Sitting of 16 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past
Two o'Clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL AVIATION

    London Airport (Road Transport)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why, in view of the fact that London Airport is under his control, he does not provide a rapid and direct transport service between the airport and the Central London area.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Responsibility for surface transport between the airport and Central London rests with the air line operators, in conjunction with the licensing authority for public service vehicles and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan Area as to the routes to be followed.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have pointed out in the Question that he is responsible for London Airport, and that I require to know whether he is satisfied that the present arrangements are satisfactory, and whether he has any future plans, because at present it takes passengers travelling between the airport and the centre of London as long as a third of the time it takes to fly between London and Paris?
    Mr. Lindgren: The transport of passengers between the centre of London and the aerodrome is the responsibility of the operator, and not of the aerodrome owner.

    Flying Clubs
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, if he will now make a
    2084
    statement regarding the Government?s policy in connection with flying clubs.
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Is not a statement to be made about the flying clubs by the hon. Gentleman?s Ministry, in view of the fact that we were promised a statement in two months? Nothing is being done about the flying clubs.
    Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Gentleman will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday?s date, at col. 2011, he will see the report of a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As presumably the hon. Gentleman and the Government trust the chief executive of B.O.A.C., and as two years ago that chief executive recommended that aid should be given, is it not about time the Government decided to follow that advice?
    Mr. Lindgren: This is a Government decision, not the recommendation of an individual.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Why should it be left to the Secretary of State for Air to make a statement about flying clubs, when they are the responsibility of the Minister of Civil Aviation? When is the hon. Gentleman going to make up his mind about this? We have been waiting now for two years.
    Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman will find the answer in yesterday?s statement.

    Boeing Stratocruisers
    Mr. George Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the nature of the financial arrangements with the United States for the payment for the six Boeing Stratocruisers on order.
    Mr. Lindgren: The financial arrangements are embodied in a contract between British Overseas Airways Corporation and the Boeing Aircraft Company. The details of this contract are a matter of management reserved to the Corporation.
    Mr. Ward: Could the hon. Gentleman say how much of the purchase price has already been paid? Is there an escape clause in the contract in case the aircraft do not come up to the specification required?
    Mr. Lindgren: Nearly 6,000,000 dollars have already been paid. I really could not answer the second part of the supplementary question without notice.

    Stansted Airport
    Mr. R. A. Butlerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how soon it is proposed to open Stansted Airport in order to provide facilities for charter operators; and what will be the position of residents in the huts at present on the airport.
    Mr. Lindgren: Progressively from 1st April, as accommodation can be made available. The huts will be needed for those employed on the aerodrome, and I am afraid that the present occupants, not so employed, will have to move elsewhere.
    Mr. Butler: Would the hon. Gentleman be ready to receive a deputation accompanied by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden on this subject, in order that the full case may be put to him of the circumstances of those on the airport?
    Mr. Lindgren: We are already in very close consultation, and I am happy to acknowledge the close co-operation of Bishop Stortford Urban District Council; but we should be happy to receive a deputation headed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Butler: Would the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that he has had the co-operation of Saffron Walden Rural District Council, which is intimately concerned in this matter?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, but not quite so actively.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the hon. Gentleman also receive a deputation about Errol Airport, which has been waiting for three years, on the same terms?

    Vikings
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, how many Vikings have been sold by the British European Airways Corporation; and how the selling price compares with the price paid for them.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed that British European Airways Corporation have not sold any of their Vikings.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask how it is that a statement to the effect that they have been sold appears in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who censures the Government for what happened when the sale took place; and is it not extraordinary that a high public official should make a statement which is now denied from the Government Front Bench?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am only responsible for the correctness of my own statement. No doubt the Comptroller and Auditor General can justify his.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Surely, the Auditor General would never make a statement without having evidence before him. He must have taken evidence, and does the hon. Gentleman deny the evidence which he must have received before he made up his mind?
    Mr. Lindgren: I can only repeat that B.E.A. has not sold any Vikings.
    Mr. Ward: In view of the highly-conflicting and unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    York Aircraft
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smilesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many York aircraft have been disposed of by the air Corporations; what sum was paid for these York aircraft; and for what price were they sold.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed that no Yorks have been disposed of by the Corporations.

    Corporations (Amalgamation)
    Sir P. Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, in view of the excessive losses accruing, what is the future policy of his Department regarding British South American Airways and the other two Government Corporations.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if, in view of operating difficulties, he will amalgamate the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British South American Airways; and to what extent legislation will be necessary for this purpose.
    Mr. Lindgren: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement that I made yesterday.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Why did the hon. Gentleman make the statement yesterday? Why did we have to receive a premature statement here because a statement happened to be made in another place? These Questions were on the Order Paper for seven days, and it is generally the practice when Ministers have Questions put to them to answer them in this House. Are we subordinate to another place?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am at the direction of Mr. Speaker whether a statement is made. If the hon. Gentleman has any supplementary question, I will deal with it.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Is it a fact that this amalgamation is taking place, and, if so, is the new corporation—B.O.A.C.—going to assume responsibility for B.S.A.A. as regards aircraft which have already been ordered by B.S.A.A.?
    Mr. Lindgren: I answered both questions yesterday, and the answer again to both is,?Yes, Sir.?
    Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has now said that whether or not he makes a statement is at your discretion, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday when a statement was made, and the matter was put to you on a point of Order, you, I think, said that it was not a matter for you, but it was entirely a matter for the Minister.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Further to that point of Order; when an occasion arises and we try to put down a particular Question on urgent private business, if a Question happens to be on the Order Paper relating to it, however remotely, we are not allowed to ask it as a Private Notice Question. On the other hand, a Minister can come in here and make a statement at any time.
    Mr. Speaker: It was surely obvious that when a statement was to be made in another place, as I gathered was the case yesterday, there would have been complaints if the statement had been made in another place and not made here as well. Therefore, in spite of the Question on the Order Paper, the Minister was entitled to make his statement. If a statement is to be made—and I am no judge on that—
    2088
    and it must be made in both places, I think it is only courteous to this House that it should have a statement at the same time as the statement in another place.
    Mr. Marlowe: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that explanation, but that is not the point that I raised. The hon. Gentleman said just now that whether or not he made a statement was a matter for your decision. If I remember rightly, you said yesterday just the contrary, and that whether the Minister made a statement or not was for him to decide.
    Mr. Speaker: I was looking up Erskine May this morning, and actually the Minister who wants to make a statement has to ask my permission. I am informed that a statement is to be made. I cannot say whether it is a good or bad one, but unless it seems to me to be quite unreasonable, I have no reason for withholding my consent.
    Sir P. Macdonald: I have seen a lot of this happen in this House. A Minister can make a statement to the House by permission of the House. It is the House that has to give the permission, and the Minister yesterday did not even have the courtesy to ask the House for permission.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in error. The Minister has the right to make a statement, subject, as I have said, to my consent, but, apart from that, a Minister on domestic affairs or on foreign affairs has, I think—I am speaking from memory—the right to make a statement. I think that if Ministers abused that right, the House would soon let them know.

    Gliders (Registration)
    Squadron-Leader Kinghornasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he intends introducing the compulsory registration of gliders.
    Mr. Lindgren: 1st April, 1949.
    Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Is there any pressing reason why this regulation should be brought in on 1st April, 1949? If there are to be fees prescribed for these flying clubs and gliding clubs I hope that they will not be too high.
    Mr. Lindgren: The regulation comes in under the new Air Navigation Order and Regulations which become operative on that date. There will be fees charged, but the whole question of regulations and fees charged has been discussed with the British Gliding Association and the Royal Aero Club who feel quite happy about them.

    Boeing Stratocruisers
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are the delivery dates for the six Boeing Stratocruisers on order for the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and when are they expected to be in service.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed that, according to the latest information received from the manufacturer, the first of the six aircraft on order for the British Overseas Airways Corporation should be delivered in September and that delivery should be completed by the end of November. If these dates are maintained a limited North Atlantic service should commence as from 1st January, 1950.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Western Airlines of America are disposing of this type of aeroplane, as are also other international airlines, and is he still satisfied that this aeroplane will come up to specifications and do what is required?
    Mr. Lindgren: As to the first part of the question, I was not aware of that. As regards the latter part, that is not a question for my noble Friend or myself but for the operator who is to operate the aircraft.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Surely, dollars are required for these aircraft and that comes within the purview of the Government?
    Mr. Lindgren: That decision was given in 1946 when the hon. Gentleman then held my position.
    Mr. Rankin: When Mr. Peter Masefield returned from the South West Pacific conference he made a report to the Minister of Civil Aviation which contained a great deal of useful information with regard to stratocruisers, and can that report be made available to Members of this House?
    Mr. Lindgren: I should require notice of that question.

  GREEK REFUGEES (RELIEF MEASURES)
  Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the United Nations Balkan Committee on the plight of a million Greek refugees due to Communist guerrilla warfare and banditary; and whether he will urge the United Nations substantially to increase relief measures and assistance on an international scale as this problem now exceeds both the capacity of United Nations agencies operating in Greece as well as available Greek resources.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): Yes, Sir. The report was supported by the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans. His Majesty?s Government are well aware of the distress caused to these people by the Communist-led and foreign-sponsored rebellion in that country. Any proposals calculated to relieve the distress of these people will be sympathetically considered by His Majesty?s Government.
  Mr. Donner: Will His Majesty?s Government raise this matter again at the United Nations in view of the deliberate policy of abducting Greek children on a very large scale, thereby causing tens of thousands of Greeks to abandon their homes and villages.
  Mr. McNeil: There is an Assembly resolution dealing with the plight of these children, and directions have been given to the International voluntary organisations to make an investigation and report on that subject. These proceedings are still in train.
  Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that resolution is limited to children, whereas I referred to the deliberate abduction of the children so that tens of thousands of refugees are leaving their homelands, necessitating reconsideration of the whole scale of refugee relief.
  Mr. McNeil: I am aware of the growing and most distressing problem reflected in the general refugee problem. The hon. Member will, however, reflect that his previous supplementary question dealt with children, and it was to that point that I attempted to address my-

  2091
  self. On the second question, His Majesty?s Government will be anxious to aid any appropriate action at any point.
  Mr. Gallacher: Does not the Minister remember an occasion when he said there was a Left and a Right in Greece, and that people in this country of a certain character were anxious to support the Right and that Socialists and Communists must support the Left; and does he still hold that point of view?
  Mr. McNeil: There is still a Right and a Left in Greece, and I have no doubt that this House and other places will divide, quite properly, upon their support of Right or Left. What we should consider here is the distress, the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, due primarily to a revolt which international evidence has displayed as being assisted across three borders.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman have the report of the International Refugee Organisation on this matter placed in the Library?
  Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. I think I can make that available.
  Mr. Gallacher: What a somersault.

  DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take to publicise the text of the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, in view of Article D. 1, by which all member States are recommended to use every means within their power to do so.
  Mr. McNeil: Arrangements are being made to issue the text of the Declaration as a White Paper, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that it is being communicated to Colonial Governors with a view to publication in their territories.
  Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that this recommendation to the United Nations referred specially to dissemination in schools and other educational
  2092
  establishments, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have that done in this country?
  Mr. McNeil: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has this subject under consideration. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question to him.

  EASTERN EUROPE (PEACE TREATIES)
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the expiration, on 15th March, 1949, of the period of 18 months mentioned in Articles 37, 35, and 39 of the Peace Treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary, respectively, he will now make a statement about the implementation of those treaties.
  Mr. McNeil: As the reply is long, I will, with permission, make a statement on this matter at the end of Questions.

  CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (APPEAL)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet heard the date when the appeal of Cardinal Mindszenty will be heard; whether there is any time limit to the hearing of such an appeal; and whether our Minister in Budapest has yet made any attempt to see the Cardinal in prison or to find out the conditions under which he is living.
  Mr. McNeil: No announcement has yet been made of the date for hearing the Cardinal?s appeal, and I understand that there is no statutory time limit for such hearings. His Majesty's Chargéd? Affaires has not been able to obtain reliable information as regards the Cardinal?s living conditions, but it is believed that he is at present in a detention prison, and not in a convict prison.
  Mr. Teeling: With regard to the first part of the Question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware how unsatisfactory it is that this might go on indefinitely and can nothing be done to try to find out when this trial is to take place; and with regard to the second part of the Question, is he aware that a large number of people in this country are feeling more and more worried about the rumours of the ill-health of the Cardinal, and of the way he is being treated?
  Mr. McNeil: We will continue to observe this matter as closely as we are permitted. We will not spare ourselves any effort in that direction. As to the second part of the supplementary question, while I appreciate the hon. Member?s anxiety, I scarcely think it would be proper for us, at any rate at this stage, to try to suggest that the appeal might be hurried. We ought to conform to their procedure so long as their procedure is not improper or abused.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman will remember at the same time that there were other prisoners tried with the Cardinal, and that their condition is very much similar to his?
  Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir.

  GERMANY (NEWSPAPER ARTICLE)
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an article entitled?Justice or Revenge,? written by a former British Fascist and published in the?Hamburger Allgemeine Zeitung? of 21st January, 1949, condemning the trial of war criminals and offering an apologia for Nazi atrocities that they were no worse than alleged atrocities by English settlers against American Indians in 1637–38 and by Americans against Indians in 1813; and whether he will take steps to discourage such anti-British propaganda in a newspaper licensed by the Control Commission.
  Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to this article and the British Element of the Control Commission have taken steps to stop the circulation of others like it.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Burmese Rice (Supplies)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the steps which he is taking in view of the prospect of the Eastern Colonies going short of food owing to the difficulties of importing rice from Burma while the civil war there continues.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I would refer my hon. Friend to the written reply
    2094
    which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food gave on 9th March to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) about the prospects of Burma rice exports. The supply position to the Far Eastern Colonies of rice from all sources and the local stock position are kept under constant review. Increased rice production is being encouraged in Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak.

    Coloured Films
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the coloured film of Southern Rhodesia; and whether, in order to lessen ignorance of British Colonies, he will arrange for coloured films to be made of West African and other Colonies.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I have not seen this film. There are already a number of colour films of Colonies in the Central Film Library, and more are included in the current production programme. The relevant details are set out in the booklet?Britain and the Colonies? published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, a copy of which has already been sent to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Keeling: Would not the hon. Gentleman see this film, because he will find that it is a revelation as to what can be done to dispel popular ignorance, which is very profound, about the Empire and Commonwealth; and why should not the Colonial Office, which has far greater resources than Southern Rhodesia, blaze the trail?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I think we have already blazed the trail in this respect.
    Mr. Keeling: Not in West Africa.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: We have in the Central Film Library coloured films on the Gold Coast, Kenya and Northern Rhodesia, and we are producing coloured films on the West Indies, Cyprus and others on Northern Rhodesia. However, I should be very happy to see this film, and I will try to make arrangements to do so.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May we be assured that there is no colour bar in this matter?
    Mr. Sorensen: Are any of the films now being taken in Nigeria by the Film Unit coloured films; and if so, how many?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: No, they are ordinary films, not coloured films.

    Communist Activities
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent he is in receipt of regular reports on Communist activities in the Colonies; by whom these reports are rendered; and at what intervals.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Governors furnish my right hon. Friend with regular reports, for the most part at monthly intervals, upon all political matters in the Colonies. The only exceptions to this rule have been in the case of a few of the smaller territories, but contact on political matters is maintained with them by normal correspondence.
    Dr. Segal: Is my hon. Friend aware that any perfectly honourable trade union or nationalist leader in the Colonies can now be branded as a Communist agitator by a Governor with whom he may have had some disagreement; and can he say what steps he is taking to obtain clear evidence of Communist affiliations in such cases?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not accept that suggestion. I am quite certain that any reports which come from a Governor are based on the most careful and carefully scrutinised evidence.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Under-Secretary himself satisfied that any criticism which has been made of political activities in these districts has been confined to Communists; and has he not some disquiet himself?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question.

    Colonial Service, West Africa
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many vacancies for posts in Government service now exist in each of the West African colonies; how far the number of these vacancies is decreasing; and to what extent it is estimated that these vacancies will be filled during the next three years by Africans and British, respectively.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The following figures relate to posts in the higher grades of the Colonial Service and do not include
    2096
    posts which are filled by the Crown Agents for the Colonies or those filled by Colonial Governments from Colonial people. On the 31st May, 1948, there were 324 vacancies in Nigeria, 111 in the Gold Coast and 41 in Sierra Leone and the Gambia: total 476. On 31st December the vacancies were 324 in Nigeria, 125 in the Gold Coast and 46 in Sierra Leone and the Gambia: total 495. This shows an excess of 19, notwithstanding the fact that 230 vacancies were filled throughout West Africa during this period of seven months. I regret that it is not possible to forecast the vacancy position during the next three years, but it is certain that an increasing number of higher posts will be filled by
    Africans.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Under-Secretary appreciate that meantime many of these key posts have been vacant for some time and that unless they are filled Nigerian development is likely to be held up.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I appreciate that, and we are doing all we can to fill them.

    Immigration Statistics, East Africa
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many immigrants from the Union of South Africa have entered Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Kenya and Tanganyika, respectively, since 1945; and how many of these have taken up land for settlement;
    (2) how many non-Europeans have entered Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Kenya and Tanganyika as settlers since 1945; and how many of these have been allowed to take up agricultural holdings.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I will ask the Governors of the respective territories for the information and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.
    Mr. Skinnard: Will the Under-Secretary include in his inquiries what provision is being made educationally for Afrikaans-speaking children, in view of the number of immigrants from the Union; and will he say whether any discrimination as to colour or race exists in the immigration provisions for non-Europeans, and that the only qualification is whether they have sufficient capital to work the land properly?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: As the information called for in this Question is rather important, will not the Under-Secretary consider issuing the information as a written answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT instead of giving it in a private letter to the hon. Member?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I will do that.

    Dollar Expenditure, Nigeria and Gold Coast
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that the dollar allocations put at the disposal of the Governments of Nigeria and the Gold Coast are sufficient for their urgent present needs, in view of the increasing contributions both countries are making to our total dollar earnings; and if he will review the matter.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Colonial spending of dollars on imports is regulated in accordance with annual import programmes which are drawn up in the territories and sent to my right hon. Friend for approval. I am satisfied that these arrangements enable Nigeria and the Gold Coast to obtain their essential imports. The matter is kept continuously under review.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the relationship between the requirements, as expressed by the Governor, and the allocations is reasonably close.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir.

  GOLD COAST (MEDICINE MEN)
  Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many unqualified medicine men are registered in any part of the Gold Coast whether they pay a graduated registration tax; and whether they are allowed to receive any capitation fees.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I have asked the Acting Governor for this information and will communicate with my hon. Friend when it has been received.
  Dr. Segal: Could my hon. Friend obtain an assurance that none of these medicine men on the Gold Coast are in receipt of decapitation fees as well?
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could the Under-Secretary tell the House, quite shortly, what is the difference between a qualified and an unqualified medicine man?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I think that question should be addresed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
  Mr. Awbery: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a large number of young men who come from the Colonies to this country to be trained as doctors never return; and will he do something to encourage these men to return to their own Colonies where they can be of assistance to the natives?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: We always give them that encouragement, but sometimes, for some reason, they prefer to stay in this country.
  Mr. Lipson: In view of the Under-Secretary's suggestion the question should be addressed to the Minister of Health, will he guarantee a courteous reply?
  Mr. Sco11an: Are the unqualified medicine men referred to in the Question only unqualified to be members of the B.M.A.?

  MALAYA (SECURITY MEASURES)
  Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reinforcements it is now proposed to send to Malaya so that law and order may be restored within the foreseeable future, and to ensure that the great strain under which all engaged in the production of rubber and tin are now living will be quickly and progressively reduced.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's written reply on 11th March to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher).
  Mr. Donner: Is the Under-Secretary aware that unless some effective action is taken, and taken soon, the strain on key men in the rubber and tin industries will be such that they will relinquish their posts, with the most dangerous consequences to this country, since Malaya earns more dollars than the whole United Kingdom exports?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I am well aware of the strain imposed upon planters and tin miners, and we are very grateful to them for the magnificent work they have been doing and for standing up to the sort of life they have had to lead for the last few months. I am glad to say, however, that although the position is still serious in Malaya, there has been a much more hopeful turn just lately and public morale is certainly better than it was a few months ago.
  Sir R. Glyn: Has it been possible to meet the request of the military local police authorities for suitable aircraft to be sent out to assist them in their work?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: All the indents that have been put in by the Government for police supplies have been met.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: What reports does the hon. Member receive from unofficial sources, apart from the official reports from his representatives, because he may sometimes get the truth in unofficial reports?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: We are constantly receiving letters from people in Malaya who are known to us personally or from people whom we do not know. In addition, we have Press cuttings from the various Malayan newspapers.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Under-Secretary not consider bringing the British Forces home and, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, "Setting the people free"?
  Mr. Stanley: Do the unofficial reports and letters that are received give any indication of this more hopeful turn during the last few weeks, because that is certainly not the gist of the letters I and probably other Members in all parts of the House receive?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I think that they do. I noticed the day before yesterday a note in the "Financial Times" that the Stock Exchange prices in the rubber market had risen because of more hopeful news from Malaya. That, I think, justifies what I have been saying; that the rubber industry itself and others which effect the stock market prices have heard of this more hopeful news.
  Mr. Stanley: Surely the rise in Stock Exchange prices will not be of much comfort to the planters in Malaya?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: It is an indication.

  NIGERIA

    Leprosy
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately how many lepers exist in Nigeria; how many are now receiving treatment and care in hospitals or similar institutions and as out-patients; and whether leprosy is compulsorily notifiable.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is estimated that there are about 400,000 lepers in Nigeria. Thirty-seven thousand are receiving hospital and similar treatment; 33,000 are out-patients. Leprosy is compulsorily notifiable only in districts proclaimed under the law governing the isolation and detention of lepers.
    Mr. Sorensen: Cannot steps be taken to prevent lepers from still wandering around Nigeria; and can my hon. Friend give any indication of any long-term policy regarding this terrible scourge?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir. In the last few years the number of persons undergoing treatment who were said to have leprosy has been quadrupled. As regards the long-term policy, the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund is providing £400,000 to this end. In addition, the Resident has power to detain anyone who is alleged to be a leper.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will my hon. Friend answer the first part of the my supplementary question to the effect that many lepers are still wandering about Nigeria who are likely to spread the disease?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: If these people are notified to the Resident he has power to order them to be detained, but the Government's policy is that it is better to proceed in this matter by voluntary methods rather than to use compulsion.
    Mr. Sorensen: Arising out of the answers that have been given, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Mineral Royalties
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made respecting the inquiry into the disposal of mineral royalties in Nigeria; and when is a report likely to be made public.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As the matter is still under consideration it is not possible to make a statement at present.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Under-Secretary appreciate that this has been going on for a long time and that there is ambiguity in the whole matter? In view of the interest in this matter, will the Under-Secretary see that a report is made at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: We are doing all we can about the matter.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: In view of the fact that these mineral rights depend on an agreement made in 1898 and thus were handed over to the Nigerian company on the assumption that they were worth less than £1 million, whereas the company has received over £3 million, will my hon. Friend do his utmost to bring this matter to a conclusion?

  ADEN DISTURBANCES (COMPENSATION)
  Mr. John Fosterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the inadequacy of the compensation to be given to the victims of the anti-Jewish riots in Aden in December, 1947, in which over 75 Jews were killed and much Jewish property destroyed, he will take steps to increase such compensation, which is only a fraction of the compensation recommended by the special magistrate in his report.
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will see that the claims of the individual victims of the anti-Jewish riots in Aden are justly met, and also provide far the rebuilding and re-equipment of the schools and synagogues which were partially or completely destroyed, the disuse of which has contributed to preventing the Jewish community from returning to normal life.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: In view of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances, the Government of Aden has not accepted liability to pay compensation, but is providing financial assistance for rehabilitation based on a combination of grants and loans. This scheme of assistance represents the most that the Colony can undertake. Offers of financial assistance have been made
  2102
  by the Aden Government for the rebuilding of the Jewish boys' and girls' schools, subject to the production of plans and estimates by the local Jewish emergency committee; but these have not yet been submitted, neither has any application been made for the grants provisionaly offered. The Government of Aden has not made any special provision for the rebuilding and re-equipment of synagogues.
  Mr. Foster: Was not the special magistrate appointed to recommend the amount of compensation to be available for these victims, and why has his report not been carried out?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: My recollection was that he was appointed to investigate the general circumstances and the amount of damage that had been caused.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will not the assistance offered by the Government of Aden greatly exceed anything offered or given by the Jewish authorities to compensate for the loss of British lives and the destruction of British property in Palestine?

  ROYAL NAVY

    College Staffs (Air Pilots and Observers)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) how many fully qualified pilots and air observers are serving on the naval staff of the Imperial Defence College and the Joint Services Staff College; and how many of these officers have had war flying experience;
    (2) how many fully qualified pilots and air observers are serving on the staffs of the Royal Naval Colleges, Greenwich and Dartmouth; and how many have had war flying experience.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): One observer is serving on the staff of the Joint Services College, but there are no pilots or observers on the staff of the Imperial Defence College. One pilot and two observers are serving on the staff of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, and there is one pilot on the staff of the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth. The five officers holding the appointments have war flying experience.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put down these two Questions precisely in this form a year ago, at which time he expressed some concern at the small number of these officers, since when the numbers have been reduced by one?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, the total number is the same as last year. However, we are concerned with the small numbers, the trouble being that during the war few officers specialised in naval aviation, and of those few quite a large percentage were killed.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is it not infinitely more important that those who are supervising training should take priority over those actually carrying out flying duties?
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: What steps are being taken to improve this most unsatisfactory position?
    Mr. Dugdale: The only step that we can take is to see that we get more naval officers specialising in naval aviation, and we are taking steps to that end as rapidly as we can.
    Major Tufton Beamish: What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that only a few naval officers specialised in air operations during the war? Surely very large numbers specialised?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, relatively few, Sir.

    Applied Ballistics (Superintendents)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the Assistant Superintendent of Applied Ballistics receives a salary of £1,534 per annum, whereas his superior officer the Deputy Superintendent of Applied Ballistics receives a salary of only £1,145 per annum.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member are not quite accurate. The difference is somewhat smaller than his figures suggest. Normally these officers would both be members of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Pool, and the Assistant Superintendent would receive less remuneration than the Deputy Superintendent. At present, although the Deputy Superintendent is a Pool officer it has been necessary as a temporary
    2104
    measure to fill the Assistant Superintendent post by an Active Service R.N. officer who is not a member of the Pool. The latter is still in receipt of the full naval pay and allowances appropriate to his rank.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is not the Minister aware that the figures which I have put in the Question are taken from page 136 of the Navy Estimates, Vote 9? Surely it is most unfortunate that inaccurate information should be given in an official paper laid before this House.
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot agree that the information is inaccurate so far as the Navy Estimates are concerned. Various allowances are given to both individuals referred to, and it is because of these allowances that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's figure is somewhat higher than it should be.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does not the Minister's rather diffuse reply mean that the junior officer is receiving more than his superior? If so, why?
    Mr. Edwards: It is because a naval officer is doing the job at the present time, and he is receiving the pay of a naval officer.

    Ordnance Inspection Department
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many permanent officers of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department have resigned from service in that Department since V.E.-Day.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Thirteen, Sir.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In view of the small permanent strength of the Department, does not this loss indicate the considerable dissatisfaction with the conditions of service in it?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not think so, because since VE-Day more people have entered than have gone out.
    Commander Maitland: Do not these resignations amount to about 40 per cent. of the whole strength, and is it not really time that the position of these officers was considered?
    Mr. Edwards: It is being considered very carefully at the present moment.
    Commander Maitland: That is all that gets done.

    Rosyth Dockyard (Temporary Staff)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many established non-industrial Admiralty employees, who were sent to the Rosyth Dockyard during the war as temporary additional staff, have not yet been returned to the home-yards from which they were drafted.
    Mr. W. Edwards: There are approximately 100 established Admiralty employees in non-industrial grades who were sent to Rosyth Dockyard during the war and are still employed there. This number includes transferees from the Admiralty, foreign yards and non-dockyard establishments as well as transferees from other home yards. In the time available it has not been possible to divide the number into its several component parts. I should make it clear that the majority of established non-industrial employees are on general lists and, being liable to service at any naval establishment, have no expectation of returning to their previous establishment. Draughtsmen borne on separate dockyard lists are not liable to serve at other yards except in emergency, and the number of draughtsmen now at Rosyth who were appointed there from southern yards during the war is seven.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that my Question asks about temporary additional staff, and not about those who were sent there permanently? Is my hon. Friend further aware that there is a considerable sense of grievance amongst some of these men because they were promised that they would be returned home when the war ended, and will my hon. Friend do something to expedite the return of those men who were transferred temporarily?
    Mr. Edwards: It is very difficult to sort out the temporary transferees and those who were transferred in the normal way. That is why I have not been able to give the figures. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have no information at the Admiralty of this expressed desire to return on the part of those people who have gone to Rosyth.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Why should these men wish to transfer from Rosyth when they now have the privilege of living in the kingdom of Fife?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the retention of these people in Rosyth indicate that the Government are shortly going to make a decision about the retention of Rosyth as a full-time Royal Dockyard?
    Mr. Edwards: That is a different question altogether.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: But does it mean that?

    Toome Aerodrome (Civilian Workers)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why two ex-Service men sent by Magherafelt employment exchange to the foreman employed by the Admiralty at Toome aerodrome were not taken into employment, and why two other men who had never volunteered or served in His Majesty's Forces were taken on instead; and whether it was on his instructions that the Admiralty foreman stated that he would not take ex-Service men into civilian employment for the Admiralty.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The two ex-Service men referred to were not engaged, as they were considered to be less suitable than two other men sent along by the employment exchange. I am informed that no statement was made that ex-Service men would not he employed.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the Civil Lord aware that the suitability of one of the men engaged by the foreman was that he was the foreman's own brother?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of that.

    BABY FOODS (MILK)
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the increase in liquid milk supplies, more milk will be made available for the manufacture of proprietary baby foods, in order that these may be made available for small children over the age of one year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): No, Sir. The extra milk is needed for other important uses, such as cheese. We already meet the essential needs of children under one, and those between the ages of one and two for whom a doctor certifies these foods to be essential.
    Mr. De la Bère: Shall we ever have a land flowing with milk and sugar in this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, while this Government is in power.

  POST OFFICE

    Postal Services, Manchester— London
    Mr. Errollasked the Postmaster-General if he will instruct the Post Office Advisory Council to investigate the unsatisfactory postal services between Manchester and London and report to him.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): No, Sir. The evidence which the hon. Member was good enough to let my right hon. Friend have yesterday has disclosed some weakness in organisation which will be thoroughly investigated. He is satisfied that the remedy lies in departmental action and he will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Erroll: While I am grateful for the action which is being taken, could the Minister publish the reply that he is going to send, and bear in mind that the evidence which just one hon. Member can collect is only a very small indication of the total amount of dissatisfaction which exists?
    Mr. Hobson: I do not admit for one moment that the state of affairs which the hon. Member has envisaged concerning the case at Manchester is common to the whole of the Post Office.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: When this matter has been investigated, will the Public Relations Officer of the Post Office issue a statement?
    Mr. Hobson: That is a different question.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In the meantime, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the letter to which he has referred so that other people in the Manchester area will know what it is all about?
    Mr. Hobson: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait and see.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not what I envisage but what I am being told by business men in Manchester?

    Advisory Council
    Mr. Errollasked the Postmaster-General how many times the Post Office Advisory Council met in 1948; and what advice they tendered to him.
    Mr. Hobson: The Post Office Advisory Council met five times in 1948 and gave the benefit of their advice on all matters of current interest. The proceedings of the Council are confidential, and I regret I am not at liberty to disclose them.
    Mr. Erroll: Would it not remove the feeling that this Council is moribund if the evidence was published?
    Mr. Hobson: I do not think it is.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the proceedings of the Council are most valuable from the point of view of advice tendered to the Postmaster-General, and that at every meeting we have been able to exchange views?
    Mr. Hobson: I agree entirely with the hon. Member.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Accounts
    Mr. Keelingasked the Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to enable interest to be charged on every telephone account between the end of the quarter and the date when the account is rendered.
    Mr. Hobson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to congratulate him on declining to follow the bad lead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sucks interest from the payer of the Special Contribution, even for the period before the account is sent to him?

    Installations
    Colonel Ponsonbyasked the Postmaster-General how many of the 330,000 new telephones provided by the Post

    2109
    Office last year were for private individuals; how many were for Government offices; and how many for local authorities.
    Mr. Hobson: Of the net growth of 330,000 telephones last year, 135,000 were for residential subscribers. I regret that the other information desired by the hon. and gallant Member is not readily available.
    Colonel Ponsonby: Who pays for the installation of Government telephones? Is it the Department concerned or the Post Office?
    Mr. Hobson: That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Electoral Lists (Service Declarations)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to inform airmen and their wives of their procedure of making service declarations under the Representation of the People Regulations, 1949; and whether he will give the necessary order to ensure that airmen and their wives are notified of the entry of their names in the electors lists.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): An Air Ministry Order setting out the procedure for making service declarations will be published tomorrow, together with a leaflet for display on unit notice boards. In addition to this, two Air Ministry pamphlets will be issued in the next few days for the guidance of airmen and their wives in completing these declarations. The responsibility for notifying Service declarants that they will be entered in the electors lists is laid upon electoral registration officers by Regulation 58 of the Representation of the People Regulations, 1949.
    Mr. Turton: Apart from that, will the Under-Secretary take steps to see that these airmen and their wives are also notified by their station commander as to what polling electoral list they are on, because at the present time there is great dissatisfaction as they do not know where they get their votes?
    Mr. de Freitas: I do not quite understand that question. As I said, under the regulations, if the hon. Member studies them, it is quite clear that it is the electoral registration officer who is under an obligation to notify service declarants.

    Croft Airport (Rental)
    Mr. Frederick Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Air what rental the Darlington and District Aero Club is obliged to pay for the use of the Croft Airport; and whether, for the purpose of encouraging the use of this airport by this flying club, he will consider the revision of that rental.
    Mr. de Freitas: The rent to be paid by the club is being negotiated at present.

    Exercises (Civil Air Services)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that, owing to Royal Air Force activities, the afternoon air service on Monday, 7th March, from Renfrew to Northolt, was delayed for three hours; and what steps he is taking to prevent such interruption in the future.
    Mr. de Freitas: A large air defence exercise was held in the Forth-Clyde area on this day and I am advised that, as the weather was such that Instrument Flight Rules were in force, the civil operators did not allow their aircraft to fly through the area until the weather improved. Traffic control arrangements have been made which should avoid delays on this account in future.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent happenings, this included, are causing grave disquiet amongst passengers using the civil air service from Renfrew to Northolt?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware of any such disquiet. If the hon. Member's constituents are to be protected in wartime, the Royal Air Force have to have exercises in peace-time.
    Mr. Scollan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the actual passengers for this plane had turned up at Renfrew before the people at Renfrew airport were informed that it was unsafe to fly owing to these military operations?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am not so aware. The decision to fly or not is, of course, a matter for the corporation.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Aircraft (Sales Abroad)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Supply how many sales have taken place of British aircraft to foreign operators in the latest convenient period; what were the types; and what was the price.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Freeman): I assume the Question to refer to sales of civil aircraft. During the year ended 31st December, 1948, the following types of British civil aircraft have been delivered to overseas operators; Anson, Bristol Freighters, Consuls, Doves, Rapides, Vikings, converted Halifaxes, Sunderlands and Stirlings. The total value of aircraft sales, military and civil to overseas purchasers in this period was nearly £13½ million. I am not in a position to break this figure down as between civil and military types or to divulge the prices of individual contracts.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Could the Minister say what were the types of military aircraft sent overseas as the Question does not ask just for civil but for British types?
    Mr. Freeman: I made the assumption about civil aircraft because of the word "operator," but about 15 types of military aircraft were sent overseas. I do not think that the hon. Member would wish me to give details of them in terms of Meteors, Vampires, and so on.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Could they be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, certainly.
    Major Beamish: What about the sales of Auster aircraft, which the House knows took place to Israel before it was recognised de facto; and were these aircraft used by them in operations against the Arabs? The Minister has not mentioned them.
    Mr. Freeman: That does not come into the period covered by the Question.

    Flying Boats
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Supply what progress has now been made with the S.R.45; and what is the estimated date of delivery of these flying boats to the British South American Airways Corporation.
    Mr. J. Freeman: Satisfactory progress is being maintained with the design and construction of these flying boats. Delivery is expected to begin early in 1952.

PEACE TREATIES (VIOLATIONS)
The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): The Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Roumania and Hungary entrusted the Heads of the Diplomatic Missions, in those countries, of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, acting in concert with the task of representing the Allied and Associated Powers, in dealing with all matters concerning the execution and interpretation of the Peace Treaties for a period of 18 months from the time when the Treaties came into force. This period came to an end yesterday. A review of this period shows that there have been violations of the human rights, military and economic clauses of the Peace Treaties by all three ex-enemy Governments. But whenever His Majesty's Government or the United States representative in any of the three countries has attempted to invoke the Peace Treaty by calling a meeting of the representatives of the three Allied Powers with a view to concerting action, the Soviet representative has refused to attend.
The House will recall that Article 2 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, and the corresponding articles in the Peace Treaties with Roumania and Hungary guaranteed to all persons, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting.
In Bulgaria, the Agrarian Party was liquidated as an effective force by a process which culminated in the death of Nikola Petkov. All the other parties

2113
which held out and refused to be merged with the Communists subsequently met a similar fate. In Roumania, the same pattern was followed, the leader of the National Peasant Party, Mr. Maniu, being sentenced to imprisonment for life.
In Hungary, the suppression and liquidation of the political opponents of the Communist regime was less naked but just as effective. Last month Mr. Barankovics, leader of the only remaining opposition party in the Hungarian Parliament, found it advisable to flee the country. Together with the suppression of the political parties went the suppression of all independent organs of opinion. Religious liberty has also been attacked and it has become clear that the calculated diminution of the influence of the Christian Churches is an integral part of the totalitarian plan for establishing a Communist monopoly of thought. The House knows that, this has been the case in Bulgaria, Roumania and Hungary.
But it is not only the political organisations, the press and organised religion which have suffered; the day to day persecution of the man-in-the-street must also be remembered—and the arbitrary and frequently exercised power of the administrative authorities to detain, arrest, judge and dispose of people without proper charges or warrants and without the necessity of according them adequate defence or even trial.
The position is no better in relation to the military clauses of the Treaties. The Bulgarian and Roumanian armed forces are in excess of the strengths laid down in the Treaties and, while the Hungarian forces may still be below treaty strength, their expansion is reported to be contemplated. Bulgaria and Roumania are moreover attempting to evade their obligations by the organisation, training and equipment of groups which, although not included in the strength of the regular armed forces, could, if necessary, be used readily to augment those forces.
In Bulgaria, the regular armed forces, which already exceed the Treaty strength laid down, do not include the frontier guards and militia and the labour detachment known as "Trudovaks," all of which receive some form of para-military training. Bulgaria has also been unwilling to allow inspection of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier where she is forbidden
2114
by the Peace Treaty to erect permanent fortifications.
In Roumania, the gendarmerie, which, after the signature of the Peace Treaty, was transferred from the Ministry of War to the Ministry of the Interior, is now armed not only with rifles but also with machine guns, mortars, field guns and anti-tank guns. Its strength is not included in the regular armed forces.
Towards the end of 1947, His Majesty's Government and the United States Government decided, after consultation, to request the three ex-enemy Governments under the terms of the Peace Treaties, to provide detailed information regarding the state of their armed forces. In each case the satellite government concerned declined to provide the information required on the pretext that the Peace Treaty laid down that such requests should be made by the three Allied Heads of Mission acting in concert. In such circumstances His Majesty's Government are entitled to conclude that the ex-enemy Governments, in collusion with the Government of the U.S.S.R., are not implementing the military clauses of the Peace Treaties.
The three Treaties also had certain economic clauses which provide, among other things, that the ex-enemy Governments shall grant to the nationals of members of the United Nations, on a reciprocal basis, national and most favoured nation treatment in all matters pertaining to commerce, industry, shipping and other forms of business activity within their territory. Nevertheless, the ex-enemy States, in collusion with the U.S.S.R., have persistently enacted laws or imposed measures which, even though nominally non-discriminatory in form, have, in intention and effect, been aimed at Western proprietary and commercial interests in general and against British interests in particular.
There is little doubt that, in practice at any rate, Soviet and Soviet bloc interests have been exempted from the operation of all these economic measures or have not had them applied in the same way or with the same results.
My right hon. Friend felt it desirable that details should be offered upon this important subject. The plain fact is that, although the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania have committed flagrant violations of the terms of the

2115
Peace Treaties, they have so far succeeded, with Soviet connivance and even support, in obstructing the attempts of His Majesty's Government and the United States Government to set in motion the Treaty machinery, by which concerted action by the Allied Governments should have ensured the proper fulfilment of these obligations. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have not, for some time past, felt that any useful purpose would be served by renewing those efforts. They nevertheless intend to continue to draw public attention to violations of the Treaty as these occur.
But the Treaties do not expire with the passage of the 18 months period, which concluded yesterday; and my right hon. Friend desires formally to assure the House that His Majesty's Government fully maintain their rights to invoke the Treaty machinery in the future, whether in relation to the human rights articles or to any other portions of the Treaties.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: In view of the most serious statement which my right hon. Friend has made, the gravity of which, I am sure, will not be lost on the country, I should like to ask him two questions. First of all, in view of the flagrant violations of the Peace Treaties to which he has referred and which, as he has said, have taken place with the collusion and assistance of Russia, and in view of the complete breakdown of the machinery for dealing with those violations contemplated in the Treaties, will my right hon. Friend bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations at the earliest possible opportunity? Secondly, will he confirm that the whole structure of the Peace Treaty settlements, as of the United Nations itself, is based on the belief, which was universally expressed three years ago at the end of the war, that terror, persecution and a denial of human rights in any country or group of countries are a threat to freedom everywhere and a menace to world peace?
Mr. McNeil: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I should prefer to say that, without prejudice to any United Nations activity which might be appropriate, His Majesty's Government would prefer first
2116
to exhaust the machinery of the Treaty which now becomes operative after 18 months. As to the second part of the supplementary question, plainly His Majesty's Government consider that these injustices create suspicion, impair diplomatic relations, and, of course, at all times impair international stability and understanding.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree generally with the tone of his observations this afternoon? We have not had an opportunity of studying his statement in detail and therefore we must reserve further observations to a later period. However, in view of his remarks about the discrimination which has existed in the economic sphere, do I understand that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes to engage in future discussions with a view to improving trade between us and these countries? In the second place, in view of the fact that the Treaties have not in fact been carried out and that the military clauses have not in fact been implemented, what reliance does His Majesty's Government place on using the Treaty machinery in future to achieve any desirable ends in relation to our conduct of foreign policy with these nations?
Mr. McNeil: As to the first part of the supplementary question, I should prefer that to be put down on the Order Paper to my right hon. Friend. As to the second part, there is now an operative part of the Treaty which would not depend upon the three parties acting in concert. We should attempt to utilise that part of the Treaty in order to satisfy ourselves upon the military clauses. Of course, if no co-operation is offered in examining the implications of these military clauses, the worst fears of His Majesty's Government will be realised, and their attitude will be varied accordingly.
Mr. William Teeling: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's very important statement and the equally important question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the B.B C will make a point of seeing that both state-

2117
ments are broadcast to the appropriate countries? Furthermore, in view of the religious side of the statement and the fact that in Roumania the Jews and the Uniate Church, in Bulgaria the Protestants, and in Hungary both Protestants and Catholics have been involved, will it be possible for more detailed information on these subjects to be given at another time in this House?
Mr. McNeil: The statement will, of course, be made in the normal way by the B.B.C. I would not seek to direct them, nor have I any powers so to do, but I am certain that they will deal fitly with the material. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I think that we could quite easily arrange for the details of these religious persecutions, relating at any rate to the main individuals of all sects, to be circulated
in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the provisions of the Treaty which now become operative and what kind of action would be open to His Majesty's Government under them?
Mr. McNeil: Simplifying it, the new machinery provides that where there is a question of interpretation or execution, any one of the signatories together with the country affected—Roumania, Bulgaria or Hungary—can ask for a commission of two people with an independent chairman to be set up, and if one of the countries fails to agree to the independent chairman within a reasonable period, either country can ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make such an appointment.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the references made to justice and human rights, does the Minister now ask this House—on the basis of a statement he has made containing the most serious accusations against several countries—to accept his or his right hon. Friend's statements, and bring in a verdict of guilty without a trial of any kind? We have heard from the questions asked that the statement is being accepted without any question, that it must be right because it comes from the Foreign Office. I ask, is this the conception of justice that the Minister has put before us—that is, they make a statement, it is true, and nothing else can be
2118
said against it? Shall we have an opportunity of discussing this statement?
Mr. McNeil: The House is not asked to accept my statement. Unfortunately, my statement only summarises the facts which are already in the possession of the House. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt about the facts, then I hope he will use such influence as he disposes of, in relation to these Governments, to ensure that the Treaty is operated so that the facts can be established.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: As these three countries are not observing the military clauses of their Peace Treaties—
Mr. Gallacher: They say they are.
Mr. Thomas:—will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the United States authorities with a view to a joint declaration that we do not regard Italy as bound by the military clauses of her Peace Treaty?
Mr. McNeil: That is another question.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that none of the matters mentioned in his statement will have surprised anybody who has taken the trouble to read the sacred writings of Communism, such as Mr. Stalin's work on the "Problems of Leninism"?
Dr. Segal: The right hon. Gentleman has carefully excluded Yugoslavia from his statement; has he any reason to believe that the situation in that country is any more hopeful?
Mr. McNeil: I think the situation there is different, but at any rate it does not arise here. I was asked to draw the attention of the House to the lapse of a period in these three Treaties dealing with these three ex-enemy countries.
Major Tufton Beamish: While not disagreeing with the Minister's analysis of the situation in Eastern Europe, to which we on this side of the House have drawn frequent attention during the last three years, is he aware that the whole gloomy catalogue he read out to us is a measure of the decline of British prestige and of the weakening influence of British foreign policy since the Socialist Party came into power?
Mr. McNeil: I cannot see that the refusal of these three countries to

2119
operate clauses to which they have given their signatures is at all related to the prestige of His Majesty's Government or to their foreign policy.
Following are the details:
In Bulgaria, 15 Protestant pastors have recently been condemned to long terms of imprisonment, four of them to life imprisonment, on charges of espionage which only thinly veil the policy of rooting out all elements sympathetic to Western ideas.
In Roumania, the Uniate Church has recently been suppressed and its adherents penalised. The Jewish Democratic Committee has been used for the liquidation of Jewish religious organisations and schools, and the Chief Rabbi has fled abroad.
In Hungary, the arrest and imprisonment last September of Bishop Ordass, the local Head of the Lutheran Church, has been followed by the trial and imprisonment for life of Cardinal Mindszenty, Prince Primate of the Catholic Church of Hungary, whose resistance to the advance of Communism in that country compelled the Communist authorities to seek his elimination by the methods which they have made their own.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Scholefield Allen: May I, Mr. Speaker, seek your advice on a question of Privilege? The matter about which I complain is contained in today's issue of the "Daily Dispatch."
In the course of my duties as a Member of Parliament I forwarded a request from a constituent of mine to the Home Secretary that her son should be released upon licence, he being then at an approved school. My action was taken purely as a Member of Parliament, and it appears that the Home Secretary did release this person from the approved school.
In Crewe yesterday—which is the centre of my rather large constituency, consisting not only of Crewe—a bench of
2120
magistrates described as "highly improper" my action in asking the Home Secretary to consider this matter. The article adds a little fuel to the fire because it is headed "Recorder Criticised." The action that I took had no relation to my duties as Recorder of Blackburn, but was taken solely as a Member of this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has raised a matter of Privilege but I should like to ask him now, since I have not had time to peruse any of the statements in the paper, if he will raise the matter to-morrow. There will be no prejudice because he has raised it at the first available opportunity, and I must ask for time to consider the matter in due course.

