Sitting of 21 June 1950

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WAKEFIELD EXTENSION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BATH EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CATTEWATER) BILL
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH) BILL

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WORKINGTON) BILL
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CAERNARVON) BILL
    Read a Second time, and committed.

    CATTEWATER HARBOUR [MONEY]
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
    "That this House will tomorrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session confirming a Provisional Order relating to Cattewater made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Cattewater Commissioners to be re-imbursed all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred by them in the exercise of powers in relation to vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned in Cattewater Harbour."—[King's Recommendation signified]
    Question put, and agreed to.

    DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Darlington Corporation (Transport, etc.) Act, 1925, relating to Darlington Corporation
    1260
    trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

MOTOR VEHICLES (OFFENCES)
Address for,
"Return showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, the results of the proceedings in magistrates' courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1949."—[Mr. de Freitas.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  STATE IMMUNITIES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  Brigadier Raynerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the report will be available of the Inter-Departmental Committee on State Immunities.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I am informed by Lord Justice Somervell, the Chairman of the Committee, that the Committee wishes that its recommendations should be based upon a thorough consideration of all the aspects of the matter, including an investigation of the law and practice of foreign countries in this sphere, and, consequently, there is no possibility that the Committee will be ready to report before the end of the present Session.
  Brigadier Rayner: In view of the fact that it is more than a year since the Tass News Agency cruelly libelled journalists and got away with it on the ground of diplomatic immunity, and in view of the fact that it is quite wrong that Russian news agencies should enjoy privileges in this country which are not enjoyed by our own Press associations and journals in Russia, would the hon. Gentleman press the Lord Chancellor for an earlier report?
  Mr. Younger: No, Sir, I do not think we can do that. The advice we have had

  1261
  from the learned Chairman of this Committee is that it will take some time, and I think that we must accept that advice.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do think it is wrong for an hon. Member to walk in front of another hon. Member who is on his feet addressing the House, even if he bows. I think he ought to wait.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: I could not hear, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry.
  Mr. Speaker: It is wrong for an hon. Member to walk straight in front of another hon. Member, even if he bows. After all, it is not done. The hon. Member should have waited behind until the hon. and gallant Member had finished asking his supplementary question.
  Mr. Lindsay: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did bow. I will endeavour to bow lower in future.
  Mr. Speaker: I think, if I may say so, that the hon. Member might have waited until the hon. and gallant Gentleman had finished putting his question.

  GERMANY

    Public Health Staff
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the present numbers on the staff of the public health adviser to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Germany; and what are their functions.
    Mr. Younger: The present numbers are ten, which will be reduced to seven in July and four on 1st January, 1951. The public health adviser is responsible for liaison with the German authorities on the many questions which arise concerning the public health of the Allied Forces. He advises the United Kingdom High Commissioner on health matters and co-operation with the United States and French public health officials on questions with a tripartite, federal or international aspect.
    Mr. Albu: Do I understand from my hon. Friend that it is the public health adviser who is responsible for dealing with the German public health authorities in matters relating to the health of our Armed Forces in Germany, and that this is not the responsibility of the medical officers of the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Younger: No, Sir. I understand that the arrangement is that the British civil authority conducts the liaison between the German health authorities and the Army authorities.

    Manpower Staff
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the present numbers on the staff of the manpower adviser to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Germany; and what are their functions.
    Mr. Younger: The present numbers are 43, of which 18 are stationed in the regions and Berlin. The function of the manpower adviser is to exercise general oversight over a wide range of questions in the industrial and social field. These include the relationship between German Governmental bodies, trades unions and employers; the establishment and fostering of machinery and consultation and for the settlement of industrial disputes; terms and conditions of the employment of German labour and reporting upon German legislation relating to employment, wages, working conditions and social security; to advise on all questions relating to German participation in the International Labour Conferences and the work of the International Labour Organisation.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: In view of the fact that Sir Brian Robertson is leaving, and that there has not been a Report by the Estimates Committee on functions and expenditure in Germany, will the Foreign Office take the opportunity of issuing a White Paper to show exactly what the situation is in the handing over of this responsibility by Sir Brian Robertson?
    Mr. Younger: I will certainly consider that, but I should need notice before giving a reply.

    Economic Staff
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the present numbers on the staff of the economic adviser to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Germany.
    Mr. Younger: One hundred and fifty-three.
    Mr. Albu: As most of these functions are now matters for the German Government, and are not reserved functions of

    1263
    the High Commissioner, does not my hon. Friend think that all three of these staffs are still very much too large?
    Mr. Younger: The staff is being very much reduced. The figure of 153 has been reduced from an initial figure of about 5,000, and we are continually reducing the numbers.

    Unmarried Mothers (Affiliation Proceedings)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the hardship and inequity suffered by German unmarried mothers of children whose fathers were British soldiers in Germany being unable to bring affiliation proceedings against putative fathers who now reside in the United Kingdom, he has considered this matter afresh; and if he will make a further statement on the matter.
    Mr. Younger: I have nothing to add to the information which I have already given my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my hon. Friend aware that he sent me a letter correcting that statement and that I am giving him an opportunity now to correct the statement in public? In view of that corrected statement, which has caused disappointment to large numbers of people whose hopes were raised by his original statement, will he look into the matter more carefully?
    Mr. Younger: I regret that there was an error in one aspect of what I said on a previous occasion with regard to the availability of proceedings in the courts of this country to these women, but this is a very difficult question which, I am afraid, cannot be dealt with in the short compass of an oral answer. The position cannot be improved without legislation.
    Mr. Sorensen: I understand that my hon. Friend cannot in question and answer give a full explanation, but will he look into the matter more carefully in view of his admission that great hardship is caused to these women?
    Mr. Younger: I have looked into the matter very carefully indeed and had a full legal examination of the question, but I cannot offer any hope that there will be an alteration in future.

    Refugees
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the responsibilities resting on the occupying Powers in Germany in regard to refugees and expellees now in Western Germany and also refugees who attempt to enter the British or United States zones from the east.
    Mr. Younger: The occupying Powers in Germany are responsible for decisions of general policy regarding the admission of all refugees into the Federal Republic and for protecting the rights in Germany of those refugees who are not of German nationality.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable numbers of people keep coming into this area, which means a very heavy economic burden on the German people? Cannot he give an assurance that this matter will be further examined?
    Mr. Younger: It is constantly under examination, and we are, of course, well aware that the position is unsatisfactory and that the burden is very great.
    Mr. Eden: May we ask your help, Mr. Speaker, in seeing that the word "expellees" never appears on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Sorensen: Can anything be done financially to assist those who have to bear this very heavy burden through no fault of their own?
    Mr. Younger: That is quite another question. We have, of course, expended a great deal of money one way and another in dealing with the problem of refugees.

    Land Reform (Legislation)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain the object of the Military Government Ordinance No. 188, dated 30th May, 1949, for Lands Nieder-Sachsen and Hansestadt Hamburg.
    Mr. Younger: Since the legislatures of the two Lands in question had failed to carry out the provisions of Ordinance No. 103 it became necessary for the military Government to promulgate legislation covering land reform in Lower Saxony and Hamburg.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Did not this Ordinance come out on 20th June, 1949, and did not the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany, published in May, 1949, state that the Germans would have control over the transfer of land?
    Mr. Younger: I should require notice of that question, but the Ordinance, which was not carried into effect by these legislatures, was dated in 1947, and ample time was given for them to give effect to it. As no effect was given by the legislatures it was thought right to give effect to it by a new ordinance.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Was not the order mentioned in the Question made at the time when the subject matter of it—dealings in land—had been handed over to the German Republic?
    Mr. Younger: I should require notice of that.

  CONGRESS OF CAPITALS (CONFERENCE)
  Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply was given to the invitation received at his Department for representatives of the capitals of Scotland and England to attend the Congress of Capitals held in Paris from 2nd to 10th November, 1948; and what steps were taken to see that this invitation was extended to the City of Edinburgh.
  Mr. Younger: So far as I am aware no such invitation was received in the Foreign Office, but I am making inquiries.
  Mr. George Thomas: Was an invitation also extended to the capital of Wales—Cardiff?

  CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make regarding the negotiations in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Communist authorities in Peking.
  Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. On 17th June His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Peking delivered a reply to the Chinese Government's
  1266
  communication of 8th May in which they requested further elucidation of His Majesty's Government's attitude on two main questions, namely, Chinese representation on the United Nations and Chinese State property in British territory. Our position on both questions is already known, and there is nothing I can usefully add at this present stage to what my right hon. Friend said in the House on 24th May.
  Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister of State give a firm assurance that the Government will not alter their attitude at U.N.O. or anywhere else simply to meet Communist demands?
  Mr. Younger: I think I have already said, in answer to a previous Question on the subject, that there is no question of a deal or appeasement in this matter.
  Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "Chinese State property in British territory"?
  Mr. Younger: I think the property which is causing the arguments is aircraft which are claimed as such by the Chinese in Hong Kong.
  Mr. Eden: And we do not admit their claim?
  Mr. Younger: Precisely. This is a matter which, as my right hon. Friend has said, must be settled by the courts.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in this country at the way the British Government have been humiliated by the Communist Government in Peking?

  FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONFERENCES, LONDON (WHITE PAPER)
  Mr. Maclayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to present the White Paper on the London Conferences.
  Mr. Younger: The Paper was laid on the Table of the House this morning and was available in the Votes Office at 2 o'Clock.
  Mr. Maclay: While thanking the Minister for that information, may I ask if he realises, that it is a month since the White Paper was promised and that, as

  1267
  the Prime Minister himself has said that the London Conferences could result in a surrender on an unprecedented scale by each country of the ability to do as it pleases, it is really a long time to leave us without information as to what happened at the Conferences?
  Mr. Younger: A certain amount of information has been given. I agree that there has been some delay in this matter, and I hope that now the White Paper is available hon. Members will be satisfied.

  TIBET (AUTONOMY)
  Mr. F. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what form of recognition His Majesty's Government accords to Tibet.
  Mr. Younger: His Majesty's Government's attitude to Tibet was fully explained in a memorandum addressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) to Dr. T. V. Soong on 5th August, 1943. The purport of this memorandum was that His Majesty's Government "have always been prepared to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous." For the full text of this memorandum I would refer the hon. Member to a reply given on 14th December, 1949, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. Maclean: In view of the fact that Tibet's autonomy is now directly and openly threatened by the Chinese Communists, will the Government consider raising the matter at U.N.O.?
  Mr. Younger: That is quite another question.

  DECEPTION ISLAND
  Mr. F. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the recent Argentine expedition to Deception Island; and whether His Majesty's Government have given the Argentine Government permission to station naval personnel there.
  Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the Question, no permission was sought or granted. Two written protests against Argentine trespass on British soil were delivered in March to the Argentine base leader.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Would the Minister at least assure the House that while this improper occupation continues, no jet fighters or other armaments will be supplied to the Argentine by this country?
  Mr. Maclean: Can I ask the Minister whether the expedition is still there?
  Captain Ryder: Can the Minister say whether any reply has been received to the protest?
  Mr. Younger: I think not.
  Mr. Braine: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to resist this insolent incursion into British territory and, if he is in any doubt as to the matter, would he not consult the history books and see what Lord Palmerston would have done?
  Mr. Younger: I do not think that Lord Palmerston is always a model for what should be done in 1950, but I can assure the House that we wish to have this settled in a proper way, by international action. We have already tried, and, I must say, failed, to get a settlement through the International Court because the Argentine is not obliged to accept litigation in the International Court. We hope that other forms of international action may achieve a friendly settlement in the end.
  Mr. Maclean: Can I have an answer to my earlier question, when I asked the Minister whether the Argentine personnel in question are still on Deception Island?
  Mr. Younger: Yes, I think so.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: Is it not the fact that negotiations in this matter, which are properly the concern of the Government, have been made difficult because our relations with the Argentine have become hopelessly embroiled on meat negotiations, which are not the concern of the Government, or should not be so?
  Mr. Younger: That is another question.

  DOMINICA

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the rise in the cost of living in Dominica since the devaluation of the pound; and what steps are being taken to remedy the hardship which has resulted from the said rise.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. JohnDugdale): The Dominica index snowed an increase of about 8 per cent. in the cost of living between September, 1949, and April, 1950. The index is, however, in need of revision and the actual rise was probably greater than this. The effect of devaluation on the cost of living has been offset to an important extent by increased commercial activity, particularly in the growing and shipment of bananas. The wages of Government manual workers have recently been increased by a third and agricultural daily wages by a fifth.

    Kerosene and Candles (Price)
    Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the high price of kerosene and candles in Dominica; what is the reason for this state of affairs; and what action he proposes to ensure a better supply or a lower price.
    Mr. Dugdale: I understand that the main reasons for the relatively high prices of these commodities in Dominica are the small size of the trade and the proportionately high handling costs. I am looking further into the matter.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Timber (Research)
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to stimulate research into the uses of timber other than the commonly used types produced within the Colonial Empire, with a view to their development and application to the housing problem of this country.
    Mr. Dugdale: The Forest Products Research Laboratory is carrying out extensive research into the properties of some 20 Colonial timbers, with the object
    1270
    of developing their uses in the most effective and economical ways. Extra staff are being recruited for this purpose.
    Brigadier Rayner: In view of the fact that experts think that some of the timbers being used in the construction of our new Chamber would be economical and quite suitable for more general use, would the Minister take the advice of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works?
    Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend on that point.

    Local Commissions
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will request the Governors of Colonies to establish local commissions composed largely of elected legislators or councillors to consider the problem of securing for the people in future the necessities of life and desirable social services in view of the prevailing high birth-rates.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, but does not at present contemplate any approach to Colonial Governors of the kind he suggests. Colonial development plans, which did not ignore population trends and were designed to make available the necessities of life and desirable social services within the financial capacity of the territory concerned, were adopted after consultation with local legislators.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not the fact that most of this beneficial work is carried out by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and as it does not appear to be well known would my right hon. Friend consider issuing a White Paper on the subject?
    Mr. Dugdale: A large amount of development work is carried out by the Colonies themselves. We help by Colonial Development and Welfare funds, but the work is undertaken by the Colonies themselves.

    Administrative Buildings (Upkeep)
    Mr. Harmar Nichollsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he takes to ensure that colonial administrative buildings and residences are all in a state of repair in keeping with British dignity.
    Mr. Dugdale: It is the responsibility of Colonial Governments to keep their administrative buildings and official residences in repair. In the case of Government Houses, they are enjoined to do so by Colonial regulations.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a report made by the recently retired Governor of the Leeward Islands, in which he says that the Governor's residence there is held up by only a streak of paint and will probably have collapsed by the time the new Governor gets there? Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the saying in his own constituency, "Keep a nice bright polish on your own front door and they will never know that there is poverty inside"?

  WEST INDIES

    British Shipping
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the tonnage of British shipping actually serving the West Indies in 1947, 1948 and 1949; how far this is adequate; and what steps are being taken to increase it.
    Mr. Dugdale: As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    During 1947 and 1948 eight passenger-carrying British vessels of an aggregate gross tonnage of 47,337 were regularly employed on services between the United Kingdom and the West Indies. In 1949, two additional vessels of a total gross registered tonnage of 11,697 entered this service. These vessels made an average of eight round trips per annum. In addition passengers were carried on a number of cargo vessels and on vessels not engaged on regular services, the tonnage figures for which are not readily ascertainable. The tonnage of British (including Canadian) shipping plying regularly between Canada and the West Indies in 1947, 1948, and 1949 was 12,000, 22,000 and 23,950 respectively.
    It is not possible to give the total tonnage of British tramp steamers which serve the West Indies, or that of other
    1272
    British ships which do not call regularly but whose visits to West Indian ports depend upon the availability of passengers or cargo at the time. There are also British ships plying between the West Indies and Australia and New Zealand, but I have no information to indicate the total tonnage of these or that of British ships regularly engaged in inter-island services in the West Indies.
    I am advised that the cargo capacity available is, in general, adequate to meet present requirements, but that there are still seasonal deficiencies in the capacity available for passengers which have in the past been met as far as possible by special sailings arranged in consultation with the Ministry of Transport. I am considering, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, what steps can be taken to remedy those deficiencies in the future.

    Canadian Imports
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to restore the cuts made last year in imports into the British West Indies from Canada.
    Mr. Dugdale: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the reductions in dollar imports made by the Colonial Governments last year, in common with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. I cannot say when the dollar position of the sterling area will make it possible for Colonial territories to increase their dollar imports.
    Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that these cuts were made at the request of the United Kingdom Government? Are they not causing very bad relations between this country and the West Indies, and would he urge that they be restored at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Dugdale: All countries in the sterling area did, in fact, agree to make certain reductions in their dollar imports, and this is one of many.
    Mr. Peter Smithers: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise how particularly closely these Colonies are linked with the dollar area, and how especially important it is in their case?

  COLONIAL STUDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total number of colonial students at United Kingdom universities and technical colleges at the latest convenient date; and how many of these students were specialising in tropical agriculture and forestry, respectively.
  Mr. Dugdale: On 31st May, the number at universities was 1,503 and at non-university colleges, 2,470; 62 students are following agricultural courses and 12 forestry courses, of a general nature. Specialisation is undertaken at the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, or in the territory concerned.
  Mr. Smithers: In view of the small number of students studying forestry and of its great importance in the Colonial Empire, is the Minister satisfied with those numbers and can he take any steps to increase the number of forestry students at the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture?
  Mr. Dugdale: It is up to the student to decide what he wants to study, but we shall do everything we can to encourage an increase in forestry students.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these are private students and how many Government students?
  Mr. Dugdale: Two-fifths of the total number are Government students and the remainder are private students.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that these students—like students in most countries—largely think that there is something derogatory about working on the land, can we not give them some encouragement and point out the necessity, if their Colonies are to survive as healthy organisations, of having more of these people on the land?
  Mr. Dugdale: I agree that it is essential that we should do everything possible to encourage people to work on the land and in forestry, and I hope my answer will do something to help towards this end.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If two-fifths of those students are Government sponsored,
  1274
  does not that show up the figures given by the hon. Gentleman in a very poor light indeed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of the very small numbers engaged in the studies to which he referred. If two-fifths are Government sponsored, ought there not to be many more engaged in the sort of training to which my hon. Friend referred?
  Mr. Sorensen: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that these students are quite entitled to choose for themselves what avocations they prefer?
  Mr. Dugdale: Certainly. I thought I had made it clear in my previous answer that it is up to the student to choose, but, naturally, we hope there will be a reasonably large number who will study that subject.
  Mr. Smithers: I beg to give notice that owing to the importance of this matter, I shall raise it on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

  WEST AFRICA

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by how much the cost of living has risen in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast since 1945.
    Mr. Dugdale: The cost of living index for Sierra Leone for the second quarter of 1950 shows a rise of 9 per cent. over the corresponding period in 1945. In Nigeria and the Gold Coast new statistical departments have begun work on indices, starting with the collection of price data, but I am not yet able to give comparative figures.

    Colleges (Teaching Staff)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to train suitable teaching staff for the three regional colleges which are to be established in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Dugdale: No special training of teaching staff is proposed at present. Fully qualified lecturers for the reconstituted Fourah Bay College are now being recruited by advertising both in the United Kingdom and in West Africa. It is hoped to start similar recruitment

    1275
    shortly for the Nigerian College of Arts, Science and Technology and for the Gold Coast Regional College.
    Mr. Russell: Is the Minister satisfied that by the time these colleges are opened he will have sufficient teaching staff?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, I hope we shall.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS (SURVEY)
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the objects of the Falkland Islands Dependencies survey; how much the survey has cost since it was resumed after the war; and how it is financed.
  Mr. Dugdale: The purpose of the survey is to carry out scientific investigations and research into the economic potentialities of the area in which it operates and to maintain, by occupation and administration, His Majesty's title to sovereignty over the Dependencies. From 1st April, 1946, to 30th June, 1950, the total cost will have been some £550,000 of which only approximately £60,000 has been charged to United Kingdom funds. The survey is now financed entirely from the revenue of the Dependencies.
  Commander Noble: Does that reply mean that there is little charge either on the taxpayer here or on the taxpayer of the Falkland Islands for this survey?
  Mr. Dugdale: Yes, it does. Most of the cost is obtained from the profits of whaling and other industries.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could the right hon. Gentleman suggest to those conducting the survey that they should extend their activities to Deception Island, where the same sort of thing is going on?
  Mr. Dugdale: That is another question.

  MALAYA

    Judge (Retirement)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon what grounds it is stated in the memorandum of February, 1947, sent from his Department's legal adviser to the General Council of the Bar relating to the removal from office of a Judge of Appeal in
    1276
    Malaya whose name is known to him, that the normal and prescribed retiring age is 55; where and in what document it is so prescribed; and when, how and in what form this condition of employment was brought to the notice of the judge in question at the time of his appointment.
    Mr. Dugdale: The memorandum in question stated that it was customary for judges to continue in office, in most cases, until they attain the age of 62, but that the normal and prescribed retiring age is 55. This provision has been contained in the Malayan Pension law since before the appointment of the judge in question in 1930, and a copy of the law then in force was sent to him at that time.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this unpublished law gives the Colonial Office the power during seven years, from "the age of 55 to 62," to dismiss a judge without any reason given, which is exactly contrary to the statement of the Lord Chancellor in another place that Colonial judges are to enjoy the same independence as judges in this country?
    Mr. Dugdale: I think that a Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman I shall be answering a little later will deal further with that point.
    Mr. Marloweasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that High Court judges in this country are by virtue of the Act of Settlement irremovable while of good behaviour; whether he is aware that the Lord Chancellor in a statement of 1st November, 1949, confirmed that judges in British Colonies have the same independent status as High Court judges at home; and whether these principles were taken into consideration when, by letter dated 7th April, 1942, his predecessor removed from office a judge of appeal in Malaya whose name is known to him although there was no suggestion that he was not of good behaviour or otherwise unfitted to hold office.
    Mr. Dugdale: I am aware of the position of High Court judges in this country. The Lord Chancellor's statement confirmed that judges in British Colonies in discharging their judicial duties and in reaching conclusions of fact on the issues before them are just as independent of

    1277
    the Executive as are judges in this country. He did not refer to security of tenure though it is the case that the tenure of office of Colonial judges is as secure as that of judges in this country. Owing to the occupation of Malaya by the enemy it was not possible for this judge to continue performing the duties of his office, and as no other appropriate post was available he was necessarily treated as having retired upon abolition of office.
    Mr. Marlowe: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with that of the Lord Chancellor, in view of the fact that this judge was removed without any suggestion of misconduct or being unfitted to hold his office? If the position is as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the Colonial Office have the power to dismiss a judge and, therefore, to detract from his independence. It is impossible for a judge to carry on his work in that situation.
    Mr. Dugdale: It is not a question of dismissal. Dismissal applies some censure. There was no question of that at all. It is simply the case that there was no work for him. No doubt if Britain had been occupied by an enemy there would be no work for the judges in Britain.
    Mr. Marlowe: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that this was the only judge to be treated in this way, and that every other Malayan judge was given another appointment and retained on pay until reaching pension age? How does he square that with the removal of this particular judge?
    Mr. Dugdale: There was a general disturbance in Malaya at that time and this judge, in common with the other judges, was, naturally, unable to perform his functions.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there was, in fact, a very great deal of work for judges immediately after the occupation?
    Mr. Dugdale: There was later, but not at the time of the occupation.

