed every year outside slaughterhouses. Last year I gave an estimate, which was not queried, of 500,000, mostly pigs. The number may not be the same now. It will naturally rise and fall with the availability of feeding stuffs. But I think that we as a nation should be ashamed that there is no control over this wholesale slaughter from the humanitarian point of view. If the Minister does not get his pound of flesh, literally and metaphorically, then the law is set in motion, but no notice is taken of the cruelty which may be involved in this process. The Government do not even give recommendations or advice on the subject.
When I spoke last year, a new Regulation was just coming into being. It dealt with the prohibition of slaughtering animals outside slaughter-houses except under licence and by licensed slaughterers. It seemed to me then that that was a unique opportunity for adding one more proviso—"and that a licensed slaughterer shall provide himself or be provided with a humane killer." I think it is disheartening that no such action was taken. I have been in touch with the chief societies for the protection of animals, and I was given to understand that a discussion was proceeding with regard to the applicant for a licence being advised that animals should be killed with humane killers, told that if he was not in possession of such an implement, he could get it lent to him
908
free of charge, and given the address of the nearest officer of a society. Every month or so I inquired how this discussion was getting on and, so far as I can ascertain, it all seems to have petered out and nothing has been done.
There is one other respect in which I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply if he can help. It is in connection with the necessity for a person who uses a humane killer being supplied with a firearms certificate. Of course, a humane killer has this in common with firearms: it uses a cartridge and goes off with a bang. But the obvious reason for the restrictions that are put on the possession and use of firearms is that they are weapons which are capable of killing or wounding at a distance. The humane killer is a perfectly useless weapon for the law-breaker. It is much less valuable than a hatchet, a knife or a club. It has to be placed up against the exact point in the skull, and the little captive bolt does not protrude more than an inch or so when the weapon is fired. Therefore, although it may be a firearm literally, it is not a firearm from the point of view from which the use of firearms is restricted, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could approach the Home Secretary and see if some relaxation of the firearms regulation can be effected in this respect.
My Lords, why must this cruelty continue? There are some cases of cruelty or alleged cruelty that one can at least understand. Take vivisection, for example. Some men believe that by transferring their sufferings to animals, their own pain may be reduced. Take hunting; it is considered a healthy and exciting occupation. Consider the practice of putting hens to live in 18-inch boxes; and of keeping cows imprisoned for life so that they never see a green field. At any rate, there is the motive, the incentive of greed. When the Government refuse to legislate so that a horse must be given an anæsthetic before being castrated, they do so because of the objection which comes from people who are unwilling to pay the few shillings extra which an anæsthetic involves. We can abominate these practices, but we at least understand them. But who profits in any way from the infliction of suffering on animals in the process of slaughter? Nobody can plead necessity. It has

909
already been abolished inside the slaughter-houses. As I say, if anybody cannot afford a humane killer, it can be borrowed gratis.
I maintain that there is no excuse, much less reason, for the continuance of these miserable conditions. They can be attributed only to callousness and inertia. Why must we plead as for a personal favour that the Government shall recommend humane killers, even if they are not prepared to order them? I hope that what I say this evening may penetrate beyond these walls. Many a man who is careful of the lives of his stock is careless of their deaths. I address my words to His Majesty's Government in the strong hope that adequate action may be taken. But animals have no votes; they have no trade unions; they cannot go on strike, and I am afraid there is a tendency to treat them accordingly. Still, every owner of stock is responsible to his own conscience, and a sensitive conscience is perhaps a better mentor than a Government inspector. I say that we must put our house in order in this respect, for until we have done so we are in no position to criticise the ritual slaughter by the Jews and the Moslems, to which I must now refer.
As regards the Moslem slaughter, I have very little to say. Some little time ago the Imam of the Woking Mosque, who I imagine may be regarded as speaking for his co-religionists, put up a public notice to the effect that the preliminary stunning of animals by the use of the humane killer did not vitiate the Moslem rites, and that the flesh of such animals was lawful for Moslems to consume. But with the Jews the situation is very different. I wrote to the Chief Rabbi in May of this year to ask him whether there was any chance that we could reach an agreement by discussion on this matter. I did not think there was much chance of reaching such agreement, in any case, but as it happened the time was rather unfortunate because a new incumbent had just been appointed to the post. He was very busy, naturally, taking over his new duties, and correspondence with a private individual had to take its proper place. Also, of course, it was a little bit like approaching a new headmaster and asking him to alter the school rules in
910
the first term of his new tenancy. Still, I thought it was only courteous and reasonable to make the attempt, and to see what the head of British Jewry had to say to the accusations which are freely made in regard to the cruelty of the Jewish ritual.
I should like to point out that these accusations of cruelty fall under two distinct heads. There is the preliminary casting, during which the animal is thrown and its head is wrenched round into the appropriate position for the final act; and there is the killing itself. The killing is done by a Jewish official, but the casting and the preparation of the head is done by British slaughtermen before the Jewish official does his work. This duty many perform with the greatest distaste. There is a sort of idea that constant application to their duties will render slaughtermen callous and inhumane. I do not think that that is generally the case. After I spoke last year on this subject, I received a letter from a slaughterman in a big Midlands town which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read. He said:
"It is with deep interest that the slaughter-men at the … abattoir read the Press statement of your criticism in respect of the Jewish method of slaughtering animals. They feel that both the Jewish and Mohammedan methods should be definitely limited, as only men who have to perform this inhumane method can realise the unnecessary suffering inflicted on the animals compared to our own method of shooting prior to the drawing of blood. On behalf of the … slaughtermen I remain, yours faithfully …"
The Chief Rabbi was most sympathetic with regard to the preliminaries of the slaughter, and if His Majesty's Government will approach him, I am sure they will find that he will be most co-operative in regard to the increase of the use of the Weinberg pen. This pen is an apparatus into which the animal is driven; it is then inverted on a pivot, and the animal is put into the necessary position without this terrible and distressing struggle. In December last year, I asked a Question in this House as to how many of these Weinberg pens were in existence, and how many were regularly used. The answer I received was that eighteen have been provided, and seventeen are in regular use. I would ask His Majesty's Government to follow up this matter with the Chief Rabbi to see what can be done.