HOUSE OF LORDS (REFERENCES)
Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to your statement the day before yesterday when, in answer to a question about the other House, you said you would take the matter into consideration. Is it possible that you have considered it, or should I write to you about the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring.
Mr. Gallacher: I said, the matter about the other House. After I had put my question, Mr. Speaker, you said you would like to give that matter further consideration.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I remember now; the hon. Member said he was waiting until he got some member of his own Party in the other House so I thought that was a matter to which I could give consideration in due course.

HOUSE OF LORDS (REFERENCES)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. SpeakerProceedings in Committee on Housing [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we start the Second Reading of this Bill I ought to call the attention of this House to a printing error on page 25 of the Bill. Paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of Clause 31 should have been printed in italics. As this is a comparatively minor provision, I did not consider it necessary to have the Bill re-issued and I am making this statement instead.
  3.47 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill which I am now proposing to the House carries the Government's housing programme to a further stage. In order that I may set the proposals of the Bill against their proper background, I think I should give the House a statement of the housing progress to date and make some observations about that progress which I hope will be considered by the House to be relevant.
  It has been common ground in all parts of the House, and I believe, in all parts of the country, that the first task for the Government after the war was to try to make war damage good, and to provide homes for the families who had none. For four years the resources at our disposal have been devoted to those ends. In England and Wales, up to the end of January of this year, 774,512 new homes were provided. I want to make it quite clear so that there shall be no misunderstanding, that in those figures requisitioned houses and service camps are not included. The figures for Great Britain are 852,025 new homes provided since the end of the war.
  Colonel Dower: Will the Minister split up those figures?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, I will in a moment. Of those, in England and Wales 400,413 are new permanent houses. The total new houses, permanent and temporary, amounts to 525,383, out of a total of 774,000 odd new homes. For Great Britain the figure is 441,617 new permanent houses and adding the temporary
  2122
  houses it makes 598,815 new houses out of the total of 852,000 new homes to which I have already referred. I think everybody will agree that, having regard to all the difficulties with which we were inevitably faced at the end of a great war, that shows really remarkable progress. I am not asserting that it is as much progress as we would have liked to make, because there are still a large number of families in this country without a separate home of their own. We shall persist in the building of new permanent houses until every family in the country has a good, separate, modern home.
  It is, of course, impossible to estimate the number of separate family units in the country, but I have been trying to form some estimate of the housing problem of today compared with what it was in 1938–39. Between June, 1939, and December, 1948, the civilian population of England and Wales increased by approximately 1,750,000. During that time, after deducting houses lost during the war and making allowance for loss through obsolescence, approximately 560,000 additional homes have been provided. Taking the generally accepted figure of 3.5 persons to a family, these would provide for just under 2,000,000 people. The exact figure is 1,960,000. We have, therefore, more than made good the position of 1939. In other words, there are more homes per head of the population today than in 1938–39, so that we have already begun to improve on the 1938–39 position.
  I should like the House to look at the significance of these figures. Within less than four years of the end of 6½ years of war we have not only made good war damaged houses and rebuilt a large number of war destroyed houses, but we have also made it possible for the country to enjoy more actual separate habitations per head of the population than when the war started. Yet, despite the fact that the number of houses per head of the population is in excess of what it was before the war, almost every local authority in Great Britain still has long housing lists.
  Mr. Lipson: Larger than ever.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member ought not to say,?Larger than ever,? because we shall have to ask how it comes about

  2123
  that the more houses we build—as I want the House again to recollect—and although we have more houses per head of the population, those housing lists are there? The answer arises from two things. First, people are getting married at lower ages than formerly. Of the young people who got married in 1938, 32.7 per cent. of men and 54 per cent. of women were under 25 years of age. In 1946 the percentages were 36.4 and 58.4 respectively. Such is the universal optimism which the Government has created that people are venturing upon married life at an earlier age than when they were living under another administration. I hope those comparisons will not necessarily be considered rude.
  Mr. Keeling: As there has not been a census for a long time, can the right hon. Gentleman say how he arrives at those figures?
  Mr. Bevan: They are from the Department of the Registrar-General and are of the ages of people getting married. They are always available and we do not require a census to obtain them. That, I think, is one reason for the situation I have tried to describe.
  The second reason also is one which I find it pleasant to recall: that a much larger number of old people continue to live in their own homes than was formerly the case. In very many cases before the war, before the nation enjoyed the social services which it has today, large numbers of those old people were living in workhouses. Today, however, they are living in the homes in which they have lived throughout their lives. They are insisting upon doing so, although very often a considerable degree of under-occupation is involved. But I do not think there is anybody in the country or in this House who would grudge the old people that under-occupation.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Has the right hon. Gentleman those figures?
  Mr. Bevan: It is only an observation, which, I am sure, is within the common experience of hon. Members. The figures relating to people living in workhouses, at any rate, can be got easily. They are negligible today compared with what they were before the war. Most of those people
  2124
  are, of course, infirm persons. Nowadays old people can more easily afford to pay the rents of their houses. They have certain resources to supplement their pensions that they did not possess formerly and can now live their lives in dignity and privacy.
  There is a third reason also which I must give the House for reflection, because this extraordinary situation must be explained. A very large number of people are now on housing lists who before the war could not afford to pay rents for new houses and did not apply. In the beginning of 1939 two million people were out of work. Therefore, the housing figures before the war concealed a housing need that could not become monetarily effective.
  From those three sources spring the housing lists of today, despite the fact that we have already made up the arrears and are making net additions to the nation?s resources of new homes. We shall, of course, go on providing additional homes until we have reached the position of providing a separate home for every family in the country. The House must reflect that when that is done—and we shall do it before very long—it will be the first time that any nation has done it in the recorded history of mankind. It appears at first to be a modest ambition but when looking back upon the experiences of our own lives, and upon what we know of the Industrial Revolution, it is a matter, I should have thought, for universal gratification that we are now within sight of providing for every separate family the comfort and privacy of a separate household.
  I believe that one of the reasons why modern nations have not been able to solve their housing problems is that they have looked upon houses as commodities to be bought and sold and not as a social service to be provided. Housing experts, even in those nations still dedicated to the pure principles of the Manchester School of Economics, are coming increasingly to recognise that the building industry cannot, in fact, be mobilised to meet the needs for modern housing in a modern industrial nation merely by leaving it to the laws of supply and demand.
  A house is far too complex a product of modern society to be left to unplanned initiative. Therefore, it is essential that the State should take a hand in the pro-

  2125
  vision of this modern necessity and do so by making housing a service. That can only be accomplished by reposing it in the custody of a public authority. This is especially the case where there is competition for houses. Only a public authority can choose between the relative claims of different applicants for houses. That cannot be done by private persons acting upon private enterprise only. That is the difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House, the fundamental difference.
  Most of the houses being built in Great Britain, despite the propaganda of some elements of the Conservative Press, are built by private enterprise. They are built by private enterprise for public authorities. It is not the task of the builder to select the tenants for the houses; it is the task of the builder to build houses and it is the task of the public authorities to choose between the respective claims of the different applicants, so that the houses go largely to those in need of them. To that principle the Government adhere and they will not move from it whilst the housing situation still remains one of our social problems.
  Now we have reached this stage, the Government have come to the conclusion that further legislation is necessary in order to deal with the wider aspects of housing policy. In the past, housing has been done by public authorities for the working classes. Housing legislation has always made use of this phrase, but only once has legislation attempted a definition of what?the working classes? are and for whom the working class houses are to be built by public authorities. It occurs in a subsidiary Act of 1903 which says:
  ?The expression?working class? includes mechanics, artisans, labourers and others working for wages; hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages, but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others, except members of their own family, and persons, other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of 30s. a week, and the families of any such persons who may be residing with them.?
  Having accomplished that, no succeeding Government has succeeded in redefining the working classes and I do not think anyone can blame them. I make no reproach whatever against the Members of the Opposition that they did
  2126
  not attempt a definition of the working classes in their various Acts, but we have come to the conclusion that this ridiculous inhibition should be removed and that it should now be possible for the local authority to provide any sort of house which is required by the community.
  I am anxious that the House and the country should pay special regard to this, because, if the House will do me the honour of recollecting what I said on this matter in 1945, they will see that I said that in my view and, I believe, in the view of most people, it was entirely undesirable that on modern housing estates only one type of citizen should live. I referred to them then as?twilight towns? and said that it was a reproach of our modern social planning that from one sort of township should come one income group and from another sort of township another income group. I said that if we are to enable citizens to lead a full life, if they are each to be aware of the problems of their neighbours, then they should be all drawn from the different sections of the community and we should try to introduce in our modern villages what was always the lovely feature of English and Welsh villages, where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer all lived in the same street. I believe that is essential for the full life of a citizen. I believe it is a necessary biological background for modern life and I believe it leads to the enrichment of every member of the community to live in communities of that sort.
  Therefore we are sweeping away all reference to?housing of the working classes.? Furthermore, what ought not to be regarded as a minor matter, we cannot get good architectural compositions into a township which has all the same type of house. We can only get the aesthetics of good modern architecture into a township which has the most variegated kind of housing in it. I hope I carry all hon. Members with me when I say that that inhibition should be removed and that local authorities should now be able to plan their estates in the way I have described. We believe it is essential that local authorities should also provide accommodation for single persons, for persons who are following professional life, and that they should provide for old people.

  2127
  There has been a necessary emphasis on the provision of three-bedroomed houses; that was the first need immediately after the war; but we must not ignore the fact that there is a need for smaller houses—I do not mean substandard houses, which is not the same thing at all, but houses with fewer bedrooms and houses with more bedrooms—in order that we should again avoid segregation and in order that old people should not live in old people?s colonies, but should live where they have been brought up and where before their eyes every day they can see the living tapestry of a mixed community.
  The Bill gives local authorities power and provides them with financial assistance to provide hostels where it is possible for meals to be given to those living in the hostels and where they can have single people and old people living together, because single people and old people often need the same kind of accommodation. In exactly the same way as a professional worker who is away all day needs some assistance for having rooms looked after, or a common meal prepared, there is the same need in respect of old people. Before the old people become the wards of the local welfare authorities, they should have their needs provided for by the housing authority as a housing authority, and assistance is given for that purpose in the Bill.
  There are some anomalies which Part I of the Bill removes. It is possible at the moment for local authorities to provide laundries, but not laundry services. It is an anomalous situation that on many of the housing estates of London, for example, housing authorities are putting up washhouses, but are forbidden to provide a laundry service. The Bill enables a local housing authority to provide a laundry service in connection with its own housing estates.
  The existing law enables a local authority to hire out furniture but not to sell it. I am quite sure that I shall have the Opposition with me here when I say that it ought to be possible for the local authorities to enable the tenants to become possessors of the furniture. This is my contribution towards a property-owning democracy. I am sure that I shall
  2128
  have the enthusiastic support of the Opposition in enabling the public authority to sell furniture.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is learning. Come along.
  Mr. Bevan: I am indeed glad to have this enthusiastic support for substitution for private enterprise in the sale of furniture. I hope that the Opposition will not succumb to any Lobby pressure from any source whatever in this matter. I shall be happy to see the support which I am sure we shall get there.
  Furthermore I believe that the time has come to enable local authorities to lend money on houses of a higher value than is at present permitted. I raised the figure to £1,500 on the last occasion. I am now proposing to raise it to £5,000. We on this side of the House have never been hostile to people owning their own houses if they wish to do so. Indeed, in evidence of that, we have even enabled private enterprise to build many more houses for private ownership than they were able to do in the same period after the First World War. As I have said before, and I wish to remind the House of it, our activities have been beneficial as much to private enterprise and private house ownership as to public house ownership.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Come along in the white sheet.
  Mr. Bevan: It seems to me hardly fair that people who want to borrow money to buy their own houses, or alter their own houses, or build their own houses, should always be driven to paying high rates of interest. Therefore, they should be able to obtain money at the same rates as the Government themselves are able to borrow it. Accordingly, we are suggesting that the local authority should have power to lend up to 90 per cent. of £5,000 at the Public Works Loans Board rate of interest. Again, I am quite sure that we shall have the enthusiastic support of the Opposition.
  Mr. Keeling: If the Government have always been in favour of people owning their own houses will the Minister of Health explain why they took down the National Savings poster encouraging people to save in order to buy their own houses?
  Mr. Bevan: I do not know at the moment to what the hon. Member refers, but the fact is, as I have tried to explain earlier, that the main need in the community is for the provision of houses to rent, and only in that way, only by building houses to rent, is it possible to get the houses first to those who need them most. But that does not mean for a single moment that we are hostile to people owning the houses in which they live because, I repeat, we have made it possible for large numbers—nearly 100,000—houses to be built for private enterprise since the war. We are now—I hope we shall get the approval of the Opposition—to rescue from the clutches of extortionate moneylenders those who want to borrow money to own their own houses.
  Colonel Dower: Is the £5,000 to apply to the building as a whole or can it apply to a building with flats one on top of the other?
  Mr. Bevan: It applies to each separate habitation.
  Colonel Dower: That will be enormous.
  Mr. Bevan: Certainly, it may be enormous but why should it not be? It imposes no financial strain upon the community, it is not inflationary in its effects, it transfers money from one person to another but does so in the easiest way, which leaves the least taint of profit behind.
  Having said that, I now come to that part of the Bill which I believe to be of even greater importance. Immediately we have reached the position of providing a separate home for every family, the next stage is to raise housing standards. That must be done first of all and most importantly by slum clearance. It is pleasing to be able to recall that slum clearance has already started in one or two parts of the country, where local authorities are in the happy postion of having practically cleared their housing lists and can now consider re-housing. So the first main activity will be slum clearance. But there are large numbers of houses in this country, very large numbers indeed, which are structually sound. In many of our old industrial communities there are streets of houses which are structually sound and which only require to have a bathroom, an additional bedroom, hot and cold water and a modern
  2130
  kitchen unit to bring them up to good modern standards.
  The Government do not see why people should go on living in unconverted houses that are structurally sound when it is perfectly practicable now to bring them up to proper standards. It was not possible to do this earlier because to have done so would have competed for labour and materials needed for the building of new houses. This must necessarily always be regarded as a general part of the housing programme and must be married to that programme. We must never permit this part of the programme to become the enemy of the other. But as local circumstances vary, and as it is now possible for some local authorities to reach this stage earlier than others, it should now be possible to give them powers not only to do slum clearance, which they already have powers to do, but to salvage houses that are perfectly sound and which can be made reasonably pleasant to live in.
  It happens to be a fact that a lot of houses which are brought up-to-date by the additions I have described are often houses with a much more pleasant personality than the new houses. They have fitted into human beings for so many years that they are like comfortable shoes. They have grown up organically, they have been adapted and changed to the needs of each generation. They are often much more pleasant places in which to live. We think that the occupants of these houses should be helped, and to that end we propose to give the local authorities grants to enable them to rescue houses which are in that situation. How the local authorities carry that out will be a matter for empirical administration. It may vary from place to place and from street to street because there are so many variations in local circumstances.
  I can visualise a long street. I was brought up in the middle of a street of a hundred houses. They are still there, still structurally quite sound. The additions which I have described would be all that would be required. Here and there, for the purpose of getting rid of the monotony of the street and of giving back access, and in order that there might be a group of buildings organically suitable and attractive, one or two houses could be carved out here and

  2131
  there in the street, and so the whole street could be rescued from obsolescence and monotony, and would provide people in the houses with good houses for many years to come. We are therefore enabling local authorities to do that, and the Exchequer finds three-fourths of the annual cost to the local authorities.
  Then we go a step further, and say that it will also be possible for people living in their own houses to have similar help, and for landlords to do it for their tenants, with strict safeguards that the advantage is to go to the occupant of the house and not the landlord as an owner. The Bill provides that the rents are strictly controlled after the alteration is made. If the house is sold, the remaining portion of the grant must be returned to the local authority, because there is no justification in taking money from one citizen merely in order to make another citizen richer. The purpose of the grant is to enable the occupant of the house to enjoy modern amenities, and therefore there are strict conditions under which the grant is given.
  Mr. Alpass: Is that provided for in Clause 9, the return of the money in the case of a sale?
  Mr. Bevan: In a specific Clause yes, certainly. This is a Second Reading occasion and I do not believe in going through a Bill Clause by Clause on Second Reading. We can examine the individual Clauses on Committee stage, but hon. Members can take it that the provisions that I have described are contained in the Bill.
  We have further provided for grants to be made to owner-occupiers and also to landlords in respect of their tenants, under conditions, the details of which I shall not describe at the moment and which are matters for the Committee. There is a limit upwards and downwards. If the cost is less than £100 it does not rank for grant, because we do not want to pay public money out to landlords for repairs. It must be a structural alteration to the house before it ranks for grant. The upper limit is £600. In other words, the house will be looked at, the necessary alterations to bring it up to a proper standard will be estimated financially, and if the estimate comes to £100 and less than £600, a half can be made the basis of the grant.
  Mr. Logan: Or for the conversion of flats?
  Mr. Bevan: And of course for such conversion. It is exactly the same sort of thing which before the war was confined to the rural areas. I see no justification whatever for not extending it to the whole population. It is an urban as well as a rural problem, and therefore I always intended, when the time was appropriate, to look at this in order to see whether powers could be made equally applicable to cities and towns and villages.
  There is one feature to which I must draw the attention of the House. It is not proposed to make the grant payable in respect of service cottages. Whatever may be the historical reasons for service cottages, and I am not proposing to argue their merits now, I am convinced that it has long been established that it is necessary in the countryside for certain agricultural workers to live near to their work; and there has grown up in the countryside an institution called the service cottage which is part of the contract of service, for agricultural reasons with which we are all perfectly familiar. Nevertheless, we also know that that system is subject to grave abuse. On this side of the House we hold that it is repugnant that possession of a man"s home should be bound up with his contract of employment. We do not think it is a good thing that when a man loses his job he should at the same time lose his home. In the hands of unscrupulous and cruel people it can become the cause of grievous mischief and pain and intimidation, and we wish to end that mischief as quickly as possible.
  We believe that the most effective way of ending it is to build enough houses in the countryside so that alternative accommodation is always available. Then the agricultural community can have the benefit of cottages near to the farm and the farmworker be exempted from the mischief arising out of the service cottage system. In view of our attitude towards the service cottage, the tied cottage, we cannot agree that labour and materials should be diverted from the provision of additional accommodation and used on a tied cottage. We therefore say to the landlord that if he wishes to have a service cottage made the subject of a

  2133
  grant, he must effect a tenancy. It is therefore in the hands of the landlord as to whether he gets a grant for his service cottage or not. I do not decide it, he decides it.
  I wish to make that quite clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. If it is said that the Bill denies to the occupant of a service cottage the benefit of a grant to help to bring the cottage up to modern standards, I say that that is not the case. All that the landlord needs to do is to lose his right to summary ejectment—a right he ought never to have possessed—and he can have a grant to recondition the cottage; and the tenant will have the benefit of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Most farmers would agree that that is all they really need. I have been told by representatives of the farmers that in the vast number of cases even now they prefer to get a court order rather than to use their right of summary ejectment. All we are doing here is giving the farmer a financial inducement to untie his cottages.
  Mr. Turton: That would include, would it not, the tenancy that is tied for agriculture, although not including a tenancy tied by a particular farm?
  Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I think that what it means is this, to put it in practical terms. If a farmer has effected a tenancy and the occupant of the cottage leaves his employ, or is dismissed, the farmer has to go to the court in order to obtain an order for possession of the cottage for another employee. In other words, in such a case it is a restricted tenancy. It is done in very many cases outside agriculture. I am not suggesting that it ought to be possible permanently for a landlord to get possession of a house if he is unable to provide alternative accommodation. But that is the law, and I think that in the circumstances the Bill proposes to give the farmer a fair deal. I hope full advantage will be taken of it and that before many years are over this miserable controversy over the tied cottage will have receded into the distance, that we shall have transcended its evils and forgotten its mischief.
  Mr. Lipson: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he thought that this
  2134
  policy would give the farmer a fair deal. Is he sure that the man who is living in the cottage will be getting a fair deal? He will suffer from the fact that the cottage will not be brought up to modern standards If the farmer refuses to do what is suggested.
  Mr. Bevan: It is not I who will be deciding that. It is for the farmer himself to decide, but if we made it possible for the farmer—or I prefer to say the landlord, the owner of the cottage—to obtain the grant to bring the tied cottage up to date, we would be postponing the date when all tied cottages would disappear. We would be spending building labour and materials on bringing up to date tied cottages and still leaving them tied. That I am not prepared to do. The provision we have made is perfectly reasonable, because any good owner of a cottage can confer the advantages to his tenant and all he loses is what he ought not to have—the right of summary ejection.
  There are one or two other small provisions in the Bill with which I shall not worry the House. I have covered the main features, and the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to other provisions when he winds up the Debate. I believe that the Bill is a valuable contribution to rounding off the Government's housing programme. I believe that, as the years go by, it will benefit the general housing standards of the country and that very many of our citizens will derive great advantage from it.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The House always listens with interest, if not always with the same degree of pleasure, to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. He started his commendation of this Bill this afternoon by saying once again a good deal of what we have so often heard from him before, but with figures brought up to date. As I understood it, he claimed, among other things, some credit for the early age at which matrimony is now entered into under the Socialist Government. That is probably a doubtful claim. It is well known that wives are partners of joys and sorrows, and I can well understand the reluctance of any young man to face life alone in the conditions which have so unhappily descended upon us.

  2135
  The right hon. Gentleman indulged, too, in the delights of prophecy when he forecast a time when there would be a separate dwelling for every family in the country. Taken as an objective of policy, there is nothing new or revolutionary in that. It is a common objective, a minimum objective, of housing policy. Beyond that there is the question of standards and, beyond that yet again, the central question of the moment to which the Minister never referred from first to last—the question of the reasonable cost at which such accommodation will be provided. I must say that it will be a matter of very great disappointment to people throughout the country that the Minister has managed to speak for so long this afternoon without addressing himself for one single second to the subject which is the central basic problem in housing today—the provision of new accommodation at a reasonable cost. So far as that great inescapable problem is concerned, the Minister shrugged it off in an eloquent 50 minutes or so.
  I cannot let pass the Minister's suggestion that his party, and the Government of which he is a Minister, view housing as a social service, whereas Governments in the past viewed houses simply as commodities to be bought and sold. I think that the party of Joseph Chamberlain, Neville Chamberlain and Kingsley Wood owes little by way of either apology or explanation to a party represented by Viscount Addison and the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, it is a fact that a good deal of what is in this Bill is already in Acts of Parliament placed upon the Statute Book by Tory Governments of the past. It is for that reason that there was a faint but perceptible odour of moth balls when the Minister opened up his wardrobe for the edification and admiration of hon. Members today. It is perhaps right that I should come to the precise terms of the Bill a little more rapidly than did the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bevan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was complaining that I had not taken longer, but the Bill has nothing to do with housing costs.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands, but I will do him the credit of saying that I am sure
  2136
  he misunderstands wilfully. My complaint was addressed to the point that since the Minister had chosen to make this general review outside the Bill, it was most remarkable and regrettable that he had chosen to leave out the one object which is uppermost in the minds of the people and which is of foremost importance in this sphere today.
  I think I need perhaps hardly say to the House that we on this side, of course, do not intend to oppose the Bill. [Interruption.] It would be highly quixotic, would it not, if we did, considering that we have been pressing for the encouragement of the improvement and conversion of dwellings for the three and a half years of this Parliament. As far as many of the provisions are concerned it would be quixotic yet again, because we should be voting against provisions which are already in the Statute Book and which were put there by a Government with a Conservative majority—[Laughter.] If the hon. Gentlemen who laughed so prematurely and to so little effect would spend more time in comparing the text of the Housing Act of 1936 with this Bill, and if they would then remind themselves what party was in power in 1936, they would not dismiss that observation quite as readily as they appear to wish to do.
  I would add that our temperament on this side of the House enables us to take an objective view. If we think that matters are for the public good, then we are prepared to give them our blessing. That may seem strange to the right hon. Gentleman who takes the view that, for example, a Bill for the provision of analgesia would be a good thing if it came from the right hon. Gentleman but a less good thing when it comes from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). We are able to take a less personal and proprietary view of public good. We have a less monopolistic approach to these matters. Therefore, I say that our attitude to the Bill is this. We certainly will not oppose it, nor do we regard it in any way with indifference. We do not content ourselves with the view expressed in the lines of Arthur Hugh Clough—
  "Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive
  Officiously to keep alive."
  We shall take a constructive and co-operative attitude to this Bill, and we

  2137
  shall do what it is our traditional duty to do—pass it through the sieve of criticism and see that a better Bill emerges as a result.
  I say straight away that the claims for the Bill made by the right hon. Gentleman, and the claims made in certain sections of the Press on its behalf, are undoubtedly exaggerated, because this Bill will not of itself add one superficial foot to the amount of housing accommodation in the country. [Interruption.] No, of itself, it will not. It does not, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, make any contribution to the central problem of providing new housing accommodation at reasonable cost. These major matters arise on Part II of this Bill, but it is right that I should, first of all, follow the right hon. Gentleman in the order in which he made his observations in regard to Part I of the Bill.
  The Minister addressed himself to the question of the deletion of the Clause in the 1936 Act limiting its application to the working classes. He rightly told the House that there was only one statutory definition, and that a very old one, and certain rather unsuccessful efforts at interpretation by way of case law. The difficulty of having the working classes mentioned in the 1936 Housing Act was that, when the right hon. Gentleman's policy after the war made the local authorities virtually the sole providers of housing accommodation, if the statutory powers of Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, had been literally applied, it would have been almost impossible for anybody not falling within that somewhat vague definition to have a house at all. That was clearly a most unsatisfactory position. I ventured to draw attention to that unsatisfactory position as long ago as 1946, when the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was passing through the House. I cannot honestly claim that my observations at that time encountered much attention from the Minister or anybody else, but after the interval of three years it is gratifying to find that at last the matter has been taken care of.
  Therefore, we say that, as far as it regularises the position by permitting the local authorities to incorporate in their housing lists people of all walks of life, this Clause is obviously to be welcomed. I think the further long-term claims made by the Minister perhaps require a little
  2138
  more examination. It is, of course very desirable that the black-coated workers should not be shut out from the benefit of local authority housing accommodation. It is particularly gratifying to find that a Government of which the Secretary of State for War is a member comes to that conclusion, because we have always taken a sympathetic view to their claim even when we were assured on high authority that they did not matter a tinker's cuss. The French have a proverb, "Other times, other manners," and the mere approach of a General Election is a time when Ministerial manners are traditionally on the mend. We can only hope that their attitude this time will endure a little longer when the General Election is past.
  When the right hon. Gentleman explained his ideas for a balanced community, to which reference is made on page 1 of the Memorandum, and on which he descanted so eloquently this afternoon, it is right that we should make this proviso. Of course, it is right to have balanced communities of the sort to which he referred. That is a matter of social planning which has nothing to do, or need have nothing to do, with building construction in its technical sense. It is right that, in the lay-out of new estates, plots should be left for the erection of the houses which the Minister has in mind, and it is right as a matter of planning that they should be subject to the architectural supervision of local authority officials.
  All that is a matter of planning, but it by no means follows that those houses should be actually erected through the machinery of local authority building. If they are to be so erected, are they to be erected with a subsidy, like the rest of the houses on the local authority estates? The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about that. Or is this really a means of introducing the principle of higher rents on local authority estates? This matter needs much more examination than the Minister was willing to give it. We take the view that, if it is right and proper to have these balanced communities, the actual erection of these larger types of houses should be carried out by private enterprise without the subsidy, which should be restricted to houses provided for people who are in economic need of the subsidy.

  2139
  The next point which the Minister dealt with was the matter of the provision of laundry services and the selling of furniture. So far as these provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 are concerned, as the Minister pointed out, there are already considerable facilities afforded by Acts placed on the Statute Book by the party on this side of the House. Why the Minister should blandly assume that we should wish to take up a negative attitude in these matters was a little difficult to follow. It was, presumably, that the wish was father to the thought, and I am sorry to disappoint the Minister. I am not going to add anything to his election propaganda in what I am going to say. I am able without much difficulty to resist the invitation so to do, because it is quite clear that we on this side of the House think it a desirable thing that people should own their own furniture.
  It is not, however, a good thing that local authorities should go into the industry and manufacture furniture. That would be very stupid, because they would not do it economically or satisfactorily, but there is no reason why they should not sell furniture at the proper economic rate to people wishing to buy it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the ownership of furniture is part, even though it may be but a small part, of a property owning democracy. It goes back to very ancient times, and the Romans knew it. Lares et penates was the foundation of civic virtue. The right hon. Gentleman, after all these thousands of years, cannot really pretend that he has found something new.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: But the Minister was talking about household goods, not household gods.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member must know that household goods and household gods, in that sense, were very much the same thing.
  Mr. Silverman: Only on that side of the House and not on this.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: So far as laundry facilities are concerned, the same considerations apply. It is a very good thing that the burden of the manual effort of washing on the average housewife who, I am reliably informed, spends four to five hours a day
  2140
  at the sink, should be relieved as far as as possible either by private enterprise or by local authorities on an economic basis if they are able to do it. It is quite clear that there is no intention here to compete against private enterprise on other than a fair basis. There is no suggestion in the Bill that the local authorities' activities will be subsidised, and there was no suggestion of that in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. If there were any such intention, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would have treated this House with sufficient frankness to have taken the first opportunity to make it clear.
  The only reason that makes me refer to this matter at all is that it would appear that the provision of meals under this Bill may get round the provisions of the Civic Restaurants Act which makes it impossible to carry on a civic restaurant for more than three years if a financial loss is incurred. As I say, if the right hon. Gentleman has treated the House with the candour which it is entitled to expect—and I am sure he has—the Bill is intended to authorise unsubsidised provision of these commodities by the local authorities where they are able to do it. There is no reason in principle or practice why that should not be welcomed as an amenity.
  Before coming to the question of the arrangements for the conversion of houses, I want to add a word on the point about the market value of houses in respect of which loans can be made, a matter to which the Minister paid some attention in his speech. There, again, the principle is good. I would draw the attention of historically-minded hon. Members opposite to the date of the first Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, 1899, which was the date of the administration of the then Lord Salisbury. Like so many of these Measures, that was a Tory Act for the purpose of assisting people to purchase their own houses. In present circumstances, it is, of course, right that the limit should be raised beyond £1,500. Whether £5,000 is the right figure or whether it is too high I must confess that I feel a little doubtful, but I hope that side of the question will be explored by some of my hon. Friends who are better financiers than I can ever hope to be. The right hon. Gentleman chose to repeat the expression which he made as long ago as 1945 about the building societies,

  2141
  and once again stigmatised them as "moneylenders." [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] I gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for more consistency than he in fact claimed.
  Mr. Bevan: Is not that an improper thing to say? The Opposition know very well that if they want to give it, they must also take it, and I can give it. The hon. Member first of all made a wrong statement; he said that I mentioned building societies. I did not mention building societies, and because I did not, he said he thought I ought to have mentioned them. There are a lot of things I did not say. Am I inconsistent because I did not mention everything that I said before?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman why he is inconsistent. When he referred to "extortionate moneylenders" he had the building societies in mind. He used that phrase in a housing Debate in this House in the Autumn of 1945. He then referred to building societies as "moneylenders." If, when he now refers to "extortionate moneylenders," he is referring not to building societies, but to someone else, will he be good enough to say to whom he was referring when he said "extortionate moneylenders"?
  Mr. Bevan: First of all, I did not speak in 1945 about "extortionate moneylenders"; I spoke about building societies as being moneylenders. I say today that building societies are a little, if anything, better than moneylenders.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman's defences seem to be receding. He is now defending a very narrow front indeed. It appears that in 1945 he did stigmatise these people as moneylenders. Those who remember the speech and those who know the right hon. Gentleman well will realise that the expression was not used in any laudatory sense.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not make the intervention in a laudatory sense now. I say that to describe themselves as building societies today is a complete misnomer. They are merely moneylenders.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The inconsistency is that the Minister has not yet explained to whom he is referring today. It is quite clear that the Minister does not
  2142
  like the building societies; that, at any rate, we can take as common ground. He does not like building societies, and, in spite of the fact that they have apparently turned the other cheek and have not attacked him, so far as I know a restraint for which no doubt, they will get some reward hereafter, because they certainly do not seem likely to get any from the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Logan: Would the hon. Gentleman please give me, if no one else, a definition of what he means by moneylending in regard to building societies?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot claim any expert knowledge on this subject. I should have thought that if the House were to be enlightened on these transactions, it would, perhaps, be for me to seek information from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman then please define what he means by a building society?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: There we are on firmer ground. Building societies have of course statutory functions and statutory requirements in regard to their functions, but I must watch the clock and not get involved with the hon. Gentleman in these interesting, but perhaps rather remote, exchanges. The point I was seeking to make was that though it is, of course, right that there should be an expansion of the market value limit in regard to advances made for the acquisition of houses, it does not necessarily follow that the whole field should be handed over to the local authorities. It is right to say that building societies have accumulated both resources and experience in these matters, and it would be a loss to the community if full use were not made of them in their proper sphere.
  With that I come to the question of reconditioning and conversion. Here may I say that, of course, we on this side of the House, both inside and outside the House, have been pressing for encouragement for reconditoning and conversion for the whole of this Parliament, and we have had to wait for three-and-a-half years before the Minister has condescended to take any action about it. Now that he has brought the Bill in I am going to suggest that there are certain points of criticism about it and that we

  2143
  should be failing in our duty if we did not advance them.
  First of all, we say that this Bill is too tightly drawn in that it excludes service cottages, to which the Minister has referred. Secondly, this Bill is put forward in 1949, although the Report of the Committee on the Conversion of Existing Houses, presided over by the present Minister of Town and Country Planning, reported as long ago as August, 1945, having been set up by Mr. Willink in January, 1945. I believe it is right to say that had this Measure been put into operation at the proper time it may be that its period of greatest usefulness would already have been behind it and that many people would be less hopeless, less frustrated and less weary for that reason, that is, if conversion had been operated at a time when labour and materials were reasonably abundant. There was, of course, a certain amount of reconditioning of rural property done between the wars. There was a certain amount of private enterprise conversion of house property between the wars. The reason why there was not more conversion between the wars was the very high figures of the production of new houses during that period.
  Mr. Bevan: At the peak period before the war, when more building workers were employed than ever before, there were still more than 100,000 building workers out of work.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But the Minister must break that figure down. He must not try to get away with that. If he considers the key trades, he will see that there was a very different position indeed.
  Mr. Bevan: There were still 100,000 building workers out of work at the peak period. If they were ill-balanced it was because no proper attempts had been made to train them.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister cannot suggest that one can paint a house which has not been built.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: If I might venture an interpolation in the exchanges between the Minister and my right hon. and gallant Friend, I would say that one cannot on the occasion of every housing Debate make a complete analysis of
  2144
  everything that has happened in the past. But this much I will say: conversion of house property is normally only a second best. If you have a building industry geared up to high-level production of new houses, you are not thinking in terms of the conversion of houses. That was the position in the thirties; it was most certainly not the position in 1947.
  I say that this Bill has been brought in at least two or three years too late. The Silkin Committee brought forward their recommendations as long ago as August, 1945, but it has taken three-and-a-half years for the Minister to bring in his Bill. So far as the Minister of Town and Country Planning is concerned, he is presumably a prophet without honour in his own party. There is one further criticism of the processes of conversion which is, as I think the right hon. Gentleman admitted, that it is liable to be competitive with the production of new houses. As I understood him, the Minister admitted that. It is open for him to correct me if I have misrepresented him. That being so, it is necessary to ensure that the processes of house conversion are not being carried out in such a way as to arrest or retard the production of new housing accommodation.
  Reverting to the first of those points, the service cottage. I think there is great force in what was said in an interjection by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) that the effect of refusal falls on the occupant. There are service cottages and it is quite legal that there should be service cottages—the Coal Board have them, the Railway Executive have them, the National Health Service have them; all those great State monopolies have them—and a great many agricultural workers are, in fact, living in them. If the grants are refused to the freeholders of those houses, who is going to suffer? There can be no doubt that immediately it will be the agricultural worker who will suffer. He will suffer because he is living in a house covered by a contract of service which is a perfectly legal method of occupancy. I say that it is wrong that the Minister, in order to oppress the freeholders, should oppress the agricultural worker. It may be Socialism but it sounds like spite. [Laughter.] The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) laughs. She may laugh. She was in a minority of one on the Hobhouse Committee.
  Miss Jennie Lee: But not in the countryside.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: This provision in the Bill is a consolation prize to the hon. Lady for being in a minority of one on that occasion. I do not suggest for a moment that there is anything improper in it. It is merely—
  Miss Lee: May I through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, hope that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) will be in his place if, later, I have the fortune of catching your eye?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I should never willingly deny myself the rare pleasure of listening to the eloquence of the hon. Lady, but the question of whether and when she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is a matter for yourself, and I do not think I can be expected to give any firm guarantee. Be that as it may, the hon. Lady was in a minority of one on certain questions in the Hobhouse Committee, and all I say is that she may well afford to be pleased now that, on the whole, her views have carried more weight in the framing of the Bill than they did in the framing of the Report. If, however, the hon. Lady is not satisfied with the Bill, no doubt she will take occasion to say so if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Leaving that point of criticism to return to the major point of criticism as to whether this is the best time for putting into effect the processes of house conversion, that has to be seen in regard to the relationship between materials and labour in the building of new houses, on the one hand, and the converting of houses, on the other hand. Broadly speaking, it is right to say that the ratio between materials and labour for new houses is as 60 is to 40, and that it is just the reverse for conversion. In other words, the time to undertake conversion is when materials are short and labour is abundant, and that the time for worrying about conversion is when materials are abundant and labour is comparatively more of a difficulty.
  At the present time, materials, with the possible exception of timber, are in reasonably good supply, but, on the other hand, building labour is in a difficult position. The total figure of building craftsmen today is 500,000, as against a Coalition target of 625,000.
  2146
  In order to keep up even that number of craftsmen we need an intake of 4 per cent. or 22,000 into the building industry each year. After the 1947 cuts, the figure shrank to 13,000. It is right to say that something like an impending crisis exists in regard to apprenticeship in the building industry today.
  That is why I suggest that this is not a very happy time for pressing claims for conversion against claims for the production of new houses, where the ratio of materials to labour favours materials as against labour and where there is a technique of mass production which we cannot employ in the conversion of houses. Conversion is an individual and finicky process, making great demands on every form of specialist labour and on the specialist skill of architects, surveyors and so on. That being so, we may well find that if conversion is pressed on with today, as it was not but ought to have been in 1947, it may be done at the expense of the provision of new housing accommodation, of which the country stands primarily in need, although of course there is also the need for converted accommodation. [Interruption.] I am explaining that it would be much more satisfactory if assistance had been given to conversion at the time when we originally asked for it and if it had not been delayed until now when conditions have changed. At the present time the ideal conditions for going ahead with a conversion programme are not in being.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Does the hon. Member imply that it would have been a wise policy three years ago to take labour off the building of new houses and put it to the conversion of old houses?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Labour was primarily engaged during those years in war damage repairs. The answer to the question is to be found in the Silkin Report—I do not know whether the Minister has read it—which states in paragraph 54:
  "Special opportunities occur in the case of houses which are uninhabitable as the result of serious war damage, but are capable of repair."
  It advocates that war damage repair and conversion be simultaneously undertaken. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were."] I have already taken considerably longer

  2147
  over my speech than I intended to, owing to the fact that I have given way so many times to hon. Members opposite. It would be wrong if I further prolonged my speech now in order to answer every form of question being put to me.
  We naturally hope that this part of the Bill will do good, but it is fair to warn the House and the country that it might not do as much good as is hoped and that it might do harm if it siphons too much of our building resources away from the production of new accommodation. These proposals must not be regarded as a substitute for finding a solution of the basic, central problem of providing new housing accommodation at reasonable cost. I harp on cost not only from the financial point of view but because cost is the index of efficiency in the production of houses. That is the question which the country is waiting to see the Government tackle, the efficient production of houses at reasonable cost within the means of the people.
  So far as the Bill helps towards clearing up certain lesser matters of housing accommodation we shall do nothing to obstruct its progress and shall do everything we can to make it a better Bill. In so far as it claims to be a solution of the housing problem, we must dismiss it as a light-weight, and go on pressing for more practical policies which, we are convinced, can alone bring a solution.
  5.16 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: I am sure that on all sides of the House we have enjoyed the most agreeable speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). If, in the course of it, he has displayed that he, a relatively young man, has extremely antiquated ideas, we on this side of the House are the last to complain about it. He finished his speech by talking about reconditioning. On that last point I agree with him to some extent, but I could not help wondering whether he himself did not need a bit of reconditioning and whether he would qualify as being sound structurally for another 30 years. His personal remarks a short time ago I did not take in bad part. They were not meant offensively and so they were not taken offensively. In spite of that, the hon. Member is writing his own signa-
  2148
  ture, because it is quite plain that he is tainted with the Fascist idea that women in modern life have not their own ideas but simply reflect the ideas of men.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I have been charged with many things in my life but never before has that particular charge been levelled against me. I hasten to assure the hon. Lady that I have not that particular Fascist idea, nor any other Fascist idea. May I reassure her upon another head also? However severe my criticisms of her in her public conduct might sometimes need to be, I would never go so far as to charge her with being merely a reflection of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health.
  Miss Lee: I do not possess a rose to throw across the Floor of the House. But to show I am not lacking in magnanimity, I say that I do not press the matriarchal principle too far either. I like to see both men and women do their own thinking. If I criticise the Minister for some of the proposals in the Bill, it is because I have not had enough of my own way, in the sense of carrying out the conceptions which I believe are the sound Socialist, working-class interpretations of the housing needs of this country. Before leaving the hon. Member I think we might all notice that, as a relatively young man, he still believes in tied cottages and that he wants public money to be given on that basis. We also note that he is quite satisfied for private enterprise to meet without public subsidy the housing needs of all but the poorest groups in the community. I can assure him that there are many of his middle income friends who do not agree with him there. They are thankful that the Labour Government, having put first things first, are beginning to get on top of the primary need for subsidised houses for those who are hardest pressed and can now help them as well.
  This Bill is a very skilful Bill, both socially and politically; it is an excellent piece of engineering; it is imaginative, and it is highly civilised. It is more than time that we got rid of the obsolete and vulgar division of society into classes, which was perpetuated by Members opposite. We do not claim to have done that yet, but we are behind the Minister in the direction in which he is moving in this Measure.