    Minister's Visit
    Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on his visit to Malaya.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend will, with permission, be making a statement on his visit after Questions today.

  TANGANYIKA

    Mikindani (Port Works)
    Mr. John Grimstonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cranes are available at Mikindani to assist unloading materials needed to construct that port.
    Mr. Dugdale: Two, Sir.
    Mr. Grimston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these cranes was driven into the sea by an over-zealous African driver, so that the correct answer to my Question is, "One, Sir"?

    Maize
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Colonies by what methods maize is purchased from growers in Tanganyika; why it is resold to Africans at a higher price than they receive for selling it to storage; what portion of the price is put to any special fund; and for what purposes and to what extent that fund is utilised.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is asking the Governor about this and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the reply is received.
    Mr. Hynd: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend has no information as to whether a fund exists from which subsidies are made in this case as in other Colonies? Is it necessary, in all these questions, that the Minister must wait until the Governor has been communicated with?
    Mr. Dugdale: There are a number of questions in this matter which are of some considerable detail.

    Ranching Land
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the 300,000 acres at Essemingore, to be leased for ranching, will be made available to European settlers; and what will be the terms of the leases offered to them.
    Mr. Dugdale: The matter is under consideration and my right hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member when a decision has been reached.

  GAMBIA (POULTRY SCHEME)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now received information about the import of maize and other feedingstuffs into Gambia; and what request for these supplies was made by the Colonial Development Corporation owing to the poor yield of crops on land planted under the Corporation's poultry project scheme.
  Mr. Dugdale: There were no imports of maize into the Gambia during the past 12 months. Imports of other feeding-stuffs, mainly corn, were 511 tons, valued at £14,600. As regards the second part of the Question, it is not the practice to give figures relating to individual importers, but I understand that a proportion of these supplies were on account of the Colonial Development Corporation.
  Mr. Hurd: May we take it that our £800,000 poultry farm in the Gambia will very soon be on a self-supporting basis?
  Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, I hope so.

  CYPRUS

    Plebiscite
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the plebiscite held in the churches of Cyprus last January, when some 96 per cent. of the Greek-speaking population of the island voted for union with Greece; and if he will state the attitude of His Majesty's Government to this proposal.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is aware of this plebiscite. It has repeatedly been made clear that no change in the sovereignty of the Island is contemplated. As was made known locally before the plebiscite by a published letter from the Governor to the Archbishop, the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this subject remains unaltered.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this sentimental wish for union with Greece is very widespread among Greek-speaking Cypriots of all points of view, from the Orthodox clergy to the Communists, and could he say what steps are being taken to demonstrate to them that they are moving steadily towards self-government—when, of course, they can do what they like—and that, meanwhile, they are better off with us than they would be with the Greeks?
    Mr. Dugdale: Very large numbers of people in Cyprus can, and do, see for themselves that they are very much better off under us.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Without accepting the accuracy of the claim which is contained in the Question of the hon. Member, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that the country as" a whole is behind him in making it quite plain that in view of its vital strategic importance we do not propose to leave Cyprus and that we do not regard Enosis as a discussable subject?
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his communications with the Greek Government, they have expressed themselves as quite satisfied with the present situation?
    Mr. Dugdale: Communications with foreign Governments are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the manner in which this plebiscite was carried out and that no duress was exercised by the churches on the people in the taking of the plebiscite?
    Mr. Dugdale: No; quite frankly, I am not altogether quite satisfied. I have heard of many plebiscites being conducted better than this one.
    Mr. McAdden: In view of the dissatisfaction which exists in Cyprus and the conduct of the plebiscite, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, does he not also consider this unholy alliance between the Godless Communists and the God-fearing Greeks is a strange one?
    Mr. Driberg: Can I take it from the original answer of my right hon. Friend, which did not dispute the percentage in my Question, that, broadly, he is not disputing the accuracy of my statement

    1281
    that there is a widespread sentimental feeling in favour of this reform, and will he observe that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman now seeks to censor matters which can be raised in this House?

    Town Council, Limassol
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the events leading to the imprisonment for an indefinite period of the Municipal Council of Limassol, Cyprus.
    Mr. Dugdale: The Cyprus Municipal Corporations Law provides that the approval of a Commissioner is required for the naming of municipal streets and that it is an offence to put up a name-plate not so approved. The Limassol Town Council disregarded this provision and substituted for two existing names new names which had not been approved. In February, a local Order-in-Gouncil was made ordering the Town Council to reaffix the old name-plates. This Order was ignored. On 29th April the Supreme Court ordered the members of the Council to comply with the original Order. The Supreme Court Order was also ignored, and on 3rd June six out of the eight Councillors present in Cyprus were committed for contempt.
    Mr. Driberg: If it is found necessary to imprison for an indefinite period the elected mayor and most of the councillors of a town merely because they want the name of a street to be changed from "Sir Richmond Palmer Street" to "28th October Street," is it not going to be a little difficult to persuade them that it is essential to the maintenance of their civil liberties that they should remain within the British Empire?
    Mr. Dugdale: No one likes a law of this kind, but the law about street naming being there, and the councillors having deliberately defied the court, there was no option but to imprison them.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: They said that sort of thing at Peterloo.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say whether these events were contemporaneous with the holding of the plebescite referred to in an earlier question?
    Mr. Dugdale: I should say that the law was contemporaneous.
    Mr. Driberg: If the law is so foolish, why not change it?

  NIGERIA

    Cocoa Tree Disease
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement on swollen shoot disease in the cocoa areas of Nigeria; what compensation is to be paid to the owners of diseased trees, especially in areas in which it has now been decided to abandon the cutting-out campaign; and what steps have been taken to investigate complaints of the methods used by some inspectors.
    Mr. Dugdale: The Nigerian Government and Cocoa Marketing Board are now urgently considering plans for the rehabilitation of the endemic areas with particular reference to the encouragement of alternative crops. Compensation at the rate of 2s. 6d. per tree is only paid for trees which are cut out. All cutting out is supervised by an officer who frequently makes close checks to prevent abuses. All complaints are immediately investigated.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon Gentleman remember that the very over-optimistic statement on this subject made by the previous Colonial Secretary has led to grave delay in tackling this question? As there is about £75 million in the kitty, owing to the Government's profit on cocoa, will they use it to make a really big effort to rescue, even at the last minute, the whole of the cocoa-growing trade?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot admit that there has been a serious delay. The problem is being tackled adequately. It is an exceedingly difficult problem, and it will be tackled with the utmost possible despatch.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that because of the widespread nature of this disease it is essential that other parts of the Empire should be investigated with a view to starting a cocoa industry in other areas?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is another question entirely.

    Disturbances (Evidence)
    Mr. Selwyn Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date he proposes to publish the minutes of the evidence given at the inquiry into the recent disturbances in the Eastern Province of Nigeria.
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is his intention to make available to hon. Members the minutes of evidence taken by the Commission of Inquiry into the disorders in the Eastern Province of Nigeria.
    Mr. Dugdale: A copy of the verbatim record of the proceedings of the Commission has been placed in the Library of the House. As it is very long, my right hon. Friend does not propose to publish it.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that that is exceedingly unsatisfactory, and that it is quite impossible to make a detailed examination of the evidence of this very important inquiry unless it is possible to have the use of a copy at one's leisure? The putting of only one copy in the Library is completely unsatisfactory. It is impossible to do justice to the very important issues involved unless every Member of the House has available the full minutes of the evidence.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend thought that that would be adequate, because it will be a quite expensive and long business to publish this document; but if there is a desire to have it, quite naturally we could get it. We do not, of course, want to withhold any information from the House.
    Mr. Eden: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman—I think I asked the Minister for this last week—that if the House is to consider this matter intelligently it is necessary that we must have the printed document? We cannot all queue up in the Library for it.
    Mr. Reid: Is the cost of publication of this document very heavy? Is it in the region of about £1,000 or not?
    Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the evidence will be available to the Press in the meantime?
    Mr. Dugdale: If it is published it must be available to the Press.

    Labour Relations Advisers
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the ages, the experience and the qualifications of Mr. Edward Cain and Mr. P. C. Weeks, who have been chosen by him to advise on trade union organisations and labour relations in Nigeria; in particular, what experience either of them have had of labour relations in the Colonial Empire; and what Colonies they have visited.
    Mr. Dugdale: Mr. Cain, who is 58, went to work in the pits at the age of 13 and has had a life-time of experience as a miner, trade unionist and local government councillor. Mr. Weekes, who is 30, holds a degree in mining engineering and has had four years as a colliery manager in South Wales. Both were chosen because of their experience of labour relations in the coal industry in this country, since it was advice and help from the United Kingdom that the Governor sought in his published despatch of 18th May.
    I take this opportunity of informing the House that the two remaining members of the party, selected in consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation respectively, will be Mr. Andrew Dalgleish and Colonel C. E. Ponsonby. Both they and my Assistant Labour Adviser, of course, have colonial as well as United Kingdom experience.
    Mr. Robinson: Arising out of the two first-mentioned appointments, will the Minister say why he chooses as advisers on Colonial affairs men who have had no experience of the Colonial Empire at all? Is he not aware that labour relations in the Colonies are a very different problem from what they are in this country?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is just the point I sought to make clear in my answer to the Question. What was wanted was advice as to how these things are conducted in this country, as they have not been altogether satisfactorily conducted at Enugu. It is hoped to provide them with that advice.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend say how anyone who has spent years in the Colonies can possibly have trade union experience?

  KENYA (DISTURBANCES)
  Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is satisfied with the standard of equipment of the Kenya police; and whether this force has available the weapons and wireless equipment necessary for the proper maintenance of peace and good order in the particular conditions existing in East Africa;
  (2) whether he has now received the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the murder by Suk tribesmen of police and administrative officers near Lake Baringo; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Dugdale: The Commission of Inquiry into the recent affray north of Lake Baringo is still taking evidence. It is probable that the adequacy of police equipment will be among the issues dealt with by the Commission. I should, therefore, prefer to await its report before making any statement on the subject.
  Mr. Alport: Is the Minister aware that very grave concern is expressed in this country by relations of serving personnel in East Africa at the reports which they have received of the inadequacy of the equipment of the police, which has consisted of .303 rifles and .45 pistols, and of the inadequate wireless communication facilities? Although the Report of the Inquiry must be awaited, would not the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to improve the equipment without waiting for the report?
  Mr. Dugdale: I have no doubt that all these matters will be taken into consideration by the Commission of Inquiry.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Special Service Engagement
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many transfers from continuous service engagement have taken place since the inception of this transfer scheme; and what percentage they represent of the numbers involved.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): Approximately 3,500. This if 71 per cent. of the number eligible.
    Commander Noble: Although this system may be a very good recruiting aid, will the Minister give great consideration to this problem in view of the shortage of senior ratings there may be in the next few years?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, but the hon. and gallant Member will realise that if they transfer to this special service engagement it does not necessarily mean that they will leave the Service when their seven years expires.

    Dockyards
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what commercial work is at present on hand in Navy dockyards; and how much of it has been accepted at under cost.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter J. Edwards): The capacity available in the home dockyards for commercial work is now very small. Commercial orders employ at present fewer than 100 men out of a total of over 40,000. The small orders are undertaken either at actual cost or on a fixed price quoted on estimated costs.
    Major Lloyd: Will the Minister bear in mind the highly critical comments of the Auditor and Comptroller-General about a recent contract which involved the taxpayers in a loss of more than £171,000? Will he see that such contracts, which cause a loss to the taxpayer, are not undertaken. Many private interests could take them on and probably make a profit?
    Mr. Edwards: I prefer to leave that matter for the time being because it is sub judice, and has to be reported to the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Snow: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the end. of the war His Majesty's dockyards undertook very difficult work indeed, for which outside engineering industry was not prepared to contract?
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what measures he takes to prevent waste of timber in naval dockyards.
    Mr. W. J. Edwards: The custody, accountancy and issue of timber is governed by regulations laid down to

    1287
    ensure that all possible precautions are taken against theft, misappropriation and waste. These regulations are enforced by the responsible dockyard officers.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain naval establishments when a plank is taken out of store to have a piece cut out for use the remainder, instead of being put back into store, is cut up and thrown away, through laziness? Will he keep an eye on that practice?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of anything of the sort. Responsibility is laid on the dockyard establishments to see that no waste is taking place, but if the hon. and gallant Member can give me instances I will inquire into them.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall the terrific waste in high grade timber in the Royal Naval establishment at Almondbank?
    Mr. Edwards: No, I do not.

    Employee, Chatham (Suspension)
    Squadron-Leader Burdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why Mr. F. R. Adams who was suspended from his employment in Chatham Dockyard for reasons of security has been reengaged for work in the same section from which he was suspended.
    Mr. W. J. Edwards: When suspended Mr. Adams was employed in the engineering department of Chatham dockyard proper. He is now employed in a separate section of the same department, some miles from the yard. In his new surroundings he will not be employed in connection with work the nature of which is vital to the security of the State.
    Squadron-Leader Burden: Is the Minister aware that as a shop steward and, therefore, a strong member of the union, this man has opportunities for spreading Communism? Is he satisfied that this man has now become a reliable person as the result of his suspension on full pay, and that he will not endeavour to spread Communism among other members of the staff of His Majesty's dockyard?
    Mr. Edwards: I am quite satisfied that he comes within the terms of the statement announced in the last Parliament.

    Shipbuilding, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the national need for more ship tonnage, what steps he is taking to meet it; and if he will ensure that Aberdeen shipyards, where there is unemployment, get their fair share of orders to build new ships and to repair old ships.
    Mr. W. J. Edwards: The future requirements of British shipping are being adequately met by the ships on order and under construction in British yards. As regards the position in Aberdeen, the future prospects of the shipyards will depend on the ability of the yards to obtain further work.

  GOVERNMENT PAPERS (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. Errollasked the Prime Minister if he will publish an up to date list by Departments of all accounts and papers which for any reason, statutory or otherwise, are required to be presented periodically to this House.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. I propose to lay a copy of this list in the Library. It will not include Estimates, or Appropriation Accounts.
  Mr. Erroll: Could lists be made available to all Members, instead of just one copy being placed in the Library?
  The Prime Minister: I really think there is no special reason why that should be done. The hon. Member is asking, as he is entitled to ask, for very voluminous information—I do not know for what purpose—but if it is put in the Library it will be available to everyone.
  Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Press have no access to the Library?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the Press have any interest in this.

  FOOD PRODUCTION, QUEENSLAND
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the advisability of merging the Overseas Food Corporation and the Colonial Development Corporation with statutory provision for the project in Queensland.
  The Prime Minister: I can see no advantage in disturbing the present administrative arrangements by such a change.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a certain amount of overlapping between the two bodies, and will he at least consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the possibility of these two bodies being merged?
  The Prime Minister: Consultation has already taken place.

  TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the burden of high transport costs, bearing particularly heavily on the people living in the remote areas of the Highlands and Islands, and in view of the aggravation of this burden from the recent increase in freight charges and in petrol tax, he will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into transport costs as they affect life in all remote rural areas.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The burden of transport costs on remote rural areas is appreciated, but I should not be justified in recommending to His Majesty the appointment of a Royal Commission. A draft charges scheme for merchandise traffic is now being prepared by the British Transport Commission for submission to the Transport Tribunal. There will be full opportunity of making representations to the Tribunal, at a public inquiry, on behalf of users in remote rural areas.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he thinks this scheme will be ready?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot say, without notice.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposes to do in the meantime to alleviate this burden?
  Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend assume that the Transport Commission should accept responsibility for providing these rural areas with transport facilities?

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (COMPENSATION)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Lord President of the Council whether arrangements will now be made to publish the amounts paid, and the names of those to whom payment has been made, by nationalised undertakings for loss of office and emoluments.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The settlement of individual cases of compensation for loss of office and emoluments is a matter of the day-to-day administration of the boards of the socialised industries, and I regret that I am unable to comply with my hon. and gallant Friend's request that I should arrange for the publication of the details.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If this information is not to be made available, how is it to be possible to substantiate or disprove statements that certain hon. Members of this House have received very substantial payments by way of compensation? Would not it be in the public interest that at least this category of payment should not be kept secret?
  Mr. Morrison: I see the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I am sorry that I cannot help him. It really is important to maintain the principle that the boards should deal with matters for which they are responsible on a day-to-day basis. It would be possible for my hon. and gallant Friend to write to one of the boards, but I cannot say what the answer would be; however, hon. Members opposite may perhaps be relieved at the answer.
  Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain road hauliers have been deprived of their jobs without any compensation whatever?
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the important principle involved in this matter, may I give notice of my intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible?

  ENGINEERING SCHEMES (HYDRAULIC MODELS)
  Mr. Errollasked the Lord President of the Council in view of the number of schemes of national importance which await investigation on hydraulic models, what prospects there are that the problems

  1291
  surrounding these schemes will be solvable by scientific study at the Hydraulics Research Organisation's laboratory due to be opened in the spring of 1951.
  Mr. H. Morrison: There is no doubt that the scientific study by this Organisation of the problems presented by engineering schemes will yield information which will enable such schemes to be planned with greater efficiency and economy. These studies will, when appropriate, include the use of hydraulic models.

  MILITARY EQUIPMENT (LOANS TO UJS.S.R.)
  Major Lloydasked the Minister of Defence what equipment lent to Russia for the period of the war has not yet been returned.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): The only equipment still due to be returned by the Soviet Government is one destroyer.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Ewe Mutton
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Food what proportion of the weekly meat allocation to retailers for the periods beginning 28th May, 4th, 11th and 18th June, respectively, was comprised of imported ewe mutton; what protests have been made to him through trade channels or consultative committees; what action he proposes to take; and whether he will exclude this unsuitable meat from the ration.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): The figures for ewe mutton alone are not available. Imported ewe and wether mutton is estimated to have made up some 13 per cent. of the meat allocation for the first two weeks in question, 15 per cent. for the third week and about 8 per cent. for this week. Some protests have recently been made by the trade about ewe mutton, but we cannot at present remove it from the ration; and it was freely sold by retailers before the war.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proportion of this unsuitable ewe mutton in Argentine shipments is four or five times higher than it was before the war? Is not it true that we are the only country which will take these scrapings of the Argentine barrel? Why does he continue to buy this unsuitable stuff?
    Mr. Webb: The whole of the premises in that supplementary question are wrong. It is not true to say it is four or five times higher. The fact is that a good many people now having to use this ewe mutton did not have to use it before the war. It was then largely confined to people with small purses. But people with large purses are now having to use it, and are, I think, getting a valuable experience.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Can my right hon. Friend say, in the interests of science, how the discovery was made that this meat was ewe and was mutton?

    Milk (Retail Sales)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food why retail dairy shops are prohibited from selling milk for consumption upon the premises unless specially licensed.
    Mr. Webb: There is no such prohibition.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the complexity of these regulations, some retailers have been under the impression that this prohibition did exist?
    Mr. Webb: There are no regulations now; they have all been taken off. It is quite free.

    Cocoa
    Sir R. Glynasked the Minister of Food what is the quantity of cocoa purchased by his Department for United Kingdom use during the last 12 months; what is the anticipated fall in production due to disease of the trees; and how long it is estimated that it will take after the new plantations are established to bring imports up to normal figures or beyond.
    Mr. Webb: We cannot, as a trading Ministry, disclose up-to-date figures of our purchases. But net imports of cocoa

    1293
    beans for the 12 months ending 31st May, 1950, were nearly 150,000, as compared with an average of 96,000 tons for the five pre-war years up to 1938. The second and third parts of the Question, which, I think, relate to West African cocoa, should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Sir H. Williams: In view of this large increase in the import of cocoa why are we importing chocolate from Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Fernyhough: To eat it.

    Australian Rabbits
    Sir R. Glynasked the Minister of Food what has been the total quantity of rabbits imported from Australia during the past 12 months; whether any further orders have been, or will be placed; and what has been the cost of those transactions.
    Mr. Webb: Fifty-four thousand tons, costing nearly £5 million, in the 12 months ended 31st May, 1950. We expect to get a further 1,200 tons, costing £86,000, to complete our purchases. The Ministry are placing no further orders.
    Sir R. Glyn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that, by the importation of these rabbits from Australia, the price of rabbits indigenous to this country has so fallen that the rabbits are doing untold damage to home crops?
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of these rabbits have been sold to the Continent?
    Mr. Webb: Not without notice.

    Strawberries
    Mr. Deedesasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to ensure the proper distribution of this year's strawberry crop, in view of the reluctance of manufacturers to make contracts with the home producers.
    Mr. Webb: All controls on soft fruits have been abolished and strawberries can now be marketed without restriction. Obviously, I cannot compel manufacturers to buy them from the growers.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because his Department seriously miscalculated not only the amount of fresh fruit, but fruit pulp to be imported, that this difficulty has arisen? What steps can he take to find out what the likely figure would be for the home production?
    Mr. Webb: Only by imposing a lot of those controls to which the Opposition objects.