911
However, to my mind that is not an adequate solution of the difficulty, because the second part still remains. On the second part, the actual killing, the Chief Rabbi was adamant. I was not unprepared for such a reply, but I was surprised at the grounds on which his refusal was based. My contention was that there is no mandate, either Biblical or Talmudic, for this ritual; that it is purely a priestly custom which should be modified with the progress of civilisation. But the Chief Rabbi did not follow this line at all. He said that animals did not suffer by this form of killing, and that unconsciousness supervened almost immediately. He produced impressive evidence from many doctors and scientists in support of his contention. But there are, of course, other doctors and scientists—I do not say equally eminent, because I am not a judge of such things—and I know that they have made exhaustive dissections, and so on, and their opinion is based on the anatomy of the ox, which they tell me has large arteries at the back of the neck, protected by the vertebrae, which supply blood to the brain for a considerable period after the great vessels of the throat have been severed.
I have had a good deal of experience in one way and another, in my technical position in the Air Council, of having to make decisions from conflicting opinions of experts. When such a situation arose, I generally tried to approach somebody who was in closer contact with actualities, even if his mentality might not be on such an exalted level. The type of person I am thinking of is the writer of the letter that I have just read to your Lordships. Perhaps I may be permitted to read another letter, which was sent to me quite unsolicited from an officer who has just returned from Germany. It says:
"I have just returned from two years' service in Germany on the Control Commission. It may interest you to know that one of the first things we did in Germany, under Jewish pressure, was to repeal the German laws enforcing the humane killing of animals so as to enable the Jews to kill animals without using the humane killer as a safeguard. As a safeguard, they were supposed to use a special casting pen which is said to alleviate the animal's suffering somewhat, but this has in fact never been used. One of our veterinary officers there insisted on having an animal's cords cut"—
912
those are the cords by which its legs were fastened—
"immediately after its throat had been slit by the Rabbi, to test how long it retained consciousness. It rose to its feet and rushed out of the slaughter-house, and was on its legs for just over fifty seconds before it finally collapsed. Before having its throat cut, the ritual is for it to be thrown on its back and the vet, told me the animal's struggles were horrifying to witness. Cannot we stop this, there and here also? The Germans who know about this say 'So this is what the British fought the war for'."
I think the Jews have always recognised the suffering caused by these preliminary operations, and I think I am right in saying that the Weinberg pen was provided as a result of a competition for a reward offered by the Jewish authorities. But about the same time a second reward was offered, for a device to mitigate the pain of the actual killing. The strange thing is that the person who offered that reward was no less than the chief of the Shechita Board (which is the Jewish organisation which controls this ritual slaughter). His name was Lord Swaythling.
I have an interesting piece of new information which has reached me recently—in case it is suggested that this is against the Jewish religion and that the objections cannot be overcome—and that is that the use of the humane killer in the Jewish ritual slaughter has actually been started in America, in one place at any rate. In order that the name may be on record it is Morris Rifkin and Sons Incorporated, of South Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, and the Rabbi under whose supervision work is carried out is Rabbi J. B. Hurvitz. The head of the firm writes:
"We have used the humane killer on all the cattle which are Kosher killed. Truthfully, we have been more than satisfied."
There is one more thread to clue up. When I last spoke, England was held up by the noble Earl who replied as being, in the forefront of the nations with regard to humanity to animals. This claim rather took my breath away, and I was not in a position to deal with it in an immediate reply. Since then I have made some inquiries and I find that in Norway, Switzerland and Spain, this Jewish ritual killing is absolutely forbidden; and in Sweden the animals are gassed before they are killed. I do not think anybody could accuse Norway, Sweden or Switzerland of being anti-Semitic, and although

913
it may be said that the German regulations are, perhaps, less due to their love of animals than their dislike of Jews, I do not think that would be quite a fair statement, because, before the war and before this question had arisen at all, the Germans had engraved over the portals of their slaughter-houses:
"Yours is a trade of blood—be merciful."
My Lords, I have finished. Slowly, slowly, there is growing the recognition of the place of animals in creation and our responsibilities with regard to them. We are beginning to realise that animals do not exist exclusively for our convenience and profit. The idea has not penetrated very deeply, but at least we have gone beyond the stage of bull and bear-baiting, where animals are trained to fight one another for the amusement of the onlookers. If we have not yet reached the stage where we realise our responsibilities for raising the animal kingdom in the scale of evolution, surely we have reached a stage where we can realise that animals suffer mentally as well as physically; and when the time comes when we decree that they must give their lives for our profit or convenience, at least we can see to it that neither fear nor pain is needlessly inflicted. I beg to move for Papers.
5.58 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Dowding for this opportunity to be able to put before your Lordships, and the general public, the fact that the condition of slaughter-houses in this country, on the average, is deplorable. Efficient slaughtering means humane slaughtering. In this country, on the average, there is no efficient slaughtering, and that is the reason why the slaughtering is not humane and why the actions are taking place that my noble friend Lord Dowding has so ably described. In the course of the next few minutes I hope to be able to persuade your Lordships that the reason why our slaughter-houses are inefficient—or, rather, why efficient slaughter-houses are not in existence—is entirely due to the lack of policy from the Minister of Food, who runs and is responsible for slaughter-houses.
I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to quote two relevant paragraphs from a letter I received from the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to my ques-
914
tion on policy. The first relevant paragraph is as follows:
"I am afraid that the future policy in regard to slaughter-houses and slaughtering problems has not yet been defined …"
The next relevant paragraph reads as follows:
"That is not to say, however, that we are satisfied with our slaughter-houses, some of which leave much to be desired, but the present restrictions on building wake it almost impossible to have structural alterations made. Nor are we quite ready to embark on a programme of alteration at the present time when future policy is not yet fully defines."
I would say that "much to be desired" is putting it very mildly indeed.
I think I have seen a fairly good cross-section of the slaughter-houses of this country. I do not want it to be thought that all slaughter-houses are immediately inadequate, or that the conditions of them, in either cruelty or deficiency, are immediately deplorable. But on the whole they are not as efficient as they should be. I believe, both from my own experience and also from the opinion of experts, that some form of centralised factory abattoir system is necessary throughout the country. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his excellent Report on marketing, says on page 66, paragraph 281, that what his Committee recommend is
"complete reorganisation of the existing slaughtering arrangements, directed towards the establishment of a series of modern factory abattoirs of suitable size and location, in which the functions of slaughtering and processing have been fully integrated."
To that I should like to add (perhaps ambitiously, and again on the recommendations of experts) marketing, both on the hoof and on the hook when the meat is ready for the retail traders.
I admit that special premises would have to be designed to meet this need of centralised slaughtering. It seems that the best and most economical sites for them would be in the centre of the producing areas—that is, the agricultural areas—and on the outskirts of heavy industrialised areas. It will be no easy matter to arrange these districts and situations for slaughter-houses, and I would put it to your Lordships that the interest of already-established market towns in agricultural centres should be looked after. I would suggest to your Lordships that these are some of the points that must be considered.