  2149
  No Member so far has referred to what in one sense is a minor point in the Bill but which, at the same time, I hold to be most important. It illustrates why I call this Bill highly civilised. It provides not only normal financial provision for cottages of special historical and architectural quality, but also special money inducements. The Minister and the Government are to be congratulated on that point so far as they go, but I do not think they go far enough. Experts in this field have estimated that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 cottages of very special historical and architectural interest. If I understand the Bill correctly, the Minister is leaving it to the choice of either the local authority or the private owners of these cottages to have them reconditioned. When we come to the Committee stage I hope that on this issue, choice will be abandoned in favour of compulsion. These cottages do not belong merely to the people who live in them or to those in their communities; they are part of the cultural heritage of all the people of Britain. There was enough vandalism between the wars and in earlier periods. We cannot afford to lose a single one of these cottages. I hope we shall press for their compulsory reconditioning.
  Another point which I hope Members will look at with great care in Committee is the provision in the Bill which says that public money will not be spent on the reconditioning of tied cottages. I have looked at the relevant Clause, but I am not sure whether, even in the limited job which the Minister sets out to do, its wording is satisfactory. For instance, it is stated that public money will not be available for the reconditioning of service cottages unless a tenancy is effected. Supposing I were the owner of a tied cottage, and went to the occupant of that cottage and said, "I intend to charge you a rental which is less than two-thirds of the rateable value of the cottage": Supposing the rateable value of the cottage were £30 per annum—
  Mr. Alpass: Ten pounds.
  Miss Lee: All right, I will make it £10 just to please my hon. Friend. Supposing the rateable value was £10 per annum. If I said to the occupant, "I shall charge you £5 a year rent," would
  2150
  not that mean that there would be no protection for that occupant under the Rent Restrictions Acts? If there was any protection, it would be merely for a week, which is nothing at all. I hope that point will be made clear. I hope, too, that in Committee Members will encourage the Minister to go further than he has done in not spending money on cottages of this kind. My right hon. Friend said today that public money would be available for a restricted tenancy. If an agricultural worker dies, and his wife and family are left in their cottage what happens?
  Mr. Alpass: They have to get out in a month.
  Miss Lee: Have the wife and family any protection under the Bill?
  Mr. Alpass: No.
  Miss Lee: It would be more civilised and in keeping with modern needs if we insisted that public money should not be available for the reconditioning of any cottage unless a tenancy was effected of a kind which would give the occupants the complete protection of the Rent Restrictions Act.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: That is the position under paragraph (d) of the First Schedule of the 1933 Rent Restrictions Act. If the agricultural worker leaves, and a certificate is granted by the county agricultural committee that the cottage is required for another agricultural worker who is to take over his job, then that is a ground for getting possession without offering alternative accommodation.
  Miss Lee: I am aware of that, and that is something to which I object. I believe that the solution of our countryside problem is that there should be enough units of accommodation, particularly new houses, so that we do not have to continue to bear the intolerable disgrace of families being thrown out into the street, as sometimes happens because a breadwinner has differed from his employer, or a wife and her children have had the misfortune to lose their breadwinner.
  I ask the Minister to recall what he said earlier today. I took note of his words—I agree with right hon. and hon. Members opposite it is just as well not to take too much on trust. The Minister

  2151
  said, in a moment of eloquence, that a house was not a commodity to be bought and sold, but a social service. He added that a house was best left in the custody of a public authority. My right hon. Friend went on, with much sympathy, to develop the point that, this being the case, when it came to choosing applicants for those houses the applicants with the greatest need should be given priority. But the Minister was less than logical in speaking in those terms and then proposing, in one of the main Clauses of the Bill, to make grants of public money to private landlords, leaving those landlords, as I understand it, to choose their tenants exactly as they please.
  We still have a great housing shortage in the countryside. Supposing I owned half a dozen sub-standard cottages, that I was helped to £300 of public money for each of those cottages, and then helped to a further loan of another £300 at 3¼ per cent. Am I entirely free to live in one of those cottages myself, to put my son in another, my father in another, an uncle and an aunt in another and "Uncle Tom Cobley" at the end of the row? Can I do that even though my needs and the needs of my family are, in the eyes of the village, less pressing than those of other people who would be given priority if the local authority had the letting of those houses?
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Under paragraph 8 of the Schedule to which the hon. Lady is referring, surely it is the case that we must establish a case of greater hardship than that before having a certainty of getting a house?
  Miss Lee: I am raising this point not because I am certain that I am right, but because we should be quite clear about these things. The Minister himself said with great sympathy—and I entirely agree with him—that it is very wonderful and encouraging to see old people enjoy the dignity and privacy of places of their own. But young people, particularly young married people, have also the need of dignity and privacy. We have not enough new houses yet for them. One of my fears about this Bill is not that it has come too late, as the hon. Member for Hertford claims, but that it has come too
  2152
  soon. I believe in reconditioning, but it ought to be done by public authorities, when grants of public money are involved for there is then control in selecting the tenants who go into the houses.
  Colonel Dower: The hon. Lady means, then, that the whole cost of conversion would be paid for by the local authorities?
  Miss Lee: No. My view is, as the Minister has said, that housing is not a commodity to be bought and sold any longer in modern conditions, but that it is a social service, and that most local authorities at the present moment, with limited labour and material, have as much on hand as they can cope with in the erection of new houses and in insisting that landlords bring their property up to a proper standard of repair. There may be ideal parts of the country where these problems have all been solved, and spare labour and material are available for reconditioning, but that is not the situation in the Midlands. That is why I am doubtful whether this Bill has not come too soon.
  So far as the private owner is concerned, let us give him a loan on favourable terms but not grants. And I ask the hon. Member for Hertford, if he had the choice between a loan from a building society for which he had to pay 4 per cent. and a loan from a local authority for which he would have had to pay 3¼ per cent. which would he choose? I am all in favour of the 3¼ per cent., and I believe that even south of the Scottish Border the average citizen will also be in favour of the 3¼ per cent. I entirely agree that it is a good thing that families who wish to build or buy their own houses should be given a loan from the local authority. It is also just that families who want to recondition their houses should be given a loan. But it is a bad thing that public money should be given to private landlords, because in such a case there is no control at all over who are to be the occupants of their houses.
  The last point I would put is this, and it does worry me. Suppose I go to a local rural authority and say, "I am an agricultural worker. I am 50 years of age. I live in a sub-standard house. Will you lend me the necessary money to recondition my house?" Should I be a good risk—if I had no money in the bank, if all I could promise was willing-

  2153
  ness to go on working as long as I was able? Should I be eligible for loan or grant? Or would a richer neighbour, with a good banking account, who owned sub-standard property, be more likely to receive facilities from the local authority? I am not asking rhetorical questions. I am expressing a real doubt in my mind about some of the proposals of this Bill.
  It is a good Bill in the main. The Minister is on safe territory. He will have support from 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the House. The 10 per cent. of criticism which we make on this side of the House will be on points that have the enthusiastic support of hon. Members opposite. As to the criticism which they make the Minister will have our enthusiastic support. However, that should not deter any of us in this House, even though we know that the vote is a foregone conclusion, from saying that while we congratulate the Minister on what is good in the Bill, we hope that in Committee the Bill will be made still better.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has made one of her contributions to our housing Debates to which the House always listens with great interest because of her sincerity and because of her great knowledge. She has already indicated to the Minister that if she is on the Committee upstairs she will persistently maintain the point of view which she has just now expressed. In case he is not quite so familiar with her persistency as I am, let me tell him that those of us who sat with her on the Hobhouse Committee tried for a long time to persuade her to come into line with all the rest of us, but she remained obdurate until the end, and wrote her vigorous and clear dissenting report, to which her speech today, I think, was largely due.
  I am glad that at long last the Minister has redeemed the promise that he made in the Autumn of 1945 that he would introduce legislation restoring the grants to be made for reconditioning. I also welcome the fact that they are to be extended to urban as well as to rural districts. I never saw any logic in drawing a distinction between the two, but our sub-committee was a Rural Housing Sub-Committee, and it was not within our terms of reference to deal with urban matters.
  2154
  When we approached this matter in our third Report we wanted reconditioning to be used as a means for raising the whole of the rural housing in the country to a certain standard. We recommended—we were reporting during the war—that there should be a survey of all the housing in rural districts, and that all houses should be divided into four categories—those that were fit, or in need only of very minor repairs; those requiring structural alteration; those requiring reconditioning; and those requiring demolition and replacement by new houses. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the Debate, could tell the House what progress has been made with that survey. I have reason to think that it is being undertaken, but I do not think that any official information has been published upon that subject.
  When the right hon. Gentleman became Minister of Health he asked the same Rural Housing Sub-Committee to consider the question of reconditioning; and, in particular, the first reference to us was whether there was labour available in rural districts that could be used for reconditioning, and which could not be used for the building of new houses. We took evidence and came to the conclusion on that evidence that there were a large number of builders in small rural districts who, for one reason or another, were not in a position to undertake the provision of new houses, but who would have been able to undertake reconditioning. I, therefore, associate myself very strongly with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) in saying that I believe that a Bill on these lines could have been introduced two and a half years ago with very great advantage, and that it would not necessarily have resulted in any fewer new houses being built than in fact has been the case.
  It is as well to point out in this connection that the Minister has been quite frank in his English Bill—it has been rather different in the case of the Secretary of State for Scotland with his Scottish Bill—when he says that the general effect of the provisions of the Bill will not be to alter the volume of housing work, which is controlled by other factors outside the scope of the Bill, but to alter the distribution of building resources for housing work. I hope that we shall have explained to us in

  2155
  the Parliamentary Secretary's concluding speech how far it is intended to divert materials and labour from the building of new houses to reconditioning and conversion. I still feel, as regards the rural districts, that there are a large number of small builders who, owing to limited financial resources and sometimes owing to lack of transport for their men, could undertake jobs on a small scale in their own immediate vicinity, but who would not be able to tender for the larger scale construction of houses for local authorities.
  Mr. Dumpleton: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Hobhouse Committee report of which, of course, he has a great deal of knowledge. I think that he will agree that the Committee applied their minds to the availability of labour and wrote a chapter on that subject in the report, but apparently they did not pay the same regard to the availability of materials and components, about which they had nothing to say. Surely that is germane to the point which he is making.
  Mr. Molson: I doubt whether in the course of my speech I can find the actual paragraph, hut the hon. Gentleman will find in one paragraph that we referred to the very great economy of material which results from reconditioning. It is an undisputed fact that in reconditioning a house one frequently has to use more skilled labour than if one were building a new house, but so far as the material is concerned it is much more economical to recondition an old house. The need for this Bill in considerable measure arises out of some of the ill-effects of the Landlord and Tenant Bill which was passed last week; and because so much is being done now to do away with the ordinary economic incentives to conversion and reconditioning it is necessary for these large grants to be paid out of the public funds.
  I welcome what the Minister said about having in the future all income groups mixed up together and not having areas in which the rich live in one place in solitude and the poor elsewhere. Therefore, I welcome the removal of what, I think, is the completely obsolete limitation of housing policy to the working classes. I think, however,
  2156
  that the Government should consider whether it is not necessary and desirable to substitute some quite logical financial limit to this policy in replacement of what one might call the class limit which is now being swept away. It is entirely unjustifiable for a large sum of money to be raised from the taxpayers and ratepayers in order to use it for subsidising houses, if in fact those houses are to be made available to people who are not in need of financial assistance.
  Broadly speaking, most of the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee have been accepted. In the first place, the scope is much the same as it was in the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts which were passed by Conservative Governments, and, in the second place, it is the rural district councils who are the authorities, as they are already the housing authorities, and not the county councils. The grant is reduced from two-thirds to one-half but the maximum of £300 goes a long way towards bringing the grant into line with the new value of money. The minimum of £100 has been retained against our advice. We did not see any reason why there should be this limit below which a grant could not be paid. We thought, after considering the matter, that no useful purpose would be served by retaining this limit of £100. We thought that in most cases perhaps it would not be worth while applying for it if the sum were small, and the local authority might not care to grant it if it were quite small, but we saw no reason actually for retaining the arbitrary limit. The limit which we also proposed should be removed on the total value of the house, I am glad to see has gone. I feel that the Minister and the Government have belatedly gone a long way to giving effect in this Bill to the recommendations of the Committee.
  I want to give one or two arguments in favour of reconditioning because I know that, although they have not yet had an opportunity of speaking, some hon. Gentlemen opposite are very doubtful about the wisdom of reconditioning. It is undoubtedly the case that sometimes in the past houses have been reconditioned which afterwards were not entirely satisfactory. That is a question of administration, and it was never the intention of the Hobhouse Committee—and I am glad to see it is not the intention of the Government—that recondi-

  2157
  tioning should be carried out in any case where the final job would not be satisfactory. I think that the provisions of the Bill are adequate to cover that point. We recommended that the various prescribed standards laid down in the Miles-Mitchell Report should be required in the case of reconditioned houses. The Minister here is taking power to prescribe standards. I hope we shall hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that normally he would intend to prescribe standards broadly the same as those laid down by the Miles-Mitchell Committee.
  I now come to the question of the tied cottage. On the Hobhouse Committee we did not think that it was our task to consider whether or not the tied cottage should continue to exist; but what we did consider it our duty to do was to try to ensure that all rural tenants, including tenants of tied cottages, should obtain the same benefit from legislation intended to improve rural housing conditions. I really feel that today the Minister was only indulging in a little bit of clever debating when he said that the responsibility was now put on the shoulders of the landlord, and did not rest with the Minister of Health and the Government. I am, indeed, reminded of Pontius Pilate who washed his hands before he took an action of the same kind.
  It was emphasised by a representative of agricultural labourers that one of the most serious things in villages today is the great difference between the standards of living between the old rural cottages and some of the new ones that have been built. One of the arguments in favour of the early introduction of reconditioning was that something like the same benefits of decent housing conditions should extend to those people who have been living and working in agriculture for the last 20, 30 and 40 years. The hardship of living in cottages without water supply, lighting, and so on, has become greater because of the contrast between those old cottages in which they are still living and the new cottages which have been erected for the benefit of newcomers to the villages. It is wrong, I think, to have regard solely to doctrinaire ideas as to whether cottages should be tied or not. It is far better and far wiser to legislate in order to bring about an improvement in the conditions and standards of everyone.
  Mr. Collins: Our objection to tied cottages is not doctrinaire. It is merely an objection to helpless people being turned out on to the streets.
  Mr. Molson: I understand perfectly upon what ground the objection is based, and I shall not be led into an argument on the need for tied cottages on farms.
  When the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts were introduced by Conservative Governments in 1926, and re-enacted in 1936, we of the Conservative Party were at pains to ensure that the benefit of the grants went to the tenant and not to the landlord. The way in which that was done, as was explained by the late Sir Kingsley Wood, was that, whereas under the Rent Restrictions Acts a landlord who spent money upon reconditioning and improving the house could add to the rent 8 per cent. of his capital expenditure, the landlord who had obtained a grant from the State was allowed to charge only 4 per cent. upon the capital expenditure which he spent upon improving the house. In that way the Conservative Government were at pains to ensure that the benefit of the grant payable accrued to the tenant and not to the owner of the cottage.
  Mr. Gooch: It does not apply now.
  Mr. Molson: It does indeed. It does apply, except that there is not at the present time a grant made by the Government or by the local authority, because those Acts were allowed to lapse by this Government. The position is still the same.
  Mr. Gooch: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that where there is an improved type of tied cottage the standard rent is fixed by the committee, but that where there is an improved type of cottage the owner can go to the committee and ask for the standard rent to be increased, so that what he is now saying does not apply?
  Mr. Molson: I hope to deal further with this matter in Committee, but I am fully aware of that, although the practice of different counties varies in this respect.
  In conclusion, I merely wish to say that, broadly speaking, we on this side of the House welcome the re-enactment in this Measure of the principles of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. We are glad that

  2159
  at long last it has been introduced. In most respects it is in accordance with the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, but we feel that it will be necessary to ensure that public money is not unnecessarily spent in subsidising housing for persons who are able to pay an economic rent, and we regret that those who are in tied cottages will be penalised by the attitude the Government have adopted.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Alpass: The Government, the Minister and many, though not all, local authorities are entitled to great credit for the progress that has been made in the provision of new housing accommodation, and I sincerely hope that that progress will not only be maintained but increased to the utmost limit of available resources, because the need is still urgent. I, in common with my colleagues, receive letters from constituents, whose plight is desperate, asking for assistance. The recent survey of rural housing made by local authorities revealed a deplorable state of affairs. In some parishes in my own constituency there were no houses fit to be classed in Category 1—that is, reasonably fit in all respects. In the whole area of the largest rural district council in my division nearly one in 10 houses was classed as unfit for habitation and beyond repair.
  Mr. Gooch: That is not the fault of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Alpass: I am coming to that. One in four houses was classed as appropriate for reconditioning. This is no new situation, for many of the houses in my own division to which I have referred have been condemned for as long as 50 years, and the present deplorable state of affairs is a most caustic commentary on the newly-found, professed zeal of hon. Members opposite for improved housing conditions.
  I am as anxious as anybody in this House for improvement, but I am apprehensive that too much progress in the work of reconditioning may perhaps retard the building of new houses. I regard the construction of new houses for people who have nowhere to live as a first priority. I am supported in this by the Sanitary Inspectors Association.
  2160
  In giving their evidence to the Hobhouse Committee, they made this statement:
  "The present building force should be concentrated on the erection of the maximum number of new dwellings in the country as well as in the towns."
  That view was supported by the National Union of Agricultural Workers who in their evidence said, among other things:
  "Our fear is that the reconditioning of houses will require skilled labour at a time when skilled workers will be urgently required for new building."
  Where it is a case of the conversion of a house that has not been previously used for dwelling purposes, I think that new accommodation is bound to be provided—that will be fully justified—but in other cases I suggest that great care should be taken to see that there is no undue diversion of labour and materials from fulfilling what I regard to be the first need.
  Naturally I rejoice, as hon. Members opposite will expect me to, in the fact that there is to be no financial assistance for service houses. But this deals only with part of the problem of the tied cottage. Farmers have a privilege which no other property owners in the country possess. They can apply to the county agricultural executive committee for a certificate for possession of a house for the use of one of their workers on the ground that possession is absolutely necessary for the cultivation of their holding, and when that certificate is granted they can go to the court and the judge has no option whatsoever but to make an order for possession. This is going on at the rate of 1,000 houses per year in the rural districts. It means that 1,000 houses are being made into tied cottages. It has been suggested, when I have been dealing with this question before, that these things do not happen now, but I can give many instances in my own division of people who have lived in a house from 30 to 40 years, a house that has never been occupied by an agricultural worker, being dispossessed and having nowhere to go, with their furniture having to be put in a stable for many months, because of this unjust provision in previous legislation. We are very anxious that this great injustice and evil shall be removed as soon as possible.
  Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member has said that the farmer has a

  2161
  privilege which no other member of the community has, but is he aware that in Yorkshire quite recently the National Coal Board turned out 28 ex-miners because they had left the pits?
  Mr. Alpass: I have never heard of a miner's furniture being turned out on the roadside, or of a miner's wife being evicted from her house, when her husband was lying sick in hospital as a result of an accident in the pit, and having no alternative accommodation to which she could go. The possession of this certificate of the agricultural executive committee dispenses with the necessity of proving that there is alternative accommodation for a person who is dispossessed. The proposal to make grants, which I call a gift to private landlords for reconditioning their property is a serious blot on this Bill. It is inconsistent with good, sound Socialist principles, which I have always supported. In this, I am supported by the Minister himself. I have looked up the Debate which took place on the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill, and this is what was said by the present Minister of Health:
  "Every time the Government find it necessary to justify paying out subsidies from public funds to private persons, the argument becomes extraordinarily academic and philosophical."
  It is academic—
  "because of the difficulty of trying to justify, on practical or ethical grounds, shovelling out public money to landlords because they have neglected their property."
  He then went on to say:
  "A suggestion has been made that the landlord will get no direct benefit from the reconditioning. It obviously adds to the capital value of the asset. Farms can be let at far higher rents, and the landlord will benefit in that way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May. 1938; Vol. 336, c. 909–910.]
  The sounder policy to deal with this aspect of the question is contained in the minority report of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) says:
  "I agree with the main Committee that any new Act should provide that on an appointed day to be decided by the Minister of Health in the light of the labour and material supplies available, a duty should be placed on the owner, or in default on the local authority, to recondition all property in need of this treatment."
  She then went on to say, and this is the part that I like best of all:
  "Any new Act should make grants to local authorities immediately available for recon-
  2162
  ditioning,but I dissent from the view that grants for reconditioning should also be given to private persons."
  A previous sub-committee made this recommendation:
  "Where owners are unwilling to undertake the reconditioning, we suggest that the local authorities should consider the advisability of exercising their power to buy properties, if necessary by compulsion, and then carrying out the reconditioning."
  That is a report of an independent committee. The effect of implementing that principle would mean that public money would be spent on improving public property and not improving property belonging to private landlords.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the hon. Member explain how, if reconditioning is uneconomic for the private owner without a subsidy, it can be economic for the local authority?
  Mr. Alpass: The local authority will get assistance. [Laughter.] Yes. What I am opposing and criticising is the giving of a subsidy to landlords to improve their private property. In this Bill there is no provision—and the same criticism could be made of the original Bill—to prevent wealthy landlords from getting financial assistance to repair and recondition their private property.
  I remember when I was a member of the Gloucester County Council we received an application for a grant, or a gift, out of public resources in order to recondition some cottages belonging to the third richest lady in the whole of England. Because we exposed the affair, she withdrew her application. The same criticism can be applied to this Measure. There is nothing to prevent wealthy landlords who have plenty of financial resources from applying for a grant and obtaining assistance under this Bill as it is at present drafted.
  Mr. Baldwin: Under the old Housing (Rural Workers) Act, if one of these landlords took a grant for reconditioning a cottage, his rent was restricted to something like 4s. a week and he could not sell the cottage for 20 years; if he did he had to return the money.
  Mr. Alpass: The hon. Member is a practical agricultural valuer. Let me put this case to him. A wealthy landlord gets financial assistance to put his cottages in order. A farm of which those cottages form a part becomes vacant. He knows

  2163
  as well as I do—in fact, he knows much better—that as those cottages are in a good state, having been repaired largely at public expense, the landlord can demand—in fact, many of them have done so—a higher rent for his farm. I know from my own experience that it has been done.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: It is not quite like that. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that if a cottage is improved by reconditioning, two things nearly always increase—the rating assessment and the Schedule A assessment.
  Mr. Alpass: I happen to be the chairman of my county valuation committee, and I have had some experience of these things. I know of no class of property in this country which is assessed so scandalously low as farmhouses. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) knows very well that if he is taking a prospective tenant over a farm, the first thing he wants to know is the state of the land; then he wants to know about the house and buildings, and then what kind of cottages there are on the farm. I myself have been asked that last question many a time. People know very well that unless the cottages are of a decent standard the best type of labour will not be attracted. I think I have proved my point. If these cottages are improved at the public expense, eventually—I do not say immediately—when there is a change in the tenancy of the farm, the landlord is able to demand a higher rent, and in fact he does so. There is nothing in the argument that the whole of the benefit goes to the tenant. The Minister himself said in the same speech to which I have already referred:
  "We suggest that there should be a means test so that public money should not be given to landlords who do not need it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1938; Vol. 336, c. 910.]
  I have referred to what the Minister said about the increased capital value of an estate and farms being let at higher rents. Clause 4 remedies a long-standing grievance, and implements the principle that where persons have had to be dispossessed of their houses because of some much-needed improvement of benefit to the public, they shall be compensated on a fair and just basis. Clause 30 will be welcomed by all who value the preservation of amenities in the countryside, and
  2164
  will make it possible for houses in the country districts to be built, and, if necessary, reconditioned, with the material which is available in the district. This applies to part of my Division in the Cotswolds, and I am sure that it will give satisfaction to those who live in that part of the country.
  The grants for the conversion of large houses into flats and residential hostels will, for the first time, I believe, result in the full and beneficial use of those places. There are many of them about the country today and the owners regard them as white elephants. Their conversion into satisfactory dwellings for people who need them will remove a source of criticism which has been strongly expressed in times of acute housing shortage. The provision of board and laundry facilities will be a real boon, and it will lessen considerably the domestic toil of many housewives. I should like to say a word about the increase in the limit which has been fixed for advancing money. This power to increase this limit should only be exercised after careful consideration.
  I trust that I have not been too critical in my remarks. I regard the Bill, on the whole, as a good Measure, and its operation will remove many of the existing blots on our present housing conditions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock that perhaps a fair estimate would be that it is 90 per cent. commendable, and 10 per cent. not so good. It is that 10 per cent, that I desire to see improved. I trust that the Minister, on reconsideration, will adhere to his previously expressed Socialist principles. I hope that he will amend that part of the Bill which now proposes to give public money to private landlords, and will restrict the provision of financial assistance to private individuals by way of loan only, if at all. With those two reservations, I support the Bill. I hope that the alterations which I have suggested will be effected in Committee, because I believe that they will improve the Bill considerably. Subject to those reservations. I wish the Bill a very speedy passage into law.
  6.17 p.m.
  Viscountess Davidson: Much in this Bill is long overdue. We on this side have always advo-

  2165
  cated the restoration of grants for reconditioning agricultural cottages, which came to an end in the autumn of 1945. I am very glad that at last these grants have been restored, but I regret that a very deserving set of workers has been left out—those who occupy service cottages. I am afraid that those people may suffer as a result of their omission from this Bill. As has already been said, the answer to this problem is to provide sufficient houses in the countryside, but there will always be those who must live in a house which goes with the job that the man holds. This is now being discovered every day by the local authorities, the railway authorities, police authorities, the Forestry Commission, and many other bodies.
  This Bill provides for grants over a much wider area, which is a very different matter. In making indiscriminate grants there is the danger that people who need them most may be overlooked or may go short. The provision of houses by those who are perfectly able and willing to provide them for themselves has almost been stopped in the last three years. As a result, council houses, built with the aid of subsidy, are being occupied by people whether they need a subsidy or not. I am afraid that this process will be further encouraged by a Bill which offers advances and grants indiscriminately. Are we not losing our sense of balance altogether and forgetting that the real purpose of the subsidy is to raise the housing standard of the worst-used section of the community?
  The general cost of all housing today is too high. At present a large number of council tenants are unable to pay the rents which the councils are having to ask for their new houses. This situation has got to be faced and dealt with. My own local authorities are at the moment experiencing great difficulties. The Minister knows this, because I have been in correspondence with him. Other local authorities of this country are experiencing the same problems.
  There are other provisions in the Bill which involve the danger of further and concealed subsidies. No one can object to the provision of facilities on housing estates for meals, for laundry and for obtaining furniture if those facilities are on a proper economic basis. Experi-
  2166
  ence shows that when these services are provided by local authorities it is very difficult to ensure that a further burden does not somehow fall on the rates. If it is the Government's intention that food, laundry and furniture shall be subsidised by those who are not fortunate enough to be council tenants, then let it be stated quite clearly and shown in the accounts so that the public who will have to pay may know where they are.
  All of us appreciate the burden of the weekly washing on the housewife, and we welcome the provision of places where those living in the flats or on the housing estates can both wash and dry their cloths. For these facilities the tenants are willing to pay extra. From my own experience. I know that many housewives prefer to do their washing in their own house or flat, but they welcome, particularly if they live in towns, proper drying arrangements. What the ordinary housewife really requires is modern, up-to-date appliances with which she can do her own laundry and save herself a great deal of work, time and expense.
  I had the opportunity the other day of being present at the opening of an estate which had been built by a housing trust. There, I believe, the trust have solved the problem very successfully. They have given excellent laundry appliances inside the flats, with central drying facilities. I talked to many of the tenants, and the majority of them told me that they much preferred that to the central laundry, which does not always serve the purpose as well as do the arrangements which have been made on that estate.
  My chief anxiety with regard to this Bill is the danger of losing sight of what really matters—the actual production of good modern houses to meet the still increasing need. We do not want local authorities wasting time or money, and we must keep our eye on the ball. The need is still for more houses. On this side of the House we shall never be happy until each family has a separate house. We have only a limited amount of building labour. What matters is the efficient handling of the building industry. Under the Bill we may well get nothing if the Minister's policy prevents the building industry from developing its full efficiency.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Kendall: I listened, as usual, with great interest to the Minister's

  2167
  remarks, and I was disappointed when he tried to avoid and evade the question of the terribly high rents that are in existence in the town of Grantham as well as, presumably, in the town in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson). Unless the Minister gives very serious consideration to this all-important question, he will be faced with two grave issues—first, people will not be able to afford the very high rents, and secondly, it will have a very adverse effect on the further building of council houses.
  It is no good the Minister presenting a Bill with no provision of any description to deal with this very important question. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Government are offering subsidies to this section of the community and to that section of the community without taking into consideration the economic situation of the average worker today and the general subsidies to local councils. When the worker gets a council house he must sign on the dotted line that he will pay whatever the local council asks him by way of rent. That is the only way many of these workers can get a roof over their heads, and it is going to impose a tremendous hardship on thousands of them unless the right hon. Gentleman earnestly and seriously tackles the problem of high rents.
  In the town of Grantham, which is only part of my constituency, the council house is costing £1,500 to build. To amortise that very large sum of money through rents a heavy demand is being made on the local community, and it is imposing hardship which they cannot afford to pay. The Minister, at the earliest opportunity, should with his experts find some other kind of financial arrangements for local authorities, so that the tremendous burden of the present time may be eased and some relief afforded to working-class people. Workers with an average income of no more than £5 a week are being asked to pay rents of 25s. a week for a council house, plus the cost of the amenities that are being offered to them, because we must bear in mind that these modern appliances, although admirable, cost a tremendous amount of money in electricity bills. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead that this is a most serious problem, and it has not been tackled by the Ministry
  2168
  of Health at all. Unless the Ministry do something about it in the immediate future, local authorities will find themselves in the difficulty of having to fix rents which the people cannot afford, and the ultimate result will be that additional houses will not, in fact, be built.
  The only satisfaction I get from the Minister's remarks is that in the very near future his officials are going to meet some of the local officials from my constituency to discuss the local situation. No matter what transpires from that, however, I do not think it will have the results that the country as a whole expect, unless the Minister successfully finds new financial arrangements whereby local authorities can fix rents that are within the pockets of the ordinary people who are going to pay them. Under the general Finance Bill there is a grant of £16 10s. for the boroughs as against £25 for the rural areas. There has got to be something more equitable between those two grants. Although there are many things in this Housing Bill that are desirable and acceptable, there are very many more things that have been left out, and which should have been included in order to give some relief to the people who are paying rents far in excess of what they can afford.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gibson: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) has forgotten that the present Government have been paying the highest housing subsidies for the longest period of time ever known in the housing history of the country. It is not a solution of the costs problem to swing it all back on the State. We are all equally concerned about the costs of house building. As the Minister said, it is very doubtful whether that is strictly relevant to the Debate, but the subject has been mentioned and we ought, therefore, to reply to it. As chairman of the largest housing authority in the country, I am faced with the question of costs day by day. I admit that it is a worry to anyone concerned with providing good homes to be let at rents which the average person can afford to pay. However, what are we to do about it? The Opposition have asked what the Minister proposes to do. We are entitled to ask the Opposition what they propose to do.
  I have spent my lifetime in the building industry, and I know what happened

  2169
  between the wars when we had the same kind of problem. Building prices went up to a terrific height after the first World War and then there was a sudden collapse in prices, but it was secured by very heavily slicing the wages of the operatives in the industry. Members of my union suffered a 2d. per hour cut in wages without any notice. Do the Opposition suggest that that is the way to get prices down? If so, my reply to that, partly at any rate, is that in London the building operative is giving the county council a pre-war standard of output on a very much larger house, so that there is no point to that. Do the Opposition suggest doing what their friends did before the war with housing standards? Costs can be reduced by cutting wages, by reducing standards or by getting a reduction in the costs of building materials, which are far too high, as the Girdwood Report pointed out, and without justification. It is particularly unkind to London because London is more heavily hit than other parts of the country.
  Do those who seek to reduce the costs want to reduce standards? When I hear that sort of thing, I think of what was done in the past. I know that in 1933, in order to reduce building costs the Conservative Party in London built flats, not two miles from this place, with one bathroom to every three flats, and one w.c. and others with one bathroom for every two flats. Those flats can be seen not far from here. That reduced the costs of house building very considerably, but fortunately the Labour Party won the next election in 1934 and we stopped any more of that kind of nonsense as an effort to reduce building costs.
  I believe that building costs can be reduced. I hope that the efforts which the Board of Trade are making in referring some parts of the building materials industry to the Monopolies Commission will result in cuts in cost. The Government might help over the tremendous cost of imported timber. However, we are not entitled to achieve our modern post-war standard of housing at the expense of low wages for the men in the building industry, and therefore what we must do is apply to the industry the modern methods, the efficiency and the economy which have been applied in so many other industries. If the building industry would modernise itself, if it would be less afraid of new machines and
  2170
  if it would take the operatives into much fuller consultation and take their advice through joint production committees and so on, the industry could get an increased output which would cut its costs. I am fortified in saying that because of my experience on the London County Council Housing Committee. We have secured a considerable drop in labour costs in the building of houses in London because we have adopted the method of bringing the contractors and the operatives into regular consultation on the site and at monthly meetings, and have applied all the new machinery we can think of.
  Here is a simple illustration, although it is not a machinery one. We discovered that, owing to the war and the shortage of apprentices in the carpentry industry before the war, the average age of carpenters is very high. Many of them do not like working on a roof. Some of them have reached an age at which they almost dare not. Therefore, we now assemble the roof beams on the ground and as soon as the roof is built, we lift it up by crane and dump it on the top of the walls. I find it extremely difficult to get some building contractors to believe that that is any good; they think it is pandering to the men in the industry. However, that kind of thing applied all over the country will, I believe, produce an increased output per man which will reduce the overall costs. I hope that one result of this discussion will be that the Opposition, if they want to talk about high costs in housing they must remember the tremendously high cost of land in connection with housing—will support something along the lines I have suggested. I hope that they will not go back to the kind of thing they did in a very similar situation between the wars.
  I was glad that the Minister referred to the very great progress which has been made in finding homes for the people. A total of 852,000 homes is a volume of housing work of which any country might well be proud, and this country in particular, because it is infinitely better than anything any other country has so far done, as the returns of the United Nations organisation show. The Minister referred to the waiting lists. I think he is correct in saying that one reason for the continually large waiting lists is the enormous number of marriages of young people who now want homes to

  2171
  live in. The fact that the old people are, quite understandably, sticking to their homes has a tremendous influence on the lists. However, there are a very large number of people on our waiting lists not because they have not got a home but because they have not got a modern home, and they want to he transferred to a council flat or cottage because it will have modern conveniences. Is anybody going to object to that? So far as London is concerned, we say, "let them all come." We put them on our waiting lists, but it has the effect of making those lists high, and indicates the need for a large amount of new building to be carried out during the next few years.
  The point about this Bill which I like best is that it takes out of the housing legislation the reference to the working classes. I do not think those who have spoken so far appreciate what a revolutionary suggestion that is. In the past we have been technically limited to providing accommodation for the working classes as defined in the Act which the Minister quoted. Fortunately, none of us have taken the slightest notice of that definition of the working classes. So far as London is concerned, since the war at any rate, we have been building for all income groups, to use the modern phrase in these matters, and we are building and letting accommodation to members of what used to be called the middle classes.
  It is one of my heartaches to have to read every day appeals from people who can afford to pay an economic rent, but who cannot afford to pay £4,000 or £5,000 down for a house, begging to be put into one of the houses which the London County Council is building for them. I think it is right, and that it is in the line of the development of housing legislation in this country, that this phrase should go out of all our housing legislation, and that the local authorities should be free to build for all the income groups within their area. It will have a good financial effect on their housing accounts, too, at the end of the year, and I am glad to see it because it is absolutely correct.
  I am glad to see also that the law will make it quite clear that housing authorities can build hostels. I became interested
  2172
  in building a hostel in London for one section of its inhabitants which has not been mentioned in this Debate—the university students who come from the provinces. There are hundreds of them living in London today, not only under bad conditions but under disgracefully expensive conditions. I heard last week of a Colonial student in London University who is compelled to pay £3 5s. a week for a furnished room in order that he may live in London somewhere near his place of study. That is wrong, but apparently under the old law it was not clear that we had power to build hostels to accommodate that kind of occupant, individual married couples, and single persons. I hope that power will be used as widely as possible.
  Mr. Kendall: Will the hon. Member tell me, out of his great experience and expert knowledge, before leaving this point of economics, how a man with a wife and two children on £5 a week can afford to pay 25s. a week rent for a council house?
  Mr. Gibson: Of course, in London a man with a wife and two children would not pay 25s. a week for an L.C.C. flat. Our rents do not go as high as that for two-roomed flats, and on some other occasion I will give the hon. Gentleman full details if he likes.
  Mr. Kendall: I should like the hon. Gentleman to answer my question if he can.
  Mr. Gibson: If I may continue, I was about to say that I was particularly glad to hear the Minister's references to slum clearance, because many local authorities—and this is particularly true of London—are reaching the stage now where, unless they can effectively carry out large slum clearance plans, they will have no sites to build on in a year or two. It is important, therefore, that we should clear the sites, re-house the people on them, and be able not merely to rebuild but to carry out the great housing proposals which London and many other cities have worked out since the end of the war. I was glad, therefore, that the Minister gave such enthusiastic encouragement to local authorities to get on with their slum clearance as soon as possible.
  I do not think there is much in conversion. It will provide some additional

  2173
  accommodation, but I suspect, if past experience means anything, that it will provide it at an expensive price to all of us, and I doubt whether it will produce a large addition to the accommodation which exists. It is interesting to note that already since the end of the war 106,000 families had been put into converted property, and while it is true that there are some parts in many of our great cities, and certainly in London, where there are a few large houses left which can be converted, there are not many terrace houses left in London which ought to be converted.
  May I again weary the House with a personal experience? I lived as a boy in a terrace house in London. Every time the Thames came up a bit above the normal high tide, it flowed into the front door of that house. There are still a few such houses, and they ought not to be reconditioned under this Bill, but pulled down. Therefore, while we must do this conversion work so far as it is possible to make good modern homes, too much must not be expected of it, and the emphasis must be kept on the main problem of building new additional accommodation as fast as we can. I am sure the Minister will keep his eye on the proportion of building labour on conversion work as compared with that on new work.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, who is, if I may say so, making a very valuable speech. He spoke of the clearance of slums. That is a development affecting every big city in this country and particularly the city with which I am associated. What scheme has the London County Council in contemplation to house the people during the process of clearing slums?
  Mr. Gibson: If the hon. Gentleman will obtain a copy of the agenda paper of the next meeting of the London County Council, he will get a full answer to his question because there will be a report on that point before the Council. I am not quite sure whether I am not infringing County Council Standing Orders in saying this, but that is the fact. I wanted to stress the importance of seeing that the proportion of building labour used for new building is kept up to the absolute maximum, otherwise we shall dissipate a good deal of the labour in conversion
  2174
  work which will produce some accommodation but will make no large contribution to the supply of additional homes.
  There are two other points which will be of great importance to the housing authorities in the London area, and in others as well. The Bill provides for a special subsidy for the purpose of encouraging the building of cottages on expensive land. I am afraid that the provisions in the Bill will work out very differently from the three-to-one arrangement which exists at present as between the State and the local authorities. If it does so, then it will not encourage the development of houses of the cottage type in places like London where land is in any case very dear. I should like the Minister to look at that with a view to seeing whether some more attractive terms cannot be put into the Bill in order to encourage, without undue financial burden, the housing authorities in London, and in all the other large cities where they have this reconstruction problem, to build as many cottages as possible among their flats.
  Another point I want to raise concerns the calculation of the subsidy to be paid on houses which are improved and owned or leased by local authorities. Even after reading the formula two or three times, I am still not clear about its exact meaning. It ought to be fairly easy to state clearly that the subsidy shall be related to the amount which remains after all capital charges have been met and all revenue has been taken into account. The clear phrasing of this procedure would prevent difficulties and troubles later on between housing authorities and the Minister and would prevent sore heads and a lot of bad temper.
  To conclude, I welcome the Bill. It is a further step in the great scheme of housing the people of this country in decent, modern homes, and I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to go forward until, as he said, every family has its own home and its own front door.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) speaks with very great authority on this subject and has, therefore, covered a very wide field, a much wider field than that to which I intend to devote myself. I think that in some respects he went rather beyond the matter immediately relevant

  2175
  to the Bill, under the impression, perhaps, that we were having a general housing Debate rather than discussing the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not blame him for that, however, because he was misled, of course, by the Minister, who himself also covered a very wide field.
  Mr. Gibson: I was not misled by the Minister, for he made no mention at all of costs. It was the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) who introduced the subject of costs.
  Mr. Marlowe: I apologise. I assumed that, as so many other people have been led astray by the Minister, the hon. Member for Kennington also had been led astray by him.
  The particular matters to which I want to draw attention are those dealt with in Clauses 5 and 6. I am gravely disturbed by the powers to be created by the facilities for laundering, the selling of furniture and the provision of meals. None of us would dispute that the facilities must be made available for the people occupying the houses, but the question is, what is to be the method of provision? If the Bill were to be amended in such a way as to ensure that these facilities could be provided only on a proper commercial basis, which would not give either the State or the local authority that provides them an advantage over those engaged in private enterprise, I should be satisfied, but as it stands the Bill does nothing of the sort.
  The hon. Member for Hertford, who expressed, I think, the view of most of us on this subject, that we welcome the inclusion of these facilities, did so, as he expressly stated, on the assumption that the Minister would ensure that there was no undercutting of private enterprise. I think that I have correctly stated what the hon. Gentleman said, and that he expressed his confidence in the Minister in that respect. I entirely agree. If we are satisfied that those safeguards will be given, then the position is tolerable, but I have not the confidence of my hon. Friend in the Minister. I believe that the Minister will lose no opportunity of carrying out his well-known policy of doing everything he can to undermine private enterprise. I have no confidence at all that he will, in fact, enable the provision of these facilities for laundering, providing refreshments and selling
  2176
  furniture in a way which will not amount to subsidising them out of the rates. If that is done it becomes unfair competition and is something which I could not support in any way.
  We have seen many examples in this Parliament of new powers being taken by the Government in the field of national and municipal trading. Every extension of it gets us into more dangerous ground. On a number of occasions when this matter has been raised on other Measures we have sought to insert Amendments to the effect that the accounts, for instance, shall be kept in accordance with the best commercial practice. We have endeavoured to import that Amendment into many of these Bills, but for some reason the Government always reject it. I can only assume that they do not wish their accounts to be kept in accordance with the best commercial practice because that would disclose the municipal trader was getting an
  advantage over the private trader. In the provision of these facilities the private trader ought to be allowed to enter into fair competition with the municipal trader, if the municipal trader is to be there at all. The municipal trader is tolerable only if the municipality enters into it on that basis.
  Mr. Collins Mr. Collins (Taunton) rose—
  Mr. Marlowe: I only want to occupy the House for a few minutes on one point but if the hon. Member wants to interrupt I will give way.
  Mr. Collins: I was only going to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman where he thought these supplies, presumably of furniture, are to come from, if not from the normal manufacturers.
  Mr. Marlowe: That was my final point, to which I was coming. The proper way for this matter to be dealt with is that we should adhere to the old principle of dealing with these matters, where necessary, by local government Bills. There is no objection whatever, where the facilities are not provided, for the local authority to promote a Bill to take such powers as may be necessary to make provision for those things where they are required. My objection is to taking the overriding power to provide these things whether they are required or not, thereby enabling the municipal trader to enter into unfair competition.