    Sheep, Islington (Condemnation)
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Food what was the total number and weight of sheep slaughtered at the Metropolitan Cattle Market, Islington, on 3rd June, 1950; what percentage was subsequently condemned; and what was the consequent loss to his Department.
    Mr. Webb: Five hundred and eleven sheep, weighing about 13 tons, were slaughtered at the Metropolitan Cattle Market, Islington, on 3rd June, and despite all the normal precautions about 50 per cent. by weight had to be condemned as result of the very hot weather over the week-end. The exact cost of the condemnations to my Department will not be known until our records have been examined in detail, and this will take some little time.
    Mr. Thomton-Kemsley: When the Minister talks about the very hot weather over the week-end, are not records available to him of exactly the same thing happening over mutton in the time of his predecessor at this slaughter house last summer. Has not the trade made representations that there ought not to be slaughtering at this slaughter house at Saturday or on Friday, because of the lack of cold storage accommodation, which, in this case, was full before slaughtering commenced?
    Mr. Webb: I am aware of the shortage of refrigerating capacity in this slaughter house, but we are limited by capital investment considerations. We are doing our best to put it right and I think that by next year we shall have adequate accommodation.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the Minister limited by capital investment considerations from slaughtering sheep on days of the week other than Friday and Saturday?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is any disciplinary action to be taken against the officials concerned for this second occasion on which wicked waste has taken place?
    Mr. Webb: I am waiting for a report on the whole situation.

MALAYA AND HONG KONG (MINISTERS' VISITS)
Mr. Speaker: There are two statements to be made, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for War. They both relate to Malaya. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to hear them both and then to ask supplementaries. I must leave it to the House, but I make that suggestion.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to inform hon. Members of the salient impressions which I bring back from my tour of Malaya and Singapore. I am indebted to all those responsible for the admirable way in which it was arranged. I was able to meet and talk with people from every section of the community, to see the situation for myself in many different parts of the country, and to discuss with the leaders, official and unofficial, their present and future problems.
The first object of the Secretary of State for War and myself was to see what more could be done towards ending the emergency. We discussed fully with General Briggs, and the civil and military authorities, the plan of operations on which General Briggs has now embarked. It would not be in the public interest for me to give details of this plan, which involves complete co-ordination between the Army, police and the civil administration. But we are convinced it is a realistic and effective plan and our confidence in General Briggs is shared throughout Malaya. I am not going to say how long the plan will take to succeed I must warn the House not to expect quick and spectacular results: the aim is steady and deliberate progress, consolidating the gains at every stage—and that, we are convinced, is the right way. Having seen the difficulties of terrain and communications for myself, I do not underestimate
1296
the task: on the other hand, I know it is a task that we can face squarely and confidently.
In saying that, I am encouraged by the undoubted fact that the vast majority of the people in Malaya, of every community, are opposed to the Communists. We have their good-will in this joint battle, to which they are making a great contribution. The terrorist movement has no roots in any legitimate national aspirations—I want to make that clear—and indeed the Malays themselves have sent thousands of men into the security forces to defend their towns and villages.
I do not ignore the fact that threats and intimidation make certain sections of the community fearful to withhold aid from the terrorists or to supply information to the authorities. It is vital in this campaign to cut the terrorists' channels of supply and communication and to improve our own sources of intelligence. That is very largely a problem of providing protection for the civilian population and of bringing scattered communities within the orbit of administration, by such measures as the settlement schemes which are now under way. It is one of the main objectives of the Briggs plan to create the conditions in which effective action to that end will become increasingly possible.
Manpower requirements for the police and civil administration have been reassessed in the light of the Briggs plan, and urgent steps are now being taken to recruit in the United Kingdom nearly 300 police officers within the next few months, as well as additional administrative officers.
I found in the administrations of Malaya and Singapore, as well as among the people everywhere, not only a determination to end the emergency as soon as possible, but also a keen appreciation of the need for developing the resources of the country, for improving the social services and standard of living, and for steady political and constitutional progress. Despite the emergency, plans for social and economic development are being laid which are imaginative and far-sighted. In particular, I welcome the schemes for meeting the vastly increased demands for education both in the Federation and in Singapore, and for the economic development of the rural areas of Malaya.

1297
The Federation of Malaya put to me a request for further financial assistance towards the emergency, in order that those plans should not be hampered. On the understanding that it is the firm intention of the Government of the Federation to implement such a programme of social and economic development, and provided that Malaya herself will take appropriate measures, largely to that end, to increase her revenues to the limit of her own capacity—as I am sure she will—His Majesty's Government will certainly be prepared to give further assistance in this effort by the people of Malaya to destroy Communist banditry in their own country. The amount and form of that help are now under consideration.
In the political sphere, I found on every hand the warmest friendship towards Great Britain and a firm desire that the association between the peoples of Britain and Malaya should be maintained and strengthened. I found also, in the work of the Communities Liaison Committee on constitutional and political problems, in the trade unions, in the Police Force, and in every aspect of everyday life, a most encouraging spirit of co-operation between the various communities. It is for the peoples of Malaya, in their progress towards self-government within the Commonwealth, to build up for themselves a democracy which is firmly rooted in agreement and common loyalty among the communities: and there is good hope that the main lines of constitutional advance in the future will increasingly evolve from such agreement.
I should like to pay tribute to the planters and miners, and all those responsible for the remarkable economic recovery of Malaya since the war: and to acknowledge the great contribution they are making, despite difficulties and dangers, to the economic strength of the Commonwealth. As an old trade unionist, I was also greatly encouraged by the talks I had with trade union representatives in Malaya and Singapore. They reaffirmed to me their unqualified support of the Government in the campaign against the terrorists; and made plain their recognition of the responsible part which they had to play in the democratic development of their country.
I was concerned to find in some quarters that the clear and unequivocal meaning of the statement made by the
1298
Prime Minister to the House last March about Great Britain's intentions in Malaya had not been fully appreciated. I took every opportunity of assuring the people of Malaya that we should be at their side not only in winning the emergency but also in building the Malaya of the future.
In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude for the kindness and hospitality with which I was received everywhere in Malaya and my admiration for all those who are so courageously and resolutely carrying on with their daily task and keeping the economic wheels of the country turning.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Strachey.
Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. We have just listened to an eight-minute speech. We have all been very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say, and much of what he has said is debatable. Do not you think that it is rather undesirable that we should have these long speeches when there can be no subsequent Debate?
Mr. Speaker: We have debated Malaya several times. There was a Question down today asking for a statement. I really think that on an important matter like this the Minister should be entitled to make a statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It may even be a long statement. In the House itself there are Supply Days and, if hon. Members wish, they can always debate the statement later.
Sir H. Williams: Are we entitled to debate in this House unless there is a Motion before us?
Mr. Speaker: There is no Motion before the House. We are hearing two statements. Mr. Strachey.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I desire to make a statement on my recent visit to the troops in Malaya and Hong Kong.
The House may rest assured that His Majesty's Government are taking, and will take, the military measures necessary to the restoration of law and order in Malaya. Substantial reinforcements of land and air forces are arriving in Malaya. I wish to emphasise, however,

1299
that the problem is not exclusively a military one. General Briggs has put into operation a phased programme under which the efforts of the Army, the police and the civil administration are being carefully co-ordinated.
One of the main objects of this programme is to secure that, when the Army has restored law and order, adequate forces of the police and civil administration are available to ensure that there is no reversion to banditry. General Briggs has recently issued a statement warning public opinion that these operations must take a considerable time before they show their full fruits.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that I found that all units of the British Army in Malaya are showing a most determined spirit. The strain of conducting these most toilsome operations is not a light one, but it is being borne with admirable cheerfulness. I made a practice of asking each of the National Service men with whom I spoke whether he preferred to do his period of National Service in Great Britain or in Malaya. Out of several dozen, all except two replied that they preferred to serve in Malaya.
I have no doubt that Far Eastern Command is today a well-found force in respect of weapons, stores and equipment. Nevertheless, new needs for equipment and new suggestions for weapons are made from time to time in operations of this sort, and we at the War Office are doing our utmost to see that these needs and suggestions are quickly met. The health of the troops is excellent. The medical authorities assure me that, taking one thing with another, the sickness rate was below, rather than above, that of troops in the United Kingdom.
Finally, it is possible to speak with confidence of the result of the operations in Malaya for the following reason. In February, 1948, the Malayan Communist Party decided to undertake an armed uprising. This rising is in no sense a national movement for independence supported by the people of Malaya. On the contrary, over much of Malaya it has been possible for the authorities to arm the civil population on the largest scale without fear of the arms passing into the hands of the Communists. This is surely the acid test of where the sympathies of the majority of the population lie.
1300
British troops serving in Malaya, their relatives and the nation as a whole may therefore rest assured that we are in no sense attempting to suppress a national movement of the Malayan people seeking independence. On the contrary, we are aiding the great majority of the people of Malaya in preventing a small but well-armed and well-organised minority from seizing power in their country.
Mr. Eden: I think the House as a whole will be glad to have these two statements, and would also wish to welcome the two right hon. Gentlemen back from journeys which were certainly not without personal, and perhaps also some political, risk. It is a little difficult to keep in order in this business, but may I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to accept that, so far as the financial aspect of the problem is concerned, we consider that a case could be made out for a measure of financial assistance to the authorities in Malaya, in view of the burden which they have to carry, and we shall, therefore, examine that proposition when it is made to us.
May I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement that it would be most unwise to expect any early results from the new measures that are being taken? However, it is an occasion which we ought to have in mind. May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on one other point which has occurred to me—whether he would, from this House, send a message after his statement endorsing what he had to say about the planters, and also send a message of confidence in our commanders and troops in the very unwelcome task which they have to discharge?
I would ask the Secretary of State for War to accept that, when I asked the troops whether they liked Malaya, I did not get the same answer as he got, which is perhaps solely due to that inherent sense of discipline which is so strong in the British Army. Whether they like it or not, we all think they are doing their job extremely well, and we would wish to tell them so.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: May I put one question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in connection with the very important resettlement of squatters scheme which he has mentioned? Is

1301
he making quite certain that that proportion which it has been found impossible to absorb into the country can, by means of the powers and ability of the Minister, be sent out of the country, because, otherwise, they will present a very difficult and expensive problem.
I wish to put to the Secretary of State for War two questions? First, to what extent is he satisfied that in every case the most appropriate equipment, particularly the question whether the American type of rifle might not be more appropriate in certain circumstances, owing to the speed with which it can be used, is available, and whether better canvas arrangements are available, because of the quick rotting qualities of canvas, particularly in that climate? Second, to what extent is the right hon. Gentleman coordinating the effort that has to be made against Communism with Indo-China, which proved conclusively during the war that it was the first line of defence of Malaya?
Mr. Griffiths: The resettlement of the squatter population is one of the most urgent problems, and it is also one of the most difficult. It is very difficult to resettle a large number of people in other territories of Malaya, but, in the process of resettlement, the point which the hon. Gentleman has made will certainly be borne in mind. Where there are people who it is thought may be unsafe to settle, urgent steps are being taken to see whether they can be detained or in some way moved out of Malaya.
Mr. Strachey: On the question of armaments, it is perfectly true, as I said in my statement, that suggestions for new arms are made from time to time, and that the suggestion for the American M.2 carbine has been made. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have been able to arrange that a supply of the American M.2 carbine will go to Malaya in the very near future. I think however that the House would be making a mistake if it attached overwhelming importance to any particular new weapon. The American M.2 might very well prove a very useful weapon, but it is not a decisive element in the campaign.
On the question of canvas, as the hon. Gentleman said, the climate does rot canvas quickly, and it is important that,
1302
in the fixed bases, permanent barracks and married quarters of bricks and mortar should be got on with. In Singapore and Kuala Lumpur and in Malaya generally, I was pleased to see the progress that has been made in that respect. It compares favourably with Hong Kong, where, for understandable reasons, the progress is not so good.
May I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I did not ask the troops whether they liked Malaya. The specific question was to National Service men whether they would rather serve out their time in the United Kingdom on the barrack square here or in Malaya, and it is perfectly true that the great majority of them without hesitation said that, taking one thing with another, they would rather serve in Malaya.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give an approximate estimate of the weekly cost of the military measures now being undertaken in Malaya? I do not ask him to give anything which cannot be disclosed for reasons of security, but is not the House entitled to know something of the cost of these military measures? I would also ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he visited any of the camps in which 10,000 people are confined; whether he interviewed any of the people; what are the conditions in which they are living, and if it is not possible to release some of these people?
Mr. Griffiths: No, I did not visit any of the camps. It is not possible to release any of them, but what we are now considering is whether it is possible to move some of them out of Malaya.
Mr. Gammans: I desire to ask the Colonial Secretary two questions? First, as a result of his visit to Malaya, is he convinced of the danger of allowing the new government in China to open consulates in Malaya, and, if so, would he be good enough to convey his views to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary? My second question is whether he is satisfied that we are getting co-operation from Siam in regard to the people coming from across the frontier and infiltration generally?
Mr. Griffiths: As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, perhaps he will address that to my right hon.

1303
Friend the Foreign Secretary. In regard to the second part, there is very good co-operation between us and the authorities in Siam on the frontier.
Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary if any effort has been made to find homes for squatters who were peremptorily moved from their sites in Singapore, some of whom had been in Malaya for nearly 30 years? Secondly, while all hon. Members on both sides of the House deprecate terrorism of any kind, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he has made it clear that in no way do we wish to stem the legitimate efforts of Malaya to reach self-government and nationalism and secure freedom from contempt?
Mr. Griffiths: In reply to the first part of the question, I think we should be making a mistake in thinking of these squatters as enemies of the Malayan Government or of ourselves. I saw many of them, and they are very good people indeed. It was a pleasure to see some of the land they had got under cultivation in a very short time, and our endeavour is to resettle them in homes with new land which they can cultivate. We are hoping to proceed in that direction very quickly.
With regard to the second part of the question, I think I made it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear, that we want to help the Malayan people to defeat the bandits, but, equally, that we wish to help them in social development and towards self-government.
Commander Noble: Arising out of his earlier reply, will the Secretary of State say whether there are any items of equipment asked for by the authorities in Malaya which are still outstanding?
Mr. Strachey: From time to time, of course, requests and proposals come in from the Command for new items of equipment, and they are satisfied as soon as those items are available. I suppose that every week there is always some item outstanding, and there is at the present moment.
Mr. Fernyhough: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is making any arrangement for those boys who express
1304
the desire to complete their service in this country to be brought back?
Mr. Strachey: Certainly not, Sir. Naturally, it is not for a Service man to choose the particular field in which he wishes to serve.
Squadron-Leader Burden: In view of the experience of the right hon. Gentleman when questioning National Service men, will the Minister say whether when questioning them he was disguised as a soldier or as the Secretary of State for War?
Mr. Rankin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said that the forces against us were small but well organised. Could he give the House any information as to the size of the forces against us? Could he estimate the smallness.
Mr. Strachey: It is impossible to give an exact figure, but it is a few thousand. However, that is not the extent of theopposition, because I think that when they are well organised that is a very important qualification. They are organised by the Malayan Communist Party, and that is a small minority of the entire Malayan population, but it is a fairly well organised network throughout the country.
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's original reply about equipment, can he say whether the helicopters and the wireless sets of a certain type, long asked for, have yet arrived?
Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Three helicopters have arrived, and I had a flight in one of them. It is an interesting development, and I think they may prove very useful in the jungle. It is an entirely new development, and they are undergoing development trials out there and have not yet been used to bring wounded men out of the jungle, but it is hoped to find an opportunity of doing that in the near future. I think they may cut down very considerably the time which it takes to get a wounded man to hospital for operation. We have real hopes regarding that.
As to the wireless sets, we are continually receiving proposals for new types. There are no fewer than three types being used there which each have their advantages and disadvantages. It is a very

1305
difficult thing to get the ideal wireless set for these very long jungle patrols where the set has to be carried on a man's back.
Sir H. Williams: Will the Secretary of State for the Colonies say whether he studied the article which appeared in the "Sunday Pictorial" while he was away indicating that the white population of Singapore were behaving very badly in the luxury living line instead of giving adequate support to those taking part in the military operation?
Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir, I have not seen the article.
Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of seeing it?
Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to publicise the appeal made by Mr. Nehru the other day in Singapore to the people of Malaya that force is no remedy for them? Will he also take note of Mr. Nehru's second suggestion that, in due course, British power will have to leave Malaya and that we shall have to grant the Malayans their independence?
Mr. Griffiths: I read Mr. Nehru's statement with great interest, and I hope that what he said about violence being no remedy will reach the Communists.
Captain Duncan: Does the Secretary of State for the Colonies realise the important part which intelligence can play in this war, and, in connection with his appeal for recruits for the police, will he cover India as well where there are a large number of ex-Indian police officers of great experience in this sort of intelligence? In view of the previous question which I put to the Secretary of State for War on the subject of doctors, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied that there is now an adequate number of doctors in Malaya and Hong Kong?
Mr. Griffiths: With regard to the first part of the question, we are indeed very mindful of the fact that the building up of a good intelligence service is the key to success in Malaya, and we recently sent out an expert with Indian experience for that purpose. We shall certainly take advantage of those available when we recruit for the service.
Mr. Profumo: Can the Secretary of State for the Colonies say whether broadcasts from civilian stations are being harnessed to the strategic scheme, and what influence the Commander-in-Chief has in this connection?
Mr. Griffiths: Broadcasting is indeed one of the very important services, and I am taking steps to improve the efficiency of broadcasting and shall be providing assistance from this country to that end.
Mr. Harrison: Could my right hon. Friend give me an indication from where the rebels are receiving their main source of arms?
Mr. Griffiths: So far the view held by all the authorities is that there is no evidence that they are receiving arms from outside. It must be remembered that many arms were left lying about in Malaya at the end of the war.
Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can the Secretary of State for War say whether the additional medical personnel has arrived, and whether he is satisfied that an adequate service is being provided?
Mr. Strachey: I naturally looked into this matter very carefully. I think that the supply of specialists in Malaya is completely satisfactory. I found no hospital or unit which felt they were short of specialists, although it is true to say that in some cases they are short of general practitioner establishment. For example, the base hospital at Singapore is short of general practitioners in the sense that they are below establishment. There are quite enough practitioners to cope with the work in hand now, and no man is suffering for lack of general practitioner attention. However, I should like to get the number up a bit towards establishment in case the present wonderful health record of the troops does not continue quite as well. That we are attempting to do. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty of getting general practitioners at the moment, but we are sending more out.
Mr. W. Fletcher: On a point of order. I asked the Secretary of State for War a question about Indo-China which he did not answer. Would it be possible for him to say something about that?
Mr. Strachey: I did not have an opportunity of answering it. It is a very wide question, indeed, but it is known that our military authorities and the French military authorities are in touch in the Far East.
Mr. Keeling: Will the Secretary of State for the Colonies at any rate discuss with the Foreign Secretary the question of Chinese consulates in Malaya?
Mr. Griffiths: I have already said that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Of course we discuss these problems together.
Mr. James Hudson: Am I to understand that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies accepts Mr. Nehru's statement about violence being no remedy as something that should be considered by the Communists, he has made an attempt to bring home that point of view to his colleague the Secretary of State for War?
Mr. David Renton: Can the Secretary of State for War assure the House that the active service capacity of troops in Malaya is not being wasted by too great an insistence upon peace-time paper work and methods of administration, and that the active service alternative will, as far as possible, prevail?
Mr. Strachey: Yes, I think I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I should like to say to my hon. Friend the
1308
Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), that I, for one, accept the view—and I should have thought it was apparent in my right hon. Friend's statement—that we do not think the use of violence, unavoidable as it is today, is any remedy for this position, and that the final remedy must come by the social, economic and political development of Malaya.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Referring to the statement about medical arrangements, can the Secretary of State for War assure the House that medical units in this war area are actually on a mobilised footing, for equipment, establishment and accounting? Are they actually mobilised as medical units?
Mr. Strachey: I could not answer the question technically without notice, because there is no state of war in Malaya formally in the legal sense of the words, but the units, are, I think, thoroughly well found in equipment and thoroughly adequate to their task. One anxiety I felt was to get a rather larger number of general practitioners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be taken after Nine o'clock."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

ALLOTMENTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
4.3 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Every Member of the House will recall that during the war one of the slogans that inspired both men and women and, I believe, children, to give all the help they could to Britain's cause was the call to "Dig for Victory." We heard it on the wireless, in all forms, from the bald official announcement after the six o'clock news to many helpful references by the late Tommy Handley in "Itma"; whilst, until his death, Mr. Middleton stimulated and encouraged us all by his avuncular advice every Sunday after lunch.
We also owed much to the Press for giving invaluable assistance in making this slogan known to everybody and in inspiring hundreds of thousands to dig harder than ever before. At the height of the blitz, in 1940, the Lord Mayor of London invited to a luncheon at the Mansion House representatives of local authorities, at which my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) put plainly before them the desperate position on the food front, and urged them to do all in their power to encourage and foster the allotment movement, and so help and relieve our farmers so that they could devote their energies more and more to growing crops other than vegetables. I had the privilege of doing my bit by roaming about the country addressing public gatherings almost everywhere. The response of the public at that time was magnificent.
Napoleon once called us a nation of shopkeepers, but it is true to say that in the early 40's we became a nation of vegetable gardeners. In a tribute to the success of the "Dig for Victory"
1310
campaign, a White Paper published in 1944 stated that private gardeners had
"themselves produced a substantial proportion of the vegetables essential for the maintenance of health and workers' efficiency"
in war-time. There is no need to tell the House that since the war ended, although enthusiasm has waned here and there, the small man's contribution to our food supplies has been and is as valuable as it was when the saving of shipping was a real and vital factor.
We launched the "Dig for Plenty" campaign to sustain the efforts of diggers that might be flagging while we tackled the job on a wider basis on our farms. I should like to take this opportunity, long delayed, of acknowledging the very great debt we owe to those diggers who answered every call made upon them, both during war-time and since then. Their contributions to our food supplies have been, and are, of inestimable value and, I believe, those who dug and are digging deserve the best we can do for them.
It is true, however, that we must take a realistic view and face the fact that we cannot go on, indefinitely, using for allotments all the land put to that purpose under Defence Regulations. I am afraid we shall have to build up the allotment movement on the lines on which it was developed between the two world wars. Before the First World War it was a comparatively small movement. It was fostered, so it was said, in the interests of what was then called "the labouring population." But between the wars there was a steady development in the movement among all classes of the people, not only for the simple growing of food, but as a healthy recreational occupation providing a means of self-expression and giving scope for enterprise and skill.
At the end of the Second World War, we had approximately one million allotment holders in England and Wales. It was thought, therefore, that the time had arrived for amending allotment legislation to bring it into line with present day requirements, and, particularly, in relation to security of tenure. I asked my Allotments Advisory Committee, on which the National Allotments and Gardens Society, the Associations of the Local Authorities, and the County Landowners' Association are represented, under the chairmanship of my Parliamentary Secretary, to review the whole