915
In the factory abattoir there is a mechanical stunning pen in use. This is, in the first place, the most efficient animal-slaughtering device; in the second place, it is the most economical; and in the third place, it is the most humane. The captive-bolt pistol, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has referred, is used throughout. There are adequate facilities to employ an expert staff the whole time throughout the year and for every day of a five-day week. This staff would consist of expert slaughtermen, veterinary officers, drovers, dressers and meat inspectors; and naturally, by reason of their very expertness, they could improve the efficiency of such an abattoir. Where there is a large-scale or relatively large-scale killing, expert labour can be afforded. The animals spend the minimum possible time moving from the hoof to the hook in the big killing-rooms. Lairage is the best possible size for dealing with a large number of animals in a large space.
There must be adequate water, and as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has already stated, there must be suitable allowances made for the heavy killing season in the autumn. Furthermore, there must be adequate casualty-killing facilities. This is a very important point. Your Lordships may not realise that a great deal of the meat that we eat is killed together with diseased carcases on the very next part of the killing floor itself. There must then be adequate casualty-killing sections in an abattoir. Lastly, by-products can be most efficiently and economically put to good use.
I believe that the ideal operator of such an abattoir is the local authority. In certain instances, no doubt, private enterprise under suitable licence can be employed to carry out the operations. The slaughter-houses would have to be under the most strict regulation of the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture; but it is only from centralisation that there can be obtained a sufficiently high standard of humaneness and efficiency in the slaughter-house system. I admit that all this will cost money—there is no doubt about that. I am told by a well-known firm of abattoir equipment manufacturers, the North British
916
Hoist and Lifting Equipment Manufacturing Company, of Glasgow, that one single unit of their excellent mechanical stunning pen will now cost £450; which is approximately 250 per cent. above the pre-war figure—and that is only one small unit.
There is no doubt that a great deal of capital will have to be employed. But there are local authorities at present who are willing and able to employ that capital; but it cannot be expended until a policy is laid down by the Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Furthermore, from information that I have received from the North British Hoist Company, they have not been manufacturing much, if any, abattoir equipment since the end of the war, in consequence, apparently, of lack of permits. I should have thought that if anybody could have obtained permits, it would be the Minister of Food. He has an efficient Parliamentary Secretary, and it is my experience that when ladies want something, they nearly always get it. Why then is not the Minister of Food able to obtain permits for such equipment as an abattoir needs? The 1933 Act has given protection to the calves and sheep, as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has said. These animals are now mechanically stunned in Ministry of Food-operated slaughter houses. But it is not, I think, the actual killing that is the inhumane part in abattoirs to-day.
I am going to make a statement which may leave me wide open to criticism. I do not believe that blood or dead carcases or, in fact, actual slaughter operations of themselves have any effect whatsoever on an animal's mind. The fear which causes a bullock to run amok, in my opinion and in the opinion of those whose job it is to watch slaughtering day after day, is due entirely to rough handling, to the shouting and the beating and so forth that are employed by slaughter-men and drovers, working under the most inadequate conditions, in very limited space, and in the most restricted time before actual slaughter. In a factory abattoir, all those conditions are completely avoided. The animal walks straight from a pen to the man with the mechanical stunner. There is no trouble, no beating, pushing, prodding or shoving whatsoever. That is where the cruelty exists, in my opinion; it is not in the actual