  2177
  The proper procedure is to see whether the normal channels of trade provide these things or not. If they do not, then, obviously, there is a case for prompting a local government Bill for that purpose. This is a well-tried system, which has worked very well in the past and provides safeguards. I should prefer to see it retained. In every field in which I see this extension of municipal trading it gives great cause for alarm, because the prosperity of this country has been built up on its trade, and it is the competition—the fair competition—between traders which does so much to promote that prosperity. If we undermine it by allowing municipalities to come in on unfair terms, we shall be doing something which may prove ultimately to be a grave danger to the community.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Yates: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his speech. Of the remarks he has just made, I can only say that in the City of Birmingham, in which lies the constituency I represent, there is no form of municipal organisation that has not shown itself to be extremely efficient. I am quite sure that if that city could have these additional powers it would exercise them with the same regard to efficiency as it has exercised other powers in the past.
  I welcome the Bill in the name of the City of Birmingham, because I believe it is really a clarion call to all managements responsible for property in the city to plan upon a comprehensive scale never before visualised. My first speech in this House referred to the subject of housing in Birmingham and I made a special plea for a share of materials and labour to solve the problem of unhealthy houses. I welcome particularly the provisions in the Bill which enable reconditioning to be planned on a thoroughly businesslike basis. I want to ask a few questions on the provisions as they would apply to a great city like Birmingham. There is an eternal conflict between those who desire materials and labour for permanent houses and those who desire them for the building of schools, factories, slum clearance, repairs and reconditioning. I have come to the conclusion that it is necessary for all these various
  2178
  types of buildings in our towns and cities, provided there is a fair proportion between the various types.
  We are faced with an extremely serious problem. I am sorry the Minister is not here, as I want to issue this warning to him. This afternoon he seemed extremely optimistic about being able, in a short time, to provide homes for all who need them. I am in agreement with all who praise the Government for their great achievement, but, looking at the problem in the city that I represent, I find that there are 68,000 people on the registers of the corporation estates department. If we deduct a third, after screening the lists, we are faced with 45,000 who are in urgent need of accommodation. The medical officer of health, in a survey issued in 1947, estimated that within 10 years it would be necessary for another 20,000 houses to meet the natural increase in population. That makes 65,000 houses to meet the normal need of the city. With all the force of building and progress brought to solve that problem, at the moment only 40 permanent houses a week are being provided. It does not require much thought to consider how long it would take to meet the problem under present circumstances.
  We have a further problem, that of redevelopment and slum clearance. I believe this constitutes one of the greatest dilemmas for a city of the magnitude of Birmingham. According to the survey of the medical officer of health made in 1946 and issued in 1947, we have 29,763 houses within the redevelopment area which have been scheduled for demolition; in other words, there were 29,763 houses unfit for human habitation in relation to which schemes have been prepared. Apart from that redevelopment area, we were told by the medical officer that there were no fewer than 25,000 houses unfit for huban habitation. In 1945 the Government were faced not only with the normal housing shortage, but with a problem of more than 54,000 houses unfit for human habitation. I listened to hon. Members opposite who talked of this Bill as being belated, but in the City of Birmingham do we not think that action on the part of those who previously governed was belated? It means the utmost misery to the people, and presents one of the ugliest problems with which an industrial city is faced.
  Sir P. Hannon: I apologise for interrupting, but does the hon. Member recall the problem facing the administration at the close of the war? We had the war years behind us, during which all house building was suspended.
  Mr. Yates: I fully appreciate the problem before the war. The war itself added to the problem and made our position much more difficult. I appreciate that, but I was a member of the local authority 21 years ago when we were pressing this on the city council and on the Government. Action might have been taken in those years, when it was easier to deal with the problem. The extent of the slum clearance problem and the general housing problem means that Birmingham requires 120,000 houses. We are getting 40 houses a week to meet the normal housing shortage, but, to meet slum clearance at the moment we are able to get only 25 per cent. of those houses, which means that we are getting houses at the rate of 10 per week to meet the need of more than 50,000 houses. If we doubled the output in Birmingham, we should not be able to meet the housing shortage and the slum clearance problem for more than 30 years. In addition, there is the question of temporary houses, which in 10 years time will have depreciated and will need attention.
  Clauses 11 and 12 of this Bill provide for grants to local authorities for reconditioning houses, providing that after reconditioning the life of the houses will be 30 years. I wish to put a question to the Minister on this matter. We are proud of the lead Birmingham has given and we shall endeavour to keep the lead, but in the great slum clearance and redevelopment schemes Birmingham has in hand, and which are to cost more than £17 million, the local authority have repaired up to date 7,900 houses which were of the lower standard type. They have reconditioned 900 since July, 1947, and I am informed that of the number reconditioned, 150 cost more than the £100 per house which is the figure stated in the Bill as the minimum.
  The difficulty with which the city is faced is that while it is necessary to spend this amount of money on reconditioning houses which cannot be replaced because the new houses are not coming along sufficiently quickly, they have to plan structural alterations for
  2180
  houses which it is hoped will not remain for 30 years, but which certainly may be there for between 20 and 30 years. That is an enormous burden to the local authority and I do not know whether in the circumstances the Minister could agree that some additional benefit should be given, as there is such a colossal problem. The authority does not know how to plan because of its inability to know the number of houses which ultimately will be forthcoming.
  Apart from the scheme of slum clearance and redevelopment, I would remind the House that there is an enormous field for improvement in the houses to which the Minister referred earlier this afternoon. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) will be interested in this matter, in view of the question he put to me. In the City of Birmingham there are 283,611 houses and 34,965 are without a separate w.c., while 142,523–50 per cent. of the total number of houses in the city—have no bathroom accommodation. The city of Birmingham must hail this Measure if it means that structural alterations can be brought about and assistance given from national as well as local funds to provide the people with these amenities to which they were entitled long ago.
  I welcome the Clause which enables local authorities to build hostels for workers. In the past year I have pressed upon the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour the need for hostel accommodation. We could probably bring more building trade workers into the Birmingham schemes if we had places in which to house them. There is need for hostel accommodation for those workers in Birmingham who are engaged on important export work.
  I found an example of that particular problem, which I raised a year ago, in a night shelter in my own constituency, where 90 to 100 men had to sleep on the floor every night because no other accommodation was available. Although I have pressed the matter both on the Ministry of Health and on the Ministry of Labour, I understand that in Birmingham at present there are still 75 men at the Winson Green Night Shelter, and many of them have to give up jobs because they cannot find a place in which to live. I am informed that as recently as a week last Friday, one man went to every lodging house and hostel in the city

  2181
  and finally came to the Dudley Road Hospital, where there is accommodation for casuals. He was turned away from that place, which I understand was closed at 7 p.m. at night. Sixty people were turned away. Therefore, I say to the Minister that this is a most urgent problem for Birmingham. We welcome the provision in the Bill to enable the city to have a fair opportunity of enjoying amenities. The past history of this great city of Birmingham fills us with deep anxiety, knowing as we do that 50 per cent. of the population are living in conditions which are below the standard which we consider to be reasonable.
  Sir P. Hannon: Those on this side of the House who represent Birmingham are in full accord with the hon. Member in regard to the tragic story which he has told the House. Would he also tell the House that private enterprise is fully co-operative with the municipal authority in connection with the building programme in Birmingham so as to get the largest number of houses in the shortest possible time?
  Mr. Yates: I am quite prepared to agree. I have formed a definite conclusion, so far as Birmingham is concerned, that I do not mind who builds the houses, so long as they are built. If that means bringing in more people—private builders themselves who want to build—let us do that and everything else that can spur on the building of houses in order to meet this enormous problem.
  Mr. Dumpleton: Will my hon. Friend say whether the 142,000 houses without bathrooms were built by private enterprise?
  Mr. Yates: Yes, I assume that they were. I might say that there are even 19,000 houses in Birmingham, municipal houses that have not got a separate bathroom.
  Colonel Dower: Is it not a fact—I happen to know it is—that probably every house which was built when those houses were built—including the houses round Regent's Park—was built without a bathroom?
  Mr. Yates: That may be so, but I stand here tonight and submit to the House
  2182
  my protest against the incompetence of previous Administrations. I represent a constituency that was once represented by Mr. Neville Chamberlain in this House for 14 years, yet in my constituency, there are 14,000 houses of which 12,000 have no separate bathroom accommodation. I protest, and charge hon. Members opposite and their party with having permitted great masses of workers to be herded together in these dens and hovels—as many of them are—for years longer than was necessary. I ask the Minister to pay special attention to the problem which I have stated, which is recognised by all as being fundamental and vital. We will give every possible support to him in an attempt to alleviate the suffering of the people as early as possible and bring about new conditions and a new—
  Mr. Shurmer: Having made that statement to the House regarding 40 houses per week towards the colossal programme, and knowing that I have been a member of the Birmingham City Council for the past 29 years, would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be fair to say that the Minister has recently given the Birmingham Building Group power to build as many houses as they like? The problem is not that the Minister will not let us do it; it is a question of the labour to build the houses not being there.
  Mr. Yates: I fully understand the programme. The Minister has given the utmost support. We have had a conference, not a party conference but one of all Birmingham Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. We have been to the Minister, who has given us every possible support. I am only saying that here is a problem. I hope and pray that this Bill will help to ease that problem and will be hailed as a great Measure by the citizens of Birmingham.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Roberts: There may be a certain number of Members in the House who are not connected with local government. If there should be such Members I will tell them something which they have not heard. A London County Council election is to take place shortly, and also a number of local government elections up and down the country. That may

  2183
  account for some of the speeches we have heard.
  May I first contribute a little item about letting furniture on hire purchase? Some 22 years ago the Estates Committee of Birmingham, of which I was at that time chairman, were much concerned about the problem of young people, possibly with good wages but with no money saved, who were expecting a baby and who had no chance of getting a council house in the ordinary way. They got into touch with the Estates Committee, who manage the houses, and by arrangement 16 maisonettes were set aside and let to young couples for a three-year term, furniture being included on the hire-purchase system. The charge for the furniture was arrived at by calculating an amount that would pay 3 per cent. and redeem the furniture—plus 2d. per week for overheads. The idea was that at the end of the three years the young couple, equipped with furniture, could move into a council house and the process could be commenced again.
  I lost touch with that experiment after I left the Estates Committee. The scheme was carried on in three cycles of three years each, comprising altogether some 48 tenants. Two of them absconded, leaving furniture behind which was resold at a reduced price, no loss being incurred. The other tenants were satisfactory, but the scheme was finally abandoned by the Estates Committee in 1936 because it was not being supported. And the reason was that the housing shortage was being overcome—strange as it may appear to people who think nothing of that kind could possibly have happened between the wars—and accordingly there was no further demand for that sort of thing.
  Some little time ago the Birmingham Corporation were promoting a Bill and they thought—and I thought with them—that there would be no harm in putting in a permissive Clause of the kind which appears in the Bill at present before this House. However, the electorate apparently thought differently.
  Mr. Shurmer: Why?
  Mr. Roberts: I am relating the facts and it may be more to the point for me to continue to do so rather than to comment on "why?" The electorate, I say, thought otherwise. A town's poll
  2184
  was taken, and out of a very large electorate about 8,000 voted for the Clause and about 43,000 voted against it.
  Mr. Shurmer: Would not it be true to say that after much propaganda, practically the whole of the people who took that hall and voted against it were business people who were afraid of municipal enterprise?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It must have been a very big hall.
  Mr. Shurmer: It was not the electorate, not the workers themselves.
  Mr. Roberts: I am relating the facts, and not referring to the propaganda, or to whether it was right or whether it was a good or bad thing. The Unionist Party took no part whatever in the propaganda with regard to that poll. The Labour Party went all out to get people to it in support of the Clause. The significant thing was not that 40,000 voted against the Clause, but that with all that Labour propaganda only 8,000 people could be found to vote for it. Accordingly, I say to the Minister that he must not expect too much from the Clause. In Birmingham there is not a great deal of support for any Clause of that kind.
  I now turn to the Bill itself, or more particularly to the background of it. The right hon. Gentleman said very rightly that this is a Bill which is asking for money to carry through housing projects and so the present state of housing should be reviewed. The Minister asked us to remember his words of wisdom in 1945 as to the desirability of mixing up different social classes. I am in agreement with that. I think that most of his very varied words on this subject have been carefully studied and are remembered. For example, there was his statement, made a little later in the same year, that he anticipated that the worst of the housing crisis would be over by the end of 1947. He made a statement later in 1947 that in something over two years the Government had already provided as many homes as were provided in 10 years following the last war which, if correct, would have meant a total exceeding 1,194,000 houses. Those statements are quite well remembered.
  There were other more recent statements of a very mixed kind. First of all, there was the remarkable statement

  2185
  last Thursday to the effect that the resources of labour and materials on housing are now fully employed and, accordingly, that if the housing programme were added to, it would be at the expense of hospitals. Then came the fiery challenge, "Are we prepared to vote for fewer hospitals? "I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—and I think my Birmingham colleagues will bear me out—that to the Birmingham people, that dilemma has no terrors at all, because in our favoured city we have been told by the Minister that, we are not to have a new hospital. There is one to be built in Stoke Newington, or thereabouts. Presumably the London County Council elections are more important than the municipal elections.
  Mr. Shurmer: It is a health centre, not a hospital.
  Mr. Roberts: According to the Minister that is the set-up. What is the housing position in Birmingham at the present time? It is difficult and obscure. A few days ago the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) asked whether more people in Birmingham could be employed on housing. He suggested that somewhere about 1,400 are so employed. He was thoroughly snubbed and set down, and told that he was misinformed, and that really about 7,000 people are employed on housing in Birmingham.
  Mr. Shurmer indicated dissent.
  Mr. Roberts: Figures are given of 40 houses a week going forward. The actual number in the last three months is 276, and I am asked by the Government to believe that a labour force of 7,000 people are employed in providing them. Before the Minister speaks so confidently he had better see that all is well with the planning of his own Government, because I should say that there is a serious omission there. As the hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, the housing list, whether genuine or not, is being augmented at the rate of 200 per week. It is a very irritating thing to come from a city like Birmingham and hear the complacent remarks of the Minister about the wonderful achievements of the Government in housing. In effect, if not in so many words, he says, "We have finished that; we have provided new houses; that is all right, now we can go on to something else."
  Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Roberts: I notice that the Minister does not appear to agree with my last few remarks.
  Mr. Bevan: It is a complete misstatement of what I said.
  Mr. Roberts: I rather thought that the inference which I drew would annoy the Minister. It was intended to do so. And I would say that some of the evils which the Minister is hitting at in his present Bill are of his own creation. It is to be noted in the housing figures that since the war somewhere about 60,000 new habitations have been prepared and built by private enterprise, that being on the basis—do I understand the Minister to say, "No"?
  Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member says some 60,000 houses have been provided—
  Mr. Roberts: I did not say houses, I said habitations.
  Mr. Bevan: —habitations have been provided by private enterprise if that is the statement of the hon. Member, he is wholly and completely wrong. The vast majority of the houses, as I have said today, have been erected by private enterprise, some on contract with local authorities and some for private ownership.
  Mr. Roberts: The fact is, of course, that in discussions it is rather convenient to keep to one meaning for one phrase. It does not help one very much to Fay that all are "private enterprise houses" because practically all are built by private enterprise. The commonsense meaning of "private enterprise" is houses privately built for private profit. One does not clear things, but one befogs them, by suggesting any remissness on the part of local authorities as being the fault of private enterprise, because they employed private enterprise. I am grateful to the Minister for having given me the chance to deal with one of his favourite sleights of hand.
  In the Housing Summary of 30th November, 1948, the total provision of housing accommodation in Great Britain as at 30th November, 1948, it says:
  "The total number of new houses, flats, and other family units … provided … has been as follows. Use of existing premises; conversions and adaptations—local authorities 41,000; under licence, 63,000."

  2187
  If the Minister has not read that useful little publication perhaps he will read it. That procedure has been killed stone dead by the new Rent Restrictions Bill which places people who do that sort of thing under most onerous restrictions in future. I pointed that out during the Debate and I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. There was in it much of which I approved, but I disapproved so strongly of its anti-social tendency with regard to obsolete houses that I voted against it to show my opinion.
  The right hon. Gentleman throughout his Ministerial career should have applied himself to the overriding task of getting, by any means or any source, habitations in which people may live. But in his housing policy throughout, he bears the same relation to statesmanship as Heath Robinson bore to engineering. The resemblance is exact. The remarkable fact about Heath Robinson's contraptions was not that they would not work, but that they would. They were all technically possible. It is always technically possible to do things which are disadvantageous, to select ends which are unworthy instead of those which are worthy and to do good deeds in a muddled and complicated manner. That is precisely what the Minister has done.
  He began by cutting clown to vanishing point private enterprise in building. I warned him here in 1946 that he was leaving out the element of friction. He was assuming that he could freely divert all private enterprise labour into public employ. I warned him that only a fraction would follow him, and so events have proved. He harasses private enterprise at every turn and talks of profiteering. He holds it out as a merit that housing and houses should not be objects of merchandise or profit, and yet tries to convince us that he really wants to help people buy their own houses. If houses are not to be objects of merchandise and profit, why should they be privately owned? If they are privately owned, are they not objects of merchandise? Such claptrap from a Minister of the Crown makes one despair.
  Why on that argument do I not oppose this Bill? I do not oppose it for the very good reason that the housing situation is of such gravity that I would not
  2188
  oppose any Measure which offered any alleviation. That I think much of it has been induced and made necessary by the folly of the Minister is not the point. We must do the best we can for those who are suffering. I would not take upon myself the responsibility of opposing this Bill merely because much of it in my judgment would not have been necessary had events been better ordered. One could wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been here a little while ago during two or three speeches made from this side of the House when it was urged very strongly upon him that the overriding need is for more houses, more homes. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) spoke feelingly and with complete justice of the plight of Birmingham, but the objectives referred to are not to be secured by a spirit of spite and rancour, by a tendency always to make the smart debating point, the bitter gibe and the paltry display of cleverness. Let those be abandoned, let houses be recognised as a dire and urgent matter of national unity, and then we may get somewhere.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: The hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) will excuse me if I do not follow him in his objections to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health—obviously, he is not a friend of his—or into his objections to matters concerning Birmingham housing which I am sure many of my hon. Friends will be able to answer most effectively when the time comes. This Bill revives the principle of assisting private owners to improve their houses. In this respect, as public money is involved, naturally it must be carefully scrutinised. I consider that the Measure will be popular in my constituency where there are a large number of working people, including miners, who own their own houses. In that respect, I congratulate the Minister in striking out along a new line now that conditions are a little better in regard to the number of houses built.
  The truth is that owners of private houses in rural areas or in urban districts are not now able to finance improvements to their properties because of the general change in the relationship between rents and building and constructional costs. Since the war rents have gone up roughly by only about 30 per cent., but building

  2189
  costs have increased by 300 per cent. That causes an impossible position for many small private owners. In my constituency many working men, including miners, will benefit under this Bill which will assist them to meet the difficult position which has arisen as a result of the change between annual value, rent and building costs. This Measure will give the owner an opportunity under proper supervision to use public revenue provided that the conditions in the Bill which appear to be adequate are observed.
  It is absolutely vital at present to introduce fuel-saving apparatus into houses wherever possible. Would it not be possible to assist by this Measure in the introduction of such apparatus into privately owned houses? I realise that there is the condition under which nothing under £100 will qualify, and I wonder whether the Minister would consider in Committee making some modification of that provision to meet a position which would be of vital assistance in the saving of fuel.
  My main reason for speaking in this Debate is to raise one special point. I hope that it will be possible under this Bill to allow charitable trusts to benefit. Under Clause 16 persons other than local authorities may benefit. It seems to me that only those people who own the fee simple of their land will qualify. There are a large number of charitable trusts which own almshouses, rest houses and the like, whose deeds are not vested in them but in the Charity Commission. I should like to know whether they will qualify for assistance under this Measure, because they are not actually within the Clause. They administer the property under a trust, but the Charity Commission holds the deeds. This is a vital question. I hope in Committee Clause 16 can be drawn wide enough to cover all these cases.
  There are up and down the country a large number of almshouses of this kind which are providing homes for old people, and while not exactly assisting the rates, are assisting the National Assistance funds by keeping these old people from the necessity of applying for public assistance, or, alternatively, from going into homes provided by the National Assistance Board. There are many cases where there may be, perhaps,
  2190
  six almshouses provided by some charitable person about 100 years ago, and containing only two small rooms, with no bathroom. If these six houses could be converted into three, they could provide conditions which would be much more suitable for modern times. I say that it is very desirable that all charitable trusts of this nature should benefit under this Bill, and, if Clause 16 can be drawn wide enough to meet these cases, I hope the Minister will consider the suggestion. It is really a Committee point, but I hope that on Second Reading I might draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to it.
  Mr. Bevan: I think it is also Clause 17 to which my hon. Friend should refer. I am not certain about the application to the case where trustees own almshouses, and where a tenancy does not exist. Where trustees or executors own houses they should benefit equally with any other owners under Clause 17.
  7.42 p.m.
  Colonel Dower: I must declare my interest in this Debate, because I am spending a great deal of every day in building, both by direct and indirect labour. I want to enter the fray and to say, first, that, on an urgent matter like this, and on a Bill which is not likely to involve a Division, there is an opportunity for all of us to put something into the common pool which can be drawn upon later. If the Minister goes through the OFFICIAL REPORT, as I am sure he does, he will be able to pick up some of the suggestions which have been contributed from all quarters. Therefore, I hope to get down to one or two things which I hope he will look at.
  I know that there are a great many houses in London now waiting for conversion, and that some of them have been waiting year after year because of delay by the War Damage Commission. Will the right hon. Gentleman write to the President of the Land Board to see whether some progress cannot be made? If the Minister would like to have the name and locations of these houses which have been waiting to be converted into flats, I can supply them to him.
  My second point is that there is in the Hampstead Road a half-built property in course of construction by me, which

  2191
  has been started three times and stopped again three times under various orders. I do not know in which constituency the Hampstead Road is, but I think it may be in Islington. Whoever may be the hon. Member who represents the division in which it is, I hope he will "get cracking" and ask the Minister why this property, which will provide six or seven flats for families, has been held up for so long. First, the work started, and then an order came along stopping it; the work started again, and down came another order. It is this kind of inefficiency which, we must admit, whether we agree with private enterprise or not, is preventing the provision of housing accommodation. I assure hon. Members opposite that profit has nothing whatever to do with the Hampstead Road operation. Hon. Members can easily see what sort of rents can be obtained for such property—£1 a week for a bedroom, bathroom, sitting room and hall. That is the most that one can get in such places, and there is not a penny in the proposition, but the work is being held up by the series of orders issued from time to time.
  I welcome the proposal in the Bill for the extension of the £1,500 limit to £5,000. Why was it not done long ago? I know of schemes which have had to be stopped because they did not come within the £1,500 limit. I give the Minister my wholehearted support on that proposal, and also in regard to the compensation Clauses, which I think are very fair and reasonable for the people who are displaced. Nor am I going to oppose the provision of laundries or of furniture. If local authorities are going to handle the housing problem, they should do it in the best possible way, except that I do not think they should do it at the cost of losses which will have to be made good by the ratepayers. I think the scheme should be run efficiently and well, so that it can pay by itself, while rendering the inhabitants a really good service. As between private enterprise and the local authorities, I am sure the Minister would not oppose private enterprise laundries supplying the tenants of these buildings, and I do not see why anybody should be opposed to the local authorities providing that service in these days.
  2192
  I come to the question of grants to the local authorities, to housing associations and to individuals. On the whole, this is a very generous gesture by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time, while I shall probably incur the disapproval of the Minister on this point, it is not such a gift as many people will imagine. I have looked up 20 conversion cases before coming to this Debate, and I worked out the figures to discover the average. I found that the building was worth £3,000, the site was worth £500, the cost of converting the building into ground floor, first and second floor flats was £500 for each flat, making a total of £1,500 which made a total outlay of £5,000, towards which the grant would be £500. I say £500, but it would probably be entitled to £1,500, would receive only 50 per cent. of that figure, which is £750; and it is my experience that the maximum is never granted in such cases. Therefore, I have taken the grant as one-third of the cost of conversion, and I do not think that is unreasonable. If any hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Yes, but you would be lucky and get the whole £750," it will not alter the fact that the actual grant will be about only 10 per cent. of the total money outlay on such a building operation.
  Frankly, if people are going to take 10 per cent., it is only fair that restrictions should be placed upon them, so that in some way there will be a return for what they are receiving, but I think the restrictions are pretty powerful. The rent has to be fixed by the local authority, and I presume it will be a reasonable rent. There will be a great many people who will be worried about going into such places, because they will not know whether the rent really is reasonable, and they might prefer to get a decision from the rent tribunal as to what is considered to be a reasonable rent for such property. If the Minister can assure us that the rent will be fixed at what I would call a low reasonable level, it would induce a great many more people to increase their outlay on these conversions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, during the Committee stage, will give some indication whether the rent will be a low reasonable one, or some indication what sort of rent will be fixed by the local authorities.
  There are these very necessary restrictions, but when people are receiving only

  2193
  10 per cent. of the cost of such building operations, they are really not fully compensated for having taken the risk and done the work. After all, if they break the law, there are heavy penalties, including those rather unkind words in the Clause about compound interest. Those are really very serious points. I cannot help feeling that most of the people who come to borrow this money will be people who have mortgaged their houses. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that, in most cases, they will go on with the conversions under other arrangements rather than be tied down in that way. The right hon. Gentleman must carefully consider the fact that a great many of the applications will be made by people who have raised a considerable amount of money on their houses by way of mortgage and perhaps want to pay off a few of their outstanding debts.
  In conclusion, I would like to say that I am going to trust the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I would tell hon. Members opposite that when I was ill the other day and could not get a thermos flask—it is necessary, I understand, to get a licence of some sort or a doctor's certificate—the right hon. Gentleman sent me his own thermos flask. What I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to do is, every now and then, to make a vicious stab at healthy private enterprise. He has said from time to time that he has to rely upon private enterprise both for the work which they carry out on their own behalf and for the work which they do for local authorities. Gentlemen who have given a great deal of time to various municipal housing schemes have said that they are not too badly served by private enterprise. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members will really try to make this scheme work so that private enterprise and local authority housing can get on with their job in an efficient way. It would be a great mistake to eliminate people who are trying to do their job properly, who are not out for exorbitant profit and who are prepared to take the risk.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) has tried, at any rate, not to be provocative. Of all
  2194
  the speeches we have heard today from hon. Members opposite, it is the first speech which has not been provocative in some way or another. It is only right to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has tried to make a practical contribution to the Debate and we must thank him for it, because we so rarely get anything constructive from the Opposition benches.
  The question of private enterprise in the housing problem is really a little overplayed by hon. Members opposite. For example, in the recent by-elections it was said, again and again, that the only thing which prevented houses going up in far greater numbers at the moment, was the restriction placed on private enterprise by my right hon. Friend. Hon. Members opposite know that that is utter nonsense when they say that and print it. They create the impression that there are thousands of private builders with millions of men and bricks available for getting on with the job and that my right hon. Friend is saying, "Thou shalt not pass; this must be done, by local authorities." It is as ludicrous as that. It is important that this question of private enterprise should be put in its proper perspective. Private enterprise builders are doing a fine job in co-operating with local authorities, and I think it would be right to say that never before have they been so busy. I would like to know, especially as regards my own constituency, who are these private builders who are waiting for work. I have issued that challenge, but up to date there has been no acceptance of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) struck the right note with regard to the attitude of my right hon. Friend concerning the right of local authorities to have priority in the building of houses. Housing authorities are able to assess the need; they are able to say what person shall have a house according to the need of that person. Private enterprise has never done that. I am not complaining because they arc not equipped to do that. Where a person suffering from, say, tuberculosis is living in bad housing conditions, the local authority, operating on a points system, can give him top priority. I can go in my capacity as a Member of Parliament to ask that a particular case be considered

  2195
  in the light of the medical evidence, and local authorities, where they can, will rehouse on the estimate of need. Private enterprise cannot do that. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth says that he builds houses. I know that he would not let a house purely on the basis of need. Without in any way doubting his humanitarian point of view, I am sure he would say, "I will let the house to the man who can pay or will pay the rent I want."
  Colonel Dower: I am not sure that money is the only thing to be considered in such a case. Very often a man's character is a better guarantee that he will carry out his obligations under a contract than his bank balance. If I knew that a fellow had a first-class character, I should value that much more than if he had money in the bank.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not strike me as being in line with his hon. Friends. He must tell them something about his point of view. It is right that I should say that, because it is generally conceded that the Opposition have been in serious straits for some time and need some bright ideas.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Wait until after the local authority elections.
  Mr. Mellish: I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman because our record at by-elections up to date has been pretty good.
  I welcome the whole principle of this Bill and, in particular, the repeal in Clause 1 of the term "working-class." I could really get a little provocative on this question of the working-class, and on the stuff that has been poured out in the past by hon. Members opposite. I am glad my right hon. Friend has repealed that description because that mentality has resulted in the past in such places as Dagenham and Becontree where cottages of the lower standard, and all very much alike, have been built. I agree that they have served a useful purpose, and I am not complaining. But they bear no comparison with an estate such as that at Kidbrooke where the houses are bright, and where the architecture of each one is different. A person living in one of those houses feels that his house is different from that of
  2196
  everybody else. For that reason alone, I think the repeal of this term is going to give local authorities the necessary initiative to see that houses are built in accordance, not with the lowest, but with the highest standards possible.
  While on the question of housing standards, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the definition of overcrowding as contained in paragraph 58 of the Fifth Schedule of the 1936 Act. Under that definition it would be possible for a husband and wife with six children between the ages of one and 10 years, and with another child under a year old, to live in three rooms, and for it to be assumed that they were not living in an overcrowded condition. That may sound incredible, but it is perfectly true, and most local authorities are strictly interpreting the definition in that way. A child of under one year of age does not count. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend spoke of the integrity and importance of family life. I know he will agree that something must be done to amend this position. In the borough of Bermondsey we have had to refuse applications from people who are living in conditions which are quite frankly deplorable, but who are not statutorily overcrowded. As a matter of fact, we have declined 4,600 such applications. Although this may be a point for the Committee stage, I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to this question of the definition of standards of overcrowding. It could be amended in this Bill because, after all, this is an amending Bill to the Housing Act of 1936.
  Another Clause which interests me very much is Clause 6 which, I think, extends the powers of local authorities under Section 72 of the Act of 1936 in the sale of furniture and the supply of furniture on hire-purchase. My local authority, the Borough Council of Bermondsey, have had experience of this in the past. I do not want to make this a local point. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) talked about the local elections. He need not worry about Bermondsey; I could tell him well in advance of the time, what the result will be there, because we have had so much misrule by the Tories in the past that we do not have to ask our people to vote—they simply

  2197
  flock out to make sure that they do not have any more of the Tories.
  We have had great experience as a housing authority since 1930, with our own direct labour scheme, and our own housing department and manager, and we have also had a hire-purchase scheme for furniture. I would like to point out that even under the new Bill an anomaly will exist which we have experienced in the past, unless the right hon. Gentleman does something about it. This is what we found. We have supplied furniture to the value of £5,467, so we have had some experience of it. We bought it from private enterprise at wholesale prices and let our people have it at wholesale prices. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth would agree that that is the right way to do it—no middle men; we did not make a profit and did not intend to, but we let the people have it at the price we paid for it.
  The problem that we experienced was that owing to the Hire Purchase Act of 1938, we had no control over the furniture which we sold to some of our tenants if the tenants took it away when they moved. There were quite a few who did that, taking it away when they moved without telling people they were going. They took our furniture but under the Hire Purchase Act we cannot prosecute these people except in the area to which they move. Imagine the position of somebody having taken £40 or £50 worth of furniture away with them to Scotland. My Borough Council are a humane sort of council and will not go all the way up to Scotland for £50 worth of furniture. This may be a Committee point but it is important. I am asking for powers which will safeguard the local authorities so as to make sure that when they supply, say, £50 worth of furniture they can take account of it in the rent, in the agreement with the tenant, and can say, "In future your rent will be so much and when the furniture is paid for it will automatically be reduced."
  Mr. Collins: That will not stop them from taking it away.
  Mr. Mellish: No, it will not, but it will give us some powers which are not given to us in this Bill at present.
  Our great problem, like that of many other borough councils, is our acreage.
  2198
  Our acreage is small and, consequently, the density per acre of the flats which we have to put up is higher than in other areas. Clause 28 of this Bill provides that, in connection with blocks of flats erected on expensive sites, the subsidy provisions of Clause 4 shall be amended so as to enable the Minister, if he thinks fit, to decrease or increase the Exchequer contribution. I think it may be assumed that in the case of Bermondsey the density rate will not generally exceed 40 flats to the acre in our future housing schemes, but there have been schemes already passed and approved by our town and country planning authority, which is the London County Council, where they exceed that figure. We have looked at this Bill from the point of view of our past experience of housing, and where schemes have been introduced and approved in the past we shall not qualify for these subsidy grants. I want to ask the Minister to see whether something can be done to remedy that on the lines I have suggested.
  I do not want to detain the House longer and I shall conclude on this note. This Bill, again, is the product of a great Government who have done a fine job and it is also the product of a great Minister of Health. If I may pay him one tribute, better perhaps than any other which one can pay a Minister, it is to say that when the Opposition detest a Minister not only on political grounds, but on personal grounds, then it occurs to me that he is doing a fine job of work. I always regard it with some satisfaction when I see the Opposition attacking my right hon. Friend and I always get a little bit worried when I find the Opposition praising him. Therefore, I say to him, he has the good will of the whole of the party he has the privilege to represent in his Office. On behalf of my own authority, I say this is a fine Bill; we welcome it, but we hope those things which I have mentioned will be included in it so as to make it even better.
  8.6 p.m.
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I am sure that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the points he raised. I am not acquainted with the housing conditions in our great cities. I do not think he need worry if his right hon. Friend is attacked

  2199
  by me or by anyone on this side of the House; there is no personal animosity, and I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman is quite capable of looking after himself.
  It is not my intention to occupy the time of the House for long and I shall confine my remarks to Part II of this Bill, which provides grants for the reconditioning and improving of houses. Like the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), who spoke earlier in this Debate, I represent a mainly rural constituency. I find myself in this rather peculiar position: although I am, of course, in no way a supporter of the Government, I am rather more fervid in my support of this Bill and less critical of the Minister, than, I think, was the hon. Member for Thorn-bury (Mr. Alpass) in his speech. I ask the hon. Member for Thornbury, when considering this Bill, not to become obsessed by the problem of the tied cottage, because that is really a small part of the Bill and there are other things in the Bill which, I think, will be very useful to the countryside.
  The greater part of the grants for reconditioning under this Bill undoubtedly will go to the towns. Some of the grants and some of the benefits will go to those who live in the countryside and, since many of us have been pressing the Government and the Minister, since 1945, to reintroduce the reconditioning grant and to do something to implement the Hobhouse Report, I think it would be churlish for those of us who represent rural constituencies not to say a word of welcome to this Bill, belated though we may think it is. Speaking from what I think I may describe as a rural point of view, I have felt for some time that our housing policy was tending to become unbalanced, in particular in so far as it affected the countryside. As the Minister said, the whole weight of it has been thrown on the side of providing new houses rather than on the reconditioning and modernisation of existing houses. In my submission, that is a policy which has benefited the towns more than the countryside. The demand for new cottages and additional cottages exists in the countryside, as was certainly shown by the figures recently collected and presented by the county agricultural executive committees.
  2200
  The demand from the countryside for new houses is partly aggravated by the fact that many people moved out of the towns during the war and that they are occupying countryside cottages and houses really intended for those who work on the land. This was due to the evacuation of many families from the towns during the bombing. In my part of the world it was due to the fact that factories came to our towns, bringing labour with them, with the result that many of our villages tended to become dormitories to those towns. If many of those people moved back to the towns, they would release accommodation. I mention these things in order to enforce the argument that the primary need of the countryside is the reconditioning of cottages rather than a vast programme of new houses.
  Another reason why the policy of directing all effort towards the provision of new houses has worked against the countryside, is that the big building contractor prefers a town contract to a contract to build cottages upon a more isolated site in the country. The building labourer also prefers to work in town, near to his home or to a canteen where he can get a hot meal in the middle of the day. There has been a drift of building labour from the countryside into the towns. The small local builder cannot tackle a large housing scheme, although he is admirably suited to reconditioning and to the modernising of cottages. In so far as the Bill will do that, and will bring about a better distribution of materials, labour, and work, I, speaking for the countryside, welcome it.
  We ought not to lose sight altogether of the financial aspect of our housing programme or to forget the great burden which is being placed on the backs of the taxpayers and of the ratepayers to provide the housing subsidies. It is quite untrue that, as an hon. Member opposite said in a misguided moment, the Government are paying for all these new houses by way of grants of one kind or another. In the county of Rutland, which is typically rural, it has been estimated that our housing programme, when completed, will benefit under 50 per cent. of the taxpayers and ratepayers in that county, whereas a similar sum spent on reconditioning and improvement would probably benefit some 80 per cent. They are the people who are finding the money for the housing programme. It is high

  2201
  time we began to distribute housing subsidies more fairly among the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country. There is an understandable dissatisfaction among many tenants at having to pay higher taxes in order to provide new houses which can only be enjoyed by comparatively few of the population.
  That brings me to the contentious question of the tied cottage. I approach it gingerly because I know that it is political dynamite. I do not see why we should not discuss it in a moderate manner this evening, since we are not discussing whether or not the tied cottage should be abolished, but whether the tied cottage or the service cottage should attract grant under the Bill. It certainly would seem unjust that the tenant of a tied cottage, alone of all tenants, should be denied benefit under the Bill. I do not think anyone can seriously contend that the grant which might go to a landlord or owner-occupier under the Bill will give him any benefit. There is no doubt that the greater part of the benefit will go to the tenant. One realises that the question of the tied cottage is political. One cannot judge it entirely on its merits. I say to the hon. Member for Thornbury, who is longing to interrupt me, that I do not see why it should be a political question.
  Mr. Alpass: The hon. Member makes it one.
  Mr. Dumpleton: Is it not rather a humanitarian question?
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: The hon. Member may say that it is a humanitarian question. Everyone agrees that he would like to see the tied cottage abolished, if only there were sufficient houses in the villages to enable that to be done. I can appreciate the political side of the question and also the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself in tackling it. Speaking as a politician, I think he has found a very ingenious and, on the whole, fair way out of those political difficulties.
  The Bill says, if I understand it aright, that the cottage that is tied to the landlord or owner-occupier shall not get a reconditioning grant, but if it is tied to agriculture it will be eligible for one. That is more than I expected the Minister to do. It seems on the whole
  2202
  to be in accord with the position that exists today. We all know that in practice, if not in law, no one would wish to gain possession of a tied cottage without possessing an order from the county court.
  Mr. Stubbs: They do it in Norfolk.
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I can only speak of the part of the country which I know. I have never heard of a case of that kind since the war, except under an order from the court.
  Mr. Stubbs: This is a very important point. What happens when the farmer seeks an order is that he goes first to the agricultural committee or to the permit sub-committee. They take into account the hardship factor, but I cannot see why the farmworker's hardship should not be taken into account at the same time.
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I welcome the Bill, on the whole, in so far as I believe it will bring about a fairer balance between new houses and the reconditioning of old houses, and will help town and countryside. But though we have, on paper, machinery to enable financial provision to be made for reconditioning and improving houses, if the Bill is to be nothing more than a vote-catching Measure I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance that licences and the necessary materials and labour will be forthcoming so that the benefits we all desire can be secured and implemented.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I want, first, to make a limited reference to a matter which has not been mentioned so far, and then to make a few wider observations on the Bill. In the more limited field there is a matter which affects housing associations, which all will agree are a very estimable body. They are referred to in the Bill several times, and the Minister knows that I have made it my business, in the last year or two, to try to watch their interests. The main powers of these associations are defined in Sections 93 and 94 of the Housing Act, 1936. Section 94 (1) was amended by Section 8 of the 1938 Act, when the provisions were made very much wider, and housing associations could