1311
subject of allotments and security of tenure. They gave a most valuable and unanimous report, for which the Government was extremely grateful. That report has been on sale now for several months, and hon. Members will have made themselves acquainted with it. It is on that Committee's findings that I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this small, but, nevertheless, important Bill.
Effect can be given to many of the recommendations of the Committee without legislation. For example, there is the question of how much land should be devoted to allotments. As the Parliamentary Secretary said during the Debate on the Gracious Speech, the Committee recommended that four acres per thousand of the population should be the target at which local authorities of all kinds should aim. Although it is recognised that this would be in excess of the needs in some areas, there were others where that area would be required.
The Committee point out that many "allotment-minded" local authorities have provided land on a more generous scale than the four acres referred to. They suggested that where the target proved too small and more land was available, then, at least, the local authorities should endeavour to satisfy the local demand. Again, the Committee considered that more should be done on social as well as agricultural and educational grounds to encourage the continued cultivation of allotments by young people after they had actually left their various schools.
I am afraid it would not be practicable to arrange what the Committee suggest—that junior sections of allotments associations, as such, be assisted from the Ministry of Education grants to local authorities as an educational and recreative activity. But, if members of such junior bodies were members of a youth club, which regarded the working of allotments as part of its activities, they would be sharing in facilities of the kind which could be grant-aided by the Ministry of Education, either directly or through grants on contributions made by local authorities. It is possible that such a youth movement, if they provided tools and seeds and paid rents for the plots, could be included in any such payments that may be made.
1312
There are other suggestions in the report that could not be implemented without a change in the law, but which fall outside the scope of this Bill. For example, the Committee suggest that buildings on allotments should be exempted from rates. It is perhaps a desirable thing to think about, but I am afraid it is the sort of question that could only be dealt with when rating generally was under review in this House. I understand at all events that in the revaluation under the Local Government Act, 1948, the Inland Revenue will rectify any variations in practice which have grown up over the years.
I need mention only two other instances in this category. First, the Committee recommend that Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1925, which, as a result of the recent Town and Country Planning legislation is no longer operative, should be re-enacted. This Section required that any local authority or joint committee preparing a town planning scheme under the Town Planning Act, 1925, should enter into certain consultations with allotment authorities as to the reservation of land for allotments, and that the planning authority should give a certificate to the Ministry of Health that this requirement had been met. Secondly, they suggested that where privately owned land is let to associations or individuals for allotments it should be preserved for allotments, provided that such use does not conflict with the development plans for the area and that in such circumstances the owner should be given the right to require the local authority to purchase the land if he so desires.
While I am in sympathy with the motives underlying these proposals, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning would be embarrassed by legislation which sought to exclude one interest from the procedure laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act. Moreover, changes in the law are not the only means of achieving any goal we have in mind, and perhaps better results may come from less formal means, for example by promoting a better understanding and a higher appreciation of the allotment position among various local authorities.
The other recommendations that require a change in the law are dealt with in this Bill. The important point is the

1313
length of notice to which an allotment holder should be entitled if his efforts are not to be frustrated. The importance of growing winter crops was brought home to all of us during the last war, and I have been encouraging plot holders all over the country to grow more and more green food for use during what have been termed the lean and hungry months between January and June. I want to see allotment holders planning their crops at least a year ahead and thus securing the maximum production not only for midsummer but also for winter.
Security of tenure is an important incentive for them to do this. The Agriculture Act, 1947, dealt with security of tenure for farmers. This Bill is designed to help the allotment holder on similar lines. Clause 1, therefore, provides for an extension of the normal notice to quit from six to 12 months. The next problem is, what is the proper compensation for a tenant on the termination of his tenancy? As the law stands, where a tenant of an allotment gets the normal six months' notice, which may not expire after 6th April or before 29th September in any year, he gets no compensation for crops and unexhausted manures. That is not only a hardship, but I think it is also a discouragement against growing winter crops.
Clause 2, therefore, gives the allotment holder whose tenancy is determined the right to such compensation whenever his notice expires. This provision does not apply where the tenant himself gives notice. Compensation for crops and unexhausted manures is already recoverable by the occupier where the tenancy of the whole or part of his allotment is determined by what we call re-entry. The purposes for which the power of re-entry can be exercised are set out in the existing legislation, but they include mainly building, mining or industrial development. A tenant whose tenancy is determined by re-entry may receive only three months' notice, or in some cases even less, and compensation for growing crops and manures is far from adequate to recompense him for the work he has put in.
Clause 3, therefore, is designed to mitigate the hardship by providing for the payment of one year's rent or a proportionate part thereof as compensation for disturbance where the tenancy or
1314
part is terminated otherwise than by a normal notice to quit. This compensation is additional to compensation for crops and manures. These improvements should encourage allotment holders to persevere, as many of them have not been doing, with winter crops. It is fair that the landlord should have the right to claim against a tenant who has allowed his allotment to deteriorate, and Clause 4 provides for that.
Clauses 5 to 7 deal with less important matters which need not be referred to at this stage, but Clause 8, which deals with allotment authorities' obligation to provide allotments, does call for some sort of explanation. The Clause leaves unchanged the statutory obligation of boroughs or urban districts with a population of 10,000 or upwards to provide allotment gardens not exceeding 20 poles in area, but it limits the obligation of the other boroughs, urban districts and parish councils and parish meetings. Under the existing law these latter bodies are under an obligation to provide allotments of up to one acre. An allotment garden is a special type of allotment not exceeding 40 poles in extent which is cultivated by the occupier wholly or mainly—and I emphasise mainly—for the production of vegetables and fruits for the consumption of his own family.
The advisory committee recommend that the duty of local authorities should be confined to allotment gardens, and the Government have accepted their recommendation. After all, the amount of land available is more or less limited and an allotment is a spare-time job. I should have thought that a quarter of an acre is just about as much as one man can tackle in his spare time. Indeed, most of the plots throughout the country at the moment are no larger than 10 poles. I think that this limitation will enable local authorities to get on with the job and provide as many plets as are called for. If, however, there is plenty of spare land in any area, there is no reason why larger plots should not be provided, but it is not made compulsory on local authorities to provide larger plots.
Clause 9 deals with the fixing of rents. This has been the cause of much contention in the past. It was laid down in Section 16 of the 1922 Act that allotments
"shall be let at the full fair rent for such use"

1315
but in practice inequalities arise through variations in emphasis placed upon the words "full fair" by the different authorities, and of course on particular items of expenditure in adapting land for allotments and their administration. In any case local authorities have no power at present to let allotments at less than a full fair rent. The advisory committee took the view that rentals ought to be based on the agricultural value of similar land in the district, plus the cost of adapting the land for allotment purposes and for administration. They also felt that local authorities should be allowed to exercise discretion when letting plots to old people, medically unfit or disabled persons at reduced rents which they felt they could afford to pay.
I think that Clause 9 provides the appropriate flexibility so that local authorities can exercise discretion. The present position of parish councils, and parish meetings of rural councils not having a parish council, is anomolous in that they are debarred by Section 16 of the Act of 1922 from taking action in providing allotments unless they are of opinion that their receipts will equal expenditure, whereas boroughs and urban districts may spend on losses incurred not more than the product of a rate of 1⅓ pence in the £. Clause 10 abolishes this anomaly by putting all councils on the same footing as regards expenditure from the rates and raises the limit to 1⅔ pence in the £. I shall refer later to Clause 11.
The remaining Clauses are formal, but a word of explanation is perhaps required about the definition of "allotment garden," since there have been, and still are, I believe, many misunderstandings. The Allotments Advisory Committee recommended that the definition of "allotment garden" in the Act of 1922 should be revised in certain respects. They were anxious to make it clear that the plot need not be devoted exclusively to fruit and vegetables, although this must remain its primary purpose. A fundamental condition of the definition is that the produce shall be wholly or mainly fruit and vegetables for the use of the occupier and his family and it would, of course, be contrary to this concept if the major part of the allotment
1316
were devoted to other forms of production.
I am advised by the highest legal authorities, however, that the definition is wide enough to enable local authorities or private landowners to permit the use of part of the area for keeping pigs, poultry, small livestock or for growing herbs or, indeed, flowers, so long as the plot is mainly used for the production of vegetables and fruit. I hope that is quite clear. There is, of course, nothing in the 1922 Act or in this Bill to prevent tenants who keep small livestock from obtaining the compensation provided for them. I understand that the definition also covers an owner-occupier.
Clause 11 is slightly extraneous to the main purpose of the Allotments Bill as such but it follows a recommendation of another Committee, presided over by my Parliamentary Secretary—namely, the Committee on Domestic Food Production, whose Report was published a few weeks ago. In 1940 it was decided that the need to encourage the domestic keeping of pigs, poultry and rabbits, as a contribution to our food supply, was such that no one ought to be prevented from doing this by restrictions in their tenancy agreements, etc., and, accordingly, Defence Regulation No. 62B was passed and superseded tenancy agreements or any enactments. This regulation was continued in force under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, which is due to expire on 10th December this year.
After taking evidence from the various parties concerned, including local authorities, the Committee referred to recommended that before the 1945 Act expired legislation should be introduced to continue the protection for domestic rabbit and poultry keepers, and Clause 11 does that. The Committee did not recommend statutory protection for domestic pig-keeping. Local authorities who were consulted advised the Committee that in many cases in urban areas the keeping of pigs on council estates had led to both trouble and annoyance, and the Committee felt that it would be unreasonable to make it mandatory permanently on local authorities or private landlords to allow pig-keeping on their estates. That does not mean that the Government or the Committee did not want to encourage

1317
domestic pig-keeping in all areas suitable for it. Indeed, the Committee said:
"In the national interest the household pig, and also the goat, should be encouraged by every practicable means. Model schemes for pig-keeping have already been drawn up by the Small Pig Keepers' Council and these will, we hope, be effective in preventing the banning of pig-keeping in areas where it can be pursued without danger of nuisance."
Here I should like to add my word to that comment with regard to the Small Pig Keepers' Council. During the war and since the war I think they have done a grand job of work, and I hope they will continue to do it.
I should perhaps mention that when consulting the various local authorities' associations we found that the Rural District Councils' Association would have welcomed the inclusion of domestic pigs in Clause 11, but that does not mean to say that all rural district councils would have welcomed that mandatory power. On the other hand, the larger associations of municipal corporations were opposed to that inclusion, for the reasons which I have explained. We hope, however, that local authorities and private landlords will be willing to allow their tenants to keep pigs where it is reasonable to do so.
We are hoping that the powers under the present Defence Regulation may be allowed to run until 30th June, 1951, although we cannot be certain of that. If that is so, its place will then be taken by Clause 11 of this Bill. It is to be hoped that local authorities and private landlords will agree with their tenants, particularly those who have livestock, as to what is to happen after June, 1951, so that pig-keepers will have time, if necessary, to dispose of their stock or, alternatively, to provide themselves with other accommodation.
There are two further respects in which the protection accorded by Clause 11 differs from that given by Defence Regulation 62B. First, the Clause, unlike Defence Regulation 62B, does not override the provisions of any enactment. The chief enactment which I have in mind is the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It was felt that it would be wrong to remove any particular use of land from general planning control otherwise than under the planning statutes themselves. Provisions, however, have already been made under the Town and
1318
Country Planning Act which ensure that there is no unreasonable restriction on domestic hon. and rabbit keepers.
The actual keeping of hens and rabbits is excepted from being a development within the meaning of the Act, whilst under a recent order all buildings for hens or rabbits may be put up within the curtilage of a dwelling-house—and I emphasise, within the curtilage of a dwelling-house—without any express application for planning permission provided the buildings are not more than 10 feet high. I must, however, make it clear, since I know there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this in very high places, that this order applies only to buildings within the curtilage of a dwelling-house.
Fears have been expressed by the National Allotments and Gardens Society that, as the Clause as drafted applies to any land and does not include any express provision for the control of the siting and types of buildings to be erected, it might conceivably have the effect of encouraging unsightly buildings on allotment gardens and thereby of neutralising the efforts of the local authorities and organised allotment movements who have, over the past few years, been attempting to tidy up allotments and improve their appearance generally. That is the last thing that I should desire to do. I am at one with the National Allotments and Gardens Society in wishing to see cleaner, more tidy, more respectable allotments than some allotments that I have seen in my time. After what I have said I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that their fears are groundless and that planning permission must be obtained before any buildings can be put up on an allotment garden.
Mr. Keeling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point and Clause 11 generally, may I ask him this question? When an almost identical Bill was introduced in another place fears were expressed that Clause 11 was a little too wide and the Government representative, Lord Morrison, gave an undertaking that he would enter into consultations before the Committee stage with a view to the Government putting down any Amendments which might be agreed. Without, of course, any sort of commitment as to what those Amendments

1319
would be, may we have at least an assurance that there could be consultation about Clause 11 before the Committee stage?
Mr. Williams: Most certainly. I think I can satisfy the hon. Member now by referring to the interpretation Section of the Town and Country Planning Act, Section 119, which states:
"use,' in relation to land, does not include the use of land by the carrying out of any building …"
It is clear that any building on an allotment would only be possible after town and country planning permission had been secured. However, to save the time of the House, I gladly undertake to have consultations, with any Member in any part of the House between now and the Committee stage if there is any point of doubt.
A further point of difference between the present Clause and Defence Regulation 62B is that it is made clear in the present Clause that the protection afforded is intended for domestic and not for commercial poultry and rabbit keepers. The objects of this Bill will, I am certain, commend themselves to the House. Since we hope to occupy only between now and 7.0 p.m. in getting—I repeat—this small but very important Bill through its present stage, I hope that Members who wish to participate in the Debate will do so briefly so that we can complete the Second Reading of this Bill by then.
4.32 p.m.
Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: As is his custom, the Minister has introduced this Bill with great clarity. He has told us not only about the Clauses in the Bill but has also given at considerable length the reasons why certain recommendations made by the Allotments Advisory Committee have not been included. I will at once inform the House that my right hon. and hon. Friends are in general support of the Bill but we hope to improve it during the Committee stage. We are in favour of the allotments movement and we wish to do all we can to further it in the national interest.
Allotments were first developed, as I think the Minister said, as a movement to improve the economic position of those who worked in our rural districts. With the passage of time, however, it
1320
has spread very largely to urban areas, and it is true to say that today the movement is of national importance both in town and country. It provides not only a considerable quantity of valuable food, and it is estimated that in England and Wales alone the allotment movement as a whole produces approximately 814,000 tons of food every year, but is also responsible for providing healthy and constructive recreation to upwards of a million people. These are large figures. The Minister has paid his tribute to the part which the domestic producers have played in recent years both in war and peace. We should like to be associated with his remarks because we on this side of the House believe that the place of the allotment holder in the national economy was never more important.
It is interesting to recall that the last allotment Measure was introduced in 1925 by Captain Bourne. Those who served in this House with him will remember not only his introduction of this Bill but also the many times he presided over our Debates with such ability and sincerity. That Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill and it was taken over and adopted by the Government of the day. That Act was of great value to the allotments movement, but it is a long time since it was passed and much water has flowed under the bridges since then, and it is right and proper that new legislation should be introduced. That is what we are discussing today.
The Minister pointed out that the Bill is based on the Report of his Allotments Advisory Committee, which was presided over by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the Debate later. Our main criticisms of the Bill, and they are technical, are that it leaves out many of the important recommendations of the Report of that Committee. The Minister has referred to certain of the omissions and has given his reasons. I do not propose at this stage to go into all the omissions, but I must draw the attention of the House to the recommendation in the Report, which was also referred to by the Minister, that Section 3 of the Allotments Act. 1925. should be re-enacted.
Under that Section town planning authorities were obliged to consider at least once a year what land should be

1321
reserved for allotments in existing or projected planning schemes. I understand that provision has proved to be one of the most useful provisions ever introduced into allotment law. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, rendered that Section obsolete. I am not convinced by the Minister's arguments today on that subject, and I very much hope that further consideration will be given to the point during the passage of the Bill.
Another point, which again was touched upon by the Minister, is the lack of any reference to the rating of allotment huts. Between now and the further stages of the Bill we shall of course study the remarks of the Minister very closely, but the fact remains that although the majority of the rating authorities at present ignore any such huts when assessing buildings for rates, that practice is not universal. The assessment of rates is today controlled by the Inland Revenue and it would seem to be an opportune moment to make the position clear. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point when he replies to the Debate.
I turn to the Clauses of the Bill. We welcome Clause 1 because it provides an extension of the normal notice to quit to allotment holders from six to 12 months. We believe that will give the gardener the necessary encouragement to plan ahead as well as confidence that he will be able to reap the benefit of his labour. The Minister referred to winter crops, and on that point we agree with him. The position of holders of temporary allotments provided under Defence Regulation 62A is, however, obviously uncertain. At this point, in referring to Clause 1, I would also refer the House to Clause 6 because under that Clause they are precluded from the provisions relating to notices and compensation. That means their position is very unsatisfactory.
If no statutory order can be made whereby alternative sites must be provided for holders of such allotments before their notice to quit expires—and I say in parenthesis that I do not think that that would be possible today—I hope, as do my hon. Friends, that we may have an assurance this evening from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that every effort will be made in that direction. At the present time there are a very large number
1322
of cases every year of allotment holders who drift out of the movement owing to the time lag between the expiration of notices to quit temporary allotments and the provision of vacant permanent plots. I hope the Minister will consider that point and that we may have an assurance that the Government will do all they can to minimise that gap.
I do not think it is necessary for me to refer in great detail to the next Clauses. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 were explained carefully by the Minister. They provide for adequate compensation to the tenant whatever time of year his notice to quit expires, and compensation for disturbance if re-entry is essential before the 12 months expire. In return for this he is responsible for paying compensation for deterioration of his plot in the period of his tenancy. We on this side of the House welcome those Clauses because we believe that they will all help towards the general standard of efficiency on allotments in the future.
I am not going to say very much at this stage in regard to Clause 8. The Minister made a long statement about it, and my hon. Friends and I will consider what he said between now and the Committee stage, to see exactly what he was telling us, for it is a rather detailed Clause. Clause 9 follows the recommendations of the Report of the Advisory Committee on the question of fixing rents for allotments, and we believe that this Clause should be an improvement on the provisions of the Act of 1922.
Before dealing with Clause 11, I come to a point on which we are in grave doubt in Clause 13, and the definition of an allotment garden. As the Bill is drafted the definition is to remain the same as it was in the 1922 Act. I listened—I am certain all hon. Members in the House listened—very attentively to the remarks of the Minister on this subject, but I am still at a loss to understand why the Government have ignored the recommendation of the Advisory Committee that the definition should be improved. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain this in his role of Parliamentary Secretary, as distinct from his role of Chairman of the Advisory Committee. There is no doubt that the present definition, whatever we may say about it, has caused a lot of difficulties in the past.