917
killing. One has only to see an efficient abattoir in operation to realise that. One can there see animals walking up, one after the other, awaiting their turn for the humane killer; and even though the door between the lairage and the killing chambers is sometimes left open—and, incidentally, by law it is supposed to be shut—it has no effect whatsoever upon the animals. I can assure noble Lords that that is so.
Electrical stunning is a system used to a large extent with pigs in bacon factories when the slaughtering is on a large scale. There is no doubt about it that electrical stunning is certainly efficient, and it is also economical, for the large scale pig-killer; but so far it is questionable whether it is actually humane. Electrical stunning, takes place by applying a pair of electrically charged tongs usually behind the animal's ears. The electric current causes every muscle in the animal to contract, including its breathing mechanism. Thus, oxygen is excluded from the blood stream. How long the oxygen can actually remain in the brain, upon which depends the consciousness of the animal, is not well known. Mr. E. O. Longley, under the auspices of the University Federation of Animal Welfare, is carrying out investigations in this matter at the Bristol Institute of Neurotics. I would earnestly recommend that opinion be reserved upon the electrical stunning methods until further data is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has dealt at some length with ritual slaughter. I am glad that he has done so, as it saves my having to give a vivid description of it. I do not hold that the actual killing is particularly cruel. With an expert, it takes three seconds to cut a bullock's throat—I say "with an expert." It is the preliminary casting which I maintain comprises the entire cruelty and suffering to the animal. As the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has pointed out, the Weinberg pen could be used in this case, and I believe that cruelty could be almost entirely eliminated. Further, throat-cutting cannot be as humane as the mechanical stunner; I think there can be no possible doubt about that. It seems that animal welfare is a "high priority" in another place in these times. I ask that, should any of your Lordships feel that way inclined, you should go down to a slaughterhouse and see a ritual killing take place
918
without the use of the Weinberg pen. You would see what actually happens in these slaughter-houses when they are run by the Minister of Food on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
To sum up, I would ask again: Has the Minister any policy for slaughter-houses and slaughter-house operation? There can be no doubt whatsoever that efficient slaughtering means economical slaughtering, and at the same time efficient slaughtering means humane slaughtering. One has only to go and look at a first-class abattoir to realise that. There are plenty of them in England. There is no inhumanity existing in such a place. Such humane and economical institutions or units cannot exist in this country until His Majesty's Government have arrived at a policy as to how future slaughtering should be carried out.
Secondly, I would ask that any zoning that is necessary should be carried out with the greatest care and according to the interests of the following considerations. First, there must be clean food for the consumer. The convenience and the price to the producer—that is, the farmer—have also to be looked after. There is the question of transport to be considered—the distance that the farmer has to take his products to market. The local authority in whose area the abattoir is to be set up, and the slaughtermen with the conditions of the work that they will have to do, are another consideration. There is no doubt that the slaughtering trade is a highly skilled profession. Furthermore, it is very hard work. Admittedly, a slaughterman working full time during the heavy killing season might make, so I am informed, anything up to £20 or £30 a week, but he really works hard for that money. Lastly, there is the question of humanity in the slaughter-houses. I say it rests entirely upon the efficiency and the economic operation of that abattoir. It is not until a Government policy is produced that there will be efficiency in the abattoir.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I find myself once again in the position of asking the indulgence of your Lordships to accept me as a substitute for my noble friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who, under doctor's orders, has gone away for a while to recover fully from the unfortunate illness which has

919
afflicted him over the last two or three months. Nobody could have listened to the noble Lord who moved this Motion, either this evening or upon the last occasion when he addressed your Lordships' House, without being deeply impressed by the sincerity and depth of feeling which he has upon this subject. I am also particularly grateful to him for giving me such ample notice of the points he was going to raise, because it allowed me to make my own investigations into the matter and to satisfy myself of the correctness of what I am going to say.
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, started off by saying that the conditions in the slaughter-houses of this country were, on the average, deplorable. Then he went on rather to qualify that statement by asking your Lordships not to assume that they were in every case deplorable. Then he said, "Of course, the reason for this must rest upon the shoulders of the Minister of Food." The noble Lord should know that what is wrong with the slaughter-houses of this country is a legacy of the past, when there were 16,000 of them, the vast majority of which could not even be considered as properly coming within the category of a killing establishment. I would not like it to go out from your Lordships' House that the conditions, far from perfect though they be, are quite so bad as one would be led to expect in the 600 slaughter-houses which are at present controlled and managed by the Minister of Food. The greatest possible care is taken by my right honourable friend and the officials of his Department to see that humane conditions are observed. Practice is governed by the Slaughter of Animals Act which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, knows, has been supplemented by overriding regulations by the Minister of Food; and every one of these 600 slaughter-houses is managed by a competent official of the Ministry of Food. There are one or two exceptions, notably in Scotland, where the management is undertaken by officials of the local authority who act under instructions from the Ministry of Food and are their agents.
Every area has a supervisor, again charged with the responsibility for seeing that humane conditions prevail. Over the areas there are other supervisors who are directly responsible to the appropriate
920
Department of the Ministry of Food. I was very glad when the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, rather discredited a theory to which, I think, his remarks of nearly twelve months ago gave rise—namely, that slaughter-men were apt to become inhumane. They are not, and I am glad he made that point. The slaughter-men's task is distasteful, but it is very necessary. I expect the same loose language has been used upon many occasions about doctors and also nurses, the most gentle creatures in the medical profession—that "familiarity breeds contempt." It is quite right for the noble Lord to pay a tribute to the slaughter-men of this country in carrying out a distasteful job with a great degree of humanity.
As the noble Lord quite rightly said, of the animals which are killed in the 600 slaughter-houses controlled by the Ministry of Food, all except those slaughtered according to the rites of the Jewish and Moslem religions are stunned before killing—every one. When the noble Lord poses the question as to whether there are an adequate number of slaughter-houses, whether the 600 can properly cope with the requirements, the answer is that for about ten months of the year they can. But there is a peak period, generally in October and November. It might interest your Lordships to know that the number of killings in these slaughter-houses is about 25,000 units per week in the ten months of the year, but that number rises to about 126,000 units per week in the months of October and November. You will soon see that for every slaughter-man that is required in June, five are necessary in October. The noble Lord himself said that a slaughter-man is a highly-skilled worker, and you cannot have four out of every five highly-skilled slaughter-men standing idle for ten months in the year. He is also quite right when he says that the slaughter-houses in this country are badly sited. That is not a new phenomenon: it is again one of the relics of the past, so we have to put up with this congestion over two months in the year. But within the limitations of supplies, equipment and building materials, all the slaughter-houses are being modernised as much as possible and the work goes on unceasingly.
When the noble Lord refers to animals that are killed outside the slaughterhouses, he raises a question of great im