  2203
  "provide any housing accommodation which the local authority are empowered under this Act to provide."
  That was a very wide power indeed, but when we look at the First Schedule of this new Bill, those powers seem to be very much restricted again. What has happened, I think, is that the 1938 Act, with its wide provisions, has been overlooked and that there has been this reversion to the rather narrower terms of the 1936 Act. I should be glad if the Minister would look into this point and, in association with it, certain restrictions with regard to operations on behalf of the working class which are connected with their registration under Section 10 of the Prevention of Fraud Act, 1939. These provisions need to be somewhat amended in order to give these bodies the full scope which was given to them by the 1938 Act.
  Now I come to the wider field. The Debate has ranged widely and, I think, rightly, because we do not have a Housing Bill very often, and this is an opportunity to deal with housing policy generally. One thing the Minister did not mention, although I appreciate his reasons, was the present very high cost of building, which is reflected in excessive rents and is causing the local authorities great perturbation. It is no good raising this matter unless one is prepared to make a suggestion, and I should like to make one or two suggestions. One great source of trouble is the excessive cost of materials. This was touched upon in the Girdwood Report, but, unfortunately, we had only a little information about it, partly because the Minister of Works had set up a special committee to deal with the question of building material prices. However, the Girdwood Committee did at least tell us that the 1938 cost of a three-bedroom council house—not the present improved type—was £380 as compared with about £914 for a similar house today—an increase of £534.
  It is important to note the way in which that increase of £534 is made up: increased cost of plant is £11; overheads and profits, £49; labour, £190; and materials, £284. This increase in the cost of materials is enormous and, since the end of 1947, has been no less than 125 per cent. I have tried several times to get the Minister of Works to give us
  2204
  information about the reason for this great increase, but he has been very evasive on the subject. We now know that the Board of Trade are pursuing this matter in connection with monopolies, but tremendous profiteering is taking place in building materials. I could give many examples, if necessary, covering the whole field of materials. There is monopolisation and the reconstruction of companies, to the enormous benefit of shareholders. Immense fees are paid to directors. I could quote a whole list of examples, covering many kinds of building material. I do not want to do that now, but I say that this matter must be tackled if we are to bring down the cost of housing. Prices of materials are altogether excessive, and it is beside the point for the Minister of Works to say that he had no evidence of any excessive profits of monopolistic tendencies.
  Then there is the high cost of loans, which is another reason for the excessive cost of housing today. I know that we are in the cheap money era, but the fact is that the price of a three-bedroom council house has gone up from £380 in 1938 to £1,242 at the time the Girdwood Committee wrote their report—three-and-a-quarter times as much. That now represents far more than a 3 per cent. interest basis—it means that there is cheap money no more, and that one is really working at an interest rate of about 10 per cent. The rise we had recently, of 3 per cent., represented between 2s. 6d. and 3s. in the weekly rent of the latest type of council house. A loan at 3 per cent. for 60 years on a 1947 house costing £1,364, inclusive of land, roads, and services, represented at that time 18s. 10d. a week out of a total average rent of 22s. 9d., the difference of 3s. 11d. being made up by the cost of repairs, management and so on. I wish to call attention to the colossal sum which represents the cost of the money. Of the 18s. 10d. loan charges, 15s. represents the interest at 3 per cent. and only about 3s. 10d. represents repayment.
  The question might be asked: "What, can one do about that? One is tied by the local loans fund." That is what I want to question now. I have never been an advocate of entirely free loans—I think there should be loans from the Government for house-building at a small nominal rate of interest to cover the

  2205
  administrative costs, but beyond that I fail to see why money for house building has got to come from the local loans fund.
  If anyone goes to a bank and wants a loan, the bank at that moment creates credit. It is merely a book-keeping entry. So long as the borrower is good for repayment, the money is created; credit is created. If the banks which are now under our control can create credit by a book-keeping entry, why cannot the State do the same thing? If banks can create credit, I do not see any reason why Government Departments cannot do so in exactly the same way, whether for housing or for any other kind of public expenditure. If that were done and if, instead of going to the local loans fund and calling on the local authority to pay 3 per cent., they were to pay 1 per cent. or ½ per cent. to cover the administrative costs of the loan, there would be a saving of about 15s. a week in the rental of the average house. I do not see why it cannot be done. It has not been done so far, but that is no reason why it should not be done.
  Those are the points where I think excessive housing costs should be tackled. First, something should be done about these monopolistic costs of building materials, and secondly, radical action should be taken in relation to the cost of housing loans.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning he will be very interested in the most unusual suggestion of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) for creating credit. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) is not in his place, because he introduced two new interpretations of Socialist philosophy. One was that the condition, and apparently the only condition, required of a Minister of the Crown if he is to be really successful as an administrator is that he should be unpopular with the Opposition. The other was that, excepting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower), all humanitarian instincts were the monopoly of the Socialist Party opposite.
  I welcome many provisions in this Bill. I particularly welcome the recondition-
  2206
  ing grants because I believe that by the reintroduction of those grants great assistance will be brought to rural housing. In the field of rural housing there is much work to be done. As several Members have pointed out, the reconditioning grants will enable small country builders to make their contribution to the problem of increased accommodation. There are a large number of small country builders, who are not likely to get a contract for building half a dozen council houses, but they are extremely competent to undertake the reconditioning work. I am not at all certain that the ceiling of £600 is not a little low, having regard to the present costs of labour and building material. I am afraid it may result in a number of appeals to the Minister on borderline cases, which in its turn will involve delays in carrying out reconditioning.
  There is one question I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it says:
  "The grant to be given will not exceed one-half of the estimated cost of the works as approved by the local authority. No grant will be payable where the approved estimated cost is less than £100 or normally when it is more than £600 (or such other sums as may be prescribed by the Minister by regulations under Clause 26)."
  I do not know what that means. Does it mean that there will be, in fact, under the regulations which the Minister may make, a certain elasticity about this £600. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to tell us when he comes to reply. I am quite certain that for reconditioning cottages of historic or architectural value the limit of £600 is too low, and I am equally certain that the grant in well defined cases should be more than the 50 per cent. The problem of reconditioning historic or architecturally valuable cottages is one that is not straightforward. Complicated work may have to be carried out, some fancy brick work may have to be preserved or it may be necessary to avoid pulling about a particular gable. That requires complicated and highly skilled work, which is costly, and I hope the Government will bear that fact in mind.
  The next question I want to ask is—whether the Government really intends to allow the private owner to take advantage of reconditioning grants or is

  2207
  the dice to be loaded against him in favour of the local authorities? To touch on a somewhat controversial topic, will the Parliamentary Secretary also tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government to make it perfectly clear to the local authorities that the reconditioning grant is not to be subject to a means test. The whole object of the old Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which the Government failed to renew in 1945 and under which 23,000 cottages were reconditioned between 1926 and 1945, was that it was the occupier and not the owner who benefited. There was a substantial gap between the figure at which the owner could be reasonably expected to let the reconditioned cottage at an economic rent and the rent which the occupier could reasonably afford to pay, and that gap was bridged by the subsidy. The whole benefit of the improvement, in fact, went to the tenant.
  I want to quote two paragraphs from the Hobhouse Report of 1947, with which the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) will be very familiar. In dealing with this question of assistance to private owners, it specifically states:
  "The object of the Acts is to secure for the tenant the benefit of reconstruction and modernisation of a far more comprehensive kind than the landlord is under a statutory obligation to carry out at his own expense. The conditions attached to a grant are designed to ensure that the whole benefit of improvement goes to the tenant. In these circumstances, the discrimination against owners' means can only result in depriving the tenants of the advantages which the Acts are intended to give them."
  That indeed is the crux of the whole matter.
  The further point I wish to make relating to reconditioning grants is the one to which the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock referred when she suggested that the local authorities ought to take over the reconditioning of all cottages whose condition was such that it was an economic proposition to do so. The Hobhouse Report deals with this matter very fully and very wisely, and it says plainly:
  "We consider that to require the local authorities to undertake the whole of the work involved in their reconditioning 100,000 houses themselves is beyond the bounds of what it is practicable for them to do in a reasonable time, and would mean that many cottages would fall into such a state of decay that they would have to be demolished and
  2208
  replaced at a much higher cost to the public funds."
  That is the complete answer to the hon. Lady's suggestion.
  Miss Lee: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) is being very unrealistic in assuming that in one year, two years or several years all this reconditioning work can be done. Obviously there will have to be selected reconditioning if all the new building and other work is to continue at the same time. The local authorities will have plenty on their hands, and I believe that private owners could get loans for this work.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: That is the view of the hon. Lady, but it is not the view expressed in the Hobhouse Report. I am only stating that in my view the wise approach to this problem is to give every encouragement to the local authorities and to private owners to do exactly what the Hobhouse Report recommends on page 28.
  To turn to the question of tied cottages, I am well aware that this is what an hon. Friend of mine described as "political dynamite," but let us talk a little common sense about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a kind of blind spot about the tied cottage. They think it is a very good vote-catching issue. Maybe it is, but two years ago the Minister himself was in the unenviable position of being put up at the Labour Party Conference more or less to defend the tied cottage system against a resolution which was carried against him, though I forget what the majority was. However, the real difficulty in which hon. Gentlemen opposite find themselves is that the tied house is not peculiar to agriculture. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock put forward the rather interesting argument that we should not spend public money on reconditioning a house unless the tenant occupying it had security of tenure. That is a very peculiar argument, because large sums of public money have been spent on reconditioning and redecorating houses in Whitehall, such as the Foreign Secretary's house, 10 Downing Street and other Ministers' houses of that kind, which certainly are tied but the occupants have no security of tenure and may change at the whim of the electorate or at the whim of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Collins: Is this the common sense we were promised?
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: If it is wrong for the agricultural worker to live in a tied house so that he can be near to his work, it must equally be wrong for any Minister of the Crown, any policeman, any stationmaster and many resident hospital doctors to live in tied houses.
  Mr. Collins: The difference is this. I have not heard of this happening to a Cabinet Minister or his wife or any one who lived in a tied house of that description. A month or six weeks ago a man in my constituency living in a tied house, died. I think he died on the Monday. On the Friday the landlord sent a very nice wreath. On the following Tuesday he sent the widow, who had three children, notice to quit. Six weeks later she was ejected. That has never happened to any other kind of occupant of a tied house so far as I am aware.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Ministers of the Crown are not necessarily given six weeks' notice to quit as the result of a general election, and if the hon. Gentleman would look at the records he would find some cases where the Coal Board have treated tenants of Coal Board houses in a most inhumane manner. When the Ministers says that if a private owner, whether he be the landlord or owner-occupier, wishes to get a grant to recondition one of his agricultural cottages, all he has to do is to untie the cottage, why is it necessary for the Forestry Commission to be in possession of 1,300 tied cottages in England and Wales, why is it necessary for British Railways to have 50,000 tied cottages, not to mention those owned by the Coal Board and hon. Gentleman's own Department—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman describe Buckingham Palace as a tied house?
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Of course it is a tied house. Why should the agricultural labourer in a tied house, particularly when he is a key man on the farm, be denied the facilities for having his cottage reconditioned by a grant under this Bill? If the hon. Gentleman really wishes to assist the agricultural industry to achieve its production targets, he must adopt a more commonsense attitude and
  2210
  allow the owner of a tied cottage to get a grant in the same way as the owner of a cottage which is not tied. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that unless far more houses are built in the countryside than have been built up to now, it is quite impossible to run farms properly unless a certain proportion of the cottages are tied.
  Mr. Alpass: A good many farmers do.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: It is just as important for agricultural production that there should be cottages available for the key men on the farm as it is for the efficiency of the Coal Board, for the Police Force, for the Army. In all these, houses must be available for those who have to live near their jobs. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to look at this with a little less prejudice and a little more common sense, and not sacrifice agricultural interests on the altar of dogma.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Gooch: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. MottRadclyffe) is a constituent of mine and I know he will not think that I shall follow the line of argument that he has taken tonight.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: A constituent, but not a supporter.
  Mr. Gooch: I only want to make one point with regard to what the hon. Gentleman said. So often when we talk of the evil of tied cottages in agriculture, someone at the back of the meeting says, "The Prime Minister lives in a tied house." So he does, but the Prime Minister gets five years' notice to quit; the farm worker in a service cottage does not get a month's notice to quit.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not want to interrupt my Member of Parliament, but how does he work it out that the Prime Minister gets five years' notice to quit?
  Mr. Gooch: The Prime Minister of this Government has been safe so far, is safe for his full five years at 10, Downing Street, and after the next election I think he will be safe for another five years.
  I want to offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the main provisions contained in the Bill. The Bill is the result of imagination and courage

  2211
  on his part, and I approve of most of the proposals contained in it. However, I have my reservations, and I want to express my doubts about the wisdom of some of the points contained in the Bill. I lost no sleep when the Government decided not to renew the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I said then that with the continuance of the Act there would be a danger of men, materials and money being expended on the reconditioning of rural cottages which would have an adverse effect upon the building of new cottages.
  I am not yet convinced that the time has arrived to introduce legislation to provide again grants towards the reconditioning of private cottages at public expense. Why should the farm worker be fobbed off with a reconditioned cottage, and why should the landlord be given money to reimburse himself for an expenditure he should have undertaken years ago? From a fairly good knowledge of the countryside, I assert that there are many thousands of cottages in rural England that ought never to be reconditioned. They are structurally defective, damp and insanitary, and the only remedy for many thousands of them is complete demolition.
  Within the last few days I have had the task of going to part of my division in North Norfolk where the sea broke through and flooded many scores of workmen's houses. I saw, what I knew to be a fact in many parts of the country, that although these were cottages with old-world charm, the old-world charm wore off to those who had to occupy the cottages as tenants. Many of these cottages were flooded to ceiling height in their downstairs rooms. Cottages of that description call not so much for reconditioning as for the provision of many thousands of new cottages to take their place. I hope that, whatever is done under the Bill, we shall attempt, in the rural areas in particular, not only to set a standard of housing but to make sure that local authorities and other people observe that standard.
  I should like to pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend's Department has been able to do in the progress of housing in the countryside. What we want is an abundance of houses in all our villages. The figures so far given give the impression that we are gradually but
  2212
  surely getting on top of the housing problem in the rural areas. I am afraid that if we reintroduce reconditioning, it will have the one certain effect of retarding the progress of new schemes in these villages. Houses of the utility type should be built—and not only in the villages—to blend with their surroundings. I hope that if the Bill is passed in its present form, and reintroduces grants for reconditioning, it will not have the effect, which I have feared for so long, of preventing rural district councils from getting on with the job of building an abundance of new houses.
  A little while ago I expressed regret that only a certain number of the houses being built in the villages were being let to farm workers. I am very glad to report that those fears have gone, because recent figures indicate that many more of the houses being built in villages today are being occupied by farm workers. If I may read from a letter sent by my right hon. Friend's Department to the National Union of Agricultural Workers only a short time ago, it will indicate to the House the great change which has been brought about in this respect. The Minister, wrote his secretary,
  "has asked me to write to let you know that he has recently made some inquiries about the letting of new council houses to agricultural workers
  When a survey was made early in 1948 it appeared that one-ninth of the applicants for new houses in rural districts were agricultural workers and at that time one-sixth of the completed houses were being let to them. The number has recently increased to more than one-fifth. Taking Great Britain as a whole, agricultural workers amount to approximately one twenty-third of the male working population, while in the last six months of 1948, one-eighteenth of all houses completed by local authorities in England and Wales were let to agricultural workers.
  You will see from these figures that the arrangements made to ensure priority are working satisfactorily."
  I am delighted to have these new figures from the Minister and I hope that the good work will continue. I wish to speak about reconditioning. The Hob-house Report has been referred to again and again in the Debate. In view of the fact that my wife signed the Hobhouse Report, I have to tread very carefully because what I value above everything else is domestic harmony. In connection with the general recommendations on re-

  2213
  conditioning, I do not share my wife's view as a member of the Hobhouse Committee and I have opinions of my own, although I am a married man. I am taking an unfair advantage of the fact that my wife is not here by expressing these opinions tonight. I might be prepared to concede the grants for reconditioning were the tenants given real security. But the Minister seems to think there is something magic about the word "tenancy." When used in connection with reconditioning in this Bill, there is nothing magic about it at all. What right does the tenant get even when we talk about a restricted tenancy? In these cases it practically means that a man who occupies a house under a restricted tenancy is almost as liable to eviction from his cottage as the other person we all recognise as an occupant of a tied cottage.
  The only safeguard in this connection is that before a man can be evicted from his cottage there shall be a court order and alternative accommodation provided.
  Agricultural employers, owners of cottages, will take the subsidies on the ground that they created the tenancy and will forthwith proceed to the agricultural committee and get a certificate, and the security which the Minister and others thought that man had on a restricted tenancy in his cottage vanishes completely. When the Minister said he thinks that the attraction of a grant will untie cottages which are tied, he is mistaken.
  In this connection, I refer to a court decision which very plainly indicates that a tenancy provides no safeguard at all. I refer to the judgment recently given in the Court of Appeal in the case of Smith versus Long Eaton Cooperative Society. I shall be pleased to let the Minister have the transcript of the shorthand note of the judgment in which the court decided, in effect, that the landlord was entitled to possession of the house let on a tenancy, the landlord also being the employer. I strenuously and earnestly suggest to the Minister that he should think again about this business and that there should not be any public money made available for any type of cottage which has the slightest resemblance to a tied cottage.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does the hon. Member mean to apply that principle to the Forestry Commission's cottages, the
  2214
  Coal Board's cottages, and public corporations' houses?
  Mr. Gooch: I have said all along, in connection with the Forestry Commission's cottages, that I wish the local authority had been the builders. Something went wrong and they were not the builders. I should like all houses at present regarded as tied cottages, on the railways and in connection with the mines, to be handed to the Minister through the local authorities. That is the only way to give the people security of tenure, to which they are entitled.
  We have been told from the benches opposite that those of us who oppose reconditioning grants for these cottages will be depriving the occupants of the benefit of decent conditions. That is a fair point to make, but I do not accept it. For some years some of us have stood, not for reconditioning of rotten old cottages but for the erection of entirely new cottages in our villages. As I say, the work is proceeding, and I hope that the work of providing modern free cottages in abundance in our villages will continue. The Bill, so far as it applies to reconditioning grants, will not in the slightest degree fulfil its purpose in regard to tied cottages. We shall be giving to the owners of those cottages public money not only to recondition them but to perpetuate a system which we on this side of the House say is entirely wrong. We say that if grants are given for reconditioning it will add to the social tragedy on the countryside, and I warn my hon. Friends that it will add to the political tragedy at the next Election if they are not careful.
  I shall vote for this Bill, because, as I say, I agree with most of it. I think it is a fine Bill in almost every respect. I wish the Minister would take his courage in both hands, and go all out to abolish the tied cottage forever. He knows that if he does so he will have the backing of the people. He has the backing of two party conferences in regard to where to "get off" and where to "get on" in this respect. I suggest that he should "get on" this time, and that when we come to the Committee stage that he should think again about these reconditioning grants for tied cottages and have something different from the present proposal. I give the Minister credit for having learned a lot in the past few years about tied cottages. He has learned to abhor

  2215
  them. If one wants an indication of what is in his mind about tied cottages generally, one will find it in the Bill. I say to him that if, instead of giving doles to tied cottage owners, he will give freedom to tied cottage tenants, the farm workers will forever recall the good name of "Nye the blessed."
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: As I have promised to speak for only five minutes, I wish to refer exclusively to the effect on the countryside of the provisions in the Bill for the erection of new rural houses and the improvement of existing houses. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his use of the word "improvement" in the Bill instead of "reconditioning." The word "reconditioning" is condemned by Sir Ernest Gowers in his book "Plain Words," and I believe many people in the countryside and elsewhere have not the slightest idea what it means. They will understand "improvement."
  I want to mention particularly the external appearance of rural houses. Like the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), who represents a Cotswold Division, I am delighted with Clause 30, which provides an extra subsidy for stone when it is thought necessary to use it in order to preserve the character of the surroundings. I hope that local authorities and planning officers will make extensive use of this power where stone harmonises with the landscape better than brick. The use of glaring red brick in a stone area for the past hundred years has been disastrous. I hope that the increased use of stone may bring down the cost of stone buildings.
  There is one omission from the Bill which I regret. There is no provision for architectural advice. The Lord Justice Scott Committee recommended in 1942 that rural designs should be subject to the approval of statutory panels of architects. The Hobhouse Committee, which included three Members of the present House, made a similar recommendation, and suggested that where the houses are of architectural or historic interest, architects with a special knowledge of reconditioning old property should be used. They went so far as to say that two-thirds of such an architect's fee should be in-
  2216
  cluded in the State grant. They pointed out the advantage of architectural advice, not only for individual houses but also to ensure that village streets were treated as a coherent whole. There is no such provision in the Bill. Perhaps it would have been rather difficult to differentiate between a suitable architect and an unsuitable one. But the Minister has proved his interest in architecture more than once and reasserted it today. If he cannot put anything in the Bill, I hope he will give an assurance that he will use his existing powers to insist on proper architectural advice.
  The Minister stated that the main activity of local authorities now will be slum clearance. With slum clearance go, of course, demolition orders. Under the present law a demolition order once made cannot be rescinded. I suggest that that is very inconvenient and unnecessary. There have been a number of cases, and I could quote them if there were time, in which second thoughts or improved methods have convinced the owner, the tenant and the local authority that reconditioning is possible; but there is no legal power to rescind the demolition order. If I am accused of desiring to perpetuate insanitary conditions, I can assure the House that I have no such desire. Surely if all these three parties are agreed, and the Minister also approves, the rescission of a demolition order ought to be made possible. I ask for provision to be made in the Bill for that.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Awbery: Practically every hon. Member who has spoken from the Opposition side has indicated a qualified approval of this Bill. They have given us the impression that they have reluctantly said, "Yes" because they have been afraid to say "No." I have been wondering whether they are guilty of what they are accusing us of doing, that is, appealing for votes. They know that if they voted against this Bill there would be little chance of their obtaining the working class vote.
  Every hon. and right hon. Member in this House who represents a large city could paint a tragic picture of the terrible housing conditions in the city which he represents. We have heard the story this evening of 20,000, 30,000, and even

  2217
  40,000 people on the waiting list for houses. That condition is not the responsibility of this Government. This Government did not create the housing conditions that prevail in this country at the present time. It is an evil which has gradually grown during the past century, and it is the responsibility of this Government to remove that evil.
  As one who represents a very large constituency, I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. It will help the housing authorities to relieve the pressure which is now upon them. There is one matter with which I would ask the Minister to deal when he replies and that is the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. This is the second admirable step which the Minister has taken so far as that Act is concerned. A year or so ago, he increased the amount to £1,500. I put a question to him three weeks ago asking whether he would consider increasing this amount still further. He asked me then to wait until the Bill was presented, and I am glad that on this occasion he is increasing the amount to £5,000. I wish to ask him whether there is any condition as far as the loan is concerned? There are a number of people outside who are of the opinion that if the unexpired lease of the house is 30 or 40 or 50 years, then the grant will not be made. I should like to know if there is a number of years specified when deciding whether or not a grant should be made.
  I congratulate the Minister on what he has done and I hope that the working-class people will take advantage of the position. We have heard today of the abolition under this Bill of the phrase "working-class" in the description of houses in the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. I presume that now we shall have to drop the word "small." A dwelling worth £5,000 would not be considered by me to be a small dwelling. On the question of the phrase "workingclass," I suppose that now we shall have to say, just as an opponent of Socialism said 20 years ago, "We are all Socialists now," that in this House tonight, "We are all workers now."
  In reference to the provision of laundry services, I recall 25 years ago going to see the washhouses which had been provided in a London borough. I congratulated those who introduced those facilities at that time. It was a step in
  2218
  the right direction. There were no sculleries in many of the houses in London and there was no room to dry clothes which had been washed. I saw women in the washhouses working hard washing their clothes. This Bill goes a step further in that right direction by giving facilities to local authorities not only to provide the machinery but to supply the laundry service itself. I welcome the facilities for the sale of furniture. Hon. Members will recall that not many months ago we had complaints in this House about furniture being sold which was found to consist of packing cases knocked together. After half the price had been paid, the vendors took the furniture back, and the matter was raised in this House. I am glad that there will be some guarantee to people who purchase furniture under this arrangement that the goods will be well made of good timber.
  My last point concerns the tied cottage. This is a controversial subject, and I do not propose to argue about when a cottage is tied and when it is not, and whether No. 10 Downing Street or Buckingham Palace are tied cottages. If a farmer wants to repair a cottage and he wants a grant from the Government, then he must comply with the conditions which attach to the grant. If he is not prepared to do that, he must not place the responsibility upon the Government. What many of them want to do is to place the responsibility upon the Government and to say to the farm labourer, "You cannot have your house repaired because the Government will not grant the money." They do not tell the farm labourer that they are not prepared to accept the conditions attaching to the grant by the Government. I heartily approve of this Bill, and I am glad that the Opposition do not propose to divide the House.
  9.14 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Debate has ranged widely but usefully over a field a little more extensive than the actual limits of the Measure before us. Of course, we intend not merely not to divide against the Bill, but to support many of its provisions. In fact, the Bill carries out in some cases simple reenactments of Conservative Acts of Parliament and, in others, it merely places upon the Statute Book provisions for which we have pressed for nearly the

  2219
  whole of this Parliament. It would be a great mistake for us, from a fractious point of view, to say that we disapprove of matters which we ourselves have placed upon the Statute Book. The Bill makes provisions of two kinds, some minor and one or two major ones. On the minor provisions, I think the field has been very well covered already by various speakers on this side of the House and particularly in the admirable opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). He dealt amongst other things with the questions of laundries, hostels and the sale of furniture. If furniture is to be supplied upon an economic basis, there is no reason why any of us should object to it, nor do we.
  The main proposals with which I shall deal are those which have been exercising the House the whole evening, and, roughly, they raise the question to what extent will action follow upon the passage of this Measure. There is undoubtedly a feeling in the House that, if this is merely a diversion from one field of housing to another, it will be a great disadvantage. The point has been expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not sufficient if this is merely a rearrangement of the horses in the wagon, so that one is to be yoked at the tailboard to push and another in the shafts to pull. What is essential in this is that it should be a trace horse brought in to help the load of housing up the hill, and, unless it does that, I fear it will not succeed in bringing about the results which we all wish.
  My first question to the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply is this: What extra facilities will be made available under the terms of this Bill? What extra materials, and, if we cannot make additional labour available, what acceleration in house building does he anticipate, and from where can reinforcements be drawn to carry out the proposals in the Bill? I do not think any of us would agree to the somewhat gloomy paragraph in the Memorandum explaining the Bill, which, on pages 6 and 7, states:
  "The general effect of the provisions of the Bill will not be to alter the volume of housing work, … but to alter the distribution of building resources for housing work."
  Frankly, if that is the proposal, it is not going to meet either the desires of the House or the necessities of the country.
  2220
  The Minister, in introducing the Bill, gave some interesting figures about the progress of housing, and drew the conclusion that he had already brought the country up to a position rather better than that of pre-war, and that he was beginning to eat into the deficit. It is an optimistic view which I do not think is borne out by the practical experience of any one of us in our constituencies or in the postbag which any one of us receives. The fact is that not now, not at the next General Election or even the election after that, will any Minister of Health be able to go to the country and say, "The housing problem is solved." It is not so, it will not be so, and the need will pursue him and hammer on his heels. Before the war we built 367,000 houses, not the 220,000 shown in these figures, and our motto then was, "On to the next million." The figure of 220,000 is not sufficient to deal with the housing shortage, and, unless this is an additional provision and not a diversion, a great disappoint awaits everyone who has clamoured for the introduction of this Bill.
  Part of the Minister's argument was that the lists have now increased by numbers of people who previously did not register themselves. Their economic circumstances he said, are better. A fresh economic potential has been revealed. But that was not what we were going on before the war. We were going on a survey, and unless the Minister can quote a survey against a survey, the mere movement of the lists one way or the other is really not germane to our discussion. He will have to show that he has actually, by survey, dealt with the numbers of people desiring houses, and when that is finished he will need to start on the enormous task in this country of upgrading the general housing accommodation for which he or some subsequent Minister of Health will be responsible. The gross volume of housing output in this country is insufficient, and this Measure must be an addition to it and not a diversion from it. That is the first point.
  The Minister also said that he was in favour of a property-owning democracy. We welcome his conversion to this ideal. He is, of course, still a little amateur at it. His language is not always that of a convinced believer in the object, and he is a little creaky and rusty about it. But

  2221
  when he gets run in he will, no doubt, be as eloquent on that as he was previously on the opposite tack. For it was not very long ago when, addressing the architects, he said:
  "It is essential that owner occupation or private ownership of small dwellings should become the exception. We are living in a society which is exceedingly mobile."
  He then went on to say that he thought the ownership of small houses was a mistake. But tonight he comes in different role. One of the engaging things about the Minister is that he always does his war dancing with the corner of his white flag sticking out of his pocket, and consequently here, as in other Debates, he is advancing a theory which, in fact, contradicts some of the wilder statements he has made in previous Debates. He will, no doubt, subsequently explain away his remarkable image of the unhappy owner of small property as one "gorging himself upon the tenants." That is not the relation of which most of us have had experience in the correspondence we have received, or in the cases brought before us.
  The difficulties in which we find ourselves are not to be conjured away by the mere adoption of a phrase by the Minister. He will need to give action as well as words, and the action as has been pointed out by Member after Member from all over the House, is that, in some way or other, the high cost of building must be cut down or else these things are merely dreams. The question of the tied cottage has been discussed from all over the House, and it has been said by hon. Members opposite that the ideal is, of course, to have new houses into which the agricultural workers can be moved. But if the rents of the new cottages are as disproportionate to the rents of the present cottages in future as they are at present, then the bias against going into these new houses by the people for whose benefit they have been constructed will be terrific. That is the weakness of the present position. The tied cottage is, among other things, a cheap cottage, and the old house is, among other things, a low rented house.
  Mr. Alpass: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that there is a remedy for that? It is to give the workers a better wage so that they can pay an economic rent.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Naturally so, but if we raise all the rents of the country to economic rents then the hon. Member's backing for the Minister will be very necessary indeed, because before he gets the rents of this country up to what it costs to produce houses, at 300 per cent. above pre-war, he is going to have an economic storm which I do not think he fully appreciates and did not fully appreciate when he made that interjection.
  The difficulty of the present situation is, of course, that the rents for houses are below the replacement value—below the sums necessary to maintain them and far below the sums necessary to replace the structures of which they are supposedly the rents. The difficulty in which the Minister is placed is this: he first passes an Act, as he did last week, holding down the rents and then he goes round the corner and produces a subsidy to compensate for his action. I am reminded of the epigram of Lord Eustace Percy about the Ministry of Education when he said their pensions were sums of money of indeterminate amount, the payment of which was precluded by the appropriate regulation. The Minister's view of rent is that it is a sum paid for the maintenance of a dwelling, supplemented by an allowance of indeterminate amount rising as the inflationary policy of the Government proceeds. That is a very unsatisfactory way in which to move and the Minister is getting into greater and greater difficulty as time goes on.
  The Minister has, with the consent of all, abolished the term "working class" from this Bill. The definition has become entirely meaningless—that is, the definition which he himself quoted, beginning with the word "mechanics." Does anybody suggest that mechanics are now the lowest-paid section of the community? Everyone knows of houses inhabited by persons who come under that definition who are certainly receiving sums of money weekly, in wages, which are far above those being received by the black-coated, white-collared workers, who previously were supposed to be their superiors. It is a word which is now meaningless and, as the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) did us the justice to say, we all belong to the working classes nowadays. That is what the hon. Member

  2223
  said and we accept it with gratitude. We hope to share in some of the privileges which are extended to them. We hope this is the first instalment and that many more instalments will subsequently follow. Certainly, the monopoly of council houses by a section of society which in many cases is being paid far above the sums which are being drawn by those who have provided cottage property is an anomaly which it is high time was abolished.
  The Minister, for this purpose, makes grants and loans. Again, we fear that these are so tightly tied up with the desire of the Government that nobody should receive one penny of financial advantage from the resulting transaction that the Bill will defeat its own object. I have here a letter which is simply a sample of the letters I receive every day, as no doubt hon. Members opposite receive them every day. One hon. Member gave some examples of that on the last occasion on which he was addressing the House. This is from an old lady. Her name is Mrs. Margaret Mills, and her address is 35, School Road, Tilehurst, Reading, She says:
  "Just before the war my husband and I put our very hard earned savings into four cottages, thinking my husband could look after them himself … Immediately after the war started my husband died leaving me with four very low rented cottages, the repairs of which soon became so excessive that I sold my own little home to keep things going until after the war, when I never doubted that these very low rents would be increased to meet present conditions … It would have been better if I had kept my own house … and let these cottages rot from the first, because I find they are not my houses. I have no control over the tenants. They are all earning far more money than my husband ever did, I believe, yet they are living practically rent free on our savings."
  That is not an exaggerated or an unusual example. It happens time and again. To offer an owner of property—a theoretical landlord—a grant for reconditioning these houses, tied and fettered in the way in which these grants are fettered under this legislation, and to refuse any improvement in the condition of the basic return which she derives from that property, is to offer something of which the landlord—in this case the small property owner—will be totally incapable of taking advantage. That is one of the difficulties which we see before us when this legislation comes to be applied.
  2224
  I was anxious not to exclude from the discussion any of those who have waited a long time to participate in it, and therefore I have cut my own time down to the minimum. I do not intend to trespass longer upon the time of the House, particularly since the Committee stage is really the stage when we shall go more closely into the Bill. I say again that the Debate tonight is overhung by a certain sense of unreality, and until the Minister can give us some indication of how far a real expansion of facilities to produce houses will be completed to put flesh and blood upon the bones of this Bill, that sense of unreality will persist.
  The objects of the Bill are in most cases admirable. The execution of the objects, it seems to me, is in many cases very far from adequate. The danger is that the House may find that in an attempt to do good to some it is doing an injustice to many. By focussing its ideals upon reconditioned houses built in Cotswold stone, with laundry facilities, restaurants and hostels, it may be charging the people who are living in houses which are far inferior to those, rates and taxes in order to give a relatively small section of the community facilities which those who are paying for these facilities will never themselves be able to enjoy.
  These are obvious dangers which all of us feel. They can only be removed by a careful examination by the House and by careful administration subsequently by the Minister; but, as has been said by more than one hon. Member on this side, any step which even holds out a hope for the improvement of the housing situation must be accepted gratefully by all in every quarter of the House. It is in the hope that this Bill can be made a step towards an improvement of the housing situation that we give it our blessing tonight.
  9.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): We have received tonight something approaching a general welcome to this Measure, amounting almost at stages to enthusiasm, or at least as near to enthusiasm as I think we are entitled to expect from hon. Members opposite.
  The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) commenced by expressing his

  2225
  welcome in very genuine terms, but that welcome seemed to cloud in his final passages. I think it would only be right that we should clearly understand the basis of this Measure which I thought my right hon. Friend had so fully and ably put before the House in his speech this afternoon. This Bill itself does not, of course, provide any new special resources of materials to be made available at the present time. What this Bill does, above all, is to ensure that local authorities and private owners shall have the opportunity of planning their work ahead and also that as it becomes possible—indeed it may be possible already in some areas; the position varies very much from one area to another—this vital and important work of improvement shall proceed. It is right that this issue should be properly brought into the whole scheme of housing development.
  It is vital that the first priority today, as it has been before, shall be for the provision of new houses. Hon. Members behind me, as well as hon. Members on the other side of the House, have properly insisted that the need today is still for new houses, and it is right that we should recognise that need, although we can take pride in the very real progress that has been made over the last three and a half years. We are anxious to ensure that this Measure will not interfere with the development of the drive for new housing, with which, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, we are desirous to proceed with every vigour so as to ensure as quickly as possible the provision of a separate home for every family in this country. In some areas it is possible to proceed with the improvement of housing which but for that might lose its value altogether. For that, amongst other important reasons, it is essential that this Measure should now be considered. Hon. Members opposite and in particular the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), in opening the Debate, suggested that this Measure was a certain number of years late. I am not quite certain at what precise point of time he thought it should have been brought in, and whether that time was in 1945 or 1947.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I suggest again to the hon. Gentleman that obviously it should have been brought in as soon as possible after the recommendations of the
  2226
  Silkin Committee at the end of August, 1945, and certainly not later than that, and to have been effective in, 1947, when conditions for conversion were much more suitable than they are today.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: We believe that this moment is the first moment at which this Measure should properly be introduced. Had it been introduced earlier we are satisfied it would have meant a funnelling of resources of labour and material into reconditioning work that more properly should be devoted to what is still the primary object, the provision of new houses. It must be borne in mind by hon. Members opposite that there is a great deal of bomb damage repair work still continuing, which has already dealt with 100,000 unoccupied houses. This, of course, is a reason why it hay been decided that this Measure could not be introduced at any earlier time without detriment to the major objective about which we are all concerned.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed different points on this Bill. Some have been concerned with service cottages, others with tied cottages, and all have expressed their opinions about it. My right hon. Friend properly insisted that there is no reason why Government grants should be made which would have the effect of perpetuating what is, in effect, a feudal system. It is quite wrong to imagine that we should in these days agree to a continuation of this system longer than is absolutely necessary, and we are therefore making this proposal as a step forward. We know perfectly well that the real means of overcoming the problem of the tied cottage is by an adequate provision of new houses in the countryside.
  I was very glad to hear the welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch), who emphasised the very gratifying and helpful development of new housing in rural areas which has been achieved during the last few years and, in particular, the extra provision which is now being made for agricultural workers in those houses. The issue is quite clearly that we cannot as a Government be expected to make grants for this service type of cottage, but we do insist that it should be possible for the tenants to enjoy the same opportunities of decent housing accommodation which we are anxious to provide gener-

  2227
  ally. Therefore, it is quite fair to say that the Bill makes provisions to ensure that everyone, whether at present in a tied cottage or not, should be able to enjoy the advantages which the Bill provides simply by ensuring that the owner of the service cottage shall transfer that service cottage into a tenancy agreement.
  I would here like to deal with a point raised, very properly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). Two divisions of family life seem to have been expressed during this Debate. However, the hon. Lady very properly referred to the point whether the security of tenure under the Rent Restrictions Acts would be made available under the proposals of this Bill. I can assure her that it is the intention to secure to the tenant that security of tenure under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and should there be any doubt about the matter, it can be reexamined on the Committee stage. It has been suggested that agricultural executive committees automatically grant certificates which will ensure owners the possession of the house. That is not quite so. From the information which I have, only about half the applications to agricultural executive committees are granted, so that there is a very real extension of security by the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Alpass: I speak from certain knowledge when I say that the percentage of refusals of certificates by agricultural executive committees is almost infinitesimal. I have known of cases where certificates have been granted and magistrates have refused them.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let us have particulars, but the information that I have suggests that over-all not more than half are granted. As to grants to private landlords, a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and others, the issue about which we are anxious is to secure that the tenant shall enjoy the benefits of improved housing accommodation. It should be remembered, too, that we are providing here not for ordinary repairs which it is the responsibility, and remains the responsibility, of the landlord to carry out, but improvements to housing to ensure that the tenant shall enjoy better housing accommodation than he
  2228
  has enjoyed in the past. It is true, as well, that local authorities will be obliged under this Measure to investigate these cases in detail, and it is not a question at all of any general provision of grants without proper investigation and without the proper conditions which are being imposed. I was rather surprised to find the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities querying these conditions because, after all, they are very much those that were recommended in the Report on Reconditioning in Rural Areas and which, I imagine, had general support in this House.
  The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) raised a point about the survey. I think he knows that a survey of a limited character has been carried out by some local authorities, but our view is that a national survey will be needed. We have not lost sight of this important fact, and a national survey will be carried out at a later date when it becomes possible to do so. It is a little early to do that while the main need is still for new houses to be built. With regard to standards of reconditioning, I can give him an assurance that they will be prescribed broadly on the lines recommended by the Central Housing Advisory Committee, as he suggested. I might mention at the same time that advice from architects, both for general work under this Bill and for specialised work in connection with houses of archaeological interest can best, in the view of my right hon. Friend, be provided administratively, and that will, of course, be done.
  When we come to the general provisions for furniture and for other services, I seemed to detect a certain amount of division of opinion among hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Hertford seemed to be suggesting that these provisions were recommended and urged forward by Conservative Ministers in the past, but the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) seemed to take a much more unfriendly view of these services and, indeed, seemed to suggest that he would be opposed to them had he the opportunity.
  Mr. Marlowe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me on that point. The difference between my hon. Friend and myself was that my hon. Friend said that he was

  2229
  prepared to accept these services on the basis that he trusted the Minister to execute them honestly; I do not trust the right hon. Gentleman to do so.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sorry that I gave way. Of course, no Exchequer subsidy will be granted for this furniture and other services—
  Mr. Molson: We understood that these services would not be a burden upon the rates.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Our intention is that they shall be self-supporting. We want to ensure in these services a reasonable amount of latitude for local authorities to develop, instead of cramping them as Members of the Opposition have done in past years. We want to ensure that the housing service provided shall be properly provided, with the natural and proper amenities attached to it.
  I was very glad that hon. Members referred to the question of the use of special building materials and in particular to the use of stone, which, unfortunately, has been referred to only in connection with the Cotswolds. As a North Country man, I hope that the use of stone will not be restricted to the Cotswolds. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear."] Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am hopeful that it may become possible to use again more stone than we have been using in recent years. I hope that in the North Country, where I belong—in some of the very lovely villages of Northumberland and Yorkshire—we shall be able to see in future the use of stone as we used to see it in older days.
  The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) raised the question of the rates for subsidy on sites of high density; that is, where blocks of flats are being built on very expensive sites, in large numbers and in high density. The Bill, of course, is not a general subsidy Bill, but the intention of the 1946 Act was to provide for a subsidy that will be broadly adequate for the building of houses at an average density of some 35 flats to the acre. Some authorities, of course, because of planning restrictions and for other reasons, have been obliged to build at a very much lower density than that, which has meant very real hardship. In the other extreme, there have been authorities
  2230
  which have built at a very much higher density. It seemed to us only fair that there should be some redistribution here of the subsidy to achieve the object which was the intention of the 1946 Act. That is all that has been done. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise the general subject of subsidy that should not be done on this Measure but should await my right hon. Friend's further announcement on subsidy matters which, no doubt, he will have to make at a later date.
  The great value of the Bill we have been discussing is, above all, the widening of opportunities, both for local authorities and for private owners, to ensure that there should be a proper opportunity for both to do work for their housing needs which has not been possible in the past because of the major concern with the provision of new housing. One of the great advantages of this Measure, as I see it, is that it is an imaginative scheme, which gives for the first time real and new opportunities to local authorities. In introducing the scheme to the House today, my right hon. Friend suggested a few ways in which local authorities might plan their developments for the future. While in many cases it will not be possible for local authorities to carry out large schemes of this kind immediately, because of the pressing need for new housing, it will be possible for them to make their plans well in advance. Everyone knows the time which is inevitably taken to translate schemes which are prepared into actual housing construction.
  Therefore, we consider this a valuable and helpful Measure to take the country a stage further in dealing with its housing needs. Hon. Members opposite suggest that they have always been concerned with the social needs of the community. Many hon. Members opposite have stressed the measures that Conservative administrations have taken in the past in connection with housing and other matters. As one who comes from an area in the North of England which has suffered very severely from depression and very severely from living under the effects of the administration of hon. Members opposite—
  Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman looks very well on it.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: —I take some pride in the fact that areas like my own are seeing some really effective provision made for their people. In areas of this kind we know the truth behind the assertions of hon. Members opposite that they have made contributions towards our social needs. For many years before the war we were obliged to live under the provisions that they made and we know the appalling lack. We know that in the years immediately before the war there were long periods of opportunity for housing development open to them and how urgent was the need of the masses of the people among whom we lived. It is because we recognise that effect on the needs of our areas and recognise how important it is to devote all our immediate energies to the provision of new houses that we bring forward this Bill to give local authorities and private owners an opportunity of planning ahead and, where possible of making immediate provision for the improvement of their housing for the advantage and benefit of our people.
  Mr. Chamberlain: Will my hon. Friend give the assurance in regard to housing associations for which I asked, namely, that the more restricted definition of their powers in a Schedule to this Bill as compared with Section 8 of the 1928 Act does not mean that their powers will be restricted in any way?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: That is a matter we can look into.
  Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time." put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  HOUSING [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Housing Act, 1936, and to promote the improvement of housing accommodation by authorising the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and of grants by local authorities (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—
  2232
  A. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Minister') in reimbursing to a local authority not more than one half of any loss sustained by them under a guarantee given by them for the repayment of advances made to its members by a society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1939, or the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928, for the building or acquisition of houses or flats, being a guarantee as to which the Minister is satisfied that the liability of the local authority thereunder cannot be greater than two-thirds of the principal of, and interest on, the amount by which the sum to be advanced by the society exceeds the sum which would normally be advanced by it without the guarantee;
  B. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister in—