1323
The Minister of Agriculture has obviously had access to the highest lawyers in the land, and in his remarks today he has assured the House that he is satisfied with the definition in the 1922 Act, and that it will be possible to keep such livestock as are allowed upon an allotment garden under the present definition. The question I should like to ask him or the Parliamentary Secretary is simply this. Are the Government satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the courts will support his view if it is tested in the courts? I think the House will agree that this is the time when we should ensure that when this Bill becomes an Act there will be no possible doubt that the definition is foolproof. There is no question of a division on principle on this. We are concerned only to make certain that there are not a lot of cases before the courts, and that the view expressed by the Minister will be upheld by them.
Now I come to the contentious Clause, Clause 11, which, as the House will realise, is causing much concern among different sections of the community for varied and different reasons. It is true to say that the reason it is causing so much concern is that it was rushed in in a hurry at the last moment; and, whatever its intentions may be, it is extremely badly drafted, and it has nothing whatever to do with allotments. The Minister did tell us today, anyway, whence it came. It came from a report of another committee also presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Committee on the Organisation of Domestic Food Producers.
Clause 11 is concerned with the continuation, with qualifications, of Defence Regulation 62B. I should like the House to observe that this Regulation concerns not only allotment holders but all domestic food producers, and it is, therefore, far too wide a problem really to be fitted into an Allotment Bill in ordinary times in ordinary legislation. No doubt, the Government, being anxious as to where they may be in the future, and having had the Report from their Committee, have tried to tack this bit of legislation on to this Allotment Bill to get it through the House during the present Session; and that being the case, it is the duty of the House to examine it very carefully, with the proviso that this is not an allotment
1324
matter at all, because it goes far beyond that.
I think that at this stage I must refer the House to exactly what the Defence Regulation permitted, because this Clause is not the same as the Defence Regulation. It is a modification of it, as the Minister explained. I quote the Regulation:
"It shall be lawful, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any lease or tenancy or in any covenant, contract or undertaking relating to the use to be made of any land, and notwithstanding any restriction imposed by or under any enactment, for the occupier of any land (a) to keep pigs, hens or rabbits in any place on the land; and (b) to erect or place and maintain such buildings or structures on the land, and to make and maintain such excavations and other works on the land, as are reasonably necessary for that purpose."
There followed on that various provisos to safeguard the public health. Clause 11, as it stands, as explained by the Minister, is not so sweeping in its powers as the Defence Regulation, and relates only to the keeping of hens and rabbits.
There are two major problems which I wish to raise in relation to this Clause. The first is with regard to the buildings that may be put up in the form of hen houses or rabbit hutches on the allotments. The Minister admitted the point—I think quite rightly—that there is a widespread fear that, as the Clause is drafted, allotment holders—so it is thought by many people—will be in a position to erect ramshackle huts on their allotments, thereby interfering with the general amenities of a district. That is one thing nobody in this House wants to see; that is one thing nobody organising allotments wants to see; and that is one thing we must at all costs prevent from happening.
The Minister explained in detail that these fears are groundless, and he explained the details of other Acts, and I think he used the words "owing to the provisions of any enactment" in his remarks. The average allotment holder will not understand the legal term "provisions of any enactment," and I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will inform the House tonight that the Government will look at this Clause again, to see if we cannot get some suitable words which everybody can understand. This brings us back also to the point raised by

1325
my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I believe it is much better if these things can be set out fairly and squarely in the Bill, instead of merely referring to past enactments. I would not understand that, and I cannot see how the ordinary allotment holder would understand it when he is reading the Bill to see what he is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do.
Next I come to the question of pigs, which have been omitted from the livestock the domestic food producer is authorised to keep, and I should like to show why I believe this decision to be wrong, although I accept that the arguments on both sides are very evenly balanced. We believe it to be wrong because we believe it is based on old-fashioned prejudice. From time immemorial mankind has looked upon the pig as a dirty and unhealthy animal. It is not at all; a pig well kept is a very clean animal; and a pig well kept and well fed makes very good eating, in whatever form one likes to eat it.
We have now had 10 years' experience of domestic food producers keeping pigs, during which time a considerable number have been kept under the protection of Defence Regulation 62B without any real objection on the ground of their being dirty and unhealthy. I accept it when the Minister says that when some people sit down in an office to give evidence they would have fears that the pigs might be dirty, and they therefore say, "Do not let us have any pigs; they may be dirty." Yet there has been very little evidence, if any, during the past 10 years of complaints about the pigs which have been kept under Defence Regulation 62B.
It is also significant to note that no serious outbreak of disease has ever originated in any of the domestic pig clubs. During the past 10 years this movement has developed in a very remarkable degree. Apart altogether from the keeping of pigs, it has a community of interest and a keenness in its work—both excellent qualities. What is the position today? These pig clubs have been run by the Small Pig Keepers Council; they have a membership today of 260,000 and keep between 250,000 and 300,000 pigs. In addition, there are another 100,000 domestic pig keepers who are not members of a club. The Committee on Domestic Food Production, over which the Parliamentary
1326
Secretary presided, spoke very highly of the domestic pig-keeping movement, and referred to it not once but twice, in paragraphs 28 and 40, and recommended its encouragement under the auspices of the Small Pig Keepers Council.
When the protection of Defence Regulation 62B is removed, it is feared that many domestic pig keepers will be subject to unrealistic by-laws and restrictions which will seriously limit their activities, which I am sure the House will agree would be a bad thing in the national interest. It is not suggested by hon. Members on this side of the House—and I should hope that we have much support from hon. Members opposite on this—that Clause 11 should be amended to allow the arbitrary inclusion of all domestic pigs.
It is vitally necessary that pigs should be kept in a proper manner, and the proposal I make to the Government is simply this. In 1937 the Minister of Health issued model by-laws covering the keeping of pigs. A few of them may have come into operation, but in the main by the time they had been considered the war was upon us and new conditions arose, and then we had the Defence Regulations. One of those model by-laws stipulated that a person should not keep pigs within a specified distance from any dwelling-house unless the place in which they were kept was maintained in a clean and wholesome condition. I should like to see an attempt made to re-introduce those model by-laws.
In addition to that, the Small Pig Keepers Council, who are extremely strict with their members—and my hon. Friends will no doubt confirm me in this—have drawn up conditions of management which are approved by the Sanitary Inspectors Council. We hold the view that if the model by-laws were adopted, and if the conditions drawn up by the Small Pig Keepers Council were approved and used, there should be no ground for complaint from any section of the community if Clause 11 were to include pigs.
I was very pleased to hear that it is the Government's intention that the Defence Regulation should run on until 30th June, 1951, although nothing has happened yet. This will give time for all those concerned to agree together and to come to a satisfactory arrangement. I think that there are strong arguments for encouraging

1327
domestic pig-keeping. Pigs are economical converters of food waste; they also aid food production in other ways, by the provision of manure for the garden; and I think we are all agreed that at this time we need every scrap of pig meat that we can produce. That produce from household waste is an important asset to our national life. I feel that I have detained the House too long, but I wanted to put forward our point of view, and I hope that the Minister will be able to meet us on the various proposals I have made.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Like the hon. Baronet the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), I welcome very much this Bill. As the Minister said, it is a small Bill, but it is a Bill of very great importance to hundreds of thousands of people, and I should like to congratulate not only the Minister but also the Parliamentary Secretary, who has obviously played a very prominent part in bringing this legislation before us this afternoon. Indeed, I think that most hon. Members will agree with me in wondering why we have had to wait such a very long time for any amendment to the Allotments Acts. Like the hon. Baronet, I welcome the first three Clauses of the Bill, improving the conditions under which notice to quit can be issued and the compensation which is available to allotment holders for loss of crops. These are very belated concessions, but very necessary to the welfare of allotment holders.
It is, however, particularly to Clause 10 that I wish to direct attention. I am very pleased that the Minister is giving these added powers to local authorities to provide allotments, but I must confess that I am a little disturbed that the expenditure which they incur should be limited by Act of Parliament and not by the natural sense of responsibility of the local authorities themselves. They are, after all, responsible bodies which, I think, could be relied upon to act with due discretion and a sense of responsibility. Nevertheless, I hope that this Bill will give them a new impetus towards providing additional allotments.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the desirability of achieving a standard of four acres of allotment space for every thousand of the population. Of course,
1328
we must consider that in relation to the need for providing playing fields and other open spaces, and the difficulty is that it is in areas where we most need these open spaces that it is hardest to find land available. I hope that from now onwards local authorities will make a more determined effort than many have done in the past.
One thing that I should like particularly to stress is the need for local authorities, when setting aside housing sites, also to set aside land for allotment purposes. I think that some local authorities tend to hold the opinion that if they provide reasonably-sized back gardens to houses that is all that is necessary. I do not believe that back gardens are a solution to this problem. Many residents on estates find that large gardens are a source of embarrassment and discomfort, and I believe that large back gardens on housing estates are uneconomical. Long back gardens mean longer roads and heavier expense for drainage, cables and all the other public services.
I believe, too, that to set aside specific sites for allotments is conducive to good husbandry. It means, if they are looked after by the local authorities, that we can have suitable sites set aside in the allotments for the stacking of lime and manure and all the other things necessary for good husbandry, and which my right hon. Friend has been so helpful in aiding allotments societies to obtain. The important thing is that the local authority should see that allotments are not a threat to the amenities of the district.
The National Gardens and Allotments Society to which the Minister referred, has, I understand, been trying for 20 years to tidy up the allotments of this country. I believe that they have made considerable headway in that direction. Nevertheless, anyone who goes on a long railway journey must be appalled at the condition of some of the allotments flanking the line. It is obvious that some structures are necessary on allotments, but the provision of a proper hutment places, in many cases, a heavy financial burden on people with only slender means. It is necessary to have some structures, but so long as we leave the choice and condition of the structure almost entirely to the inclination of the

1329
individual concerned, we are bound to have some sort of untidiness resulting.
I should like to see the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health getting together and jointly preparing designs for model communal structures for use on allotments, some sort of long, low, simple buildings in which lock-up storage space could be provided for all the allotment holders. I believe that then we could make allotments more nearly things of beauty than they are at present. They could be a real addition to the amenities of the district instead of being, as they frequently become, derelict shanty towns of the kind which we see in many areas.
So far as Clause 11 is concerned, I, like many other hon. Members, was relieved by what the Minister had to tell us this afternoon. I imagine that most of us have had representations from the local authorities in our constituencies, and I think that all of us will have come to the conclusion that some of the apprehensions which they expressed have been shown to be without foundation. Nevertheless, I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the doubts which the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Yorks) expressed in his speech, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look fairly closely at this Clause between now and the Committee stage. I feel, for example, a little anxious about the nuisance aspect of it, because those of us with local authority experience know how extremely difficult it is to establish what constitutes a nuisance in such matters. If the Minister could be slightly more helpful in the phrasing of this Bill, I think it would be a very useful contribution.
One other point which I might touch on is the reference that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made to the keeping of pigs. I agree with everything he said. I know that ever since Mr. Baldwin was photographed leaning over a gate and scratching the back of a pig, the pig has had a particular place in the political history of this country. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that we on this side of the House yield to no one in our affection for the pig. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend on this Bill and I know that other hon. Members will want to join with him in congratulating the million allotment holders who have played such a very great part in improving the economic position of this country.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Drewe: Having been in the Whips' Office for the last six or seven years, I have never had an opportunity during that period of addressing the House. I feel, therefore, that I might ask for some indulgence this afternoon. The reason why I feel that it is my duty to say a few words is because it so happens that in the first autumn of the war, in 1939, I was asked if I would try to build up an organisation to encourage village pig-keeping and backyard pig-keeping during the war years.
It was quite clear then that feeding-stuffs were going to be in short supply It was also clear that many of our pig-breeders and specialised pig-keepers would have to sell a lot of their stock owing to the shortage of feedingstuffs. It was the wish of the Minister of Agriculture of the day, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, that pig-keeping and backyard pig-keeping in particular should be revived, so that the fullest utilisation could be made of household swill, garden waste, etc. I was to try to revive the old traditional village pig club.
In the traditional village pig club every individual member owned his own pig in its own sty, and the whole thing was co-ordinated by the club. We started doing that. We soon found that there was a great demand in the towns and cities for the keeping of domestic pigs in backyards, fed by the swill which was being wasted and not collected. Individuals came together in a group, collected the swill, and formed a pig club.
We found an astonishing demand for these clubs in the big cities and towns throughout the country. We then devised a co-operative type of pig club. The idea was that where it was impossible, owing to a built-up area, for individuals to keep separate sties a convenient piggery was set up where the pigs were kept and the members looked after them, sharing in the feeding and management and maintenance of the piggery. That was very successful. We then went on to form canteen clubs in connection with many of the great works and factories all over the country to use up the swill which was being wasted in the canteens and dining rooms.
In the autumn of 1939, a Small Pig-Keepers' Council was formed, and I have

1331
had the honour to be the chairman of that organisation ever since. When we started this we asked for three conditions. First, that we should be granted a small meal allowance, just sufficient to balance the waste food, swill, etc. Second, we asked if we might have an incentive for our members by giving them the right to consume a certain amount of the pig meat which they produced. Third, that we should have a Defence Regulation which would counteract local authority by-laws and restrictive covenants in leases. That is when Defence Regulation 62B which we are discussing in this Bill, first saw the light of day. All three conditions were granted, and our organisation was able to get going.
Today, we have built up a pretty solid and considerable organisation. We have over 7,000 clubs in England and Wales—we do not operate in Scotland—and over 250,000 members. I think that at the moment we are feeding something like 240,000 pigs, the number varying from time to time. We can claim that during these last 10 years the pig club movement has been responsible for providing at least 100,000 tons of pig-meat for the nation, and that has been provided on food which otherwise would have been wasted. I do not think that is a bad record.
One of our desires has been that the organisation should be built up on thoroughly democratic lines. The Small Pig Keepers Council was registered a few years ago as a charity organisation under the Companies Act. We divided the country into 15 areas, and 15 members of the board of governors are elected by the clubs, the board electing four members to the executive committee which is responsible for day-to-day management. We can claim, therefore, that we have built up the organisation on thoroughly democratic lines. Alone among the food production schemes that have been set up, we have this democracy and also the aim of making our organisation as near as possible to being self-sufficient. Last year, out of a total expenditure of £21,000, we were able to find over £14,000 from the subscriptions of our members, and we had the smallest grant the Government have yet provided of £6,500.
The Parliamentary Secretary's Committee on Domestic Food Production
1332
reported most favourably on the Small Pig Keepers Council and the pig club movement, and we were grateful for that. We were very glad to find in the Report that every possible encouragement should be given to domestic pigs. But, as we read further on and saw that while rabbits and hens were to continue to have the protection of 62B and pigs were not, we did not take such a good view of the bouquet they saw fit to give us. We think it is not altogether reasonable.
I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. I think it is worth reconsidering in view of the fact that the pig movement has done a very good job during these past years. We now have 10 years' experience and know what we are talking about. We are not talking about mere theories. During the last 10 years it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it is possible to keep backyard pigs close to dwelling-houses under perfectly satisfactory conditions, without causing any nuisance from smell, flies, vermin or anything else. We know it is possible to keep pigs 200 yards from a dwelling-house in the utmost squalor and filth, but we also know that the pig happens to be the cleanest animal in the whole farmyard if given a chance. The whole thing depends on the individual.
We have never defended, and we never shall, dirty pig-keeping. We do not think it is necessary. If we get a complaint that something has gone wrong, we send down one of our regional officers to investigate, and it is probably put right. If it is not put right, we write to the club and tell them that if they do not put their house in order we shall have to take them off the register, which will mean they will no longer be able to keep pigs. We invite them to come up to see our executive and tell them the position. That is what we have done in the past, and we shall continue to do it in the future.
We say that, in the light of experience, it is not fair arbitrarily to say that because a house has a small backyard coming within the provisions of some by-law a man must not keep pigs. We say that a man should be given the chance and that if he does not keep his pig in a clean and wholesome way he should not be allowed to go in for pig-keeping. As far as we are concerned, we should be perfectly happy to accept the model by-laws

1333
the Ministry of Health introduced in 1937. I do not think that to be an unreasonable request. If those by-laws were good enough for the Ministry in 1937, I ask why they should not be given a trial today.
These by-laws state that a pig must not be kept within a specified distance to a dwelling-house, unless it can be proved that it can be done to everyone's satisfaction in a clean and wholesome manner. That is the only difference between us. The Minister suggests that there should be an arbitrary restriction on pig-keeping, but I say that, in the light of the last 10 years' experience, it is most unfair and unreasonable not to give these people a chance. Let them have the benefit of the word "unless," and then we can go on together.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): We do not want to be under any misapprehension. The Minister does not suggest, nor does this Bill, that there should be an arbitrary restriction on keeping pigs.
Mr. Drewe: I do not understand that at all. Today we have the benefit of 62B and can keep pigs anywhere, provided there is no nuisance. All we know now is that we are to have this protection taken away. I do not know what will be put in its place, but I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider putting in by-laws on the lines of the model bylaws of the Ministry of Health. As the position was before 62B, by-laws could be arbitrarily used to prevent people from keeping pigs, whether the pigs were kept under decent conditions or not.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not understand how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Bill. I assumed that he was making a plea for the inclusion of pig-keeping under Clause 11, to which he has made no reference at all.
Mr. Drewe: I am sorry if I have not referred to Clause 11. My point has been to link my observations up with the withdrawal of 62B. As I understand it, hens and rabbits will continue to have this protection under Clause 11, whereas domestic pigs will not. I am asking that domestic pig-keepers, in view of their record during the last 10 years, should be put in no worse a position than those who
1334
keep rabbits and hens. I am delighted that the hen and the rabbit are getting such preferential treatment, and I do not want to stop it for one moment, but we can put up as good a record and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts on this question.
I would end by making a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as well as to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I see there are one or two present on the opposite Benches who represent mining constituencies. They must recognise that there are no more enthusiastic backyard pig-keepers than the miners. It is a tradition with them and they are among the greatest supporters of the pig club movement. We have some first-class clubs in the mining areas, and if anything happens as a result of this Bill to take away the protection of 62B, which we have enjoyed these last ten years, some of the miners are going to be prohibited from keeping pigs in their backyard, which would be a great shame. It would be a great shame if the healthy hobby, which they have enjoyed so very much during the past should be taken away from them, and also the benefit to a certain extent of pig meal. I did not intend to take up so much time of the House and I would thank the House for listening to me.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Woods: I join with hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House in welcoming this Bill, and I also agree with the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) that the pig is a much abused and misrepresented animal which likes being as clean and healthy as any human being. The Bill, however, does not merely cover backyard pig-keeping. It is a far bigger Measure, and although I welcome it I appreciate even more the Minister's suggestion that he is ready to consider favourably any Amendments that would make the Bill even more effective and satisfactory.
In particular, I feel that we have not fully envisaged the effect of the changed housing accommodation. There has been an enormous increase in the percentage of the population living in flats, with no access to the land except perhaps in a window box or a few flower pots. Further, the war-time necessity of temporary accommodation has very often placed houses cheek by jowl, and there

1335
is the necessity for extending and giving permanency to the occupiers of allotment holders.
I should like to see much further encouragement given to the local authorities so that more financial help could be given to allotment holders. At present it is possible for the local authorities to maintain parks, bowling greens and tennis courts through substantial expenditure. Can statistics be obtained to show us the number of people who get their pleasure from allotments, both through cultivation and through assistance only, as compared, for example, with those who participate in a game of bowls? Although I have nothing against bowls, and want to see all the facilities possible for recreation, I suggest that the allotment movement is a much healthier, more spiritually satisfying and more economically fruitful recreation. I hope that local authorities will be encouraged to the fullest extent.
I should like to pay my tribute to those local authorities who have demonstrated what can be done, and, in particular, those which give more permanency of tenure and security so that there is a sense of satisfaction among those who are working plots. On the definition of "allotments" there is still room for fuller modification. "Vegetable and fruits" is quite good, but I know there are some authorities and people who have been "sticky" about allocating a percentage to flowers. Although fruit and vegetables are vital in these days, a sense of appreciation of the beauty of flowers should be encouraged.
It may interest the House to know that we are indebted to the allotment movement for the Russell lupin as well as to the dear old man Russell. The Russell lupin was cultivated on a couple of plots by a man who had no other opportunity to give his services, and if it had not been for the allotment provision in the York area we should never have had that marvellous achievement. Rules and regulations were broken, and a couple of plots were devoted entirely and absolutely not only to flowers but to lupins. But for that we should not have had this tremendous joy, apart altogether from the economic benefit to this country in the export trade.
1336
I hope the House will do all it can to make the Bill not only a better Bill but more effective in its appeal, and also in the amount of responsibility it gives to local authorities, and that where there is an effective demand for allotments the local authority will be empowered by the Bill, and by further legislation, to make whatever provision is necessary in the interests of a hobby which is healthy, recreational, educational and spiritually attractive.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Kaberry: Those of us who live in county boroughs, who have had past experience of borough councils, and those who represent county boroughs in this House will not willingly yield second place in their support of this valuable and useful Bill. We on these benches realise more than ever the usefulness of the allotment garden movement, and how it provides an opportunity for men to get out into the fresh air as well as to give healthy exercise and recreation. It may also give men an opportunity to get away from present over-crowded domestic difficulties.
The aim of all local authority allotment committees is towards an establishment of the permanent model allotment garden, where it would be possible to have well laid out plots, firm paths, service roads, centrally well-equipped communal huts, and where it is possible to have them arranged so that they would add to the amenities of the locality instead of being a reflection on them, as is the case in some places today.
Those of us who have studied the history of the allotment garden movement know only too well how it has risen and fallen during war-time and immediately afterwards. In the First World War there was a ready response to the appeal for allotment gardens. To use the example of the City of Leeds, the peak period was in 1919, when some 100 sites were taken and 4,777 plots were in use. In the days of post-war activities that number was gradually reduced until in September, 1939, there were only something like 36 sites with about 1,790 plots, of which 1,559 were in use. The figures sprang up again in 1942 after an appeal had been made, and in September of that year there were some 111 sites, with about 5,657 plots, of which 5,236 were occupied. Since then, in the last seven and a half years,

1337
there has been a gradual falling off. Today, there are only about 94 sites, covering about 396 acres, resulting in 6,490 plots, of which only about 4,000 are let.
We immediately look for something which can be done to offer to the would-be allotment holder some degree of permanency of tenure and some assurance that what he intends to do will be worth while. He must have full recognition for the work he does. That is why I gladly associate myself with those who have welcomed the first three Clauses of the Bill, which extend greater security of tenure to the present allotment holder and offer greater security to the man who is to be brought in.
I would appeal to the Minister to take advantage of this opportunity to make it clear in the Bill that communal huts on allotment sites shall not be made subject to rating. Would the Minister go a stage further in the direction of the recommendations in the Report, and say that greenhouses and other buildings up to a certain size shall, likewise, throughout the whole country, be exempted from rating? One other point which gives the allotment holder great concern is trespass. It is referred to in the Report. Certain penalties can be imposed under the Defence Regulations, but when those Regulations go, nothing will be left to give adequate security against trespass by man or dog. It would be appropriate for the Minister to introduce into the Bill a Clause to give effect to the particular recommendations on this point which the Report put forward.
In opening the discussion the Minister said that he had been advised that the present definition of "allotment garden" in the 1922 Act was sufficient to include in its interpretation the definition suggested in the Report. I would make a plea for the more simple souls, like myself, that he will be good enough to use the definition suggested in the Report because it is very clearly worded and is capable of being easily understood. The Report suggests that "allotment garden" means:
"Any parcel of land not occupied together with a dwellinghouse."
I hope we can have the point made clear that the Bill relates primarily to land not occupied together with a dwellinghouse, so that we can get a clear discussion of the full meaning of Clause 11. This seeks to grant power to keep hens and rabbits
1338
on any land, and which, I suggest, would be "any land other than an allotment garden."
Many of us are concerned about the limitation of the definition of allotment garden at the present time. The definition suggested in the Report goes a long way to meet the wishes of the allotment movement throughout the country, especially having regard to the assurance given this afternoon by the Minister that any structures to be put up upon allotment gardens not associated with houses are to be subject to the control of local planning authorities. That assurance will go a long way towards easing the fears of a large number of allotment holders who have been concerned lest the amenities of their allotments should be spoiled by any kind of unsightly structure in nearby plots put up for hens, rabbits or Pigs.
Clause 11 is comprehensive and relates "to any land." Hon. Members have probably received, as I have, communications from local authorities expressing great concern about the effect of a Clause of this kind. It would be right that I should mention one or two of those effects so that the Parliamentary Secretary may give me some assurance when he replies. Local authorities are probably the largest holders of small house property, and they will be most concerned to preserve the amenities of all estates within their areas. It is felt that a free licence, as suggested in Clause 11, to keep hens or rabbits on any land may give rise to a great deal of concern among tenants of local authorities. It has been mentioned earlier that the small garden is not necessarily the most appropriate place in which hens or rabbits can be kept and that they might amount to some kind of nuisance though not being a nuisance in the strict sense required at the present time in a court of law.
The second point also gives concern to local authorities with regard to the general licence permission proposed in the Clause to any occupier of land to put up any structure regarded as reasonably necessary for the purpose of housing the hens or rabbits. Presumably, in choosing the word "hens" the drafting excludes the word "cockerels," so that next door neighbours will not be disturbed too early in the morning. It is felt that the new