921
portance and one that has been given serious thought. The noble Lord's figures are approximately correct. I suppose approximately 450,000 pigs are slaughtered under the self-suppliers' scheme. The vast majority, if not all of those animals, are slaughtered outside Government slaughter-houses. The noble Lord was sightly incorrect, however, when he said that there is no control of the slaughter of these pigs. There is, as he knows, the Protection of Animals Act; and on the licence issued by the Ministry of Food authorising the slaughter of one of these animals, attention is specifically drawn to the fact that the licence does not exempt the licensee from his obligations under various Acts. I need not trouble to read them all, but it includes any other Act, order, regulation or bylaw relating to the slaughter of animals. I know the noble Lord would very much like to have the Slaughter of Animals Act amended to cover the slaughter of every animal for food in this country. If that were practicable it would be desirable; but, whatever one did, it would be an impossibility to see that it was properly enforced, with 450,000 killings in some of the remoter parts of this country, on farms or anywhere else. I think your Lordships will agree that it is not right to put on the Statute Book legislation that cannot be effective or be properly enforced. That is the difficulty.
I know the noble Lord may have a contrary opinion, and to anticipate it I have discussed with the appropriate authorities whether it is possible to have any relaxation of the Firearms Act. The noble Lord has said, quite rightly, that humane killers are regarded as lethal weapons, and nobody can have one without obtaining a licence granted by permission of the local chief constable. This point has been examined, but my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, is adamant that the law cannot be altered. All the authorities are against it. It is said by these authorities that this lethal weapon is most dangerous in the hands of inexperienced operators and can do considerable damage, and the police and the Home Office are not willing to relax the regulations. The noble Lord raised the question about the local authority having the option of contracting out of certain provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act. That has been superseded so the point does not now arise. I am
922
afraid that my reply on this particular matter may not be considered by the noble Lord to be satisfactory. But I have done my best, and the weight of authority is against him.
The noble Lord raised the question of the ritual slaughter, and I thought he treated the subject with a delicacy which was wholly admirable. Undoubtedly, this is a delicate matter, but there is no reason why it should not be faced squarely. I know that there are authoritative opinions to the effect that the actual act of killing according to the Jewish ritual (I will come to the preliminaries in a moment) is not so humane as that of stunning. But, on the other hand, there are equally eminent authorities who avow to the contrary. One very distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Lord Horder, has publicly stated that the physical act of killing according to the Jewish ritual is more humane than the other. I can say, quite definitely, that, taking everything into consideration, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to prohibit the Jewish method of slaughter—which would deprive orthodox Jews of this country of such supplies of meat as they are permitted to consume under the rules of their religion.
When the noble Lord was dealing with what he called the preliminaries of the Jewish ritual slaughter, he was on much stronger ground. His Majesty's Government are not satisfied, and I am not satisfied, that in those preliminaries there are not possibilities of such a degree of cruelty as to be an affront to the public conscience. Lord Dowding has mentioned the use of the Weinberg pen, which casts an animal automatically instead of the operation having to be carried out by human hands, as happens in some cases. It is true that there are about forty-nine slaughter-houses in this country under the authority of the Ministry of Food where slaughter according to the Jewish ritual takes place. The noble Lord was again correct in saying that seventeen of these are equipped with the Weinberg pen, and it should be on record that 80 per cent. of the Jewish meat requirement is obtained from those slaughter-houses which are equipped with the Weinberg pen. But His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that as soon as practicable the provision

923
of beef to meet Jewish ration requirements shall be conditional on Jewish communities providing an approved casting pen for the ritual slaughter of cattle. I think that I may properly draw the attention of the Jewish community to this so that at the earliest possible moment they may make whatever arrangements are necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has dealt with the Moslem slaughter which presents a somewhat similar problem to that of the Jewish slaughter. There are about 500 to 600 sheep killed in Government slaughter-houses every week for Moslem consumption, and they are killed by the Jewish method. If the noble Lord has authentic information—as I gather he has—that the Moslem authorities in this country are prepared to agree to an alternative method of slaughter, then I shall be glad to receive that information to add to that already in our possession. His Majesty's Government will always be only too willing to listen to any representations in such a matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, both mentioned the Report for which I was partly responsible. I do not know whether I ought to be overcome with embarrassment because of the flattering remarks made by the noble Earl. However, I do not think that I can add anything to what has already been said. I agree with both the noble Lords. The whole question of the slaughtering, processing, manufacture and distribution in this country needs to be seriously overhauled. But, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said recently in another place, the Report to which both noble Lords have referred raised issues of far-reaching importance, and the major proposals of the Committee needed further examination in the light of wider problems of procurement, marketing and distribution. Although a good deal of thought—the noble Lord used the term "intensive study"—is still being given to the recommendations, the situation remains the same at the moment. My right honourable friend went on to say that any legislation which His Majesty's Government are introducing, affecting agricultural marketing at the present time, will in no way
924
prejudice any decision of the Government to bring in legislation based on anything in that Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, raised a question which I thought was rather wide of the Motion, but I would not like him to think me guilty of the discourtesy of not referring to it. He spoke of the castration of horses. Your Lordships will remember that when the Veterinary Surgeons Bill (now the Veterinary Surgeons Act) was before your Lordships' House, this particular subject was discussed at some length, and I myself was responsible for moving an Amendment to bring it under closer control. At the present time animals, ranging from two years for horses and six months for others, cannot be castrated over that age except by a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary practitioner. That is where the matter stands to-day. If it is considered that this needs revising, then the proper representations will have to be made to the appropriate authorities. I think I have answered the main points and that there is nothing more I can usefully add. I will not deal in detail with all the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, because they were somewhat wide of this Motion and I think the remarks I have made cover in substance what he said. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, will feel more satisfied on this occasion than he has felt on others, and that I am not being unreasonable if I ask him, in view of what I have said, to withdraw his Motion.
6.41 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I would like briefly to answer one or two points in the very courteous and full reply which I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. His first point is the impossibility of enforcing any general prohibition of killing without preliminary stunning outside slaughter-houses. The same answer was given to me last year, but I do not find it altogether a convincing one. After all, the majority of people in this country are law-abiding, and if by a regulation of that sort we could ensure that 80 to 90 per cent. of the people carried out the instructions, that would be all to the good. On the other hand, we went for many years under the most ridiculous motoring laws which made every motorist an offender. I am not