  (1) making to a local authority or to a corporation established by an order under Section two of the New Towns Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as a 'development corporation'), towards the annual loss determined by the Minister to be likely to be incurred by them as a result of giving effect to proposals approved by him for the provision of dwellings by means of the conversion of houses or other buildings or the improvement of dwellings, an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three-quarters of that loss;

  (2) making to a local authority, towards the expense incurred by them in making to a person other than a local authority a grant in respect of expenses incurred by him for the purposes of the execution of works for the provision of dwellings by means of the conversion of houses or other buildings or the improvement of dwellings, an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three-quarters of the annual loan charges referable to the amount of the grant;

  (3) making to a local authority, in respect of arrangements made by them with a housing association or development corporation for the provision of dwellings by means of the conversion of houses or other buildings or the improvement of dwellings, an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three-quarters of the annual loss determined by the local authority, with the approval of the Minister, to be likely to be incurred by the association or corporation in carrying out the arrangements;

  C. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums which, under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1946"), are payable out of moneys so provided, being an increase attributable to—
  (1) any provisions of the Act providing that where,—

  (a) a flat approved for the purposes of the Act of 1946 by the Minister on or after the twenty-eighth day of February,

  2233
  nineteen hundred and forty-nine, is provided in a block of flats on a site the cost of which as developed exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds per acre; and

  (b) the number of flats contained in the block and in any other block of flats on the site, in relation to the area of the site, falls short of a rate of thirty to the acre;

  the standard amount of the annual exchequer contribution for the flat for the purposes of the Act of 1946 shall, instead of being an amount determined in accordance with section four of that Act, be the amount which it would be determined under that section to be if the cost of the site were an amount bearing to the cost thereof as developed the same proportion that thirty-five bears to the rate to the acre of the number of flats mentioned in head (b) of this sub-paragraph in relation to the site;
  (2) any provisions of the Act providing that, where a house approved for the purposes of the Act of 1946 by the Minister on or after the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, is provided on a site the cost of which as developed exceeds three thousand pounds per acre, the standard amount of the annual exchequer contribution for the house for the purposes of that Act shall be the standard amount of the annual exchequer contribution for the house as ascertained in accordance with the provisions of that Act plus one pound and four shillings for each thousand pounds or part of a thousand pounds by which the cost of the site as developed exceeds three thousand pounds per acre, any amount of the excess over ten thousand pounds being disregarded except where the house is provided under a scheme of development which makes provision also for the erection of one or more blocks of flats on the site.
  (3) any provisions of the Act providing that, where the Minister is satisfied that the cost of providing a house or flat has been or will be substantially enhanced by expenses attributable to measures taken in the construction of the house or flat in order to preserve the character of the surroundings, the standard amount of the annual exchequer contribution for the house or flat for the purposes of the Act of 1946 shall be the standard amount of the annual exchequer contribution for the house or flat, as ascertained in accordance with that Act and the provisions referred to in the two last foregoing sub-paragraphs plus such sum not exceeding five pounds as the Minister may determine;
  D. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister in making—

  (1) to a local authority or development corporation, in respect of a new building provided, or a building converted, by them for use as a hostel (as defined by the Act); or,

  (2) to a local authority, in respect of a new building provided, or a building converted, by a housing association or development corporation for such use, being a
  2234
  building provided or converted under arrangements made by the local authority under section ninety-four of the Housing Act, 1936;

  an annual contribution for such number of years, not exceeding sixty, and of such amount, not exceding the sum produced by multiplying five pounds by the number of bedrooms contained in the building, as the Minister may determine;
  E. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister in making a grant to a local authority or development corporation in respect of—

  (1) the construction of a house or flat by an experimental method, the use for the purposes of experiment of any materials in the construction of a house or flat or the installation in a house or flat, in the course of the construction thereof, of equipment or fittings for those purposes; or

  (2) the incorporation or installation in a house or flat, otherwise than in the course of the construction thereof, of materials, equipment or fittings for those purposes;

  F. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister attributable to any provisions of the Act empowering him to make contributions in respect of houses and flats which become vested in local authorities and of buildings provided or converted for use as hostels (as defined by the Act) which becomes so vested;
  G. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any increase in the sums payable under section one hundred and seventy-three of the Housing Act, 1936, or Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, out of moneys so provided which is attributable to the passing of the Act; and

  (2) any increase in the sums payable under Section ninety-four of the Housing Act, 1936, or under the Act of 1946 out of moneys so provided which is attributable to the removal from the Housing Act, 1936, of references to the working classes; and

  H. the payment into the Exchequer of all sums received by the Minister under the Act."—[Mr. Bevan.]
  9.59 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We now come to the Financial Resolution and surely it will be possible, on that, for the Minister to give us some of the details for which we asked during the Debate. We have asked for some perfectly simple information. How much more is he going to make available? The Parliamentary Secretary finished with some words which fell like a dash of cold water on the whole House. He said that this Bill gives an opportunity to plan ahead and, where possible, to proceed with actual work. Earlier he said that it will not be possible to proceed in a great many cases with actual housing, but that

  2235
  they can proceed with plans. That is not good enough.
  The Minister was asked some perfectly simple questions. He must be able to give us some answer as to what is his estimate of the progress which he considers will be made under the Measure which has got its Second Reading, and with the finance which he is asking the Committee to vote him tonight. These are questions which cannot be dismissed simply by saying, "We think there will here be an opportunity for plans and, where possible, actual work." The House has given a Second Reading to the Bill in the hope that it will lead to some actual construction. The Minister is bound to give the House some indication of what will be accomplished under the Measure for which he has obtained a Second Reading, and for which he is now asking for money.
  The Chairman: I do not think that is the question before the Committee. The question is for what purposes will the money be used. That is a proper question to put to the Minister.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, for what purposes the money will be used, and at what rate the Minister expects the money to be drawn upon. The rate of construction will closely determine the amount by which the Executive draws upon the money which it is now asking the Committee to vote.
  Mr. Molson: It has been made plain in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, that the provisions contained in this Bill will result in a diversion of financial and economic effort from the housing programme in progress under legislation already on the Statute Book towards the purposes contained in the provisions of the Bill, which of course I do not myself regret. But we do now know that, as regards the general housing programme for the coming year, the Government are estimating that the total expenditure will be £375 million, compared with £430 million in the present year and £420 million in 1947. That is, of course, an overall total, including the total expenditure which falls under a number of different aspects of housing.
  In the Minister's Housing Return of May last year, he gave a revised pro-
  2236
  gramme of what he hoped would be the number of new houses built, and he based that upon the amount of materials and labour available. In view of the fact that this Bill does not purport to increase the amount of economic resources available for housing purposes, it would be useful if the Minister would indicate, on this Financial Resolution, what are his intentions for the future as regards new housing construction, and how much of what had previously been allocated to that will be diverted to the purposes made available under the terms of the Bill which has just received its Second Reading.
  Mr. Bevan: The question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put to me is, I submit, on examination by him and by the Committee one which it is impossible to answer. The reasons for this impossibility are, I should imagine, perfectly obvious. This Bill does not impose a duty upon local authorities; it is a permissive Measure. They are permitted to do certain things, and individuals are also permitted to apply to local authorities to do certain things. If they do them, the act of doing them means that a certain amount of money is attracted from the rates and from the Exchequer. The extent of the extraction will depend on two things—the energy with which the local authority prosecutes the Measure, and the extent to which at any given moment it will be possible for us to permit that part of the housing activity to he expanded. That, of course, it is absolutely impossible to answer in general terms at this stage.
  Let me give a further illustration. The Committee will see that it has been impossible for us to repeat for this Measure the terms of the general housing subsidy. There we know reasonably well in advance how much money will be attracted from the Exchequer, because we know it is to be a certain amount of money per house. We know roughly how many houses are likely to be built, so that we have predictable material available. But we have not been able to give a subsidy of that precise kind for the improvement of houses, because we do not know how much money will be spent on a particular scheme. All we can say is that three-quarters of the annual loss borne by the local authority will fall upon the Exchequer.

  2237
  We do not know what that amount of money is to be, because it will vary enormously from place to place and on the particular kind of improvement carried out. Nor at this stage do we know how many individuals will make application to the local authority for the improvement of their houses. Therefore, we cannot tell how much money will be necessary in order to finance those applications. In no set of circumstances could we at this stage tell how much money will be attracted from the Exchequer under the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that as a reasonable proposition.
  I must at once apply myself to the other part of the matter, which is to what extent do we consider, if we did have a large number of applications, we should put on the brake? In other words, what it means is to what extent would it be possible to find labour and materials outside the general building programme? It has been represented to me on many occasions that, especially in the rural areas, there is an amount of labour that can be used on this work which would not be a diversion from the building of new houses in the countryside.
  Mr. Molson: And the right hon. Gentleman did not believe it.
  Mr. Bevan: I did not accept it, and I still think I was right, because that labour has not fallen down the grating in the meantime. Indeed, that labour has been engaged, in the last three and a half to four years, on most valuable work in the countryside, in maintaining farm buildings and doing work of that sort—a great deal of which I hope has now been done. Therefore, some of that labour should become available. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press the point that it is not there. I hope they will adhere to their case that it is there, because if it is not we do not propose that the work under this Bill in the countryside shall mean any substantial diversion of labour from the construction of new houses in the countryside. I hope therefore that the pool of labour, which has always been said to be there, will be there, and to that extent will be an addition.
  The Committee knows that of these 500,000 to 600,000 building workers engaged on housing, about 300,000, and
  2238
  sometimes more, are engaged upon general repairs. We are hoping that when this Bill becomes an Act, and its provisions are being carried out, a certain proportion of that labour will be used for the purpose, and that therefore labour will not be attracted from the main construction of new buildings. We have not changed our intentions with regard to the main housing programme. That goes on. The announcements I have made about it stand so that to the extent that this is done—
  Mr. Molson: What are the latest figures?
  Mr. Bevan: This is strictly irrelevant. We are not really discussing the main housing programme. I did not tax my memory with this, but I think I said that the Government proposed to carry on the main housing programme to the extent of between 180,000 and 200,000 new houses a year. That was the number of houses under construction. We said that we intended to keep 180,000 to 200,000 houses under construction so that we would have that number of houses completed in a year.
  I hope, therefore, that when this Bill comes to be carried out, it will eat into a certain proportion of that labour which is now being used for maintenance and repair, and will not divert labour from the provision of new housing. But the extent to which that will be done and the cost that will fall upon the Exchequer are incalculable, because it is itself a purely empirical activity. It is only in retrospect that it will be possible to see in a given year how much of this work it is possible to do. I would have been delighted to have given more precise information about the estimate of cost—
  Mr. J. H. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman is not very good at estimating.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member would have done his reputation more justice if he had not made that intervention. I should like to know how it is possible to estimate what 1,740 local authorities are going to do, and how they will apply themselves to this question. I should like to know how it is possible to spend upon the improvement of houses not yet in the picture. How on earth is it possible for anybody in such circumstances to make a

  2239
  calculation of how much money will be spent upon houses?
  Mr. Hare: I was merely agreeing that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right not to make an estimate. Even if he had made an estimate, it would not have been of very much use to the House.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I was not very good at estimating. He wants me to do a little crystal gazing. In these circumstances it is absolutely impossible to give the Committee a firm estimate and I would not attempt to mislead the Committee by giving any estimate at all.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can see the point that it is not possible to give a very close estimate about money, but that does not really deal with the point I made about material. We are all acquainted with works both in town and country that are held up for lack of material—
  The Chairman: I do not think that the question of material arises here. This is a question of money. We cannot go into the general circumstances of the building industry and of the material and labour available on this occasion.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Of course, I do not wish to go into it any more than the Minister did and only in so far as the question of material governs the rate at which the money will be drawn upon. There are, so to speak, two cheques which have to be drawn—a cheque on the finance which can be given here, and the permits which govern the rates at which these cheques are exhausted. The Minister said that he was about to answer the question to what extent it would be possible to find labour and materials for an additional programme. I had asked whether this programme was supplementary to or in replacement of part of the original programme. The Minister said that it was supplementary to and not additional, because he did not intend to be diverted from the main programme.
  Then he dealt with the question of labour. I am sticking strictly to the line of argument adopted by the Minister. He said on labour that he expected to find the residual, which according to the estimate of many hon. Members is in existence in the countryside and, to some
  2240
  extent, in small firms in the towns. I then followed to the next point, the question of materials, because—
  The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite out of Order. The great majority, if not, indeed, all these payments, are to local authorities for the purpose of making grants in the various directions provided by the Bill, and the proper occasion on which to discuss the matters to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, if there be a proper occasion on this Bill, would, of course, be on the Committee stage. It is quite out of Order to go beyond the question of payments into the detailed matters of materials and labour and so forth. If I understood the Minister aright, he only made reference to these items in reply to a question in order to indicate that he hoped or believed that the present Bill would not, in fact, interfere with the existing provisions for the building of houses.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I naturally bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, and do not wish to pursue the matter further than it reasonably can be pursued. I do indicate to the Minister that we attach great importance to this question, and that we shall seek every opportunity of elucidating some estimate on that point, because although the Minister—
  The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to pursue that matter, directly or indirectly. If he will forgive me saying so, he is disregarding the Ruling of the Chair, as I have already informed him that he is out of Order to pursue this question. This is not the occasion on which to do it, and I cannot allow him to proceed, unless it is on some other question having regard to money and not material.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish in any way even to seem to run counter to your Ruling, Major Milner, and I indicate that I am merely dealing with the question of the money which this Committee is 'now being asked to vote. I am merely indicating that the information which has been given as to the rate at which the money will be exhausted is not, in our view, sufficient and adequate, and that we will take every opportunity of pursuing the matter further, because, whatever the Minister indicated about

  2241
  only rough estimates being made in these matters, I think some estimate could be made of the rate at which this cheque will be drawn. The Minister will know very well, however hypothetical the figure may now be, what is the figure which he will have in mind in discussing this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not in the habit of signing blank cheques for any Minister, however powerful. Therefore, we shall press him further with the object of extracting from him some idea of the figure in mind between himself and the Chancellor—information which so far he has failed to give to the Committee, from which he is asking an indeterminate sum of money this evening
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  PETROL SUPPLIES (EASTER HOLIDAY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I desire to raise the question of additional petrol allowances for motorists at Easter. I shall be very brief, because what the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say will be more important than what I have to say. At any rate, I hope so.
  I believe that an additional allowance of petrol for Easter would be very desirable for two main reasons. One is to assist the rather hard-pressed holiday and seaside resorts throughout the country to enable them to carry on in very difficult conditions at the present time, and the second is to give a great deal of pleasure to a great number of people. On the first point, I would say that I have received, as I am sure have many other hon. Members, tragic letters from hotel and boarding-house keepers, especially in some of the more remote holiday and seaside areas, because they have so little business. On the second point, about the pleasure for the people, I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that if an Englishman desires to have a motoring holiday in France he can get all the petrol he wants. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is listening to my argument.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)indicated assent.
  Mr. Taylor: He is a cleverer man than I because he can carry on a conversation and listen to somebody else at the same time. I suggest that as we are trying to encourage the tourist trade in this country, and as that trade cannot make the hotel and boarding-house keepers throughout this country prosperous by itself, we should try to give those people who wish to have their holidays at home sufficient petrol at holiday times.
  For the benefit of hon. Members, I will explain the present position. I do not believe that many hon. Members know what a basic petrol ration book looks like. I have one in my hand. It is issued for six months from December to June, and, of course, the number of coupons contained in it varies according to the horse-power of the car. I realise that there would be administrative difficulties if it were proposed to double the value of the monthly coupons for say, April and May, because the coupons can be used at any time during the six months for which they are issued. As they were issued in December last year, that means that anybody who wanted to go on a spree with their petrol could have used the whole allocation during December or January. Therefore, I admit that there would be a hardship if the Minister now said he would double the value of the April and May coupons. That being so, I do not propose to ask him to do that. I shall try to show how, in my humble opinion, these administrative difficulties can be overcome. But first of all I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions.
  The Russell-Vick Committee obviously did a very good job which resulted in a considerable saving of petrol in this country. Would it be unfair to ask the Minister what that saving has been during the last three months owing to the introduction of red petrol? Could he give us the figure, on a monthly basis, if possible? I do not see why he should not give those figures because there is no security value attaching to the figures of the saving of petrol through the introduction of red petrol. Secondly—and here security may come into the matter—I would like the Parliamentary Secretary

  2243
  to say what are the present stocks of petrol in the country. I am informed that they are very high. I am informed—I would not say on high authority, because that would mean by somebody at the Ministry—that the Ministry of Fuel and Power are rather embarrassed by the amount of petrol which they have in this country at the present time and which could be used.
  I was surprised to learn that there are only slightly over two million motorists in this country. About 1,300,000 or 1,400,000 of them get E coupons, or so I am informed. That leaves a balance of about 700,000 who do not manage to substantiate a claim for additional petrol. Whether they get E coupons or only the basic ration, all motorists are desperately short of petrol.
  I will suggest to the Minister two alternatives for Easter and I am firmly convinced that either of those alternatives can be worked quite easily. Anybody who has been issued with one of these basic ration books keeps the book and, I understand he keeps the cover of the book afterwards, because it says on the book:
  "This book is the property of His Majesty's Government."
  I believe I am right in saying that even after he has used the coupons in the book every motorist keeps the cover. I suggest that it would be quite easy for the motorist to take his basic ration book to the Post Office, to have it stamped and to be issued either with another whole book, if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to be really generous, or, if the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to be so generous, to be issued with a book with a certain number of coupons torn out, perhaps a half or one-third. I see no administrative difficulty whatsoever about that. If by any chance the motorist has lost the cover of his petrol coupon book he could take the log book of the car along so as to make sure that there is no wangling of black market petrol. That would be a simple procedure for the Post Office to handle. I am an admirer of the Post Office and I think they would agree to handle that proposition tomorrow if it were put to them by the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
  I have a second suggestion to make which may be even better. This basic ration book lasts from December to
  2244
  June. That is all right as far as it goes. Why does not the Minister of Fuel and Power say, "I am prepared to issue the next six-monthly ration book on the 1st of April"? That would give the motorist a bonus of two months additional petrol for the holiday period. I see no possible administrative difficulty about that. I know the coupons are marked "month of April" or "month of May," and so on, but nobody takes any notice of that because he can use the petrol for the month of May in January.
  Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: But the licence period ends on 24th March and the ration book will not have been used up by then.
  Mr. Taylor: It is perfectly simple to get over the licence difficulty. The motorist must take the licence out. He would have to prove when he went along on 1st April—not a very happy day—that he had his licence for the following six months. I suggest that the next issue of the petrol ration books should be made on 1st April and should last for six months, until September. This should give every motorist two months' "buckshee" allowance of petrol in order to take a holiday. Obviously the next sixmonthly books have been printed. It is not beyond the wit of man to get these sent round to all the post offices and have them available for issue by 1st April. I regret to say that after tonight there are no important by-elections pending. I do not want to upset the Parliamentary Secretary, as I hope to get something out of him tonight, but the Minister of Food has not given us an Easter egg. He has delayed the de-rationing of sweets until after Easter, until 24th April. I know the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Parliamentary Secretary would like to make themselves the most popular chaps in the country today. I believe they would do so if they followed one of the two suggestions I have made.
  10.32 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: I would like to ask the Minister who is to reply if, in any concession he can make either at Easter or later in the Summer, he will bear in mind the special needs of rural districts. They have not the transport which the towns possess and the basic ration to them is worth much less than the same ration in towns. Better still,

  2245
  sweep the whole thing away—that would solve all he Minister's problems.
  10.33 p.m.
  Squadron - Leader Kinghorn: I would like to say how grateful we are to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for bringing this question before the House. I should be glad if we could both go back to our respective constituencies of Eastbourne and Yarmouth and tell the people of these seaside resorts that they are going to have an influx of visitors during the Easter week-end. I would like to impress on my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that we who represent the holiday resorts represent a great industry and that the oil that goes into the internal combustion engines of the small old cars, like the one I own, is the grease that makes the wheels of this business turn smoothly. The short period during which we can make our money begins at Easter and if we could get a little extra petrol at Easter that would let the holiday season start with the swing it needs. In the East Coast resorts the season is all too short. We know that we must go on having petrol rationing, that people should not have petrol to go gallivanting about; but the small people with cafés, restaurants, boarding houses and small hotels must get people to patronise them during these vital months. We know that the country is having a fight for dollars, but after all we are getting rid of austerity bit by bit, or should I say, by-election by by-election.
  This is a vital question and we shall go on pressing the urgency of a decision of this kind as the months go by. I think if a bit extra could be given, it could be done without the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. There is no need to go to the post office and make arrangements about new books. If the last two pages of the present ration book had a double value and motorists could use them during the six months, that would solve the question. Most of them are small people who do not get all their petrol in one burst in January. I feel that they do make it spin out. If they could have a hint that a favourable decision might be made, my constituents tomorrow would be cock-a-hoop.
  10.35 p.m.
  Brigadier Peto: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for
  2246
  Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) said. Just a year ago, I raised the same question on an Adjournment Debate. I would also particularly like to endorse what the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said regarding rural areas. The county from which I come, namely, North Devon, is one which attracts tourists but which is best served by road rather than by rail. Small parties or families can pack themselves into a little car and travel to one or other of the seaside resorts for a quarter of the cost charged to travel the same distance by rail. Therefore, I strongly endorse all the hon, and gallant Member has said.
  10.36 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I have followed with great interest all that has been said on this matter. I am here tonight to talk only about petrol for Easter, and so I think I may as well be forthright at the beginning and say plainly that there cannot be any extra petrol for Easter this year. I am going to say why. I was intrigued by the ingenious administrative arrangements which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) thought it would be easy to put into effect. I am not sure that, if we took a line like that, we should find it as easy as the hon. Member suggests.
  The hon. Member was right—and I think the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) was not correct—in saying that the standard ration book, which was issued and is available from 1st December to 31st May, may have been used up in its entirety by a large number of motorists. But even if only a few motorists had done so, it would still be an injustice that they should he left outside any increase in coupons towards the end of the rationing period. Therefore, it would not be possible to increase petrol for Easter while the present ration books are in operation. In any case, to have given extra petrol this Easter, it would have been necessary to make a decision in October. In October, I can assure the House, we looked at this question earnestly. We had to look at the estimates of savings and it was not possible when we considered those estimates in October to do anything about increasing the petrol ration for Easter this year.

  2247
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne was anxious to have figures of savings. I am glad to give them to him. Monthly savings are not a good guide because variations take place from month to month for reasons which are fairly well known. But annual savings give a better estimate of the real position. When, in October, we looked at this position, we found the savings from the black market were running at the rate of 370,000 tons a year. That of course is an estimate. We gave the standard ration to those people who had no supplementary ration, because although the standard ration was given to every motorist it was in fact "docked" from those getting supplementary petrol. Many people thought that was a hardship. I have never felt that that was the case, and I have defended that position from this Box. Nevertheless, that took up 120,000 tons. Therefore, over our original estimate we were in fact saving 250,000 tons a year out of the black market, which shows how right our judgment was when we introduced the special Bill making a difference between commercial petrol and petrol for private use.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about stocks. With great respect, I must say that obviously it is impossible to disclose petroleum stocks. It would be wrong to do so; certainly it would not be in the national interest. I can, however, assure him of this. The Government are not a bit embarrassed by large stocks of petrol; I only wish we were; the personal position of my right hon. Friend and myself would be better, and easier, if it was. Of course, there are lots of rumours about large stocks of petrol. We have, it is true, built up stocks, but we certainly are not embarrassed by large stocks of petrol. We had, therefore, this 250,000 tons a year, over and above the 120,000 tons we distributed in the form of the standard ration. We disposed of the 250,000 tons by arranging that, as from 1st May, the deduction of the standard ration from the supplementary issue would cease. That decision will, in fact, take that 250,000 tons. So we shall have distributed the whole of the 370,000 tons saved from the black market by the method of the standard ration over that period, and now, by giving everybody as from 1st
  2248
  May, the standard ration without deduction from their supplementary allowance.
  We shall have saved, by 1st May, we estimate—and, of course, all these figures are estimates—some 200,000 tons from the black market, which we have not distributed. Hon. Members may well ask why we have not distributed that petrol. The answer is that, first, because there was the necessity to build up stocks for defence and other purposes; we have been, and still are, doing that. Secondly, the Berlin air lift has made inroads on our petrol stocks. But I am of the opinion, by and large, that we can say we have seen the end of the black market. There may, of course, be some small amount of black marketing, but it would be extremely difficult to stop that. Apart from this there is no other source from which we could begin, to distribute more petrol at this stage; except with that to which I have referred, and which we have used to build up stocks.
  What have we done for the motoring public in Great Britain? First, there was no basic ration; we went from there to introduce the standard ration. It was small, but we introduced it, and that allowed 90 miles a month for all motorists from 1st June. Now, from 1st May, and this is the second step we make, there are allowances irrespective of the supplementary issues which are made. So that it will be seen that there is a steady improvement in the situation. The hon. Member for Bournemouth—[Interruption.]—I am sorry, because the hon. Member might have cause for complaint if I pursued that error; I should have said the hon. Member for Eastbourne, spoke about the number of registered vehicles on our roads. Our information is that there are two-and-a-half million, and that includes motor cycles, of which total, one-and-a-half million received supplementary allowances. So, from 1st May, one has a greater proportion of motorists who will be considerably advantaged by the issue additional to the supplementary allowances.
  What hon. Members now want to know is, "What of the future?" This problem of petrol is not one which we are looking at from time to time, but one with which we are faced all the time. We are always giving very careful con-

  2249
  sideration to the question of petrol for industry and private users. We have had, and we continue to have, the very valuable assistance of the committee over which Mr. Russell Vick presides but we must, as a Ministry—and I am sure hon. Members will agree with this—be most careful when we are dealing with, after all, a substance which has a dollar aspect whatever the source of supply or for whatever purpose we use it. There is a dollar element all the time. Whether it comes from a sterling area or not we must take into consideration the economic situation of the country generally, especially when there is a dollar saving or dollar earning. Whenever those kind of things are involved we have to give the matter special consideration. All I can say, finally, is not very much, except to quote once more that famous remark of Mr. Asquith which he made, I believe, in 1910, when he said from this Box: "Wait and see."
  Sir I. Fraser: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down will he indicate whether he will give some consideration to rural areas?
  Mr. Robens: I can assure the hon. Member that we do consider very carefully the rural areas. I imagine that the proportion of motorists drawing supplementary allowances in rural areas will be considerably greater than in cities like London or provincial cities where there is much more public transport. All our regional petroleum officers act on the basis of the public transport
  2250
  that is available and I am sure he will find that a great many motorists draw supplementary allowances in rural areas and that they will be advantaged by the decision to take effect from 1st May, when they will have the standard ration in addition to supplementation.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down may I say that I am very disappointed in him tonight. I know he did not have the advantage of knowing about these two ingenious schemes I put to him tonight but I hope that after the Debate is over he will study it to see if he cannot do something on those lines.
  Mr. Robens: I can assure the hon. Member that after these debates I always study again very carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT all that has been said and I undertake to read his speech once again. But I must confess from my own administrative experience that it is too easy to talk airily about the post office being able to do this and that. I would say: do not press me tonight but just wait and see. I think the House might be satisfied with that. I know it is not too palatable but if the House would he prepared to wait just a little longer then, if there is anything my right hon. Friend can do, he will come to this Box and announce it to the House and to the country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

CIVIL AVIATION
  Auditor-General"s Report
  Auditor-General"s Report
  Service, Israel
  Service, Israel
  Airways Corporations (Merger)
  Airways Corporations (Merger)
  Lancastrian Aircraft (Sale and Hire)
  Lancastrian Aircraft (Sale and Hire)
  De Havilland Comet
  De Havilland Comet
  ARAB REFUGEES, MIDDLE EAST
  ARAB REFUGEES, MIDDLE EAST
  BULGARIA (MR. GREENHILL)
  BULGARIA (MR. GREENHILL)
  ANGLO-FRENCH CULTURAL CO-PERATION
  ANGLO-FRENCH CULTURAL CO-PERATION
  PRISONS, MAURITIUS (INQUIRY)
  PRISONS, MAURITIUS (INQUIRY)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT (LOANS)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT (LOANS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  French Onions (Import)
  French Onions (Import)
  Soviet Coarse Grain (Deliveries)
  Soviet Coarse Grain (Deliveries)
  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (GRANTS)
  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (GRANTS)
  ROYAL NAVY (AIR STATION, RATTRAY)
  ROYAL NAVY (AIR STATION, RATTRAY)
  INDUSTRY (PUBLICOWNERSHIP)
  INDUSTRY (PUBLICOWNERSHIP)
  FIRE SERVICE COLLEGE (PREMISES)
  FIRE SERVICE COLLEGE (PREMISES)
  NEWFOUNDLANDERS (WAR SERVICE)
  NEWFOUNDLANDERS (WAR SERVICE)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Utility Production
  Utility Production
  French Visitors, United Kingdom
  French Visitors, United Kingdom
  SHOP WINDOWS (LIGHTING)
  SHOP WINDOWS (LIGHTING)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licences
  Building Licences
  Building Operatives
  Building Operatives
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The VISCOUNT SIMON on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  INFORMATION FROM SERVICE PUBLICATIONS
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: 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 publish a White Paper giving a short summary of points in the captured German documents which showed the great advantages the Germans obtained from our published Estimates and White Papers and debates.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords His Majesty's Government have carefully examined the noble Viscount's request, but are unable to agree to the publication of a White Paper of the kind he suggests.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, arising out of that answer, would the noble Viscount say upon what grounds he bases that refusal? Are these documents confidential? If they are confidential, how is it that several other countries, including the Americans, have already published them? If they are not confidential, what then is the reason why His Majesty's Government cannot give at any rate some illustrations to justify the statements that have been made in debates in your Lordships' House and in another place?
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, there can be no doubt about the statements which have been made by members of His Majesty's Government in relation to this matter. What my noble friend said was that the contents of documents giving the disposition and numbers of Forces in this country were known to the Germans, who acted upon them. So far as the German documents are concerned, before those documents could be published there would have to be consultations with other
  384
  Allied countries. His Majesty's Government do not deem it necessary that such consultations should take place.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, if that is so, how is it that the Americans and the Russians have both published volumes of these documents? And upon what ground should we have to consult other Powers as to whether or not we publish German documents?
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, His Majesty's Government also have published numbers of documents—I have seen huge bundles of documents which have been published—in consultation with Allied countries. I have no doubt that before they published their documents the other Powers consulted His Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Would His Majesty's Government consult these other Governments and see whether they cannot make a publication of this kind?
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Arising out of the noble Viscount's reply, I would like to ask what is the point which caused His Majesty's Government to say that they could not allow the ordinary Army List, Air List and Navy List to be published? What advantages did the Germans derive from our publishing those documents, of which the Government claim to have seen evidence in the captured documents?
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, there can be no doubt as to the advantages which the Germans obtained as a result of the full publication by the three Services—
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? All I am asking is, what was that advantage they received? Cannot the Government give one single instance?
  VISCOUNT HALL: They had the advantage of knowing the number of squadrons and personnel in the Air Force, and the disposition of the squadrons; the number of ships, the disposition of the ships and the number of personnel in the Royal Navy; and also the types of ships in the Royal Navy and the types of aircraft in the Royal Air Force.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: If that is so, how does the noble Viscount justify the fact that the Americans, whose Air

  385
  Force is much greater than ours and is now the predominant Air Force in the world, are publishing all the facts for which we are asking?
  VISCOUNT HALL: I do not know how the noble Viscount knows that. So far as we are concerned, we have seen that the Germans benefited during the war as a result of information which they derived from documents which we published annually in this country.

  ORDERS FOR VIKING AIRCRAFT
  2.40 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 how many modified Viking air liners referred to in paragraph 95 (a) of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on Civil Appropriations Accounts, 1947–1948, were ordered by the Government; how many were in excess of operators' final requirements, and how the excess numbers have been disposed of.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, eighty of the modified type (Mark 1B) of Viking were ordered by the Government in February, 1946. Thirty of these proved to be in excess of the final requirements of operators. Of the fifty aircraft completed, forty-four were required by British European Airways Corporation, and the manufacturer sold the remaining six, one to the Ministry of Supply and five to private operators. Manufacture of the remaining thirty was not proceeded with, and the redundancies, consisting largely of partly fabricated components, are being disposed of by the Ministry of Supply.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, can the Minister say whether the Government or the potential operators were responsible for the error in the calculation of requirements; and, secondly, what the cost of the redundancy will be to the taxpayer?
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I cannot agree that any blame attaches to
  386
  anybody. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would emphasise, as I think the noble Lord appreciates, that the only loss is the sum involved in payment for the thirty aircraft not completed. It has been agreed that the manufacturer shall be paid £533,812. From this must be deducted the sum received from the sale of the partly completed component parts, which is not yet known. Of the net sum, it has been arranged that my Ministry will bear one half and B.E.A. the other.

  APPOINTMENT TO COMMITTEES
  THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that the noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, be added to the following Committees: The Committee of Selection, the Standing Orders Committee, the Special Orders Committee and the House of Lords Offices Committee.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932

    RURAL DISTRICT OF PENYBONT ORDER
    LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Walkden, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
    Moved, That the Order made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said area, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PROBLEMS OF LEGITIMACY AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION
  2.43 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to call attention to the effects of certain recent judicial decisions upon the legitimacy of children; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name is both wider in its general but subordinate application, and narrower in its special and principal application, than the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Brabazon. But since the main theme of my Motion is closely connected with the subject of his, we have agreed, if your Lordships assent,

  387
  that the two Motions shall be dealt with together in a general debate.
  I desire to deal with two separate groups of cases, the first no doubt rare, and perhaps even so rare as to be almost freakish and likely to remain so, and the second still rare but likely, so far as can be foreseen, to become more common in the future. The terms of my Motion call attention to certain recent judicial decisions, and it is right that I should say at the outset that I should not, of course, be guilty of the presumption or impropriety of criticising either the judges who delivered judgment in those cases or their actual judgments. My object is to direct your Lordships' attention to the state of the law which made those decisions inevitable, and to ask your Lordships to consider whether that is satisfactory, or whether it requires some, and if so what, alteration. It is perhaps essential—although I apologise for having so to do—that I should try very briefly to indicate at the outset, in order that your Lordships may appreciate the background against which these cases are set, the law as it now stands in regard to nullity, which is the main burden of my theme.
  Your Lordships will bear this in mind: that the effect of a successful petition for nullity differs from the effect of a sucessful petition for divorce. In the case of divorce, the effect of the decree is to dissolve the marriage from the time of the decree, but until the decree is granted a normal legal marriage has subsisted. In the case of nullity, the effect of the decree is to say that in the eyes of the law no marriage has existed, and that the marriage is to be regarded as null and void from the beginning. That difference, of course, has a radical effect upon the position of children. In the case of children born where there is a subsequent divorce they are legitimate, having been born in lawful wedlock. But in the case of children born in a marriage where there is subsequently a decree of nullity, they become illegitimate, because it is held that no marriage, in the lawful course of which a child could have been born, has ever existed. It is the position in various contexts of these illegitimate children that I desire to consider briefly to-day. It may be that the brand of illegitimacy is not so black as once it was, but nobody could plausibly argue
  388
  that it was an advantage in setting out in life, and if it be a hardship upon children which can be removed without outraging public conscience then I would submit that it should properly be so removed.
  Many of your Lordships will remember that there were long debates in this House in 1937 upon the Matrimonial Causes Bill of that year, which was sponsored in its early stages by the Junior Burgess for Oxford University. Up to 1937, the position in regard to nullity, as I understand it, had been this: the only ground upon which a petition for nullity could successfully be brought was the ground of incapacity to consummate the marriage, or the refusal of the respondent so to do. Before the 1937 Act, the wilful refusal of a respondent was not a ground. The 1937 Act made some very considerable changes in the law. In the first place, it laid down that wilful refusal to consummate a marriage should be a ground for nullity, presumably upon the theory that the contract of marriage imported both willingness to complete the normal terms of the marriage relationship and also the ability so to do, and that in default of these two essential characteristics the marriage could be annulled.
  The 1937 Act also introduced—and it is necessary to bear this in mind—certain other grounds than non-consummation upon which a marriage could be declared null and void. Those grounds were that one of the parties to the marriage had been of unsound mind at the time when the marriage took place, that one of the parties had suffered from venereal disease at the time of the marriage, or (in the case of a woman) that she had been pregnant by some man other than the husband at the time when the marriage took place. Thus, four new grounds for nullity were introduced by the 1937 Act—namely, wilful refusal to consummate, unsoundness of mind, venereal disease and pregnancy by another man. But the Act did not stop at that, because it proceeded to deal—although in a very limited sphere—with an aspect of the problem with which I am concerned to-day. It went on to say, perhaps illogically but very wisely, that in a case where there had been a child of a marriage which was subsequently annulled, not on any of the four grounds

  389
  but on only two of them—unsoundness of mind or venereal disease—that child should be regarded as legitimate. However illogical it may have been to say that a child born of a marriage which was regarded as never having taken place should be legitimate, yet it seemed so sensible as to command general approval.
  But in introducing those exceptions to the normal rule of illegitimacy, unsoundness of mind and venereal disease, the Act of 1937 did not go a step further and say that a child born of a marriage which was subsequently annulled for non-consummation should be legitimate—and, indeed, at first glance it might seem to be so superfluous as to be farcical to insert such a provision, because one would think that the mere fact of a marriage not having been consummated ruled out any possibility of a child of that marriage ever having been born. Yet the facts have proved that this is not the case. May I deal very briefly, simply by giving your Lordships two illustrations, with what I mean?
  In the first of these cases, the parties were married in 1926 and they lived together until 1940. In the year 1930, after four years of marriage, a child was born. In 1940 they ceased to live together, and two years later the wife filed a petition against her husband on the ground of his adultery, to which he made the perhaps totally unexpected reply that in fact, although they had been married for thirteen years, the marriage had never been consummated, in spite of the fact that a child had been born which, by common consent, was the child of that husband and that wife, and that on those grounds he was entitled to ask for a decree of nullity and to have the marriage declared null and void as from the beginning, thirteen years earlier. On consideration of all the evidence, which included a considerable amount of medical evidence, the judge trying that case came to the conclusion that in fact that marriage had never been consummated in the only sense in which the law understands consummation of a marriage, that is, by actual penetration, and that the child had been conceived by an accidental process which the law describes in the very intelligible phrase, "fecundation ab extra"—fecundation from without.
  I will trouble your Lordships with only one more example. In the second case, a child had been conceived before
  390
  the marriage, intercourse having taken place between the husband and wife before the date of their marriage, but was born after the marriage had taken place. Seventeen years after that marriage had taken place, the husband filed a petition for nullity, on the ground that the marriage had never been consummated throughout the seventeen years because of the wife's wilful refusal to do so. The husband in this case was a Marine, and had been absent for long periods on foreign service, which to a large extent explains this delay of seventeen years which had admittedly taken place. There again, the judge came to the conclusion that if he was satisfied—as he was—on the evidence that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the wife had wilfully refused to consummate the marriage, the fact that the decree of nullity would bastardise the child was no reason why that decree should not be made. He consequently made the decree; and the effect was that from one moment to another, by the issuing of that decree, this child, then seventeen years of age, having had seventeen years of legitimate existence, was declared for the rest of his life to be a bastard.
  That seems a very remarkable consequence of the law. I suggest respectfully that there might be a way of dealing, without too much difficulty, with a case of that kind. In the first case I mentioned, that of the thirteen-year-old child, there was common agreement that he was the child of that husband and that wife. In the second case, obviously and not unnaturally, the draftsmen of the 1937 Act had never contemplated a situation in which a child might be conceived before marriage but born afterwards, and that the effect of a subsequent annulment of the marriage, owing to non-consummation, might be to bastardise the child.
  I called your Lordships' attention deliberately at an earlier stage to the fact that new grounds have been introduced by the 1937 Act, and also that, in the case of annulment on two of those grounds, there was provision in the Act for the child to be legitimate. It would seem that it would be no very difficult extension of the law to add one case to those where a child is regarded as legitimate, in spite of the annulment of the marriage, by saying merely that a child