1339
"experiment in freedom "under the provisions of town and country planning regulations, coupled with the provisions of this Clause, may give rise to many unsightly structures on local authority housing estates. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be wiser to insist that local authorities should have some say in regard to livestock houses. I know that local authorities view the matter with concern.
May I now look at the matter generally, from the point of view of the local authority, the allotment landlord and the allotment holder?
As far as the allotment holder is concerned, provided that the amenities are preserved and that there is neatness and orderliness all will be well and all the help that is possible will be given. From the point of view of local authority as a landlord of allotment gardens, I know only too well that they would assist wherever practicable in putting on one side suitable allotment gardens where stocks can be kept without impairing the amenities of the adjoining plots.
I want now to deal with the question of the type of livestock to be kept. I support all the remarks which have been made asking that the permission under Clause 11 should extend to the keeping of pigs as well as hens and rabbits, subject to the control I mention. In war-time we were shouting for pigs and people had nothing to say against pig-keeping, and the grunts which were, in time of war, music which was welcome to all should surely be as welcome in time of peace. It may well be that future keeping of livestock will best be done by setting aside separate gardens where stock allotments can be properly maintained with proper and adequate supervision and where food of that kind can be properly produced.
I should like to mention the extra assistance which domestic pig and poultry keeping receives from people throughout the country. I have for some time been associated in my own city with the salvage service and the utilisation of domestic scrap food and all waste food and its conversion into "pudding." An elaborate service is now provided. I cannot think that it is the intention to interfere with that supply, but unless
1340
we provide adequate facilities m Clause 11 for permission to keep pigs, poultry and rabbits, there may be some fear that it is not worth while to carry on that service. Apart from those two points, I welcome the introduction of the Bill as a step in the right general direction of giving assistance to allotment holders throughout the country.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: I join right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating the Minister upon this small but important Measure. I do so because of one or two of the Clauses which it contains. One of the most important Clauses to the allotment holder is Clause 1, which extends the period of security of tenure indicated in previous Measures from six to 12 months. I wish we could make the allotments permanent, but unfortunately, in a changing country, that is an impossibility. However, the Minister has done something in extending the period from six to 12 months.
As one who is interested in gardening and allotments, I have always maintained that a garden or an allotment cannot be made in 12 months. It takes longer than that—sometimes it takes years, particularly in the industrial areas—to reclaim land which has hitherto been derelict. It might take five years, and even at the end of that time the fertility of the land might not be to one's liking, as we say in Lancashire. Still, the Clause gives a greater degree of security of tenure to the allotment holder.
I am the president of an allotment association and I have found, when we have been trying to stimulate interest and get people to take allotments for food production, that one of the greatest obstacles has been the lack of security of tenure. People have said, "In six months' time we may be told to get off." Time and time again, particularly in the mining areas, men have said to me, "What is the use of taking a piece of land and expending my labour, purchasing manure and doing all the work which is required when at the end of six months the landlord can come along and hand me my notice and tell me to get off?" Because it gives the allotment holder a larger degree of security of tenure, I welcome the introduction of the Bill.

1341
I am particularly anxious that the allotments which have grown up higgledy-piggledy in many parts of the country should be tidied up. I was particularly struck by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that there should be communal hutments on allotments. That would be a step in the right direction, but I am surprised to hear the suggestion that the town and country planning people should be brought into this business. When we have to deal with them, there is procrastination after procrastination. They do not deal with these things as expeditiously as they should. Speaking from experience, I say that once the allotment enthusiast is getting going the more speedily we can respond to his requirements and desires the more secure he will feel, but if we have to approach the town and country planning people on this or that, his interest and enthusiasm will be dampened before his desires are met. I hope that the local authorities who are given more powers under this Bill than under all the preceding Measures will utilise these powers for the specific purpose of helping the allotment holder to satisfy his desires at great speed at the beginning and protect him in the direction he desires to go in the creation of his allotment.
I listened very attentively to what was said by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) in his appeal for the extension of Clause 11. He made a very powerful case for pig-keeping on allotments. I agree with him in all he said regarding the interest and enthusiasm of the miners. Some of the best pig-keepers in Lancashire are miners, and they have spent a great deal of time and money and are particularly anxious that their sties and the surroundings of their allotment shall be of such a character as to stand the test of the most rigid sanitary inspector. The Minister would be well advised to see if it would be possible to extend the Clause a little further. We need have no fear about pig-keeping becoming a nuisance, because we have sanitary inspectors and sanitary committees of local authorities who are charged with the responsibility of seeing that no nuisance is created. Apart from that, the members of pig-keeping clubs are subject to strict discipline, and they are very particular. That is one of the things that I admire about pig-keeping
1342
clubs. I strenuously appeal to the Minister to consider extending Clause 11, or not to raise objections if we put down Amendments on the Committee stage.
I am reminded of the story of a miner friend of mine who was anxious to develop this side of his allotment. He approached the owner of the land and said, "Mr. So-and-So, I desire to keep pigs on my allotment; have I got your permission?" The landlord, a shrewd old man, said, "Tha' can just keep what t'hell tha' likes, as long as tha' does not keep t'rent." I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when he is responding to our appeal for the extension of Clause 11.
I think it may be said that the allotment associations of this country, from the time of the First World War in 1918 up to the present, have played an important part in our food production. Having regard to their past record, they are worthy of all the support that this House can give them in the development of allotments in the future. After all, it is no easy task to dig an allotment after a day's work, and the enthusiasm of these men ought not to be damped by rigid regulations. Help ought to be afforded to them with both hands, making things as easy as possible for them.
This Bill is another step forward. I am only sorry it was not brought in many years ago, for it would have been a great help, but it is no use trying to indict anybody now. This House is charged with the responsibility of assisting that section of its citizens who are prepared not only to help themselves but also their fellow citizens in the development of allotments and the production of food. I congratulate the Minister and his Department in bringing forward this Measure, and I wish it every success.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. John Morrison: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to express my interest in the important part played by allotments in food production and, indeed, in the healthy exercise they provide for those who have at heart the interest of allotments and what they produce. Incidentally, there is no happier man than the gardener of either vegetables or flowers. At this late hour and in order to give the Bill a chance of receiving its Second Reading,

1343
I shall refer only briefly to several points which worry local authorities.
On Clause 10, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider whether a responsible body such as a local authority could not have power to spend what it thinks fit on the provision of allotments? The local authority is best fitted to know what is wanted locally, and I would like to see the limit taken off.
On Clause 11, I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Sir T. Dugdale) in regard to the lack of clarity. I have here a letter from the District Clerk of Salisbury which reads as follows:
"It is considered that the Clause as at present drawn is unworkable and may give rise to interference with the amenities of a district."
I will not weary the House with the various points made in that letter, but the writer asks for the definition of the word "hen." I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought I could have defined that adequately; however, there may be legal difficulties. The definition of the word "nuisance," on which I have no doubt that lawyers could talk at considerable length and we might find it a nuisance to listen, is also asked for. However, we have not many in the House this afternoon. I will send a copy of that letter to the Parliamentary Secretary because it should be considered and because there are feelings both for and against the keeping of pigs.
I associate myself with the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) in his not-quite-maiden speech when he said that, providing pigs are kept clean in a place where they are not committing a nuisance, it is in the best interests of this country that allotment holders should be allowed to keep them. After the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary, I am not quite sure where we stand when this Bill becomes law and the existing Regulation 62B goes.
Mr. G. Brown: I think there is some misunderstanding. The Bill does not ban the keeping of pigs but says that when it becomes law the Defence Regulation ends. For example, the decision in Salisbury as to whether pigs should be kept will be the responsibility of the local authority,
1344
and therefore the city surveyor of Salisbury can spend a long time determining when the pig is committing a nuisance. We are not banning the keeping of pigs in Salisbury.
Mr. Morrison: I hope the Minister will make that clearer than it is in the Bill. Quite frankly, I did not understand that, but I am glad to hear it.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: Speaking as an allotment holder for many years. I congratulate the Minister and the Ministry on bringing forward a Bill which in my opinion is overdue. Allotment holding is of vital importance, and the people who come within the provisions of this Bill are just as important as those who come within the provisions of the Coal Act. the Steel Act. or any other Bill.
I believe the Chinaman was not far wide of the mark who put forward the following philosophy which is well known amongst gardeners. He said, "If you want human happiness and contentment for a day, you buy a pipe. If you want to be happy and contented for a week, you keep a pig. If you want to be happy and contented for a year, you marry a wife. But if you want to be happy and contented for all time, you cultivate a garden." Allotment holders are a grand body of men and women. The last time a census was taken, there were 1,117,000 allotment holders and one allotment to every 39 of the population. I believe that the contribution made to our nation in its time of greatest need, during the war and since, has not been assessed at its true value.
Of course allotment holding is not new. It goes back to the days of the Tudor kings, when the industrious poor—we all understand why they were industrious and at the same time poor in those days—were allowed to have allotments. Now, of course, they are provided for the labouring population. Most of the population today are in regular work, and that is a good thing. Nothing is too good for allotment holders and those who support them. They have given freely of their work, energy and endeavours to the nation, and the nation should do likewise unto them.
The Bill is a good Bill. It is hardly like the curate's egg. It is not bad in parts, but it has a few specks which, I

1345
believe, allotment holders will not like. There are of course, advantages, which have been referred to in much more capable terms by other hon. Members and in a way which I shall not try to emulate. Security of tenure is the first and most important matter.
I speak with the practical experience of many years since the end of the First World War of holding an allotment. I garden in the middle of a public park—and I shall come to that in a moment. Security of tenure is a grand thing. It is the thing which has been the main cause of loss of membership to the allotment movement. It is quite right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)—who is a better greenhouse keeper than I am—has said, that the bringing back into good heart, as we call it in the North, of land in a despoiled industrial area is no mean task and is more than a 12 months' job; and one can spend an enormous amount of money on, for example, manure at £2 a ton delivered, although it is not easily come by in these days, or even less in a period of unemployment.
The question of fair rents is one that has occupied the minds of many people. I personally pay for my plot, which is under a good Socialist local authority, Is, a year and another Is. 6d. for the use of a hut, making 2s. 6d. a year. There are allotments not far away where people pay 15s. or similar sums. There should be uniformity of rent throughout the country for allotments which are of the same size so that people may know their position. The Bill deals with the question of compensation. For the first time, a man is to be properly compensated for the loss of his plot and for the unexpired manurial value of what he has put into the land in the years before to grow good crops.
Let me refer for a moment to the disadvantages of the Bill. Clause 8 apparently restricts the right of local authorities to guarantee, if I may use my own words, allotments up to one acre in size. I see the logic and force of the argument that in a large city or industrial town with allotments of the kind which I at present cultivate, 605 square yards is quite sufficient to meet the need of the ordinary worker in an industrial area. But what of the fellow in the countryside, who for years has been able to have
1346
a piece of land extending to an acre in size? Is he in future to be debarred from continuing to hold that size of land and to be denied the right to all of it except 605 square yards? That is the sort of thing that was not recommended to the Ministry by the Advisory Committee, which did a good job of work, on which we ought to compliment them, under the able chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary, and of which, apparently, a lot of notice has been taken.
Clause 11 will give great concern to allotment holders who want allotments to be kept as they should be kept. I keep poultry, but not on my allotment, and I do not allow them to be kept anywhere near where they may become a menace to the gardens or allotments of anyone else. I am all in favour of the keeping of rabbits, pigs and poultry, providing they are kept in a proper place and under proper regulations and proper authority. The Clause says definitely that they shall be kept "in any place." "Any place," however, means the whole orbit of every square yard of land in and around the area of any local authority. I know that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are very reasonable in these matters and I ask them to give this Clause particular consideration.
I should like to relate my own experience; one can speak better from one's own personal experience than from what one reads in books and of theories and so on from elsewhere. I garden in the middle of a public park which is owned and controlled by the people of my district. My allotment is no more than 120 yards from the bandstand, and less than 100 yards from the cenotaph. The plots are in the midst of the flower borders and have become part and parcel of the amenities of the park. We try to make those allotments a credit to the district, and there is very severe and keen competition. So keen is it that I was honoured by being awarded the Knightian medal by the R.H.S. for the best-kept allotment in my area of Lancashire for the year 1945. There is very strong competition, and we keep the place at a very high standard.
I should like the Minister to envisage for a moment a public park of this kind, with its playground, paddling pool, bandstand and all the amenities which Socialist

1347
and public ownership and control provide. Two of the allotments are cultivated by the superintendent of the park himself. Next to me is a professional gardener who runs a rather large establishment for a market gardener. The allotments are really well kept in the way I have described, and the results which they have attained in competition prove the claim which I make for them. Assume that one of the allotment holders gives up bis piece of land because, perhaps, of pressure of work. Along comes Bill Smith, who is next on the list of the local authority to be given an allotment when one becomes vacant. He wants to keep rabbits and poultry.
I ask the Minister to consider the position when a person comes into the middle of that park, with its well-kept and well-laid-out allotments, who immediately puts up structures the like of which, as every hon. Member knows, are common to the countryside. The effect upon the rest of the gardening population of the area would be disastrous. One wandering Wyandotte or one roving rabbit could do an enormous amount of damage to the rest of the allotment holders in that park. I know both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary well enough, I believe, to know that they will give these practical considerations their attention.
In my opinion, local authorities should be given the right to see that persons are allowed to keep rabbits, poultry and pigs, but on rougher pieces of land. There are pig sties in my own area, but they are kept some distance away across a river and behind trees, together with the poultry and so on. I suggest to the Minister that this Clause should receive attention before the Report stage. No one would suggest going to the length of putting down Amendments, because I believe that by careful study the Minister could easily put right what I call this menace.
Allotment holders are worthy of our consideration. We want them to continue in their good work. It is not only the production of food that matters. On my allotment I get communion with Nature. I feel nearer to the things that really matter when I am gardening at weekends than whenever I am standing, for instance, on the Floor of this House. It provides me with relaxation, culture,
1348
friendliness and comradeship amongst men, something which is really worth while, in addition to the fact that we do not have to pay retailers Is. 6d. for a lettuce or 9d. for a bunch of a few radishes, which is nonsense but which is going on all over the country. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) may laugh, but that is true. If he were to go into some of the retail shops he would find that lettuces at Is. 3d. and Is. 6d. and bunches of radishes at 7d. and 9d. are very common things; they are very easily and cheaply grown.
I compliment the Allotments Society of Britain, who went into these matters carefully, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who in turn presented a Report which, if acted upon, would be of great use to the country. Never before in the history of mankind was the production of food of all kinds so necessary; and every encouragement should be given by this House to the keeping of pigs, poultry and rabbits. It is indeed a pleasant change to be able to stand up in the House in an atmosphere of goodwill, as we have done today, rather than in the atmosphere which we find when debating matters of finance and the Petrol Duty, etc., things which, after all, do not really worry allotment holders.
6.8 p.m.
Major Legge-Bourke: I am sure that the concluding and penultimate remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) have delighted the House as they have delighted me. I intended myself to touch upon the subject of the cultivation of other things besides earth that can result from association with the land. There is no doubt that if we could provide every urban dweller with a plot of land, we should have an end for ever to that schism which, I know, the Minister would be only too glad to see disappear, which divided the nation between town and country in the period between the wars.
I hope I may be forgiven if I first apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not being present during his opening remarks; but I had a very important meeting with the Minister of Food and I could not then be present. I hope the House will forgive me also if I mention that during the Debate on the 1908 Small Holdings and Allotments Act

1349
I can claim to have had the strange distinction of having a grandfather introducing the Bill and a brother of my other grandfather speaking from the other side of the House. I am happy to report that on that occasion there was a happy unanimity between the two families. I certainly do not want to do anything to upset the harmony today, but I do not feel that I can let the Bill go without making one or two remarks about its omissions.
I was particularly interested in one remark by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) about the provision of gardens in towns. I would say that the ideal we should aim at is that wherever we rebuild or build new towns, we should provide everyone with a sufficient garden in which he can do pretty well what he likes, because we have to admit that, however much we may welcome the allotment movement in general—and I join in all the welcome that has been given it—automatically restriction is imposed which is not suffered by those who have a garden of their own.
What rather surprised me in the remarks of the hon. Member for Rossend ale was that he suggested that that would be too costly in regard to water pipes, drainage and that sort of thing. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it means that no one in the country must ever have water or drainage. Although this is outside the scope of the Bill, some are today questioning whether they will ever get it. The point I am making is that surely in the new towns we should never make allotments necessary. What we should do in the new towns is to make every house have a garden, and I would certainly never accept the argument of the hon. Member for Rossendale that in our towns the cost of laying on a piped service is too high.
Mr. Jack Jones: Would the hon. and gallant Member suggest that in every new town each house should have a big garden? That would be all right, but only if we had good gardeners. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and myself were saying that we should give reasonably sized gardens and that everyone who wanted an allotment should have a piece of land away from his house.
Major Legge-Bourke: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member for Rossendale. Perhaps now the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has cleared that up. I feel that the argument that the cost of drainage and water supplies would be too high should never be a reason for not providing people with a garden. It is not a sound reason.
In the middle of my constituency, which I suppose is one of the most fertile in the country, we have a very thriving allotment association and the majority of the members are railwaymen. They are extremely concerned about Clause 11 and points about the kind of control which they hope to keep on those who otherwise would make the allotments an eyesore. They are in general sympathy, I think, with all the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale).
I welcome all the provisions in this Bill, with a very few safeguards which have already been mentioned by other hon. Members, but I believe the Minister is missing a golden opportunity. What he is not doing by this Bill is to safeguard the position of the temporary allotment holders, those allotment holders who answered the call in the time of need and dug for victory. What are they to get? Will it be that all they can find in their allotment is a stone with R.I.P. graven on it?—because that is what it is amounting to. There is no assurance that those who kept temporary allotments during the war are to be provided with them in the future.
I feel there was no greater good which came out of the last war, or the war before, than the fact that it enabled the descendants of people deprived of land—who never should have been deprived of it in the past—by ruthless development in the industrial areas, an opportunity of getting into contact with a piece of land, however small. That, I believe, is in the nation's interest, not merely so far as the production of food is concerned, but so far as character is concerned. It seems to me that this Bill might well have included some provision which would give those people who dug for victory a real hope that, having dug, they are to get a decent reward and some assurance that they can go on digging in peace time. I very much regret that omission.

1351
I realise there may be technical difficulties, but this Bill is partially implementing some important Reports to which reference has been made. I notice a tendency rather to overlook the interests of the countryman and of the person who came in during the war in the urban areas and tried to produce food to help the country. There is another Report which I think it a pity we are not discussing at the same time, a Report in which the Parliamentary Secretary has considerable interest; that is, the Report on smallholdings. I think we should be discussing that as well, because part-time holdings are mentioned and part-time holdings and allotments are closely allied. Part-time holdings have also been omitted from this Bill.
As the Bill stands, I have no particular quarrel with most of its provisions, but I regret the great omissions from it, and I hope that in the very near future these omissions will be made good.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has referred in pleasing terms to the atmosphere in which this Debate is being conducted. I think with great humility, if I may put it to the House, that perhaps one of the ingredients of the pleasantness of the Debate has been the shortness of the speeches. There have been a great many speeches and they have certainly been short. I shall not break that characteristic of the Debate in the remarks I wish to make, as I have only one or two minutes in which to speak.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Northwest (Mr. Kaberry) touched on a very important aspect of the matter. Whatever may have been the rural origin of allotments, I do not think there is any doubt today that their most important aspect in our life is the opportunity they give to the urban dweller to have some contact with the soil, both for reasons of his health and of his sanity. Some such contact seems to be necessary in the modern rushing life we all lead. I am personally very pleased indeed that this Bill should have been brought forward. It is extremely sensible, most of the provisions in it are provisions made with the 4pproval of the whole House, and one might ask how it is they have not been
1352
brought forward before? Of course, there are a great many things which are eminently sensible which have not been brought forward before and have not been brought forward until this Government came to power. I think we are entitled to take credit for having done a great deal that was eminently sensible and wanted doing, and had wanted doing for a great many years.
Quite apart from the considerations of Bewdleyan nostalgia, which may have prompted hon. Members opposite to make this plea for the domestic pig, I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to do what they can to see as many pigs as possible produced in this country. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that nothing in this Bill prevents the keeping of the domestic pig on the allotment. There is, however, one thing that seems to me to be true, namely, that a certain protection in the keeping of the pig on the land is being removed. If there is anything that can be done by my right hon. Friend between now and the later stages of the Bill, I hope he will do it in order to see that it is still possible in future to keep the pig under proper conditions—and I stress the proper conditions—on the allotment. If he can do this I am sure he will be meeting the wishes of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
In my area in the northern part of Lincolnshire, the Lindsey Parts of Lincolnshire, there is Scunthorpe, a great industrial borough, a steel town, in the middle of excellent agricultural land. It has been called the steel town, this great and progressive borough of Scunthorpe; but it might equally well be called the allotment town. My right hon. Friend has mentioned that there should be a target of four acres per 1,000 inhabitants. In the borough of Scunthorpe this would mean 200 acres, but at present this borough has 300 acres—one in 15 of the inhabitants of Scunthorpe, in fact, has an allotment. The railway workers and the steel workers, who have done such great work in the production drive, are in many instances only one generation removed from the land; and they keep their contact with health and sanity and the soil by haying these allotments with great advantage to themselves and to the whole community.