925
suggesting that that was a good thing. The point I want to make, very strongly, is this: If the Government will not order it, will they not at the time when they issue the licence advise the licensee that the licensed slaughterer should, if possible, use the pistol, give him the address of the nearest officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and advise him that he can get it on loan free of charge? That is all I am asking. If the Home Secretary is adamant on the subject of this pistol, I have no more to say—on this occasion at any rate.
I cannot accept the argument that an order for the preliminary stunning of animals would deprive Jews of their supply of meat, because the ritual slaughter can go on in all its details after the stunning has been applied. I am glad to hear that it is contemplated that the continuation of Jewish ritual slaughter shall be made conditional on the provision of casting pens. I think that if His Majesty's Government will make contact with the Chief Rabbi, they will find him very amenable in that respect. As regards Moslem killing, I will supply my noble friend with a copy of the actual document which I believe was put up as a poster on the wall of the Woking Mosque. I will not detain your Lordships with any discussion about castration of horses. I did not mean to introduce it into the debate and gave it merely as an instance of cruelty where there seems to be some object, so that one can understand, if one cannot condone, it. The point is that there is nobody who benefits from this cruelty of slaughtering in full consciousness of these poor animals outside the slaughter-house. With that, if I may be permitted to do so, I desire to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TEACHERS IN TECHNICAL COLLEGES
6.44 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to call attention to the pay and conditions of teachers in the technical colleges; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to bring this last subject on at so late an hour, but I have no alternative. Our Order Paper is becoming extremely congested, and the last two subjects raised so much interest that it
926
took a long time to dispose of them. I must take this opportunity of raising the matter because it is extremely urgent, and I would not disappoint my noble friend Lord Walkden, who I know has a reply which he believes is adequate, and which I hope is so. I rarely speak on educational matters. The reason why my attention was drawn to this one is that my wife is a governor of one of the larger technical colleges and she has told me about this difficulty and led me to investigate it. Here we have a good instance of the better kind of petticoat Government!
I maintain that this is a matter of great importance to the nation, from both the long-term and the short-term point of view. In this matter I am supported by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee and by everyone, so far as I know, who is familiar with this question. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister of Education must be satisfied, by now, from the figures which must have reached him, that the situation is so serious that technical education is suffering, and that the time has come when he should be able to take action. There has been a great charge in technical colleges in the last fourteen years. When my noble friend knew them, they were very different from what they are now. They turned out a good foreman of a factory, but now the scientific training is of a much higher order, and the colleges are turning out highly skilled technicians with academic degrees—Doctors of Philosophy, Masters of Science, Bachelors of Science, and so on. There is an emphasis in some colleges on engineering; in others it is on art and medicines—but all have a great variety of students. All the occupations for which this training is given are a vital part of our national life.
Before I come to the few statistics with which I must trouble your Lordships, I want to pay tribute to the existing teachers and headmasters at technical colleges. They are not only teachers, but also the friends, advisers and guides of the students. They look after them and help them in every way, in amateur dramatic societies and all kinds of wider cultural specialities, and they encourage them in sport. I know that my noble friend will support me from his own knowledge when I say that students in our technical colleges are no longer the rowdy irresponsible type which he and I

927
knew in our young days. They are now serious young men and women, trying to specialise in some active occupation and taking their studies very seriously indeed. The days of wild "rags" and riotous behaviour, that my noble friend and I used to know and even possibly indulged in, are dying away.
What is the situation? The pay and conditions in the technical colleges, and particularly the pay, is such that it is almost impossible to get a sufficiency of qualified and suitable teachers. These figures are given to me by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. During the session 1946–47, out of 452 vacancies in the technical colleges, 191 were not filled; and out of the 261 appointments which were made, 90 were not of a satisfactory standard—they were stop-gaps. These were appointed in order that classes could be held. For the 452 vacancies there were 617 advertisements issued, some of the vacancies being advertised as many as three and four times. It is impossible in the face of the higher emoluments paid by industry to the best-trained scientists to obtain suitable technical teachers in sufficient numbers for the technical colleges. That is a most serious state of affairs, and I need not press it upon my noble friend, who I am sure agrees with me.
In the Barlow Committee's Report on scientific man-power it was estimated that doubling the present number of scientists and technologists is a matter of the utmost urgency if this country is to regain its industrial position. So not only have we a shortage in the existing staffs, but in the Barlow Committee's Report—I have this all documented, and my noble friend will not dispute it—it is estimated that we need to double the present number. If we turn to the Percy Committee's Report, we find that it recommended that, in order that this man-power should be made available in industry, the selection of a strictly limited number of technical colleges in which there should be developed technological courses on a standard comparable with that of university degree courses, is necessary. It was estimated that there exist twenty-seven major technical colleges, of which ten are in the Greater London area, providing full-time technological courses of the required standard for a substantial number
928
of students. Several of these major technical colleges also undertake a considerable bulk of training in pure science for the degrees of the University of London, and so act as an overflow for the colleges and schools of the University. This state of affairs existed before the war, and seems likely to continue for at least ten more years.
I have had an investigation made of the records of one of the major technical colleges, and these are the figures for the session 1947–48: university degrees in science, 63; university degrees in engineering, 78; total university degrees, 141; professional technological diplomas, 203; making a total of 344. Therefore, the contribution made by such a technical college to scientific and technological man-power is very considerable, and it is to be deplored that the salaries offered to the teachers are such that these major technical colleges are finding it impossible to recruit efficient lecturers in sufficient numbers.
What is the cause of this trouble? The Burnham Committee's report on teachers' salaries makes no distinction between a lecturer at a major technical college and any other type of teacher, so far as basic salary is concerned. This basic salary is £300, rising by annual increments of £15 to £555 a year, to which must be added various allowances according to the qualifications and training of the teacher. For a graduate with Second-Class Honours, who trained for three years at the university, the salary scale would be: Provinces, £345, rising to £600 per annum; and London £381, rising to £648 per annum. All these salaries refer to male teachers only; and there is a lower scale for women teachers. Since an inexperienced graduate in science can obtain employment in industry at a commencing salary of £450 per annum, it will be appreciated that the teaching profession offers little attraction. So far as the technical colleges are concerned, the situation is much worse, as it is essential that the staff should be experienced in industry or in research before being employed as lecturers. As each year of industrial experience ranks as the equivalent of teaching service, the salary scale of the Second-Class Honours graduate after four years' experience in industry would be: in the Provinces £405, rising to £600 per annum; and in London £441, rising to £648 per annum. Such a man, if he