  391
  born of a marriage subsequently annulled owing to non-consummation should be legitimate, as well as a child of a marriage that is subsequently annulled for unsoundness of mind or venereal disease. That is not a very intricate step. Probably it is not a provision which would have to be put into force in very many cases, but, at the same time, it would protect the position of the children born of this type of case who, as I submit to your Lordships, under present conditions suffer quite unnecessary and unjustifiable hardship.
  I now come to the second group of cases, or rather one case which raises a separate, perhaps wider and certainly more perilous and controversial issue. The question of artificial insemination practised among human beings is, I realise, one which some people may regard as beneficent and advantageous, and as a scientific development for which humanity ought to be grateful. On the other hand, there will be many people who will view it with horror and repugnance, and devoutly wish that it had never been devised. But the fact remains, and has to be faced, that it does exist, and is, I believe, increasingly practised. It is a question which is nowadays not infrequently discussed in the Press. It is a question which forms the subject, objectively and sincerely treated, of a play running at this moment in London. If there is any doubt in the minds of any of your Lordships as to the seriousness of this problem, the wide area of potentialities it reveals and the possible dangers inherent in it, I would merely call attention to the fact that not long ago the most reverend Primate found it desirable to appoint a special Commission of his own to inquire into the various aspects of this difficult and troublesome matter, and to report to him their conclusions.
  Moreover, the matter has been brought very closely to the attention of the public, and has been the subject of general discussion, as the result of the third and last of the cases with which I need trouble your Lordships. In that case, the parties were married in 1943, and by 1945 the wife had realised that her husband was unable to consummate the marriage and that it was open to her, if she wished, to initiate proceedings to have it annulled. She was, however, fond of him and
  392
  anxious not to break up the marriage unless no other course was open to her. After further waiting, towards the end of 1947 she had herself artificially inseminated, with the husband's consent and through his agency. Some two months later, for some reason of which I am ignorant, she decided to leave him and to start proceedings for nullity on the grounds of his impotence.
  When she came to that decision and left him, she had not realised that she was in fact pregnant as a result of the artificial insemination. She left him in January of last year, and in September a child was born. Two months later, in November, the case came before the courts, and a decree of nullity was granted on the ground of the husband's incapacity. There had, of course, been no consummation of the marriage in the sense hitherto understood by the law of actual penetration of the woman having taken place; but there was a child. The child, however it had been procreated, was the child of that father and that mother; and yet, as the law stood, the decision on the part of the learned judge to grant a decree was inevitable. The child was, therefore, rendered illegitimate.
  That case raises in concrete form the whole of this intricate and incendiary topic of artificial insemination which, as I say, whatever view noble Lords individually may take of it, is not one which can be either suppressed or dismissed. It is admittedly a subject of very acute controversy and divergence of opinion, and one which raises any number of problems. For the purpose of my Motion, I have deliberately circumscribed the issue to the legal position. But, equally, I recognise that the Legislature, the Judiciary and, indeed, public opinion in general, have to come to a conclusion upon the matter as a whole, and that it cannot be dealt with in separate compartments. It is largely for that reason that my noble friend Lord Brabazon and I have agreed that these two Motions, mine on the legal and his on the social aspect, shall be taken together, because only in that way can a general expression of opinion, covering the whole area, be given vent to in your Lordships' House. I think it is a subject upon which public opinion in general is asking for a lead, whatever that lead may be and in whatever direction it may tend.
  All sorts of questions arise, even upon the very limited field with which I have dealt. If artificial insemination is to be regarded as consummation of marriage, it may have disastrous effects, in so far that there may be a marriage in which a husband and wife, having failed to achieve marital intercourse by the normal means, resort to artificial insemination and it is a failure. If artificial insemination is recognised as being the equivalent of consummation they are then left with the situation that they are tied to each other for the rest of their lives—unless one of them is divorced through contracting an extraneous and adulterous relationship with somebody else—
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Or desertion.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Or desertion. But otherwise, as I say, they are left in the position that they are unable to consummate the marriage in the normal way but at the same time are debarred from saying that the marriage has not been consummated and to obtain an annulment of it, for the reason that they have once unsuccessfully tried artificial insemination by the husband.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Is there any reason why they should not proceed to divorce?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: On desertion after a period of time, I agree. My Lords, there is also the other aspect of artificial insemination, not by the husband but by a donor, which means any person other than the husband. That aspect of it seems to me to raise even more complex and far-reaching questions than the other. I have seen the view expressed by an eminent legal authority—not, I agree, acting in that context in his judicial capacity—that artificial insemination by a donor constitutes adultery. My Lords, I respectfully beg to say (if I do not go so far as to say that I entirely dissent from that view, which is what I should like to say) that at least it is a view which needs further careful consideration before any definite decision is made upon it. If that view is right, then presumably if the donor were known (although he is rarely identifiable in such cases) he could be cited as a co-respondent, unless the husband had consented and thereby connived at the adultery.
  394
  My Lords, I confess that this process of artificial insemination by a donor seems to me to lack the constituent elements of what the law regards as adultery, and to require very close further consideration before any final opinion is pronounced upon it. But it is a somewhat irrational situation if, in the case of artificial insemination by a husband, the marriage can be annulled because there has been no consummation of the marriage (artificial insemination not being taken as consummation for that purpose) whereas on the other side it can be put forward as an instance of adultery, because for that purpose it is regarded as extra-marital intercourse of that kind. Subject after subject can be put forward, to a wearisome extent—though I will not try your Lordships' patience by so doing—in which, as a matter of public policy, some decision must be given upon these matters, and given soon. There is the question, in the case of artificial insemination by a donor, of the declaration that is made of the birth of a child. Whose name is to be put in as being the father? If the actual father's name is put in it may well be that the person doing that is committing perjury. It may be that a doctor will find himself involved in a charge of conspiracy, as well as of perjury. The position of the medical profession in this matter is one of immense delicacy and responsibility.
  I have deliberately refrained from raising many questions which could be raised. Equally deliberately, I have refrained from offering a solution to many of the problems that I have raised. I want to offer only one concrete and very definite opinion. I have seen it suggested authoritatively that the way to deal with this problem in the interests of the country at large is to make artificial insemination by a donor a criminal offence. I believe that that would be a fatal error. Any attempt to make a practice of this kind a criminal offence would, at the point at which it has now arrived, have the effect merely of driving it underground and forcing it into clandestine and uncontrolled use; and I think that the consequences of any such step would indeed be damaging to public interest.
  My Lords, I have raised these questions, and I have deliberately left them unanswered, because I believe the subject needs far more careful and detailed inquiry from many more angles than can

  395
  be brought to bear upon it here. What I do strongly press upon His Majesty's Government is that this matter has now reached the stage in its development at which it can no longer be conveniently shelved or ignored. It is essential that the public should know without delay where they stand. In order that they may arrive at a conclusion and be guided in their decisions on these matters, I would press upon His Majesty's Government the desirability of appointing either a Royal Commission or a departmental Committee which can go into every aspect of this difficult, dangerous and debatable matter. I am not normally addicted to that particular form of escape from a problem which is represented by a Royal Commission or a departmental Committee, but I believe that this is essentially one of the matters in which no other machinery will adequately arrive at a decision and enable the Government to have before them all the facts, all the considerations derived from the wealth of evidence which would, no doubt, be forthcoming; and which would enable them, as the result of that inquiry, to take such action as they might be advised and decide to pursue to guide public opinion. It is in the hope that they will agree, and agree to-day, to take action of that kind that I have set down this Motion for your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.19 p.m.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA had on the Order Paper Notice of a Motion to call attention to some of the social problems resulting from human artificial insemination; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, after twenty years in another place, I look upon myself almost as a professional listener to speeches—one of the most lugubrious occupations, I suppose, in which it is possible to indulge. But there are bright spots, and one of them is always to hear a speech from my noble friend, Lord Reading, whether it is from natural causes or from heredity—and in this House we should be perfectly clear that it comes from heredity.
  It is six years ago that I, as a very new member of your Lordships' House, had the temerity to raise this question, and I remember the rather shocked feeling in the House at my doing so. But
  396
  early on I was wise enough to use these words:
  "The first question which will be asked is why I bring up this question at all. My answer is perfectly plain. I am now sixty years old, and in my life I have seen science run ahead of human wisdom, with the result that in the aeroplane we produced out of our technical skill something which has very nearly destroyed civilisation itself. If that is true in the mechanical world, surely it is even more important that we should know all about other advances in other walks of science which are sure to have the most tremendous repercussions.…"
  From that moment it was easy. All your Lordships were very kind to me, and I did not feel that there was any antagonism at all towards myself for raising the question. I do not know whether the most reverend Primate will say that it was so, but I have sometimes thought that his committee was set up because of the impetus to thought which was given by the raising of that particular matter in this House six years ago.
  The document on the subject of artificial insemination which was inspired by the most reverend Primate is a remarkable document. I am proud to belong to a Church which can produce such a document. It is not biased in any way; it presents every question from both sides. All points are argued as fairly as possible. I do not think I shall be going too far in paying this tribute: I do not believe that there is another Church in the world which could have produced a document anything like that. I will say a word or two later about the conclusions which are set out in that document. But first of all I would like to ask what exactly the most reverend Primate means when he says that it is not a Church document. I should have thought he would be proud to have it called a Church document. But I am afraid I do not know what a Church document is. I do not know whether the most reverend Primate would describe his admonition of "the Red Dean" as a Church document.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the answer is that neither of those statements—the report or what I said of him whom the noble Lord has called "the Red Dean"—is a Church document. They are both issued on my own personal authority, without the assent of the official bodies of the Church in Convocation.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I see—authoritarian rather than democratic, I am going to say a few words later about that particular document, but if I may I must follow my noble friend Lord Reading in some of the legal technicalities which he has raised. Of course he has dealt with the matter from a lawyer's point of view, and the pitfalls and complications are very great. Most of us are ordinary civilians. We say to the lawyers: "Thank you; much obliged"; we look at things from a different point of view from theirs. But to the ordinary man it does seem a most extraordinary thing that the law of this land can give a decision regarding a child, begotten by a married man and his lawful wife—never mind how, even though it be by artificial insemination—the effect of which is that the marriage has not been consummated and that that child is illegitimate. It appears to me a shocking thing that anything of that sort could occur in this country.
  I am not going to criticise either the judges or the law, but it would appear to me that the sacred institution of marriage is not being viewed from the right angle, and that all the law is concerned with is a sort of investigation into physical jerks. All through this subject there arises this very difficult question of adultery. It would seem to me that there again the law has got to "get into step." Actions of a man relative to a woman to whom he is not married constitute adultery, whereas the same actions of a man relative to a wife can be used as ground for pleading non-consummation of marriage. These two things must be brought together from the point of view of the law; otherwise the situation is nothing short of ridiculous.
  I think we are all familiar with the two expressions, A.I.H. and A.I.D., but to make it clear I had better say that A.I.H. means artificial insemination by a husband and A.I.D. means artificial insemination by a donor. It is, of course, axiomatic that a child born as the result of A.I.D. must be illegitimate because it is not the child of the two parents. That, I should have thought, is patent to the world. But I would like to read to my lawyer friends a quotation from Nature, published on November 13. In an article dealing with the most reverend Primate's Report this passage occurred:
  398
  "Since publication of the report, there has however been a case in the Supreme Court of New York State which has a direct bearing on the problem. In it the judge, Mr. Justice Greenberg, was asked to declare that a child whose mother had been artificially inseminated with the husband's consent was illegitimate. This he refused to do, saying that it would be 'inhuman and inhumane and contrary to the highest concepts of sociology.' Further, he declared that the child was legitimate and that the husband was the legal father."
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Was that a case of artificial insemination by a donor?
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Yes, by a donor. We have had some Alice in Wonderland decisions in this country, but I thought your Lordships would like to hear of one from America. Anyhow, I have great sympathy for the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government; also for the Lord Chancellor and the others who will, as I hope, have to follow up the suggestions made by my noble friend.
  Now I would like to say a word about these curious people called "donors." It is pointed out in the great document to which I have referred that if the donor's identity is discovered he is liable to maintain his offspring, however numerous. I hope that that will be a very healthy deterrent. It is, of course, the general idea that the donor should always be a man of splendid physique and sound mind. But it would appear to me that anyone who wished to be a donor must be a megalomaniac of the first order, and consequently not sound in mind. Anyone who desires a large family while remaining completely without the sympathy, love or personal contact of the woman concerned must be partially, at any rate, I should imagine, on the way to a lunatic asylum. Be that as it may, I do not believe that in any country of advanced social type such as ours there will be found many people who will consent to be donors. I sincerely hope that if they are ever discovered, they will be ostracised by society.
  Now as to the findings of the Commission as they appear on page 58. I do not think anyone can find much fault with what the Commission s ay. They say that A.I.H. is allowable and that they think A.I.D. is wrong. And there, I should have hoped, they might have left the whole thing. Instead of that, however, they go on rather further and recommend that A.I.D. should be prohibited by law.

  399
  There I start to disagree with them, because I agree with what the Dean of St. Paul's says in some very wise words. He says:
  "I distrust also the method of deducing moral laws from theological premises. We should never forget that one of the duties which has been deduced from theology by most of the churches is that of intolerance and the persecution of heretics. I do not find that Jesus deduced his ethical teaching from a theological system. He based it on his belief in God as Father. The Christian ethic springs from the one central conviction that God is love."
  Those are very wise and tolerant words and they breathe that splendid spirit of toleration which has been the pride of our country so long.
  But there is another remark made by the Dean which rather surprised me. He said:
  "Artificial insemination separates the mechanical factor in procreation, not only from the personal, but from the organic life of the individual. This is most evident in the case of A.I.D. etc."
  I cannot help thinking that he has got things a little wrong there. It has been laid down, has it not, that acquired characteristics are not hereditary. Russia says the opposite, but we can perhaps ignore that. If that is the case, then nothing we can do in our lives can alter our progeny. In artificial insemination all we do is to help nature by placing spermatozoa nearer the ovum. Many clever people sometimes think that because they understand a sequence of events, they understand what is happening. The simplest instance of all is the question of gravity. If I let go this glass it will fall to the ground. We can work out the acceleration and we may think we know all about it, but nobody knows what is pulling it. Force at a distance is completely incomprehensible. That is the case with inanimate things. When we come to the birth of a child there is such a sequence of events occurring in the building up of the fœtus as absolutely to stagger the intellect. Here we have what might be called inverted entropy, the going from the simple to the complex; whereas in inanimate things matter degradates down to a general level. But in life it is different. It is God working. A child is just as much a miracle started this way, by artificial insemination, as by any other. That is why I cannot allow this idea that they
  400
  should be called "test tube children." It is not true. They are as much genuinely born as any other.
  The Dean later says that there is no evidence at all that the child is likely to suffer psychologically. I should say that is quite true, but of course we have no real data on which to go. I cannot see how anything like that can occur. I do not say that this idea is basically designed to increase the population, but that is the effect. I do not know if any of your Lordships have read Road to Survival, but after reading that book it is clear that it would be better to stop breeding, rather than to encourage it. When we look at all we have done for India, all the blessings we have conferred on her in the way if irrigation, transport, agriculture, and so on, we recognise that all that has been done is to increase the population from 100,000,000 to 400,000,000. Consequently, instead of there being 100,000,000 people starving, there are now 400,000,000 in a state of starvation. That is the sort of thing that happens in this world with uncontrolled breeding. I will not say anything about what is happening in America, where the Indians are in reservations. I agree that the analogy will not stand investigation, but sometimes the British Empire is accused of doing such dreadful things which are not in any way true.
  In conclusion, I must thank the most reverend Primate for this great document and also the very reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who presided over the Commission. I should like to end, curiously enough, with the same words I used six years ago; they seem to be peculiarly fitting even now:
  "I do not think we should live in a fool's paradise and ignore this subject on the ground that it is, as it is, unpleasant. I do not think that is the right attitude to adopt. It is our duty, as I see it, to know the problems that are about to face us and in our wisdom to do the best that in us lies so to direct those new forces that they will result in bringing happiness and good into the world."
  That was six years ago. We have done very little.
  3.37 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, difficult and unpleasant though this subject is, I think we should all be grateful to the two noble Lords who have brought it up for discussion this afternoon. The prac

  401
  tice of human insemination is far less widespread in this country than it is in the United States, but it is established here, even though at present on a small scale, If left to itself, it will certainly grow. As the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said, it is the subject of discussions in the Press and of a play now running. It raises matters of such importance that certainly it should not be left to grow merely by inadvertence. It is time that there should be here in this House an open and full discussion of the question.
  There are very great difficulties in discussing it, because it touches human and social life at so many points. Moral theology most decidedly is concerned with this matter. It would not be appropriate for me here to develop the arguments which moral theology would put forward, but in my judgment moral theology has a very clear verdict on this matter and I would summarise it in two sentences. First, the practice of artificial insemination by the husband, though it raises certain problems for the moralist, is on the whole justifiable, in that it enables the fulfilment as between husband and wife of one of the chief ends of their marriage and, indeed, of holy matrimony itself—that is, the procreation of children. Secondly, artificial insemination by a donor, is wrong in principle and contrary to Christian standards. That is the finding of the Commission, to which the noble Lord made such generous references.
  It was a very representative Commission which I set up, containing doctors, lawyers and theologians. I appointed it in December, 1945—not, I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, because of his Motion in this House—and the report was published in 1948, and is on sale. I shall make frequent reference to it, but first I would affirm as my own profound conviction the finding which I have just quoted. In doing so, I am fairly certain that I am speaking for the vast bulk of opinion in the Church of England, and in other Churches. I do not wish to argue here the matter on the basis of moral theology. We have to consider the sociological, the eugenic, the psychological and the legal implications of this practice. For the rest of my argument I shall be referring only to A.I.D.
  402
  My Commission observed, very truly, that as yet there is little evidence available upon which to judge the sociological and the psychological effects of A.I.D. There are too few observed cases, and too few cases observed for a sufficient length of time. If judgments are made about these effects, even though they are highly probable, we cannot claim for them scientific verification. For the moment I wish to postpone those aspects, and to deal, first, with the legal aspect, about which at least we know what is the situation. It is accepted by all those who concern themselves with A.I.D. that it is vitally necessary that the donor should remain absolutely and always unknown to anybody but the doctor concerned; the identity of the real father of the child must not be revealed; the real father must not know what child he has begotten, and the mother and the nominal father must never know who is the real father of their supposed child. 'But when the child is registered the law requires that the name of the father shall be furnished—and that, surely, is a necessary requirement. The nominal father, contrary to the true fact, registers himself as the real father. That is a criminal offence under the Perjury Act, 1911, for which a sentence of seven years' imprisonment may be imposed. That offence is being deliberately committed whenever A.I.D. is being employed
  This falsity in the declaration of paternity obviously raises other important legal points, connected with titles, estates, interests or funds; quite obviously, it may seriously affect a question of inheritance or succession. I will not elaborate that point; it is fairly clear. The simple fact is that in the eyes of the law of this country the child of A.I.D. is illegitimate, and that fact is deliberately concealed. The whole process rests on a basis of deceit and, indeed, on the committal of an act of perjury. I would submit that the matter cannot be left like that. Either the law must be altered to allow relief from perjury to the nominal father—it is not easy to see how that is to be done without disclosing the fact that A.I.D. has been employed, or without other consequences—or, if not that, then A.I.D. should, as I would submit, be made a criminal offence. It is the recommendation of my Commission that it should be made a criminal offence.

  403
  It may be asked: Why make it a criminal offence, since it already involves perjury which is a criminal offence and is, therefore, already illegal? There are three parties concerned in this action—namely, the husband, the wife and the doctor. The husband and wife are directly involved in the act of perjury, but the conditions are such that their perjury cannot be known or detected by any means. They can reckon, therefore, on an absolute impunity, and the law is so far utterly frustrated. But what of the doctor? He assists at an act which, to his knowledge, will involve perjury. I am not clear whether thereby the doctor becomes an accessory to the crime, but he knows that that will follow. It astonishes and perturbs me that the Medical Defence Union should have given advice to medical practitioners concerned in this practice on how to protect themselves professionally against adverse legal consequences to themselves in connection with this practice, when it is known that the doctor is taking part in something which requires the commission of the offence of perjury. If the practice of A.I.D. is made a criminal offence, then no doctor could employ it without losing his professional standing and without himself becoming liable to a charge.
  I believe the only effective way to prevent the practice—if that is what is decided—is to forbid the doctor to employ it; and that means to make it a criminal offence. What is intolerable, morally and socially, is to allow a practice which depends upon deceit and perjury to continue without either ending it or making it legitimate. Which it should be depends, of course, upon what is thought of the practice itself. On that I wish to say something. Before doing so, however, I would like to make a further point touching on the matters raised by the noble Marquess. A year ago, in the case of Baxter v. Baxter in the House of Lords, it was ruled that a marriage had been consummated even though by the use of contraceptives procreation had been prevented. At the time I welcomed the judgment, though not all of the obiter dicta which accompanied it. But, at least, the marriage was taken as having been consummated, although procreation was prevented. More recently, in a case in the Probate and Divorce Division which the noble
  404
  Marquess quoted, a decree of nullity was given—which means that the marriage had not been consummated—although by the use of A.I.H. a child had been born of that marriage. That is to me, with all respect, quite an astonishing decision, and I very much wonder whether it would be upheld if it came to a higher court. A child of the marriage born in wedlock by A.I.H. is thus declared illegitimate, so it was conceived in adultery or in fornication—presumably fornication, since a decree of nullity was given. We then have the absurd position that, although at the time of the marriage it was supposed to be a real marriage, between husband and wife there was fornication. Presumably, any couple who have children born by A.I.H., and a fortiori by A.I.D., if there are no other children, could get a nullity if they came to desire it.
  I would ask that we should attach some intelligible meaning to such words as "consummation of marriage" and "adultery." In Baxter v. Baxter, though contraceptives prevented the mutual surrender of the reproductive organs, there was a mutual surrender of the sexual organs. I think the distinction is clear. That is not, in the Christian view, full consummation of the marriage, which requires both. I am sure, however, that the judgment was right which said that, in the eyes of the law, this surrender of the sexual organs, without surrender of the reproductive organs, should be treated as consummation. But in the other case, where A.I.H. was employed, though through the impotence of one party there was not a mutual surrender of the sexual organs there was, by A.I.H., a mutual surrender of the reproductive organs. That, surely, is and must be regarded as consummation of the marriage. Thus, in marriage (if your Lordships can follow this rather complicated argument), mutual surrender either of the sexual organs without procreation, or of the reproductive organs by means of A.I.H., is to be regarded, in my view, as consummation. Equally, adultery must cover all these things. Adultery is the surrender outside the bonds of wedlock, and in violation of it, either of the sexual organs alone, by the use of contraceptives, or of the reproductive organs alone by A.I.D.—or, of course, of both, as in normal intercourse. If that be so, A.I.D. is adultery.

  405
  I do not wish thereby to stigmatise A.I.D. as having the same moral turpitude which attaches to the word "adultery" in ordinary use. A defender of the practice of A.I.D. has said this:
  "Adultery and artificial insemination are the absolute antithesis of each other. One is done clandestinely to enjoy carnal pleasure; the other decently and frankly to beget offspring without the emotional and physical enjoyment."
  There is certainly a moral difference between adultery in the ordinary sense and A.I.D.—yet in fact A.I.D. is adultery. Lord Dunedin, in Russell v. Russell, said bluntly: "Fecundation ab extra" (which I take to mean from another party) "is, I doubt not, adultery." Other legal judgments have supported that. It is a mere fact, whether you like to use the word or not, that by the introduction of semen ab extra outside wedlock, there is an intrusion into and a breach of the natural marital relations of husband and wife—and that is what adultery means; and the exclusive union set up by marriage between husband and wife is thereby violated—and that is what adultery means.
  It may be said that by the use of A.I.D. the marriage bond is violated voluntarily, for a good reason, by the consent and wish of the husband and wife concerned. So we come to the case for A.I.D., which has not yet been stated this afternoon. Seen from one single point of view, there is a case, and even a strong case for it. We of the male sex cannot easily appreciate how much childbearing means to the spiritual and the psychological life of a woman. We know that there are many women who are never married and are thus frustrated in childbearing. We know how splendidly many of them sublimate their maternal instincts and express them gloriously in spacious works of charity and maternal care for others. If some unmarried women feel frustration, they are outnumbered by those who make a splendid life of service out of their childlessness. I would say that society owes an immense debt to the maiden aunt and to the unmarried woman in works of charity, religious service and in countless family circles.
  Let me say here—for it is relevant to this discussion—that the suggestion that A.I.D. should be employed to enable unmarried women to bear children is on all grounds to be altogether rejected—
  406
  even though I am told that there is a movement on foot to found a society to encourage this very thing. It is directly opposed to universal social instincts, to Christian principles of morality and to the meaning and dignity of marriage. It is directly opposed to the interests of the child, who is thus deliberately deprived of its normal right to know both its parents and to be brought up in a home in which each takes its share. There are only two countries in recent times which have encouraged this practice. One was Nazi Germany and the other Soviet Russia, and I dc not think that in such matters they are examples which we should wish to follow. Unmarried women, hen, must bear the deprivation of childlessness.
  It is obviously much harder for a woman who has married in the full expectation that thereby she shall bear children to find in her marriage that that wish is frustrated. It is, indeed, a grievous burden in many cases. It often causes severe psychological disturbances; it often brings strain and stress, and even rupture, into a marriage. Surely, if there is a legitimate way of putting this right it should be taken. As I have said, I think A.I.H. is a legitimate way. But what if it cannot be employed because of the husband's sterility, or because he suffers from a transmissible disease? Here is, so far, a strong case to be considered for the practice. There is evidence that where A.I.D. has been employed it has often had the most beneficial results to the wife and to the marriage, with happiness increased beyond expectation. Let me say at once that I believe that those who have been concerned in it, doctors, husbands and wives, have acted in the utmost sincerity and in the belief that they were doing a thing good in itself.
  We recall that the evidence on which A.I.D. is based is not yet very extensive, but some who have a good deal of experience are convinced of the beneficial results. Es the remedy, therefore, still to be refused to them, or taken from them? In passing, I would observe that a husband often has a great longing to have children, and sometimes his longing is frustrated by the sterility of his wife. No one has yet suggested that he should relieve his frustrations by introducing into his family a child wham he has fathered by A.I.D. or otherwise by another

  407
  woman. He has to bear his frustration, and so can a wife. There are many examples of its being accepted and becoming spiritually valuable and creative in the married life. But is the remedy to be refused?
  As soon as one begins to look at it, not merely from the point of view of the husband and wife concerned, but from the general view of society, it becomes, as I think, necessary to reject altogether the practice of A.I.D. This cannot be merely the concern of the husband and wife in their personal and private relations. If there is a handicap to be borne, that is a common and perhaps a salutary part of human life. We all have to bear many deep hardships, for the good of others and for the good of society. Consider, then, very briefly, what the practice will mean if it grows and continues. Consider first what it will mean as between husband and wife themselves.
  If difficulties and jealousies arise in their married life these will surely be complicated and aggravated by the father's knowledge that the child of the marriage is not his at all. It is not to be supposed that every marriage will be delivered from all frictions from the fact that A.I.D. has been employed, and the intruded child may easily become a source of recrimination. Secondly, difficulties may arise as the child grows and develops. Suppose, for instance, he shows characteristics markedly other than those of his supposed father or his real mother: it may disturb the home. In some cases, if the characteristics are of one kind or another, it may easily give rise to speculation outside the home as to the parentage of the child. Thirdly, difficulties will arise for the child, and for every child, since the fact that the practice is in use will be known to everybody, young and old. The days have long since disappeared in which things can be kept from the young that are known to the old. The child, as he grows up, knowing of this practice, may begin to suspect his parentage and to ask questions which cannot be avoided and which must be answered and the answer, if he be a child of A.I.D., may profoundly disturb his own psychological and emotional set-up.
  But it is worse than that. Even now the sensitive and imaginative child is sometimes seriously affected by utterly
  408
  unfounded fears and terrors that he is not the child of his own parents. I have known such cases, and I have no doubt others have also. If this practice grows, that kind of fear may occur to anybody. Any child may say, and with some reason, "I cannot be sure that I am the child of my father and mother"; and the agonies of the sensitive child over a fear like this are probably worse than anything, that adults experience in their grown-up life. Next, family stability equally is gravely threatened. Perhaps I may be allowed to read a sentence from the report of the Commission to which reference has been made:
  "It would chance the whole basis of society f a man could not safely regard his brother's child as of the proper stock of his and his brother's parents and could not feel assured that it was not the product of an anonymous donor. We can imagine few suspicions more fatal to family confidence than that of the intrusion of supposititious offspring into a family. Family pride and family tradition are qualities by no means confined to the propertied or monied classes. They would suffer a grievous blow if trickery and deception in regard to family relationships were to be encouraged or permitted."'
  In the interests of society, of the family, and of the child—indeed, on a long-term view, since obedience to Christian principles is the only firm basis for happiness, in the interests of those who are drawn to this practice for their own relief—I think it should be neither encouraged nor permitted.
  May I put the matter finally in two ways, one negative and one positive? Negatively, it is based on concealment, it is rooted in perjury, it deprives the child of its right to know for certain who its parents are and it deprives relations and society of that same right. If the law were altered so as to make it legitimate, that would merely extend by so much this range of insecurity. For that reason it should be forbidden. If it be said that this would drive it underground, the answer is that it is underground already, for by its very nature it is secret and concealed. Positively, there is at stake here, I believe, a deep spiritual principle and I would put it in words borrowed from an article in the February number of the Fortnightly:
  "It is the fundamental principle of Christian belief that God is Love and our common Father, from which belief springs the dignity of human personality. This requires its correlative principle that children should be born of the love of their parents. In A.I.D. the

  409
  purely material and mechanical element in procreation is separated, and not temporarily but absolutely separated, from the organic and personal lives of the two persons involved. And A.I.D. itself protests that this is wrong by what is regarded as essential in its practice, namely, that the inseminated wife and the donor of seed, shall remain ignorant of each others identity. In A.I.D. human life is initiated as the result of a momentary mechanical process entirely divorced from the spiritual, mental, emotional and physical lives of its parents. If extensively practised it would inevitably degrade the whole conception of personality and intensify that tendency towards the reduction of life to mechanism which is one of the most sinister features of our time."
  And, I would add, if all that be true when the semen is derived from a single donor, it becomes yet more true, yet more sinister, yet more destructive of personality and yet more degrading when the semen is derived—and this practice exists—from what the Medical Defence Union describe as a "Bureau" or "Bark" in which the semen from many donors is intermingled before use.
  So, my Lords, I submit that since the practice of A.I.D. involves criminal perjury, since it is based upon a continuing deception, since it endangers the moral security of child, family and society, since it is contrary to Christian principles and standards, it should not be allowed either to grow or to continue. I agree with my Commission that the evils necessarily involved in A.I.D. are so great that early consideration should be given to the framing of legislation to make the practice a criminal offence. I would therefore support the noble Marquess's proposal that, if nothing else be done, there should be a full official investigation into the matter.
  4.9 p m.
  LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, I make no sort of claim that the office which I have the honour to hold gives me any special right to debate the social aspect of this grave question. Indeed, I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that perhaps it is a disqualification. But, as your Lordships have already heard, there are a good many technical questions involved in this matter about which perhaps I may be able to give a little help.
  The most reverend Primate has just raised the question about the apparent inconsistency between one of the cases to which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred and the case decided before your
  410
  Lordships' House, of which incidentally, I was a member, the case of Baxter v. Baxter. I am not going into the side issue which the most reverend Primate raised a bout a debatable passage in that judgment, but I would call his attention to the fact that on page 45 of the Commission's Report he will find, in the theological section, something exactly to the same effect. The most reverend Primate has raised the point that the decision in Baxter v. Baxter cannot stand together with the decision about non-consummation in spite of artificial insemination to which the noble Marquess referred. To my mind, there is really no inconsistency at all between the two.
  If I may, I should like first of all to deal with this question of adultery in relation to artificial insemination. The Commission, in their view of the legal aspects, say:
  "We entertain no doubt at all that the act both of a married 'donor' and a married recipient constitutes adultery."
  I gather that the most reverend Primate is of the same opinion. Incidentally although he did not commit himself, the noble Marquess mentioned that that view might prevail. I must not be taken to be dogmatic, because, after all, I have never heard an argument about this point, and I may have to give a judgment on it, but, speaking for myself, that seems to me to be absolute nonsense. I will tell your Lordships why. At the same time I can deal also with the question of fornication, and with this supposed conflict as between non-consummation, in the case of insemination, and consummation in the case of Baxter v. Baxter, because the root of the whole matter is to consider, both in connection with adultery and consummation, what is meant by sexual intercourse.
  I should like to preface this point by three general observations. The generally accepted definition of "adultery" is the "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person of the opposite sex during the subsistence of the marriage." The word "voluntary" is inserted, of course, to exclude questions of rape and insanity. Fornication is exactly the same thing, without the element that one of the parties is married. So far as if know, that definition has been accepted from the earliest times of the Ecclesiastical Courts down to the recent publication of the

  411
  well-known textbook on the subject. Secondly, anybody who has ever had to try a nullity case is well aware that there are degrees in the signs of virginity which vary infinitely from cases of extreme doubt to cases of absolute certainty of virginity. Thirdly, for a very long time—certainly well over a hundred years—the possibility, rare though it be, to which the noble Marquess referred, of conception without actual penetration has been well recognised. It is manifest that the less the actual signs of virginity the more likely that is to happen. Nobody pretends that it is anything but a rare occurrence, but it is perfectly well recognised medically. That appears in reported cases over one hundred years ago.
  When one turns to the passage in this Report, to which I have referred, one finds that those who are advising the most reverend Primate relied upon a passage in Lord Dunedin's speech in the well-known case of Russell v. Russell. It is short; I will read it to your Lordships:
  "The appellant conceived and had a child without penetration having been effected by any man; she was fecundated ab extra. … The jury came to the conclusion that she had been fecundated ab extra by another man unknown, and fecundation ab extra is, I doubt not, adultery."
  My purpose is to show your Lordships, as shortly as I can, that that passage has nothing whatever to do with the subject which we are discussing. I do not want to rake up the ashes of a dead case, particularly as it affected a member of your Lordships' House. I think that I can make my explanation of this point quite clear with reference to other cases without doing more than referring back eventually to something which is indicated by dotted lines in the middle of the quotation that I have just read. May I go back a moment? So far as I know, it has always been accepted that sexual intercourse, in the ordinary sense of the word, is necessary to constitute adultery. To what extent it proceeds is another matter, but the man and the woman must be, as it were, personally concerned.
  On the point to which I am addressing myself at the moment, I would call your Lordships' attention to a case decided, as it happens, in the year before the Divorce Court, as we now know it, was
  412
  set up. I am not going to bore your Lordships with the details. The point was this: There was every conceivable circumstance of suspicion against the wife—locked doors, blinds down, all sorts of suspicious circumstances which quite plainly, as the Dean of Arches, Sir John Dodson, said, would have obliged him to find that adultery was proved—but for one circumstance. The lady had been examined by two very eminent doctors. They recognised, as the judge recognised, that there were these degrees in the signs of virginity. They committed themselves, and he accepted their evidence, to the statement that in her case it was absolutely impossible that sexual intercourse could have taken place from the signs which appeared. After accepting the evidence that sexual intercourse had never taken place, he said that the conclusion necessarily was that, however imprudent the wife may have been, however reprehensible her character, she had not been guilty of adultery.
  There is a whole range of cases to which I need not even bother to refer, covering the intermediate stages, showing that adultery may be regarded as proved, though penetration must have been very slight. I need refer your Lordships to only one case in your Lordships' House. It was a case in which Lord Birkenhead made the leading speech, which was accepted by Lord Dunedin and which occurred in the very year before Russell v. Russell was decided. In fact, after a finding against her, based on admissions in part by the husband and in part on supposed admissions by herself, the Court of Appeal had reversed the finding of adultery against the woman named, and your Lordships' House upheld that reversal. One of the points, but an inconclusive point, was the question of her medical examination, and Lord Birkenhead referred to the evidence of the doctor as "cautious and guarded." He said there had been a suggestion, that though her condition was inconsistent with penetration it was not inconsistent with some lesser act of sexual gratification. Then he added:
  "If there were evidence of such an act"—
  that is, an act of lesser sexual gratification as between these two people—
  "it cannot be doubted that, whatever view may have been taken in past ages in the Ecclesiastical Courts, a decree based on adultery might issue."

  413
  But there is abundant authority since that date that once you get to a state of doubt created by evidence of virginity, a very heavy additional burden is thrown upon the husband who asserts that adultery has been committed.
  Now may I come back to the case of Russell v. Russell and the dictum—it was more than a dictum—of Lord Dunedin? After saying that the case depended on the proposition that no intercourse had occurred between the husband and wife at the relevant time, Lord Dunedin went on in these words
  "I have designedly used the somewhat unprecise word 'intercourse' because the facts of this case are very peculiar and, I should think, unique."
  Then follows the passage which I have already quoted from the Report of the Commission. But in between the first sentence and the last, when one looks at Lord Dunedin's speech, there are ten lines describing precisely what were the sexual practices which had occurred between the spouses in that case. I am not going to horrify your Lordships by referring to them. All I can say is that they were perfectly accurately summarised in the speech of Lord Birkenhead to which Lord Dunedin had himself assented the year before, as "not being inconsistent with some lesser act of sexual gratification." I venture to say that that passage in Lord Dunedin's speech had nothing whatever to do with the subject that we are discussing, and I defy anybody who reads the first half-page of the speech to say that he was even remotely concerning himself with anything like artificial insemination, which does not involve the act of sexual intercourse at all.
  My Lords, the most reverend Primate referred to a Canadian case. In that regard I will say only this. I am, of course, no authority on Canadian law—very far from it, and everything that is said in the judgment quoted in the Commission's Report may be a perfectly accurate statement of Canadian law. But it has this demerit from our point of view: first, that as the learned judge had found all the facts the other way no expression of opinion was called for at all on this topic; and, secondly, in so far as the quotation goes, there is a disputable proposition from our point of view in every single sentence including, among other things, the suggestion that artificial insemination
  414
  against the will of the wife might amount to rape. I say no more than this: that in the days when indictments were formal, it used to be necessary to assert that the accused had carnal knowledge of the woman, and I think that that is none the less the law now, though indictments are less formal than they used to be.
  In my opinion, everything that I have said about that question of adultery applies the other way round to the question of consummation, and there is really no inconsistency whatever between the decision in Baxter and the position in the case to which the noble Marquess referred. In Baxter there had plainly been full penetration and intercourse had been going on for years; there was no question whatever about it. In the case to which the noble Marquess referred there never had been penetration. All that had happened was artificial insemination by consent, and then there arose the much graver question whether the circumstances were such that the petitioner, husband or wife, was precluded from obtaining relief by conduct to which he or she had assented. So much for that aspect of the matter.
  Now may I come to the very difficult question which the noble Marquess raised in connection with legitimacy. I do not in the least dissent from a single word that he said about the cases to which he referred. Personally, I think they were all rightly decided—I think they were inevitably decided—as they were; but that they do produce some of the absurdities to which the noble Marquess referred is equally indisputable. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. If the noble Marquess will allow me to say so, in dealing with the length of time that these parties had been married before their cases came up in the '40s, it might have been well to recall (as is recalled in at least one of the cases) that until January 1, 1938, there was no remedy for wilful refusal to consummate the marriage; so that many years of the delay were accounted for by the fact that there was no law which enabled the parties to sue at all.
  I wish to say only a word or two about this point. Admitting, as I do, that there are these absurdities, I would like to summarise quite shortly, as I think it may be helpful, what are the cases in which

  415
  a decree of nullity may bastardise the child—because they are even more extensive than those to which the noble Marquess has referred. First, although of course the old decree of nullity for impotence goes right back to the Canon Law, the Ecclesiastical Courts, so far as I know, never dealt with this aspect of conception without penetration, and therefore even in the old law of nullity there is no provision at all for the legitimation of the child which has been conceived by fecundation ab extra. That may cut both ways—it may be a case of the husband's disability or of the wife's disability. I need not go into the details.
  Then there is the case to which the noble Marquess referred: that of the marriage to "give the child a name." That, of course, does produce the absurdity that when, having married to achieve that purpose, one or other of the spouses then refuses to consummate, the whole purpose is defeated if nullity ensues. But it does not end there. There is the Legitimacy Act of 1926 where, although the parties were not married at the time the child is born, if they were free to marry at the time the child was born and subsequently do marry, the child is legitimated. Then if one or other of them refuses to consummate the marriage precisely the same result is produced. Of course, it sounds absurd, but there it is. Then there is the combination of the first case and those two. There is the case of impotence combined with one or other of those two marriages—marriage to give the child which is on the way a name, or marriage to legitimate the child.
  Finally, there is this question of artificial insemination of an impotent spouse. That can cut both ways. I need not develop it, but I want to make a suggestion about it which I hope I may properly make. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is very undesirable to deal with these matters piecemeal. I say, at once, that it requires the addition of one letter—literally one letter—to the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, to deal with the two cases of the legitimation by subsequent marriage and the marriage to give the child a name. It is necessary only to add in Section 7 (2) the letter "a" before the letters "b" and "c." But when that has been done,
  416
  the whole problem has not been dealt with, and I venture to suggest that the whole problem should be dealt with rather than that it should be done that way. I know that I am speaking in the presence of the most reverend Primate, and I hope that what I am about to say will appeal to him. I understand perfectly the view of most Churchmen that it is undesirable to increase the number of grounds for divorce, and that if the thing can be made a nullity, so much the better. But, after all, this is no new ground now. Whether you call it divorce or nullity, it has been in operation for over ten years.
  I am now going to say something about what happened at the time. The poor draftsman has been blamed—he always is. The noble Marquess said something about the draftsman to-day. What happened was this. I think it is probably an open secret by now, but when the Bill was in the House of Commons, at any rate—the same did not apply when it was before your Lordships' House—I was being consulted every day behind the scenes, and I tried very hard indeed to get this ground of wilful refusal made a ground for divorce, as it should be—not a ground for nullity; a ground for divorce, because, logically, everything that happens after marriage is divorce as distinct from nullity, and wilful refusal, quite plainly, is something which ought to have been made a ground for divorce. It was recognised that one was right about it, but at the same time the argument of convenience prevailed. The argument of convenience was this: that, in practice, the difference between the two, the line between wilful refusal and impotence, was sometimes so fine that it was very difficult to draw. It was thought that it was quite impossible to have a case brought before the courts which would approbate the marriage by saying there had been wilful refusal and would reprobate it by saying, on the same set of facts, that, in the alternative, non-consummation had been due to impotence.
  If that consideration were ever valid—I recognise there was a danger of that inconvenience—it has long since gone. I am sure your Lordships will take it from me that ever since the beginning of the Act of 1937 we have allowed, for example, an alternative prayer for divorce in respect of desertion, coupled with a

  417
  prayer for nullity in respect of wilful refusal. There is no more difficulty in that case than there is in coupling an alternative prayer for divorce on the ground of wilful refusal and one for nullity on the ground of impotence on the same set of facts. I would suggest if there is to be any amendment, if the Government are not prepared to face all the implications of these cases, that at least they might restore wilful refusal to its proper sphere as a ground for divorce.
  May I add one other word? I am afraid that I have been a great deal longer than I intended to be, but perhaps your Lordships will excuse me if I take up a few more moments. This problem is a growing one and it is very serious. One has only to look at two pages in the Commission's report to see that a thing which began with the insemination by the famous Dr. Hunter of a linen draper's wife in the year 1790, and by the year 1941 had already attained the proportions of five figures in America, has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. There is one aspect of this matter to which no reference at all has yet been made, and that is, what is going to happen in the next generation? The Medical Union—there is a quotation here but I am not going to read the details—have said that they are prepared to limit the number of inseminations from one donor (I mean one donor at one time) to 100. There is no difficulty, of course, in increasing that number twofold. But what does that mean? Quite plainly, it means this: that in the range of the practice of any given doctor a man may be sireing 100 boys and girls at one time. What is going to happen when they fall in love with each other twenty years later, those half brothers and half sisters? That is a serious enough problem to face, and surely it demands facing by any Government.
  Then there is the point which the most reverend Primate made and with every word of which I agree. Secrecy in this thing is fraud—there is no way of getting over that. I am speaking, of course, of A.I.D. It is fraud. It is no use comparing it with adoption. Adoption is done in the open. There is a register of adoption. The whole essence of this thing is fraud and secrecy. Of course, it is perfectly ludicrous to compare it with artificial insemination of animals,
  418
  because the question of knowledge at once comes in as between human beings and animals. And with regard to this vice of fraud, the undertaking exacted by the Medical Union—it is set out on a later page, I think it is page 67, of this Commission's report—the undertaking that no question of property is involved, simply is not worth the paper on which it is written. How can it be? There may be no document of which the signatory actually knows at the moment, but if there are such people as rich uncles living anywhere in the world in these days, can anyone say that a rich uncle is not going to leave so much to the eldest child of a marriage, or to the eldest boy? Who is going to say that a power of appointment will not be exercised in such and such a way or, alternatively, that it is rot going to be exercised at all, so that the property will be divided in default of any exercise of the power of appointment?
  This is a very serious matter. I agree with the most reverend Primate on this question of the Perjury Act. Of course, it is only technically perjury. It is an offence under Section 4 of the Act to falsify any register. The sooner the medical profession become aware of the fact that by lending themselves to false statements in the register, they may be rendered liable to a charge of common law misdemeanour or of conspiracy, the better it will be. I would like to make one practical suggestion. Ought there not to be something of this nature? It may be undesirable to have the whole thing disclosed on the register of births in the actual locality. Take any precautions you please, by having some secret sign which will make it clear that some other document has been filed somewhere else, but at least somehow rind somewhere should not the actual paternity of any child, conceived as the result of a donor's insemination, be registered, and should there not be something in the nature of a statutory declaration by the doctor and other parties concerned showing the facts? It is no use saying that the doctor will be able to explain later on. When a question of property or inheritance comes up, he may have been dead long ago, and so may the spouses. I throw that suggestion out as a possibility.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Merriman, one ques