1353
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Parliamentary Secretary, who I know has had a great deal to do with this particular Measure. Many of the legislative children of my right hon. Friend may indeed have been bigger at birth than this was, but nevertheless it is a bonny child.
6.21 p.m.
Mr. Oakshott: I agree that this is a most useful Bill, but there are one or two matters in it which, if the right hon. Gentleman will consider them between now and a later stage, will improve it a great deal. I want to say a word about Clause 10. I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that though this is an extension of the previous powers of local authorities, they are the people best qualified to determine the expenditure on allotments, and it may well be left to their discretion.
Regarding Clause 11, I was relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman's assurance in regard to planning and the preservation of amenities, and so on. I admit my fears are not entirely dispelled, because perhaps I do not understand some of the wording in this Clause any better than do some of the allotment holders. This Clause as it stands is very loosely drawn and far from satisfactory. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again. It is, of course, making permissible by permanent legislation the keeping of certain animals which was originally allowed under emergency powers. We are all in favour of that, and I think enough has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House for us to realise what an excellent thing it is that people should keep these animals. But this Clause is drawn so widely and in such a way as to extend the keeping of them to certain premises which could be quite unsuitable. I consider seriously that safeguards should be provided, and particularly are they necessary in the case which comes in under this Clause where animals may be kept in gardens which may be in close proximity to each other.
Where space is restricted, as in the case of local authority housing schemes, such safeguards are particularly necessary. I am not a lawyer, but I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for
1354
Rossendale said about the legal definition of nuisance and how difficult it is to determine it. I can imagine that there could well be many annoyances and sources of irritation which might cause a great deal of trouble between close neighbours, and which we should avoid by some exact definition. The question of health and comfort is again loosely defined in this Clause. I am thinking of places where gardens may be extremely close together and houses may be close together; and there is the question of smell, which was mentioned earlier on by my hon. Friend. There is also the question of pest infestation, which might become a very serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will consider that as well.
I trust the Minister is happy about the question of control over the siting and size of structures, and the appearance of buildings which might go up to house these animals. One can imagine some particularly dreadful excrescences which might be put up, made of old packing cases and bits of rusty corrugated iron and things of that sort, which we must at all costs avoid. The best thing would be for the local planning authorities to be brought into this and given some really concrete measure of control. There is one other point of definition which I want to mention and I do assure the Minister that I am not trying to split hairs. It is, what does "hen" mean? Is it only the bird which produces the egg? I hope it does not include cockerels and noisy things like that—particularly guinea fowl.
Mr. G. Brown: "Man" includes woman, but not the other way round.
Mr. Oakshott: I think that is a matter on which the definition should be made clear beyond peradventure.
Mr. Jack Jones: For the purpose of production, one must not leave out the cockerel.
Mr. Oakshott: But for the purpose of noise I think we should be able to do so. If the Minister will think over some of these things and bring about what I believe to be the very necessary improvements in this Clause, he will not only safeguard in a much less undefined manner the amenities of the district and the health and comfort of the population and harmonious relations between neighbours,

1355
but also protect the perfectly legitimate interests of these allotment holders and people who wish to keep these animals; and also incidentally, which is a point not yet mentioned, those who follow the "fancy."
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Kinley: Those who speak at the end of a Debate are bound to exercise a certain ingenuity if they wish to avoid covering points which have already been dealt with. There are some things which I, as a town dweller, would like to say about this Bill, which has been universally welcomed this afternoon.
Before I put my own point of view, may I say that I welcome wholeheartedly the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that the right place for a garden is next to the house. I have believed for many years that every house should have attached to it a garden large enough to provide much at least of the fresh vegetables and so on for an average family. I would remind the Minister and the House generally that, however we may try to solve this allotment problem, we shall find ourselves facing endless difficulties and endless vexations unless and until the nation decides that no house shall be considered complete without having its own garden attached.
We are now trying to create greater facilities to enable the man who has done a day's work, and gone home and had a meal, to go a quarter of a mile, a half mile and even two miles from his home to his allotment in order to cultivate it. It has been said that there are upwards of a quarter of a million allotment diggers at the present time; but my own experience is that a much larger number of cultivators of the soil have been so discouraged that they have given up. They have been discouraged because the towns in which they were cultivating allotments expanded and the land which they had been digging over a long period was required for housing or for building of some kind. The allotment cultivators were then pushed off. Usually, if they were provided with an alternative site, the new allotment area was perhaps a further quarter or half a mile away. Then, in the course of a few years, that which was
1356
the new allotment area was required for further town expansion.
In those circumstances, the allotment movement cannot hope to succeed. Yet it ought to succeed, for there is no more important duty which any man can perform than the growing of food. Upon that we all depend, whatever we may do or whoever we may be. Without food we should soon cease to be anything at all. Those who are prepared to cultivate the land should be given every possible encouragement and help. I suggest that this Bill does not contain that which will be the vital factor to ultimate success. There is no power here which will enable a permanent allotment to be provided. Surely, the cultivator is entitled to a guarantee that he will be permitted to continue, year in, year out, to cultivate his allotment. He must be given that guarantee if we as a nation, are to gain the full benefit to which we are entitled from his efforts. That power could be provided.
There was a time when town and country planning was not so fully developed and when the planners talked about a green belt being desirable round industrial towns. We have not yet provided those green belts. If we were wise enough, we should provide them now, and in those belts permanent allotments could be made available. Any town expansion would, of necessity, be carried out beyond the far side of the belt. Without such a provision, the allotment holder will continue to be subject to a 12 months' notice of dismissal, and each time he will have to go further out still, until finally he becomes discouraged and loses interest.
I should like to see a far larger number of people cultivating the soil. I should like to give all the help which we and the local authorities can give. These people need far more than is provided for in this Bill if we are to have a very large increase in the cultivated surface of the soil.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Hurd: This Bill will go on its way with the blessing of every Member of this House, chiefly because it offers the townsman a more secure stake in his bit of England if he has the will and the energy to cultivate an allotment. All political parties can take credit for the stage of development which we are

1357
reaching today in the way of giving greater security to the allotment holder. The history of the Allotment Acts shows that there has been no question of party politics, and happily there have not been party politics in our discussion today.
We all agree that experience shows that more security is needed than that now to be given by the 12 months' notice, as a minimum, for the holder of a permanent allotment. That is no more than justice. The holder should also be given the right to claim compensation for the loss of growing crops and unexhausted manures. That will put him in the category of a serious cultivator of the land, like the farmer who does it for his livelihood and not for enjoyment or recreation. We should feel happier if the allotment holder on temporary ground, who is subject to shorter notice, could be given greater security. But he will get 12 months' compensation in rent if he is turned out at short notice. We must recognise that when, at last, a local authority gets its allocation of houses, it must quickly assume possession of the land which it needs even though the land is occupied by allotments.
We welcome the encouragement which is being given to local authorities to provide more land for allotments by increasing the amount which they can use for this purpose to a rate of 1⅔d. in the £. I fully agree with those who urge that the local authority, the parish meeting or the parish council, should be given fuller discretion beyond that limit. After all, it is their own money and that of their constituents which they are proposing to spend. I think that they can be trusted to use that money rightly and wisely.
The main controversy in this discussion has been around Clause 11. The Minister, after having listened to the speeches from both sides of the House, must agree that this matter needs further consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) spoke with firsthand knowledge of the needs as well as the achievements of the pig-keepers, and an hon. Member opposite spoke of the great interest and, I would say, affection which the miners have for their pigs. The Minister would be wise if he would take Clause 11 away for re-drafting. It appears unsatisfactory to everyone. I hope that he and his advisers will be able
1358
to put the Clause into better shape so that it represents more truly the desires of those who feel that the men who take the trouble to keep pigs as well as hens or rabbits should be encouraged, but not to the point of creating a nuisance to their neighbours or putting up unsightly sheds. If the Minister can safeguard those two points, I am sure that it will be the desire of this House, and the country at large, that the men who want to keep livestock should get full encouragement and full protection. As we know from our experience of the last 10 years, there is good reason to encourage people to grow more food for themselves, whether it be vegetables or meat.
In this country, with our great industrial development, loss of contact with the land and reliance on the can-opener are weaknesses in our national life. This Bill goes some little way towards remedying these weaknesses, and we hope that, in Committee, when the Minister has presented us with another and a better Clause 11, it will protect the pig as well as the hen and the rabbit, where these can be kept in clean and proper conditions. It will then make a really effective contribution to safeguard the interests of domestic food producers, and it is in this hope that we give the Bill our full blessing on its passage through the House.
6.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): We have had a very interesting, and, within its short confines, a very useful Debate. This is, for me, quite a pleasant occasion, because I spent a long time last year and the year before presiding over two Committees whose work has led us into the Bill which is now before the House, and it is quite pleasant to see some of one's work coming to fruition, even if it is praised with faint damns or the other way round.
As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said, most of our discussion has centred round Clause 11, and it was certainly rather interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, after listening with great care to the discussion, we must come to the same conclusion as he did. The conclusion to which I have come is that hon. Members have answered each other fairly well in the Debate, and, if they will look at what has

1359
been said, they will see how far hon. Gentlemen have been arguing against each other. Indeed, if they will look at what was said by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Oakshott) about causes of friction and possible causes of difficulty in places where gardens are close together, they will realise that it is not only a question of danger to health or of nuisance, although these are difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. Jones) put up some arguments which quite clearly counteracted others which had been used.
I want the House to get rid of the essential misconception which has been shown in the Debate. When I presided over the Domestic Food Producers' Committee—and I pay my tribute to the very excellent members of that Committee and to the very good work they did—we had to consider what the position will be when the Defence Regulation comes to an end, as it will do at the end of this year, unless it is carried forward for a short period.
Up to the introduction of the Defence Regulation, any local authority, in respect of its own houses, or any private landlord, was able, by restrictive covenants in the lease, to prevent tenants from keeping livestock. During the war the Defence Regulations were fairly wide instruments which overrode other planning enactments—indeed, many other enactments—as well as over-riding the restrictive covenants that landlords might impose. We then considered how far, in the light of our experience during the war, it was proper, permanently and in peace-time, to interfere with a landlord's right to insert a restrictive or other covenant into his lease, and how far it was right, in this sort of way, to override other enactments which normally cover the position.
We listened to a good deal of discussion, and took evidence from a wide range of people, and, in the end, we tried to bring a certain amount of common sense to the consideration of the problem. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) spoke with understandable zeal on this matter, for he has done more than any other man—and I pay my tribute to him—to get pig-keeping brought up to its present level, but when he said that the Minister was
1360
talking of a general ban on the keeping of pigs that could not possibly be further from the facts. My Committee's Report recommended the very opposite, and neither is the Minister, in this Bill, talking in terms of imposing a ban.
Mr. Drewe: I did not accuse the Minister. What I said was that, if some of these bylaws are reimposed, we shall get an arbitrary ban. That is what is happening now, because the Minister is doing away with the protection and putting nothing in its place.
Mr. Brown: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, as he will see when he looks at HANSARD tomorrow. I very carefully took down his words. We have made progress as the Debate has proceeded.
The hon. Gentleman now says that we may be restoring the freedom to get a ban imposed by certain reactionary and thoughtless local authorities. With great respect, one has to consider whether it is proper in peace-time to interfere with what the hon. Member for North-West Leeds (Mr. Kaberry) pleaded for—the restoration of permissive powers of action to local authorities. We have to consider whether it is right to interfere with that all over the country in order to prevent a foolish local authority taking some silly action such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
We did consider this, and we did not start from the point that the pig was dirty, but looked at the whole question of rabbits, chickens and pigs to see where the line ought to be drawn. We came to the conclusion that it is reasonable to say that, while still banning the cockerels that crow early in the morning and still maintaining the provisions about nuisance and danger to health, there should not be this sort of restrictive covenant about chickens and rabbits, because the dangers of friction and difficulty in built-up areas are not the same, and because the usual powers in the local authority's own bylaws would be enough to deal with the situation.
When it comes to the pig, we think there is a different story to be told. There are areas in our large towns, on the outskirts of the towns and in suburban areas, where it would be impossible to say that a landlord or local authority may not in

1361
any circumstances impose such a ban, unless a nuisance or danger to health could be proved—and I think the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) addressed some very important words to the hon. Member for Newbury on the difficulty of proving a nuisance, and so on. To say that, unless that can be done, there must not be a ban on keeping pigs, but that people should keep them where they like in that kind of an area, where the gardens are close together and where there may be very expensive property developments, is really an interference which, while justified in the last five or six years, is entirely unjustified as a permanent interference by this House with the normal practice.
We therefore came to the conclusion, not against the keeping of pigs, but in the hope, which the Minister and my Committee share, that the local authorities will successfully apply their own bylaws to deal with this matter, and not interfere except where there is some very great risk of danger to health or a real nuisance. We examined this Clause from a common sense point of view, and we thought that it was best to leave it to the local authority, to the local people who understood local needs, and not impose an arbitrary action from the centre about the keeping of pigs, which gives rise to so many different arguments than did the hens and rabbits.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen on both both sides of the House, who have been arguing about what the Clause does, will think again about it. The hon. Member for North-West Leeds, said he wanted Clause 11 amended, so that we could restore a degree of permissive power to the local authorities, but, if we amended that Clause, that is exactly what we should take away from the local authorities, because we should prevent them from exercising their permissive powers. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that there is no lack of understanding or regard for pig keepers, or of the importance of their movement, but that there has to be a sensible line drawn for permanent purposes. I think that where that line has been drawn in the Bill is probably just where it should be drawn.
I have been asked one or two other questions. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) asked me about certain omissions
1362
from the recommendations in the Report, and, in particular, why we are not proposing to re-enact Section 3 of the 1925 Act. We considered this very carefully and made certain recommendations. Since then, my right hon. Friend has been able to take into account, rather more fully than we did on the Committee, the rest of the water which has flowed under the bridge—the Town and Country Planning Act, the position of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, our own administrative arrangements, and the extent to which planning authorities have to be consulted, and, in turn, have to consult the allotment authorities. Quite frankly, it seems to us that there is no need to re-enact it, and that by administrative methods, by the Minister of Town and Country Planning's own arrangements and our arrangements with him all that Section 3 could do, if re-enacted, can be done. For that reason, it is not proposed to do that.
The hon. and gallant Baronet further asked about the reason for the omission of our suggested definition of an allotment garden. It has been very pleasant today to be congratulated on what I am told is a very good definition. But the reason is that our lawyers told us that the existing definition bears all the interpretation that could be placed on the new definition, and that it is impossible to place any different interpretation on the existing one. By implication it includes what we want to put into it.
I have been asked several times about the holders of allotments on requisitioned land. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) got a little angry about it. We are very conscious of the problem. No one is trying to put up a gravestone inscribed "R.I.P." over the bodies of those who did good work during the war. I was one of them. There are many difficulties about dealing with the matter in the grand sort of way which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. We think this Bill widens the power of allotment authorities. It increases the amount of money they are able to spend, and, therefore, we shall do all we can, as I am sure will the allotment associations, to bring to the attention of allotment authorities the need to find new areas to which these people can transfer. We believe that the increased powers it will

1363
give, and the increased amount of money it will allow, will be one way of ensuring that these people are, in fact, looked after, and will stand a chance of getting new allotments in place of those they have to give up.
Mr. Hurd: Will the hon. Gentleman say why the 1⅔d. was fixed?
Mr. Brown: After receiving recommendations from several bodies including the National Allotments and Gardens Society, and after considerable discussion among ourselves and with people who came to see us, we unanimously came to the view that were it put up by one-third of a penny it would give us the money which the allotment authorities were likely to spend. It was generally agreed that that figure would be satisfactory to everybody concerned, and there were no reservations about it at all.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) about shacks. He suggested that the Government ought to do something—the Ministries of Health and Agriculture together—to develop a decent sort of building. There is a good deal in what he and other hon. Members said, and I will refer to what is already being done. I went to the annual conference of the National Allotments and Gardens Society at Cardiff recently and saw there excellent demonstrations showing various approved—if that is the right term—buildings, and demonstrations of lay-out. It is quite clear that to the various allotment societies there are already available some very excellent designs and a good deal of knowledge as to how and where they can be got. A lot is being done in that field, and we shall certainly do all we can to encourage the development of that sort of thing.
I think I have covered most of the points raised this afternoon, and such other points as I have not covered, such as the Salisbury engineer's trouble over the definition of "hen" and "nuisance" are, I think, on the whole, better left till the Committee stage, when we can get to grips with those things rather more easily than we can today. I have the
1364
greatest pleasure in joining with my right hon. Friend in commending this Measure to the House. I believe it is much more important than its limited scope would suggest. I also believe that, despite the criticism of particular Clauses, when hon. Gentlemen come to look at them—and if they will read with them the Report of the Committee that gave rise to them—they will find that they do set out to meet the points they have in mind.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. Jones) raised the question of Clause 8 and suggested that it was not a recommendation of the Advisory Committee. If he will look at paragraphs 7 and 15 (3) of the Report of the Advisory Committee he will see there a unanimous recommendation which is, in fact, Clause 8 as it appears in the Bill. With those explanations I commend the Bill to the House, and hope that it will receive its Second Reading and be speedily placed upon the Statute Book.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second Time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ALLOTMENTS [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]
[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to allotments and to abolish restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(i) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in paying compensation under the said Act; and

(ii) any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in the sums which, under any other enactment, are payable out of moneys so provided; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown or government department by way of compensation under the said Act."—[Mr. Jay.]
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Accrington, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Uttoxeter, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Godstone, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—[Sir C. MacAndrew.]
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): On a point of order. There is, I understand, a Motion on the Order Paper relating to the suspension of Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading). I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether that Motion is taken now or at the conclusion of the discussion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked about Third Reading, I understand.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I desire to raise a certain number of points on Third Reading. I was seeking your guidance as to whether we are now taking the suspension of Standing Order 205, which I understand is necessary before we proceed to Third Reading.
Mr. Speaker: I now understand the point. I think we ought to give the Bill consideration; then I will say, "Third
1366
Reading—Now?" The Debate can then take place on Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
The following Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:
"That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time. (King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, to be signified.)
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not propose to oppose the Motion, but I hope that if the Transport Commission are permitted the favour of the suspension of a Rule, which otherwise might have prevented them from progressing with this Bill today, the Minister will show, by way of gratitude, he has no undue desire to restrict the Debate by Closures and that kind of thing.
Mr. Speaker: It is not the Minister who can restrict the Debate; it is I. I am bound by the Rule on Third Reading, and the Debate must be based on what is in the Bill, and nothing else.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respectfully agree. What I had in mind was an attempt to close the Debate by way of the Closure which, of course, it is open to the Minister to move. Of course, it is for you, Sir, to decide whether you would accept that.
Mr. Speaker: I did not think it would be possible to go so far with this Bill that the Closure would have to be moved. It is a very limited Debate, and I shall see to that.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose—
Mr. Speaker: I did not quite get the point. Now, I understand that the hon. Member would like me to divide this Motion so that we can get rid of the first part and then we talk on the Third Reading. Is that the idea?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respectfully suggest that that would be a convenient procedure.
Mr. Speaker: Then I divide it into two.
Motion made, and Question, "That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended,"—[Sir C. Mac-Andrew]—put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)—[Sir C. MacAndrew.]
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As this Bill now emerges from the Select Committee, to which it was committed after Debate, which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will recollect, on Second Reading, a close study of it makes two points very evident. The first is that the promoters of the Bill have, quite clearly, ignored the representations which were made to them in this House on Second Reading. Amendments which they have incorporated neither deal, nor seek to deal, with those representations.
The second point that becomes immediately apparent is that there is at least a doubt whether we are dealing effectively with a Bill which was ruled on Second Reading to be a general powers Bill, promoted by a great monopoly with effects directly and indirectly upon the whole life of the community. There is the question whether or not it is appropriate to follow on this Bill the Select Committee procedure which, in my view, is highly appropriate in the case of a less widespread Measure.
In debating this Bill, one is faced with the difficulty that, on a normal Committee stage of a Measure of this magnitude and importance, there would have been a Committee stage in the sense in which one normally understands it and in which the public interest would have been raised and discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Here, however, the procedure which has been followed has been the Private Bill procedure.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not criticise the procedure of this House. It has followed the normal procedure on a Private Bill. It is a Private Bill, and nothing more; therefore complaint cannot be made against it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The submission I make is that Private Bill procedure has been sedulously and strictly applied and that it has been shown to be inappropriate for this new type of Private Bill—a Private Bill not proposed by a private company but by a great monopoly corporation.
Mr. Speaker: We have had many Bills on water corporations and so on, and I have had to rule on those. They are public corporations, the same as this Transport Commission.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not seek in any way to be impertinent or out of order, or to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. While they are public corporations, they are of course—
Mr. Speaker: I allowed a very wide Debate on Second Reading, and that cannot be followed on Third Reading.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate that, and indeed the only reason I prefaced my remarks with the remarks with which I sought to preface them is that, owing to the facts to which I refer, it will be necessary for a more detailed examination of the Clauses of the Bill on Third Reading than, perhaps, would otherwise have been necessary.
The first Clause to which I would invite the attention of the House is one of considerable public importance. If I may respectfully say so, it does lend force to the contention I sought to make in respect of the appropriateness of the whole procedure in these cases. That is in reference to Clause 30 of the Bill, as it now stands. I should remind the House—because it makes it a little difficult to follow the Debate on Second Reading—that owing to the inclusion of a number of additional Clauses in Committee, mainly, I think I am right in saying, for the protection of certain special interests, the numbering of Clauses in the present Bill is different from that on Second Reading.
Clause 30 is one which now deals with the publication of by-laws by the Commission, as the successors of the former railways. It has been the law for 100 years that the by-laws, made previously by the Commission, should be published by being displayed on the front of every station and wharf owned either by the company or by the Commission. That was provided by Section 110 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845. This is the relevant extract:
"The substance of such last-mentioned bye-laws, when confirmed or allowed according to the provisions of any Act in force regulating the allowance or confirmation of the same, shall be painted on boards, or printed on paper and pasted on boards, and hung up and affixed