929
possessed any real ability, would be receiving at least £600 per annum in industry, and it is practically impossible to recruit him as a teacher.
The Burnham Report made some attempt to overcome this difficulty by arranging that colleges should have an establishment of senior assistants based on the number of students attending advanced courses. The salary scale of senior assistants is £700, rising by increments of £25 to £800 a year, with allowances for degrees, and is sufficient to attract and retain teachers of good standing and experience. Although possibly adequate for most technical colleges, the establishment of senior assistants is very inadequate so far as the major technical colleges are concerned. The Burnham Report also makes provision for a certain proportion of teachers to receive a special responsibility allowance as an addition to the basic scale. These allowances are usually to the value of £50, £75 or £100 per annum in special cases. These allowances of £50 or £75 per annum can have little effect on the recruitment of teachers. No less than 53 per cent. of the assistant teachers in a typical large technical college of which I have knowledge are paid on the basic scale, in spite of the fact that their duties are mainly concerned with advanced work. In order to overcome immediate staffing difficulties, men who possess only a pass degree, and who have no industrial experience, have been employed as teachers. Such men are unlikely to become capable of teaching advanced science and technology in a convincing and efficient manner.
This problem is one of extreme urgency, and the whole future of the major technical colleges is being prejudiced by this recruitment of a lower-grade assistant staff. The Percy Committee realised the dangers and difficulties of the situation and recommended that the salaries and conditions of service of comparable teaching staffs in the major technical colleges should be similar to those of university teachers. This recommendation was endorsed by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which made certain suggestions regarding the possible rates of pay.
That is the situation. I suggest that there has already been too much delay, and it is time that we took some speedy action. It is absurd to have the same
930
basic salary for a teacher of children aged 5 to 12 and for a teacher of advanced technology. The salary of the latter must be related more closely to what it would be in industry. I am quite sure the Ministry of Education must be aware of these facts, and I think the time has come when action should be taken on the grounds that technical education in the country is suffering, and the whole nation will be the loser. The normal machinery for the regulation of teachers' salaries is the Burnham Committee—I hope my noble friend is not going to ride off on that. It is unreasonable to expect the technical panel of this Committee to be actively interested in a special scale for the twenty-seven major technical colleges. Yet on these twenty-seven major technical colleges we as a nation have to rely for our fully qualified men to manage the industry of the future. Therefore, if anything is to be done, it will have to be done through Parliament quickly, on, I hope, the recommendation of the Minister of Education.
What would it cost to bring in the appropriate new salary scales? The estimate I have been given—which I believe is accurate—is that for another £100,000 a year we could have a scale of salaries which would attract the best scientists available for this vitally important work. What are the new Estimates we now have to meet for armaments alone? My noble friend Lord Walkden is as well aware of them as I am. Against the vast sums that we are to spend on preparing for the possible contingency of war, £100,000 a year is nothing. I hope, therefore, that the Treasury, or whoever has the last word, will be sympathetic. It is with a view to arousing interest in this matter, and bringing to bear the influence of your Lordships' House, that I venture to raise this matter. I look forward with confidence to my noble friend's reply. I beg to move for Papers.
7.2 p.m.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend as to the supreme importance of the great subject of technical education. It becomes more and more important as the years go on, but I hardly expect that at this late hour he will look to me to try to cover all the ground he has covered. I am not prepared to do that, but. I think I can give a reply which will be of great interest

931
to everybody concerned in the service of technical education, and particularly to those engaged in it as teachers. It will go on record, and will undoubtedly be quoted in a number of journals which deal with the subject.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope my noble friend's answer does not mean that he is not going to give me a full reply. If he and I can wait here, surely he can give me that reply.
LORD WALKDEN: My noble friend did not furnish me with the detailed points he was going to raise, and that is why he cannot expect me to reply to every one. But I have a reply which I am sure will meet his case as adequately as one can in the circumstances now prevailing. The particular question we are considering to-day is the pay and conditions of teachers in the technical colleges. As noble Lords are aware, the salaries of teachers in technical colleges, as in other types of maintained institutions, are, and have been for many years, settled by the Burnham Committee. This Committee was originally set up thirty years ago by Mr. Fisher, when he was President of the Board of Education, but since 1944 its functions have been defined by Section 89 of the Education Act of that year. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend of the wording of that section, because it is very binding on the Ministry:
"The Minister shall secure that for the purpose of considering the remuneration of teachers there shall be one or more committees. It shall be the duty of any such committee to submit to the Minister, whenever they think fit or whenever they may be required by him so to do, such scales of remuneration for teachers as they consider suitable. And, whenever a scale of remuneration so submitted is approved by the Minister he may by order make such provision as appears to him to be desirable for the purpose of securing that the remuneration paid by local education authorities to teachers is in accordance therewith."
That marks a great step forward in the question of remunerating teachers of all kinds, because it makes it imperative, by order of the Ministry, that the findings of the Burnham Committee shall be put into operation, whereas years ago some backward authorities objected to putting them into operation, and in some cases
932
refused to do so. Therefore, the teachers are in a better position now.
It is important to realise what this section of the Act implies. All questions of salaries are clearly, in the first instance, a matter for the Burnham Committee. The Minister can approve or reject their recommendations, but there is no power conferred on him to alter them. Once the scales have been approved by order, they remain in force for the period fixed, unless the local authorities or the teachers give notice to terminate them. I can, therefore, give the House no encouragement for expecting that the Minister of Education is likely to initiate a revision of the salary scales; nor do I think it likely that the Burnham Committee will reopen the matter so soon after the present scales were settled.
The general structure of the present salary scales was framed in 1945, in consequence of the changes brought about by the Education Act, 1944. At that time the Burnham Committees were reconstituted, and their first task was to undertake a complete revision of salaries in all types of schools and educational establishments. So far as technical teachers were concerned, there were two main principles governing the revision of the scales. The first was that there should be a basic scale for all assistant teachers similar in its amount and conditions to that laid down for primary and secondary school teachers. That is basic, and everything else is built upon that. The second principle was that a special grade of assistant teacher, with an appropriate scale of salaries, should be provided to perform work comparable in character and standard to the work done by university teachers. Accordingly, in the Burnham Report of 1945, we find two grades of teacher—the assistant and the senior assistant. Above these, there are, of course, the heads of departments and principals. The position was not materially altered in 1948, when a survey was made of the then Burnham arrangements, but the scales of salary were revised and improved.
It may be convenient to noble Lords and the public if I quote the present scales now in force. These are the authentic official figures. A man assistant begins at £300 a year and rises to £555, with