  419
  tion? I understand he is in favour of some sort of inquiry on the part of the Government, but he did not state it in terms. Does he support my view on this matter?
  LORD MERRIMAN: I support an inquiry by all means, but I should have thought that some things are so glaringly obvious that they do not need any inquiry at all—they need action.
  4.43 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House agrees that we should be grateful to the noble Marquess and the noble Lord who have initiated this interesting and exceedingly important discussion which, as the most reverend Primate has pointed out, involves problems of theology, of morals, of sociology and, perhaps particularly, of law. The problems of adjusting the patterns of the institution of marriage which was worked out in a patriarchal system of society to the requirements of a modern industrial civilisation are obviously exceedingly difficult. A good example is this very topic of to-day's discussion which has been brought about by one particular provision of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937. One of the difficult problems which have arisen from this Act is the question of the legitimacy, or the bastardisation, of children born as a result of a marriage annulled under the provisions of this Act; and it was to draw your Lordships' attention to this problem that the noble Marquess put down his Motion this afternoon.
  Another problem which arises from this difficulty of adjustment is that of the refusal to have children, instanced in the case of Baxter v. Baxter, referred to by several noble Lords during the course of the afternoon's discussion. The first line of decisions to which the noble Marquess has called your Lordships' attention arises, quite independently of any question of artificial insemination. He has drawn attention to the fact that children born of marriages which existed for some time may suddenly find themselves bastardised as the result of decisions of the courts that these marriages were never really marriages at all—in other words, that they were null and void from the beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has stigmatised decisions of that kind as
  420
  "absurd," and I am not sure that he did not use the word "shocking." If that is so, it is Parliament which must accept responsibility, because it was Parliament who decided that this was to be done by way of nullification and not by way of divorce, and which rejected the advice of the noble Lord, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division which he has told us about this afternoon. There were reasons of practical expediency at that time why that line was taken by the sponsors of the Act. This proves, if any proof be needed, that it may be wrong to give way for reasons of expediency, rather than do what is obviously the reasonable and proper thing.
  The noble Marquess has suggested that this difficulty can be overcome by a simple emendation of the Act of 1937; and in that he has had the powerful support of the noble Lord, Lord Merriman. Indeed, the situation which has been shown to exist calls for treatment. I think the noble Marquess said that these cases were freak cases. Certainly the first type of case where there is fecundation ab extra is a freak case; but the second, where the parties were together before the marriage and were married to give the child a name, is a good deal more common than perhaps the noble Marquess indicated. Only yesterday I heard of a case. There is often a revulsion on the part of a woman against her seducer. She wishes intensely to have the child she is going to bear born legitimately, and will move heaven and earth to go through a marriage ceremony in order that that may be so; but her revulsion against her seducer is such that she will not afterwards cohabit with him. There are also cases where the woman's family take a strong line against the man, and insist on her remaining at home, and when she gives way the marriage fails on these grounds.
  On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Merriman, pointed out, there are all sorts of other problems involved in this matter. It is not only a question of legitimacy. There is also a question of property rights, which the noble Lord has emphasised, and it would be altogether wrong if I were to give an undertaking to the noble Marquess on behalf of the Government that they are prepared to introduce immediately legislation of the kind which he indicated. Indeed, I do

  421
  not think he pressed that that should be done. Obviously, the matter requires very careful consideration, and in the light of the pertinent observations which have been addressed to your Lordships this afternoon, it is clear that it will receive very careful consideration at the hands of the Government.
  The noble Marquess went on to deal with the problem of artificial insemination and showed that a rather similar problem might come before the courts where there is artificial insemination by the husband, as was instanced in the case referred to of R.E.L. v. E. L., decided only recently. This case was criticised in a very powerful argument by the most reverend Primate. If that case were going to a higher Court, I am sure the argument of the most reverend Primate would be used by the counsel who appeared in the case. Those of us who have practised at the Bar feel that a great member of the Bar was lost when the most reverend Primate went in another direction.
  The noble Marquess also raised the question of artificial insemination by an outside donor. That aspect of the problem has received a good deal of attention from your Lordships, particularly in respect of the important matter as to whether this amounts to adultery. It is important for one thing, because the question of the registration of any birth which may result—that is, the question whether this amounts to a criminal offence—may to some extent turn on the question of whether there was adultery. In any case, there are these questions of inheritance and property which clearly turn upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not quite follow the noble Lord; perhaps he will explain. He said that the question of whether or not it was adultery might affect the question of registration. I did not quite follow his argument on that.
  LORD CHORLEY: If the child is illegitimate, and is registered by the putative father, there will be the question of whether it is a wrong registration.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Legitimacy and adultery in that context are quite different matters.
  LORD CHORLEY: This might develop into a difficult legal argument. The noble
  422
  Marquess is aware of the case of Russell v. Russell, and the presumptions of legitimacy which exist as a result of that case. So it might be that difficult problems would arise. I do not say that they necessarily do arise. In any case there are obviously difficult problems in connection with, shall I say, inheritance and property, which everybody agrees do arise out of this question of adultery. It has been suggested by the most reverend Primate, and by the eminent lawyers who advised hint in connection with the report to which reference has been made, that what occurs is, in fact, adultery. Those lawyers were certainly men of great distinction, but perhaps their distinction had been won in other fields of law than that of divorce.
  On the other side, we have the doubts of the noble Marquess, and the strong opinion of the eminent authority, the noble Lord who is President of the Divorce Court. I ought to say that those who advise the Government on legal problems share the doubts of the validity of this opinion which has been expressed in the report. It is not regarded as being at all clear that artificial insemination by an outside donor does, in fact, amount to adultery.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: What name would the noble Lord give it, if it is not adultery?
  LORD MERRIMAN: Artificial insemination.
  LORD CHORLEY: That question may eventually have to be decided by the courts. All I am concerned with this afternoon is to indicate that the Government cannot accept the view that this is so clearly adultery as has been suggested in that report.
  The report then goes on to the question as to whether this type of intercourse should be made a criminal offence. That has been strongly supported this afternoon by the most reverend Primate in his powerful speech. On the other hand, strong arguments have been put against that view, both by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who suggest that to make it a criminal offence would have the effect of driving it underground. The Government agree with that view. In any event, without further careful consideration they consider that it would be a most impolitic

  423
  and doubtful policy to make it a criminal offence. The most reverend Primate said that it is underground already. To a certain extent that is true, but the practice is being pursued on the basis of well-accepted medical supervision, which (as is shown by the report itself) is probably the best that can be devised. To make it a criminal offence would undoubtedly drive it underground in a very different sort of way. What is at present being carried on, with results that the most reverend Primate agrees in a number of cases have been successful, would become an altogether vicious state of affairs. Moreover, I doubt very much whether making it a criminal offence would fit in with the feelings of public opinion about this matter. We know there are a number of cases where people who have been injured as a result of war service, who were unable to enjoy normal marriage in the full way, have nevertheless by this means been able to have families and to enjoy the sort of happy married life which the most reverend Primate himself described. To make that sort of thing a criminal offence would undoubtedly shock a large number of people. On the whole, therefore, it appears that it would not be a very wise course to pursue.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the most reverend Primate have drawn attention to a substantial number of important problems of a sociological and moral character which are raised by this practice of artificial insemination, particularly by an outside donor. I do not think it would be wise for me to express any views on those matters. It is clear from this report that the members of the Archbishop's Commission, who made a careful investigation into the problem, did not find that any great sociological problem had so far arisen. It may well be that the problem is not quite so serious as the noble Lord, Lord Merriman, suggested.
  In passing, I also would like to pay my tribute to the excellence of this report. I entirely agree with everything Lord Brabazon said about it. It is a most enlightened and objective document. Even if one does not agree with all the Commission's findings, there cannot be any question as to the admirable spirit with which the report has been produced, or of the interesting material which it has
  424
  brought together. Indeed there are some extraordinary statements in the report. On page 10 it says:
  "It follows that a fecund donor submitting two specimens weekly could, with ideal conditions, produce 400 children weekly (that about 20,000 annually)."
  The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, may well say that a donor who was held responsible for the maintenance of the children resulting from his donation might find himself in a most difficult position. This problem is probably dominated to a considerable extent by the question of fertility in marriages; the ceiling, so to speak, as to what is likely to happen is furnished by fertility in marriages—for unless this practice increases substantially, I think your Lordships will agree that it will not amount to such a serious problem.
  There has been sitting for some time a Royal Commission on Population, which naturally has been concerning itself with the whole question of fertility. I suggest to your Lordships that until the Report of that Royal Commission is published (I understand that that is likely within the next few months) we lack very important material, without which it is impossible to come to any satisfactory conclusion on this particular matter. Until we get that Report it would be wrong, in my view, to set up some new Royal Commission or Departmental Committee, which would have to go over a great deal of the ground already traversed by the Royal Commission on Population.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Does the noble Lord mean that this matter should be decided with the requirements of population, or the maintenance of the birthrate, as the germane questions?
  LORD CHORLEY: Not at all. Obviously, an important factor is this question of fertility, although, no doubt, there are other considerations into which the Royal Commission have been inquiring. It is obviously right and necessary that this matter should receive careful consideration. It is only a question of whether we start at once or whether we wait and see what comes forth from the Royal Commission on Population, in order to ascertain the situation at that stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I ask one question? Is the noble Lord saying that artificial insemination is one of the matters which this Royal Commission have in mind, are considering and are taking evidence upon?
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am not putting it exactly as the noble Marquess wishes to put it to me. What I am saying is that this problem is to a considerable extent governed by the question of fertility, which is one of the important matters into which the Commission are going.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It is not in the least governed by the question of fertility; it has nothing to do with it. It is a separate inquiry altogether.
  LORD CHORLEY: I hope I can persuade your Lordships that it is the extent of this problem which makes it serious. If in is growing on a very wide scale, then it is obviously serious. If it is growing on a small scale, I would submit that it is not so serious from a sociological point of view, whatever it may be from a moral standpoint.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Surely this Royal Commission, if they are not dealing with this matter at all, will not be able to report whether it is being practised on a large scale or on a small scale. It seems to me that this Royal Commission has nothing whatever to do with the kind of Royal Commission for which the noble Marquess is asking.
  LORD CHORLEY: It is a question of fertility, for only where the marriage is not fertile does any question of artificial insemination arise. Therefore fertility will put a ceiling on the extent to which this practice will go on, and that is a matter which is being investigated by the Royal Commission on Population. I submit that we shall be in a much better position to know the sort of inquiries which ought to be conducted when the Report of the Royal Commission is received, which I understand will be in a few months' time. In those circumstances, it seems to me that we should wait until that happens.
  With regard to the specific problems arising from artificial insemination, such as legitimacy and inheritance which have
  426
  been referred to, it is the opinion of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that those problems are not likely to be very numerous in practice, and that they would be most satisfactorily dealt with by the courts as they came up. We are fortunate in this country in having a system of Common Law which is very adaptable, and which has in fact for centuries dealt with new problems as they came before the courts.
  LORD MERRIMAN: May I ask a question? Does that mean that it is expected that His Majesty's judges will decide contrary to the law on the grounds of expediency?
  LORD CHORLEY: It is expected that His Majesty's judges will decide in accordance with the law, on the evidence brought before them.
  LORD MERRIMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but so far we are all agreed—perhaps that is an exaggeration, but at any rate I speak for myself and the noble Marquess—that the cases which have been decided are rightly decided. Is it suggested that we should decide them wrongly, in order to meet this question of convenience?
  LORD CHORLEY: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, the fact that these questions have come before the courts and been decided shows that these problems can be dealt with as they arise. It may be that legislation should be introduced to correct the situation arising quite independently of artificial insemination which the noble Marquess has described this afternoon, and I have already given him the assurance that the Government is very carefully thinking about these matters, and in one way or another a solution to these problems will be produced. I think many of the other problems can be solved in the sort of way the Lord Chancellor has indicated, or as I am indicating on his behalf to your Lordships' House this afternoon. Many of these arrangements can be solved ambulando, and I suggest that the discussion we have had about this difficult and important problem this afternoon shows how that sort of solution is brought about—how the difficulties are canvassed and how the necessary information upon which legislation can, if necessary, be introduced is obtained. I thank the noble

  427
  Lords who tabled these Motions and the other noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion, and I hope that, as a result, we may be nearer to obtaining a solution to this difficult problem.
  5.5 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if we are nearer to obtaining a solution of this difficult problem it will not be the Government's fault, because a more unsatisfactory answer I have seldom heard given to any serious debate in your Lordships' House. I say that, not with the object of scoring a point off the Government, but quite deliberately. I would, of course, accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Merriman, that it would be more convenient and more proper to effect the change that I want to see made as a means of dealing with the problem of wilful refusal by a change from the law of nullity to the law of divorce.
  But whatever form the amendment takes, surely it should take some form. This afternoon we have had the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, with his scientific approach, the most reverend Primate, and the President of the Divorce Division, all pressing that there should be a change, and all the Government say is that they are going to give it consideration. Well, one knows perfectly well what that means. It means that they are going to give it refrigeration and nothing else, and that is what they will continue to do.
  As to the other point on insemination, certain points may well solve themselves ambulando, however long and circuitous the walk may be. But to say that judges are required to deal with these cases seems to be an extraordinary doctrine, because what we are trying to get round is a statutory situation. The Statute Law governs the position, and the cases which have been decided in relation to that law are, by general consent, accurately decided.
  LORD CHORLEY: If the noble Marquess will allow me to explain, I would point out that it was the problems in respect of artificial insemination which the noble and learned Viscount thought would be solved as they arose by the courts.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: There again, why put it upon the courts? The
  428
  most reverend Primate has thought it necessary to have a Commission of his own, which has produced a report. That is surely some indication that he thought the problem existed, was serious and extensive, and required treatment. The Government, apparently, take a different view, and say that although it may develop seriously there is not very much sign of it at present. You can let the thing drop until something occurs. All the speakers this afternoon may, of course, have been wrong, but they were at least unanimous in thinking that not only in their own view was the problem already grave and far-reaching, but that public opinion shared that view and required some lead.
  Are the Government merely going to sit back and do nothing until the Royal Commission on Population, who have been for a long time considering the problem of population and who have not had submitted to them this particular question of artificial insemination at all (and, indeed, into whose purview I should have thought it could not conceivably have come) reach some decision? It may still take months before that body reaches a decision, which decision is then most unlikely to throw the slightest gleam of light upon the present problem. In view of the opinions which have been expressed to-day, I think it is a little hard that the Government should merely indicate their intention to sit back and do nothing until some unknown day appears, on which some other Inquiry may galvanise them to take the action they should be taking to-day. I am very reluctant to withdraw this Motion, but with the consent of the House I suppose I shall have to do so. At the same time, unless the Government are prepared to show a little more sign of activity and of appreciation of the situation than they have demonstrated to-day, it may be necessary for us to raise the question again in the not very distant future.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, according to the agreement I shall not move my Motion, but I should like, by leave of the House, to say one further word on the subject. It has been said by many people that A.I.D. with the

  429
  husband's consent is definitely a conspiracy, but it is not so at all. It is only a conspiracy if the registration is false; and one of these days when this thing is considered—even if it is another six years hence—one of the most important points to consider will be the registration of a child by an artificial insemination donor. Something along the lines of the adopted child's certificate might well be introduced. It is a matter we cannot go into at present; it will have to be left to that imaginary body that is going to be set up.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I do not quite accept the picturesque though eloquent description by the noble Marquess of the attitude of the Government in this matter. We unfortunately suffer by the absence through illness of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor; but I assure the noble Marquess that, seeing that a considerable number of very important questions have arisen in the course of this discussion (which has been of a very high standard) in addition to the one that he himself raised, it is not fair to represent our attitude in the language which he employed. I can assure the noble Marquess that, without delay, we shall give full and earnest consideration to what has been brought forward this afternoon.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: If I may, by leave of the House, just say another word, I should like to thank the noble Viscount who leads the House for at least a little more encouragement than we had received up to the moment of his intervention.

  THE COURT-MARTIAL SYSTEM
  5.13 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to call attention to the Report of the Army and Air Force Courts-Martial Committee (Cmd. 7608); and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I feel it is necessary to apologise to your Lordships for taking up so much of this afternoon's proceedings. It happened that a not unimportant Motion on courts-martial which I had put on the Order Paper on a previous date had to be carried over till to-day
  430
  as the only other suitable date. However, in the circumstances, which have risen since the earlier date, I think I can deal with the Motion quite shortly.
  It has been obvious for some years that the Service authorities have been somewhat concerned at the existing procedure in regard to courts-martial; and shortly before the war, as your Lordships may remember, a Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Oliver to inquire into the general position, and it was charged at the same time to consider whether there should be an appeal to a civil court of appeal from a court-martial in regard to conviction. Owing to the outbreak of war it was never possible to implement the recommendations of that Committee, and shortly after the end of the war, and in order to have the benefit of the experience which had been gained of the system during the war, a further Committee was appointed, this time under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Lewis, with enlarged terms of reference. It was charged not only to make a general inquiry into procedure and to consider whether there should be an appeal to a civil court, as had been the case with the Oliver Committee, but also to inquire whether there should be an appeal to any court of appeal of any kind, and whether that appeal should be on conviction or on sentence.
  The Lewis Committee reported in April, 1948, and it was to the main recommendations of that Committee that I had intended, when I put my Motion down, to draw your Lordships' attention—partly, I confess, because I had the temerity not by any means to agree with all those recommendations—and to advance certain reasons why I was inclined to differ. I now understand, however, that the situation is that, no matter at what length I may expound my views on the subject of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee, and however many other noble Lords may take the opportunity of adding their views, all we shall get from the Government is a formal statement that, in circumstances which they have themselves created in the last three weeks, they regard the matter as being now sub judice, and therefore not one on which they are disposed to express any opinion. I should like my understanding of that position to be confirmed by the noble Viscount, the First Lord of

  431
  the Admiralty, so that I may direct my course according to his answer.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, as is generally known by your Lordships, during the course of the last month a Committee has been appointed, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Pilcher, to consider the question of the application of discipline in the Royal Navy and to take into consideration the recommendations of the Lewis Committee. As the major recommendations of the Lewis Committee have not yet been accepted by the Services, those matters could not, I think, be dealt with by me this afternoon. I certainly should regard them as sub judice, as the noble Marquess has rightly said.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving me that assurance. It is what I understood the position to be. That being so, I shall not waste your Lordships' time in discussing the recommendations, but I shall take up just a few minutes in discussing the circumstances in which it is impossible to discuss the recommendations, because I think they need a little careful consideration.
  The Lewis Committee was appointed, as I said, in November, 1946—about two and a half years ago. It extended only to the Army and the Air Force; the Admiralty was carefully excluded. It may be that the Admiralty felt that they were not going to participate in anything so inquisitive or obnoxious as an Inquiry of that kind. But whatever the reasons may have been, they were not included in the terms of reference of the Lewis Committee, nor was a separate or parallel Committee set up at the same time to inquire into the question whether any, and if so what, alterations in the Naval Discipline Act were required to keep step with recommendations that might be made in regard to the other Services. That Committee, having been appointed in November, 1946, reported to the Government in April, 1948, very nearly a year ago. The Departments concerned then apparently took the Report into a corner and brooded upon it, and indeed they have remained broody ever since, except that they put into operation by administrative action certain recommendations in regard to alterations in
  432
  the position of the Judge Advocate-General, now called the Chief Judge Martial, and in regard to procedure for giving in open court the verdict of guilty and the sentence at the end of a court-martial, instead of delaying it for confirmation and so forth.
  There were certain very important recommendations of the Lewis Committee upon which one might have thought the Government, in the intervening period of almost a year, would have come to some conclusion. Perhaps the Committee's most important recommendation, if I may put it in a summary form, was that a special court of appeal should be set up to which appeals could lie on points of law in cases of conviction—not on sentence, only on conviction. The second recommendation was that a civilian legal functionary, to be known as a Judge Martial, should preside at all general courts-martial, and that a slightly subordinate functionary, to be known as an Assistant Edge Martial, should preside at all district courts-martial in cases where difficulty of law was likely to arise. The third and very contentious recommendation was that a finding by a court, either of acquittal or of conviction, must be unanimous.
  Those recommendations of very substantial importance have been in the hands of the Government for nearly a year, although it was only in January of this year, apparently, that they broke surface sufficiently to publish the Report. What had been going on in the intervening eight months nobody except the Departments concerned knows; but from that moment to this, except upon those two points to which I have referred, which were dealt with by administrative action, no indication of policy of any kind has emanated from the Government. They have never indicated whether they propose to accept or to reject one or all of those extremely important recommendations. If those recommendations, which were designed for the benefit of the Service man and for making courts-martial fairer to him, have that effect and achieve that object, surely the Government must have made up their minds within this long period of time whether or not the serving soldier or airman is to be given the benefit of those recommendations. If he is to be given the benefit of them, surely it was not

  433
  necessary to wait a year before coming to the conclusion that he ought to have those advantages, and have them promptly. If the Government have decided that the recommendations do not constitute this benefit, what has stopped them at any moment during the past year from saying so?
  It seems to me that there were three courses open to the Government, if they wished to deal with the matter of the three Services altogether; they were courses of decreasing merit, and the Government took none of them. They could have appointed a parallel Committee, at the time when the Lewis Committee was appointed, to deal with naval discipline, or indeed could have extended the terms of the Lewis Committee to comprehend the Naval Discipline Act. They did not do that. By their failure to do something of that kind, the time between November, 1946, when the Committee were appointed, and April, 1948, when they reported, was lost for this purpose. In April, 1948, the Government had the Report of the Lewis Committee and knew that they had made far-reaching and novel recommendations. They knew equally that they did not apply to the Navy. It was open to them at that moment to say: "Well, we have now received these important recommendations and we think that the other Service, which has not hitherto been included, ought now to be brought in, so that we may see whether those advantages, if they be so, should be extended to them." But they did not say that.
  The Government had a third opportunity in January of this year, when they published the Report, to say: "Well, we will now give an opportunity by setting up a naval committee." It was not until the end of February—when I suppose it became somewhat important, and they were being pressed as to whether or not they proposed to show their hand in some way as to their views upon the Lewis Committee's recommendations—that they suddenly seemed to have had the bright inspiration that, by at last appointing a Committee to look into the Naval Discipline Act, they might still mercifully delay the uncongenial task of making up their minds upon the Lewis Committee's Report. Whereupon this Committee were finally appointed. Now the view is taken that nothing can happen, that lips are sealed, that no expres
  434
  sion of opinion must filter through from any member of the Government as to the merits or demerits of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee until such time, in the elastically-removed future, as the Pilcher Committee may in turn have come to their conclusions.
  It is a rather strange situation. It is one to which attention has already been drawn in another place. I am bound to say that I hope the gyrations of the Minister of Defence, in his endeavour to extricate himself from the attentions, not only of the Opposition but of his own followers, in explaining the situation which had been created by this most curious procedure, will not be emulated by the noble Viscount who is to reply to-day. I am sure he would find them both painful and embarrassing. As I say, in view of the attitude which has been adopted by the Government, it is now a waste of time to discuss at this stage the actual recommendations. However, I invite the noble Viscount who is to reply to give us some more cogent and convincing explanation than has yet been vouchsafed as to this curious procedure. We all recognise that the relationship between the Government and the Fabian Society is affectionate and intimate, but Fabian tactics carried to these lengths require a good deal more explanation than they have yet received. I beg to move for Papers.
  5.29 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I find myself, not for the first time, in full agreement with the noble Marquess who has just spoken. I feel that he has set a difficult task to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in asking for an explanation of this delay because, having been connected with this matter for some time, I am certain that there is no credible explanation whatever. As your Lordships may know, I was a member of the Lewis Committee. In fact, I think I was the only member of your Lordships' House upon that Committee. I signed the Report without reservation. Therefore, for my part, I do not wish to comment upon the recommendations. But I do want to say something on the way this matter has been handled.
  The Lewis Committee were appointed at the time in response to an urgent request which originated in another place. I myself was rung up or the long-distance

  435
  telephone to Germany, where I was at the time, because it was thought urgent to find out whether the people who were wanted to serve on the Committee could be called together at short notice. When we met together on the Committee (I think I can say this without breaking any confidence) it was apparent at once that unless the Navy was brought in it was possible that the whole of the work of the Lewis Committee would be completely frustrated. I will explain why. I believe it is generally recognised that this question of appeal, which by their terms of reference the Lewis Committee were particularly invited to consider, had a new significance to what it had in the days of the Oliver Committee, because of the decision to continue National Service in peace time.
  For example, supposing that it was desired to give a National Service man a right of appeal against conviction for striking a sergeant, in the same way that that man in civil life has a right of appeal against conviction for striking a policeman, surely a similar right ought to apply equally to all three Services. Perhaps I ought to make a reservation here, to say that I am now speaking entirely for myself, and that some of my noble and gallant friends who have served in the Royal Navy might not entirely agree with me. But I take the view that, apart from the differences inevitable in the position of a seaman on board ship or an airman in the air, there ought to be no difference in the conditions of discipline. They should be the same say, for a sailor in the naval barracks in Portsmouth and for a soldier in the Clarence Barracks across the road.
  However that may be, it was clear to a number of the Committee that politically the conditions were the same—that if the Government wanted to deal with one class of National Service man and give him the right of appeal, they should have dealt with all classes. Therefore, as I say, it was clear to us that unless the Navy was dealt with at the same time, either by the Lewis Committee or by the Pilcher Committee, it was possible that all our work would be delayed, if not completely pigeonholed. And that is exactly what has happened. In the view of noble Lords on these Benches, one of the reasons why that
  436
  has happened is that, not for the first time, the Minister of Defence has failed to exercise his clear functions in this matter.
  I know quite well that when the Lewis Committee were appointed the Ministry of Defence had not yet been formed, but it was formed soon afterwards. Here was an administrative problem such as was envisaged in the original White Paper dealing with the constitution of the Ministry of Defence—a problem which, as the noble Marquess explained so clearly, stood out plainly as something which would have to be tackled sooner or later. However, nothing was done. We reported in April 1948. For two reasons it need not have taken the Service Departments (the War Office and the Air Ministry) long to make up their minds. In the first place, a great many of our recommendations had already been dealt with by the Oliver Committee; and, therefore, certainly in the War Office, consideration had been given at intervals to those problems. In the second place, high officials at the War Office and Air Ministry had given evidence before the Lewis Committee a long time before the Report was written. So they had ample opportunity to consider those matters, which they knew would be dealt with in the Lewis Report, although admittedly they did not know what the recommendations were to be. So there was no excuse, when, nearly a year later, the original skeleton came out of the cupboard, the skeleton of the sailor, the Pilcher Committee were appointed.
  Now we come to another "nigger in the woodpile." The Pilcher Committee have not been appointed with the same terms of reference as the Lewis Committee. The terms of reference of the Pilcher Committee, are:
  "To consider whether any changes are desirable in the administration of justice under the court-martial system based on the Naval Discipline Act."
  There is no mention of two points in the terms of reference of the Lewis Committee to which that Committee were specifically invited to address themselves—namely, the right of appeal and the powers of courts-martial. When the Pilcher Committee report, therefore, we may find that we are back in the same position as before—namely, that the Pilcher Committee have not specifically

  437
  reported on those two issues. And unless they do so, it will not be possible, I think, to go ahead with the recommendations of the Lewis Committee. Therefore, I am asking the noble Viscount opposite whether he can give an assurance not merely that there will be no delay in producing the Report of the Pilcher Committee but also that that Committee will in fact address themselves to those two points which, as the noble Marquess said, are the main points of the Lewis Committee Report still outstanding.
  Before I sit down, I want to make one other point about this delay—namely, that all this waiting about is having a very adverse effect on the staff of the Judge Advocate-General. At the moment, a great many of them are not on a permanent basis; others are on a permanent basis, but do not know how their careers will be affected. If for no other reasons that I have given this afternoon, I think in fairness to that staff some steps ought to be taken. If that is not done, no one should be surprised if some of the better brains, the more useful people on that staff, drift away into other employment which offers greater security and greater prospects.
  My Lords, nothing would be worse than to find, if we wanted to start implementing the main recommendations of the Lewis Committee, that through the Government's own fault the men who had the experience and the knowledge to handle the new situation were no longer there. I earnestly hope that we shall receive a favourable reply from the noble Viscount opposite. I have made these points to him privately. He was good enough to give me that opportunity. I do not know what sort of Papers the noble Marquess is expecting to receive—
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Blank ones!
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: —but I know the Papers that would content me. They are, the Report of the Pilcher Committee, very quickly, and the Government's decision on it, equally quickly.
  5.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, introduced this Motion which, after all, is a very important one, and I am not for a
  438
  moment going to minimise its importance, in his characteristic manner. I regret that he feels that his style has been curbed a little through the appointment of the Pilcher Committee to examine the disciplinary system of the Royal Navy. I want to assure him that the Committee were not appointed simply to curb his style.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am sorry, but I think I mast intervene. I never suggested that they were appointed to curb my style. I suggested that they were appointed to enable the Government to prolong the period of indecision, because it suited them so to do.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I can also assure the noble Marquess that that is not so. Of course, it takes Governments of all kinds a long time to consider very important matters. It is a long time since we had a Liberal Government in power in this country, and the noble Marquess can hardly expect a Government now to be able almost, as it were, to produce rabbits out of a hat.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: No Liberal Government that I know of produced rabbits out of a hat. It was Mr. Shaw in a Labour Government who made the phrase famous.
  VISCOUNT HALL: It is the kind of procedure which possibly applies to Liberal Governments. I admit, frankly, that there has been some delay, but the recommendations of the Lewis Committee were very important recommendations, and the noble Marquess—though he did not admit it in his speech—will agree, I think, that some of them go to the very root of discipline in the three Services. In view of the fact that they do that, it was deemed necessary that very careful consideration should be given to these recommendations. I would remind your Lordships that the Lewis Committee devoted eighteen months to their task before the recommendations were made. I am not complaining that they took a very long time. It was most necessary that they should examine fully all the witnesses whom they did examine, and should consider all the information which they received in papers and letters and other communications, because the matter was of the greatest possible importance. And its importance is fully recognised by His Majesty's Government.

  439
  In relation to the naval situation, may I refer briefly to the historical side of this question? The Admiralty were not invited to participate in—indeed they were not consulted as to the appointment of—the Darling Committee which sat in 1919. Nor were they consulted with respect to the Oliver Committee which sat in 1938, or, indeed, with respect to the Lewis Committee which was appointed by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air. I cannot quite understand the point which was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He said it must have been apparent immediately the Committee was set up that naval disciplinary conditions would have to be considered. I will endeavour to indicate during the course of my remarks that no great effort at all was made by the Lewis Committee to bring in naval matters.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but surely it was not the business of the Lewis Committee to bring in the Navy. It was the business of the two Service Ministers who appointed the Committee to take steps with a view to seeing that no action should be taken until the naval position had been cleared up, and to move the Cabinet to bring in the Navy. Surely I am right in that opinion.
  VISCOUNT HALL: It has been known that Committees, and that Chairmen of Committees of such importance as the Lewis Committee, have made representations to Government Departments, and have asked that the terms of reference should be changed so that they could bring in some other body or elicit additional information. All that it was necessary to do at that time, if there was a feeling to that effect, was that the Lewis Committee should make representations that the Navy should be brought in, and I have no doubt that such representations would have been seriously considered. At no time were the authorities of the Royal Navy consulted, either in regard to the setting up of the Committee or about the terms of reference, and there was no one representing the Admiralty on either the Oliver Committee or the Lewis Committee.
  Your Lordships might ask why this was so. It is true that in the terms of reference of the Lewis Committee there
  440
  was some mention of the recommendations of the Oliver Committee. But what was the principal part of the terms of reference? I quote from them:
  "To bring under review in the light of the experience gained in the late war and of the composition of the Army and the Royal Air Force, the recommendations of the Army and Air Force Courts-Martial Committee, 1938, with special reference to the question whether it is desirable.…"
  They had first of all to bring into consideration the experience gained during the period of the war. Let me examine briefly what the experience of the war really was. More than 203,000 courts-martial were held in the Army and Royal Air Force during the period of the war. From September, 1944, to August, 1945, no fewer than 49,000 courts-martial took place in the Army and 3,800 in the Royal Air Force making a total for one year alone of nearly 53,000. The war had thus brought a serious problem for the Army and Air Force in this respect, and the expenditure in time and labour during the war, when all our resources were so strained, was indeed prodigious, and serious delays occurred in bringing people to trial.
  The position in the Royal Navy was very different. In the whole war period there were no more than 4,000 naval courts-martial. It is true that a large number of cases were dealt with summarily, but so far as courts-martial are concerned that was the position. It must be admitted that life at sea and the general conditions of naval service are different from those of the other two Services, and the disciplinary code under the Naval Discipline Act differs from those under the Army and Air Force Acts which are almost identical. It seemed, therefore, to be a more convenient and clear-cut task to deal with those two Services, in view of their experience during the period of the war and of the criticisms which followed that experience. The criticism of naval courts-martial and, indeed, of the naval disciplinary system has been almost negligible. The Secretary of State for War of the day, when he announced, in October, 1946, the intention to set up a Committee, made it quite clear that he was dealing only with the question of the administration of justice in the Army and the Air Force. He also made it clear that questions relating to the administration of justice under Naval Law were not his

  441
  concern but were a matter for the First Lord of Admiralty.
  So far as the Navy is concerned, I have quoted the figures for naval courts-martial during the last war. Before the war, they amounted to no more than an average of thirty to forty annually. Therefore, so far as the Navy is concerned, there was, in fact, no problem such as that with which the other two Services were faced during the period of the war. Even had there been one, I doubt whether it would have been right or reasonable to have imposed upon the Lewis Committee the additional task of examining the equally complicated question of the naval system. Further to this point, I would like to refer to the Prime Minister's reply to a Question in October, 1946. He was asked whether the Government intended to standardise an overall court-martial procedure for the three Services. The Prime Minister referred to the Committee then being set up which, he said, would include court-martial procedure within its scope. He pointed out that the standardisation of procedure for the three Services would present many difficulties, but the closest attention would be given to the effect on the court-martial system of the recommendations of the Committee. There was no objection raised to that course of action and no criticism was levelled against the Government for not including the Royal Navy within the Committee's terms of reference.
  A further opportunity was presented when the terms of reference of the Lewis Committee were announced in another place, but again there was no complaint, nor has there been any complaint since. I think it is a little unreasonable for noble Lords to come along now and say that the Navy should have been included when there was no pressure from anyone and there was no demand from the Royal Navy itself that the disciplinary system of the Navy should be brought under review. But, as it has turned out, the Lewis Committee have made fundamental recommendations which must be considered in relation to their effect on all three Services. The major issues involved are important and there are powerful arguments on both sides. I thought that The Times hit the nail on the head when their leading article,
  442
  which recently commented on the Lewis Committee's report, said how easy it was to disagree in this tricky field of law applied to men under Service conditions. I think everyone will admit that it is tricky to apply some of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee under the disciplinary system in the Services. Here I would like to say that I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on certain points which he made in regard to courts of appeal, the unanimity rule and other recommendations of the Committee.
  The constitution and terms of reference of the Pilcher Committee were announced in another place early this month, and here I would like to take the Opportunity of announcing a change in the terms of reference. Originally the Committee were asked to examine the naval court-martial system, but we have decided, after representation by the Committee, that it would be better to cover the whole field of the administration of justice in the Royal Navy, and the terms of reference have been extended accordingly. It is far better, once and for all, to cover the whole ground and to have before us the result of a full and impartial inquiry into all the aspects of the administration of justice before reaching decisions which affect the lives and welfare of members of all three Services. We have reason to believe that there will be no undue delay before the Pilcher Committe reports—it will obviously be greatly assisted by the ground already so ably covered by the Lewis Committee—and these important questions will then be decided promptly. In the event of any changes which will affect the Royal Navy, there must be consultations with the Commonwealth Governments who have adopted the Naval Discipline Act and apply naval discipline to their Navies. Mr. Justice Pilcher has informed us that if the Committee foresee rather prolonged sittings, he would be prepared at a given time, say in three or four months, to furnish an Interim Report dealing with the major recommendations of the Lewis Committee.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: In their application to the Navy?
  VISCOUNT HALL: Yes, to the Navy. In the meantime, certain important recommendations of the Lewis Committee, to some of which the noble Marquess has

  443
  referred, have already been implemented. I would like to refer briefly to them, to place them on record. First, the Judge Advocate General will in future be appointed on the advice of and will be responsible to the Lord Chancellor, although he will continue to advise the Secretaries of State for War and for Air. This was recommended by the Oliver Committee, because they thought it was essential to remove from the mind of the public any impression that the Judge Advocate General, whose duty it is among other things to review all court-martial convictions and to advise the Secretaries of State for Air and for War on questions of law arising out of these reviews, was in any sense a subordinate official of the War Office or the Air Ministry. There was no suggestion that the Judge Advocate General did not enjoy complete independence in the discharge of his duties, but the Committee thought it would be better to remove any possible misunderstanding on this point. The Lewis Committee came to the same conclusion and His Majesty's Government have accepted this recommendation. The Admiralty, too, will fall into line and in future the Judge Advocate of the Fleet will be responsible to the Lord Chancellor and will be appointed on his advice.
  Secondly, the Judge Advocate General is now responsible only for his former judicial functions, and his former prosecution functions have been transferred to separate directorates of legal services under the Secretaries of State for War and for Air. In the Royal Navy, the Judge Advocate of the Fleet has only post-trial functions and has no department under him. He is in no way concerned with prosecutions. The acceptance of this recommendation has, therefore, brought all the Services into line. The Lewis Committee were strongly opposed to the practice of the Judge Advocate retiring with the court when the court was considering its findings after he had summed up in open court. In this, too, they supported the findings of the Oliver Committee.
  His Majesty's Government have accepted this important recommendation, which the Lewis Committee put forward as an interim recommendation before they had finished their Report. At the same time, they recommended that the
  444
  finding of the court, whether "Guilty" or "Not guilty," should be announced in open court as soon as it was determined. Previously, findings of "Not guilty" had been immediately announced, but not those of "Guilty." The Lewis Committee were concerned to find that the accused might not know for many weeks, until the findings were promulgated, exactly what had been found against him. The mere fact that no statement was made indicated that he had been found guilty, but on precisely what count would be left hanging over his head until the ultimate promulgation of the decision. The acceptance of this recommendation has now brought the Army and Air Force into line with the Navy on this point.
  I do not wish to detain your Lordships by listing any of the other recommendations which have been accepted and are in process of being put into force by amendments to the rules of procedure, King's Regulations or administrative action. The question of delay, however, is a very important one. I think your Lordships would wish to know that we have accepted the Lewis Committee's recommendation that whenever an accused person is in close arrest an eight-day report is to be rendered, whether he is on active service or not, unless operational conditions make it impossible. This has not previously applied to active service conditions. The Admiralty will also require special reports to be rendered on the necessity for further delay when a person remains in custody for longer than eight days without a court-martial for his trial being ordered to assemble. In addition, the proposed limitation to ninety days of close arrest without court-martial has been accepted as a limitation which must not be exceeded, except on the written authority of the convening officer. This will also be applied to the Royal Navy. Both those recommendations will be given statutory authority in due course. The main proposals which have been referred to, and which I have already stated, are sub judice and I cannot enter into discussion about them now. The Pilcher Committee's discussions are well under way and, as the Committee are now meeting, I cannot comment upon the matters referred to them.
  Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity of repeating to your Lordships the Government's appreciation of the excellent work of the Lewis Committee,

  445
  which the Minister of Defence voiced in another place. The Committee were set a very arduous task. The way in which the work was done was greatly appreciated by His Majesty's Government, notwithstanding the complaints about the delay of implementing their recommendations. Legislation affecting the discipline of the Services dates back well into the last century, and the systems on which this legislation is founded are even older. Your Lordships' House had a worthy representative on the Committee, in the person of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We know the very valuable contribution which he made to the Committee's deliberations.
  When the Pilcher Committee's recommendations are received, your Lordships can be assured that the Government will give very careful consideration to them, together with those which remain outstanding from the Lewis Committee; and the views which have been expressed this afternoon by the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount will certainly be borne in mind. I can almost assure your Lordships that there will not be nine months' delay in arriving at decisions after the Interim Report is received. In spite of the drastic changes which were recommended by the Lewis Committee, I think we shall be able to bring about a certain amount of standardisation in the system of discipline that will be applied, which I am sure is the desire of your Lordships' House, of another place and of the public. If a little longer is taken, I think it is as well to be quite sure as to the next step. What we do want—and I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships—as that no effort shall be spared to give accused officers and men, so far as possible, the satisfaction of knowing that not only is justice being done but also that it appears to be done.
  6.6 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Viscount for his kind reference to the Lewis Committee and to myself. Further, I would like to ask whether I understood correctly what he said about the terms of reference of the Pilcher Committee. I understood him to say that the terms of reference had been changed. Do I understand that they have been changed from the terms of reference reported in the OFFICIAL
  446
  REPORT in another place which read as follows:
  "To consider whether any changes are desirable in the administration of justice under the court-martial system based on the Naval Discipline Act."
  Is that how the terms of reference now run, or have they been charged?
  VISCOUNT HALL: They have been changed to allow the Pilcher Committee to range over the whole of our summary system, as well as the court-martial system. At the same time, I would again assure the noble Viscount that the Lewis Committee's recommendations will all be examined by the Pilcher Committee in relation to the different circumstances which apply in the Royal Navy.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Will it be possible to give the new terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  VISCOUNT HALL: I will endeavour to have that done.
  6.8 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Viscount who has replied has convinced himself on his case, because I am sure he has not convinced anybody else. It would be a satisfaction to know that at least somebody had been convinced by the explanation he has given. He started by pointing out that the Navy is in quite a different category; that there were different considerations; that there were very few courts-martial during the war, and so forth, He then went on to point out that it was essential that implementation of all these recommendations for the Army and the Air Force should be held up, in order that they may be brought into line with the Navy, or that the Navy may be brought into line with the Army and the Air Force. He then went on to say that it was necessary to bring the three Services into line, because of the great importance of the Navy considering the far-reaching recommendations of the Lewis Committee, published in April, 1948. That is exactly the point that we have been endeavouring to make. What the noble Viscount has not begun to answer is why, when it became apparent that the recommendations of the Lewis Report were novel and far-reaching, it did not at that moment dawn upon somebody that the Navy had to be brought in and that a Committee should be appointed at

  447
  that stage. Instead of that, a year has been wasted, during which the other two Services might have had the benefit of the recommendations made.
  LORD GIFFORD: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? Has it not been shown that, in some things, the Navy has anticipated the Lewis Committee by a great many years?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not know that any of the three main recommendations which we have been discussing have been adopted by the Navy. Those are the particular matters with which we are dealing, and I do not think that the noble Lord's interjection has greatly advanced the discussion. He may think otherwise. That is the position as we see it—that, having had no satisfactory answer, we may at least cherish the thought that we have ventilated what is in our view a very considerable grievance, because we think the delay has been quite unjustifiable. In all the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
  Report from: That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill and the Petition for the Salford Corporation Bill ought to be dispensed with; and that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the Twickenham Corporation Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill: Read, and agreed to.
  TWICKENHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.

  BOLTON GAS ORDER, 1949 TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1949
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the
  448
  Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) 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 which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Representation of the People Acts; That the Order is founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention, and 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.
  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) ORDER, 1949.
    DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1949.
    Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Orders raise important questions of policy and principle; That the Orders are founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Orders 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 Orders: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
    Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
    House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.