933
additions for training and university degrees or other special qualifications. A senior assistant begins at £700 and rises to £800, plus additions similar to those applicable in the case of assistants. In fact, a man assistant can rise to £660 a year, and a senior assistant to £905 a year, if he possesses the requisite qualifications. Heads of departments can rise to £1,355 a year. But there are exceptional cases in very important technical colleges where additional pay may be given to beads of departments, and there is no stipulated maximum for those payments. The only condition is that they must be approved by the Minister. If they are approved by the Minister, then they go into operation, and that gives a fair margin of improvement.
Nor is that all. There are special allowances attached to posts of special responsibility, ranging from £50 to £150 in the case of men assistants. An assistant, therefore, who holds one of these posts of special responsibility, can rise to a salary of £810 per annum. A career which offers a possible annual salary of £390, rising to a possible figure of £810, with a chance of a further rise to £905 or even £1,355, is not unattractive, particularly when one remembers the possible openings as principals of colleges available to suitable persons. Much has been made of the difficulty of obtaining suitable candidates to fill posts in technical colleges, and there is little doubt that there is substance in these arguments. I think the main burden of my noble friend's pleadings was on that point.
When the Burnham Committee were considering their Report last year, a great amount of evidence was produced showing that in spite of the large number of applicants for vacancies the number of candidates of suitable calibre was often alarmingly small. This is a difficulty which is not confined to technical colleges; we have heard the same about teachers for advanced work in grammar schools. There are many factors which contribute towards it. With the expanding scope of industry since the war to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, the demands from that quarter have been growing, and it would be idle to pretend that schools and colleges can hope to compete with the salaries paid for highly-qualified men in industry or
934
commerce. But of course there are many valuable factors associated with employment under the State. There is the sureness of continuity of employment; there is the higher prestige attached to service of this character; and there are the superannuation provisions—which are not always present in the case of private industry and are not in any case so reliable as in the case of employment under a public authority. Then again, the growth of the universities has not yet had time to take effect, and we may hope that when this has had its full effect the position will be eased.
Meantime, it is a question whether the fullest possible use is being made of the latitude allowed by the Burnham Report. I wish to stress this. I want to show that the employing authorities have a great deal of latitude in which to improve salaries within the range of the Burnham Report. The Report provides that the number of posts of special responsibility shall be "not less than 20 per cent. nor more than 27½ per cent, of the number of teachers employed." That is a pretty good percentage. The amount of the allowance is to range between £50 and £150 for men. Similarly, the proportion of senior assistants is to be "not less than one for each group of fifty students nor more than one for each group of forty students" I think it will be seen from this that there is a fairly wide scope for more or less generous treatment by employing bodies.
I certainly do not wish to underestimate the difficulty to which our attention has been drawn to-day. His Majesty's Government are impressed with the paramount importance of good technical education as the only foundation of our industrial survival. For this good buildings and good teachers are essential, and they are both lacking as to numbers and accommodation. We shall therefore continue to watch the position carefully. All I would say at the moment is that there is not sufficient evidence to reach a final conclusion. These are abnormal times, and many of the factors operating in the supply of qualified teachers are still incalculable. Meantime, the future organisation of technical education is still incomplete.
I particularly wish to draw my noble friend's attention to what follows. The National Advisory Council on Education

935
for Industry and Commerce has recently been set up to advise the Minister on national policy, particularly in regard to major colleges of further education. We do not know what the results of this review will be, but we can certainly say that technical education will throw up many problems in the near future. It may well be that the important question of the salaries and conditions of employment of teachers should be considered at the appropriate time against this background. In conclusion, I can assure the noble Lord that the whole subject and particularly this matter of recruitment and remuneration of teachers will continue to have the closest attention of His Majesty's Government.
7.18 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the full reply he has given. I am glad he did not dispute my figures—in fact he reinforced them—and I find myself, therefore, in agreement with a great deal of what he said. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of Education can intervene if it can be shown that technical education is suffering. If that be the case, I hope the Report to which the noble Lord referred will cause that intervention. I do not want to press the matter, especially as there is no dispute as to figures of salary. What is important to know is whether the present salaries are attracting sufficient men of the right type, in view of the competition from industry. That is the problem we have to face. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and in view of his remarks I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

CERTIFICATE FROM EXAMINERS
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that
936
no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
NATIONAL THEATRE:
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRICITY (STAFF COMPENSATION) REGULATIONS, 1949
Draft Regulations proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Electricity Act, 1947: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1949
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle; That the Order is founded on precedent inasmuch as it provides for the amendment of an Order which has received already the approval of the House; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUMMER TIME ORDER, 1949
Report from the Special Orders Committee. That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy; That the Order is founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.