1369
and continued on the front or other conspicuous part of every wharf or station belonging to the company. …"
That provision was, of course, to secure that by-laws which affectnot only the companies and the Commission, but still more the public, who may find themselves facing criminal charges if they transgress them, should secure full and adequate publicity. That, I would repeat, has been the practice for over 100 years.
Clause 30 of this Bill seeks to repeal the Sections of that Public Act of 1845 and to substitute a procedure which it seems to me is much less appropriate for the publication of by-laws of this importance. The provision—and it is mainly contained in Subsection (2) of Clause 30—is:
"A printed copy of any such by-laws when confirmed or allowed according to the provisions of any Act in force regulating the confirmation or allowance thereof shall be deposited at every passenger station on the railways of the Commission and shall at all reasonable hours be open to public inspection without payment. …"
or, as an alternative,
"a copy thereof shall be furnished … at the principal office of the Commission "—
I take it that that means the headquarters in London—
"on payment of such sum not exceeding one shilling. …"
The House will appreciate that that is a totally different procedure. Instead of displaying these by-laws where anybody who likes to go to a railway station can see them at any hour of the day or night, they are to be, I do not wish to use an offensive word such as "secreted," but maintained inside an office and subject to inspection only on demand, and I suppose during the ordinary working hours. That seems to me to be quite an inadequate method of securing proper publicity for what are, after all, in some respects parts of our criminal law.
I would respectfully submit that no case was made or attempted to be made on behalf of the Commission, either on the Second Reading or before the Select Committee, for this change. In fairness to the Commission, I must read what was said to the Select Committee on this Clause, which was then Clause 27, by learned counsel who appeared for the Transport Commission. Learned counsel said:
"This Clause provides for a much simpler and easier system of publications. You have
1370
probably very often on long waits on railway stations seen those forbidding looking large notices "—
Mr. Speaker: We are up against another difficulty here. This document has not been laid before the House and, therefore, it should not be quoted. The hon. Member can state his own opinion about it, but this Committee has not reported and, therefore, the House has no knowledge of it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect, I hold in my hand the Report of the Select Committee.
Mr. Speaker: It cannot be produced as evidence, I am afraid. Those are oar rules.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With respect, it is the Select Committee to which this House committed this Bill.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is not a document which has been produced before the House. All we have are the minutes of what happened. We know that a Clause was amended, and that is all. We have no document showing what was said in the Committee and we are not allowed to quote it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have to accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I respectfully submit that there are grave disadvantages which inevitably must flow from it. We are seeking here to elicit the reasons for a change in a Public Act of Parliament 100 years old. No reference was made on the Second Reading to the reasons for that, and it was only as a result of a good deal of research into the minutes of the Select Committee that I was able to find what are apparently the Transport Commission's reasons. If, according to your Ruling, I cannot quote this document, it is a little unfair to the Transport Commission that their only reasons for this proposed action should be kept from the House.
Mr. Speaker: The principle is laid down perfectly clearly. This is a document which is not before the House. Of course, the hon. Member having read it and knowing the argument, he can state the argument as his own.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am most grateful to you for that guidance, Sir. As I understand it, I can quote what in my view is the substance of the Transport

1371
Commission's case, on the understanding that it will not be open to the Minister to correct me by quotation. As I understand it, there is no dispute about this aspect. All that the Transport Commission believes to be the reasons for this change is that the procedure was somewhat out of date. I hope that before we part with this Bill, we shall hear reasons for this from the Minister, who I am very glad to see in his place.
This is a matter of public importance. The publication of what amounts to a form of delegated legislation under which criminal penalties are imposed on the subject, is a matter of which this House is naturally and properly jealous, and one which affects not merely the private interests of the Commission but the public interests of the public at large. I hope we shall receive from the right hon. Gentleman much fuller justifications for this change than I have described as the only possible reasons in the minds of the Transport Commission.
These by-laws and their publication have become more important inasmuch as the penalties imposed under them are increased by this Bill, and therefore if it were important to secure publicity for the criminal provisions made by the Transport Commission in the last 100 years, it has become more important at present, now that the penalties imposed upon those who transgress them have become somewhat larger.
That brings me to the next Clause to which I desire to invite the attention of the House, and that is Clause 31. That Clause contains a number of provisions under which the penalties imposed for breaches of the Commission's by-laws are substantially increased. They relate principally, though not exclusively, to those enterprising gentlemen who seek to travel upon the railways or other means of transport without the preliminary precaution of obtaining a ticket. Nobody has any particular sympathy with those gentlemen, however well known or indeed notorious they may be in individual cases. But there is an important question of principle here, and I would like to deal with it first of all with reference to subsection (1) of Clause 31.
That subsection increases the penalty for the first offence of this nature from
1372
40s. to £5. As I understand it. Mr. Speaker, for reasons which you have told me I may not disclose, the reason that the Transport Commission have for this increase is the fact that these penalties were fixed last in the year 1889, and that for reasons which it would be both out of order and tactless to refer to, the value of money has fallen substantially in the interval. That is, as it stands, a reasonable argument, but I think we should analyse it a little further.
This Clause provides that in one aspect of the criminal law which relates to those persons who seek to develop railway or Other transport undertakings, penalties shall be raised by 150 per cent. to allow for the fall in the value of money. If that is to be done at all in our criminal law—and I am glad to see the Home Secretary on the Front Bench—I submit that it should be done by general Act, and least of all by a Private Bill promoted through the form of Private Bill procedure by a nationalised industry or by any other private body. If we are to have this inflation of criminal penalties to correspond with the inflation of our currency, that is a matter which it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to deal with generally and not specially in this way.
There is another provision of this Clause which is not without interest. Hon. Members will see that subsection (2) provides that people who commit a second offence of this nature, for example, on the buses of London Transport, have their penalty increased four times, from £5 to £20. As I understand it, the reason for that is not that money has fallen in value to that extent, but in order to bring the penalties on those who travel by bus into line with the penalties on those who travel by rail, in view of what I understand is called the integration of our national transport system. It is, perhaps, a little discouraging to the citizen to know that the first result of the much vaunted integration of our transport system is that the penalties imposed upon the citizen are to be increased in the case of those means of transport where they were lower, so as to bring them into line with those means of transport where they were higher. Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, that there was nothing about that in "Let Us Face The Future."
The point goes further. In my submission, previous legislation has provided these different scales of penalty because of the different scales of the offences. If one defrauds a railway company, one may potentially be trying to travel to Wick or Thurso or some sub-arctic station, and one may, if one succeeds in that enterprise, relieve oneself of a charge of perhaps £8 or £10. But if one defrauds on a London bus it is difficult, even with the greatest of ingenuity, to do so to the extent of more than a few shillings. It seems to me that the old provision, under which there was some relationship between the amount of the fraud and the amount of the penalty, was based upon common sense; and the zeal of the Transport Commission for the integration of transport might perhaps have been concentrated more on co-ordinating road and rail services than on co-ordinating criminal penalties.
Mr. Grimond: A flat rate for fraud as well as for transport.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the Liberal Chief Whip, whose interest in travel to Wick or Thurso is, I am sure, perfectly bona fide. He has admirably summarised the effect of this Clause. The expression "a flat rate for fraud" regardless of the potential scale of the fraud exactly expresses what the Transport Commission have apparently attempted to do, and I am glad that they have not had the frankness to use that expression on another occasion, which would have debarred me from using it now.
These, again, are serious matters, because the imposition of penalties for criminal offences is always a serious matter. There is a further aspect of it which is difficult to understand. As I have said, the provision under subsection (2) increases fourfold the penalty for a ticket offence on London buses. It so happens that such offences are, in proportion, extremely rare. I believe I am right in saying—and I quote authority for which the Minister, although he sometimes forgets it, is responsible—that the number of such offences in London last year was 39 on the buses as compared with over 6,000 on the railways. It is not, therefore, an offence of which there was evidence of any undue prevalence.
1374
The case which is sometimes used for the increase of criminal penalties—although I believe it is generally a pretty bad one—that it is in order to deal with the high incidence of an offence, cannot possibly be advanced in this case. I believe that the reason sometimes given by the Commission for the claim—simply a desire for integration—is a perfectly genuine, though in my view inadequate, one. I hope we shall hear something from the Minister on that point.
There is another Clause of the Bill which was drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's attention on Second Reading by the hon. Baronet the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson). Owing to the changes in the Bill, that Clause has now become Clause 36. It is the Clause responsible for dealing with the relationship between, on the one hand, the works authorised by this Bill to be undertaken by the railways and, on the other hand, the Town and Country Planning Act. On the face of it, it appears to be an innocuous Clause in as much as it attracts, and rightly attracts, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act to the works to be undertaken, but I believe—and I shall be grateful if the right hon Gentleman will clarify the matter—that it is for that reason a somewhat deceptive Clause.
I believe I am right in saying that it does not subject the railways to the inconveniences which the Town and Country Planning Act inflicts on almost everyone else of paying a development charge before the work is done so that, although the Clause, as far as it goes, appears to be innocuous, I should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give an explanation of whether it brings into the Bill not merely the general provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but the particular provisions which relate to the development charge. That is highly material on consideration of this Bill because, as will have been observed, Part II relates to the construction of a very large number of works in a very large number of parts of the country.
With reference to that part of the Bill. I hope I shall not incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, if I say that I am one of those who are contemplating with a great deal of anxiety this House authorising the construction of this large amount of works by what is, frankly, a bankrupt

1375
concern. We have not at any stage had any indication of how these works are to be financed. We have not at any stage had any indication of the policy of which these works are the physical development. We are simply presented with a whole list of proposed works, set out with great geographical exactitude but with a complete lack of economic information. We are presented with proposals which appear to be precise inasmuch as they specify where the work is to be done; but what they do not tell us is why the work is to be done; what they do not tell us is the policy behind it and what they do not tell us is how the work is to be paid for. I think this House would be irresponsible to part with this Bill, under which, with the authority of Parliament, the Transport Commission are to be given the right to proceed with these works, unless and until we are satisfied that a concern faced with an ever-rising deficit is in a position financially to pay for them.
The Bill is now in its last stage in this House, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has another stage in another place. While I can express the hope, which is perhaps the triumph of hope over experience, that the right hon. Gentleman and those who advise him will pay some attention to the views expressed in this House, I can also express the hope that, if the same attitude of obstructive unhelpfulness is adopted, then it might be found that the Bill does not have a particularly easy passage in another place. We are about to take leave of an unsatisfactory Bill which has had an unsatisfactory passage through this House and about which very few hon. Members, despite its importance, know very much. That, if I may say so, is not a fault of ours but it is a fault of the system. As I say, we take leave of the Bill, as far as I am concerned, in the hope that, not for the first time in the last five years, another place may do the work that this House might have done.
Mr. Speaker: I might just warn the House here. I did not interrupt the hon. Member, but I thought he was going to discuss the finances of the Transport Commission and I must rule that out of order, because it is an extraneous matter which is not in the Bill.
Mr. David Renton: On a point of order. Arising out of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which, of course, I do not seek in any way to challenge, may I seek your guidance, and ask whether it would be in order to discuss how the purposes of the Bill are to be financed, because we are, so far, in the dark about that?
Mr. Speaker: That was before the House on Second Reading. It would not be in order on Third Reading. There is nothing in this Bill to do with finance.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Further to that point of order. On Second Reading we did not know What form the Bill would take on Third Reading. We have, on Third Reading, a list of undertakings before us which the Commission propose to take in hand. Are we not, Sir, entitled to ask for further information as to how the undertakings which appear in the Bill on Third Reading will be implemented?
Mr. Speaker; I allowed a very wide Debate on Second Reading, and we must leave it at that. This is a limited Bill and any extraneous matter is out of order on Third Reading.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: While, of course, fully accepting that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I take it that it would be in order to ask not about the general finance of the Transport Commission, which would obviously be out of order, and which we discussed fully on Second Reading, but to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the total cost of the provisions in the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: I think that that would be reasonable.
7.33 p.m.
Sir Austin Hudson: I think that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, have shown the House how circumscribed must be a Debate on the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind. You must, I think, have some sympathy with the Members of the House, perhaps particularly with those who, like myself, have had a period of absence from it, during which time a great change has taken place in the running of our railways and road transport. When I left the House there was no such thing as the British Transport Commission, and before that, when we wished

1377
to raise such questions as are in the Bill, we could do so on the Floor of the House and receive answers. Nowadays we are nearly always told, and I notice particularly on my return to the House, that the questions are a matter for the administration of the executive concerned, in this case the British Transport Executive.
We therefore have to take the few opportunities we have, while keeping in order, to deal with matters about which we find it quite impossible to put down Questions or employ other Parliamentary means to obtain answers. I agree with you, Sir, that on the Second Reading of the Bill you gave us great latitude to discuss the whole question of the British Transport Commission. In the few remarks I shall make I wish to ask only for information about one or two of the items in the Bill which have changed in some way since it was before us on Second Reading. Although, as you yourself have said. Sir, I cannot quote from the minutes of evidence, that does not prevent a Member from reading those minutes and discovering why certain things are in the Bill.
There are two items in the Bill, one at the bottom of page 4, with the subtitle "(Widening at Nottingham)" and another, on page 5, with the sub-title "(Bridge reconstruction at Northwich)." There is a point of principle which I wish to raise with the Minister. The Northwich case is one of a road bridge going over the railway, and that railway is to be widened to four tracks. The Nottingham case is slightly different. It is a proposal to improve two bridges which are carrying the railway over the road. I do not wish to go into the details of these cases, and what I wish to say arises out of my preliminary remark on the fact that the railways are now nationalised. The case I wish to put to the Minister is best illustrated by the Northwich case, because in that case there is a class A road which goes over the railway, and which is to be widened. That road carries a 75 per cent grant. We on this side of the House were not enamoured of the nationalisation of the railways, but it seems to me that on occasions of this kind some good may come because there should not now be the conflict of opinion which we might have had previously in the case of a privately owned railway.
1378
Most of the class A roads in the country require widening; this one obviously does. The bridge requires widening also, and I hope that when these cases come forward the Minister will see that the widening proposal is not turned down. In one of these cases it has been deferred in any event because of the unwillingness of either the railway or the road authority to pay for it. Let the Minister, who is the overall authority for both roads and railways, have a look at these cases and see whether, perhaps by making both sides come together—the funds come from the same source, that is, to the extent of 75 per cent. in the case of the road and the whole of the cost so far as the railway is concerned—he cannot take advantage of the opportunity which he has here of assisting in having the necessary improvements made to the roads.
I wish to put one other point concerning the question, in Clause 31, of increasing the fines for fraudulent travelling. We discussed that matter at some length on Second Reading. I said that I thought that the increases were somewhat excessive. I have taken the trouble, knowing that I intended to try to make these few remarks, to find out whether with these very big increases there had also been a big increase in fraudulent travelling. I can inform the House that unfortunately that is so. I will give only one figure in connection with the London Transport Executive. In 1938, just before the war, the number who were caught for this offence was 1,305. The latest figure I was able to obtain was for 1946, when the number was 6,218. The omnibus figure, as my hon. Friend said, is much smaller—11 in 1938 and 39 in 1949; and the figure for the Railway Executive was 2,575 as against an enormous increase to 7,078.
Mr. H. Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are offences which were detected, not necessarily the number of offences?
Sir A. Hudson: That, of course, is so. I think that both sides of the House will agree that they are rather shocking figures. Of course, I may not quote to give the information, but I think it has been put up by the London Transport Executive and also by the Railway Executive, that one reason for this great increase in the figures is the greater proficiency on the part of the police and

1379
others in catching offenders. Nevertheless, the figures are so enormous—six times in one case, and from 2,000 to 7,000 in another—that I feel that all of us on all sides of the House ought to let the public know that we do not consider that the people who commit these sorts of offences are people who ought to be encouraged in any way. I, for one, would never criticise the idea of increasing the fines. I think these figures throw a rather horrifying light on the brave new world we are living in, and I sincerely hope that the next time these figures come before the House they will be seen to have gone steadily down.
I had wanted to say a word on the cost of works in London, but you have ruled that out of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I was going to ask the Minister to ask the London Transport Executive, as its political head, to remember that the cost of living is going up and to be very careful in putting in hand works which are expensive and not of first rate importance.
Just one word about the Clause dealing with town and country planning—Clause 36. I have an apology to make to the Minister. When I spoke before I asked why was the Minister doing such a monstrous thing as contracting out. He wrote me a most courteous letter saying that I had got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and that he was contracting in. I apologise for my mistake. What I wanted to ask him was this: I have talked about this with several of my hon. Friends, and none of us has been able to get to the bottom of it. What exactly would be the effect if this Clause was left out altogether? I was wrong before, but I am not much better informed now, though I have complete hold of the other end of the stick.
That is all I wanted to say on the Bill: I particularly wanted to make the point of the Minister's using the opportunity which he has, having both nationalised roads and railways, to get costs agreed and more quickly than was possible before.
7.44 p.m.
Mr. Harrison: On Second Reading we had a fairly wide discussion, and, considering that, it is difficult for me to understand exactly opposition that is being made to the Bill. The
1380
Bill, as has already been pointed out by the Chair, is on the customary lines of railway or transport Bills; it contains only usual or customary provisions.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: With respect, no. Is the hon. Gentleman not making a mistake? This is only the second Bill that has applied to all the railways of this country. All previous railway Bills have been related to particular sections only.
Mr. Harrison: That is quite correct, but that does not alter the fact that the Bill is drafted on lines that are customary for railway Bills.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a serious point. I understood the hon. Gentleman to preface his speech with the remark that you, Mr. Speaker, had so ruled. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman made an assertion that the Bill was on customary lines in its drafting, and in the hearing of the House he said that you, Sir, from the Chair had so stated. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In my respectful submission, this point was used by the hon. Gentleman, and I would ask you, Sir, to indicate whether that was so, because, if so, I misunderstood.
Mr. Speaker: I did say, I think, that the Bill was drafted like any other ordinary Private Bill, and I mentioned a Bill which was drafted by a water company, another public body, as is the British Transport Commission.
Mr. Harrison: The only point of diversion from what is customary in the contents of such Bills is, of course, the increase in the fines for evasion of fares or rates of travel and the obtaining of tickets. One would expect careful examination to be made of the contents of the Bill in that particular direction, and it is in that direction that I think we shall, on all sides of the House, profit by this discussion tonight.
As to the other contents of the Bill, I cannot understand any substantial opposition to them, taking into consideration the works proposed in the Bill. Those works are definitely of such a character that they will enable the railway section of the Transport Commission to undertake their ordinary shunting duties, or

1381
ordinary traffic duties, far more conveniently than they will without the structural alterations involved in the Bill's provisions. Take, for example, the alteration to be carried out at Winnington and the proposed new bridge. The proposal is to widen the bridge to permit another set of lines to be accommodated under the bridge. The reason for that proposed alteration is the fact that Imperial Chemical Industries are building a huge factory in that neighbourhood, and that this line is designed to serve that new factory. Without these added facilities, it would be impossible for the traffic to be moved. Therefore, that one particular example should commend itself very strongly to the House as a whole.
The second example we can take from the provisions of the Bill is the widening of the track over the roadways at the Beeston sidings in Nottingham. The effect of being able to widen that part of the track will be to enable the operating manager in that part of the country to avoid considerable waste of engine and man hours by what we call back blocking of shuntable traffic. It will enable the Railway Executive to avoid delays to mineral trains entering the Beeston sidings.
The financial cost to the Transport Commission of this provision will be fully repaid in a very short time by the very nature of the provisions proposed. Coming to the London area, good examples of the works proposed in the Bill are the works proposed at Wembley Park and the Oval Station. Here, there is a question of expense being entered into to provide a new bridge and ventilate the subways. I am quite sure that no hon. Member on either side of the House will seriously object to that expenditure, particularly in the case of the business of running railways. Generally speaking, the Bill contains sufficient to commend it to the whole-hearted support of everybody in the House, no matter on which side he sits.
I now turn to the contentious part of the Bill. We all recognise the seriousness and importance of that part of the Bill which increases the fines for evading the payment of fares. Although, last year, there may have been only 39 convictions for fare evasion on buses, it must be remembered that it is much more difficult to catch people jumping on and off of buses at unpredictable points than it is
1382
to catch people on the main line trains, or even on the London Underground. At present the maximum fine upon conviction of evading payment of a 4d. fare on a bus is considerably less than the fine which can be imposed upon somebody convicted of evading payment of a 4d. fare on the underground railway, and this Clause has been drafted to bring those two into line. I cannot see why there should be any strong objection to the co-ordination of fines for similar offences.
On the size of the fine, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, it is about a hundred years since these fines were decided and put into the by-laws.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In 1889.
Mr. Harrison: In 1889 for some of them, and in 1845 for others. The very date suggests the necessity for a revision of these fines. It is on record that some frauds of this type have been so bad that magistrates have had to impose extra costs so that the fine, plus the costs, fits the measure of the fraud. If that was necessary in cases already on record, I am sure the House will agree that to increase these fines to the extent suggested is justifiable for two reasons: first, the changed value of money; and second, the necessity to co-ordinate the fines for similar offences committed on buses and on the underground.
Substantially, this Bill should commend itself to those who wish well to the efforts and undertakings of the Transport Commission. It is difficult to understand the objection made by the Opposition, unless it can be summed up by saying that the changed ownership has given rise to the fierce opposition that this Measure is receiving from some hon. Members opposite.
7.53 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: In rising to make a few remarks on this Bill, I want to base myself on my own experience as a railway solicitor who formerly had to administer the Sections which are amended by the Bill. I do not raise these points in any sense of carping criticism, and I can assure the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), that it is quite incorrect to suggest that we on this side of the House are trying to obstruct the British Transport Commission.

1383
We fully appreciate that the greater part of this Bill is in common form, and is very like the many omnibus Bills that have come before this House both before and since the amalgamation of 1921. Nevertheless, it does differ from all previous Bills, except one, in two respects: first, the provisions of this Bill, unlike the other omnibus railway Bills of the past, apply to all railways in this country; and second, in two cases, which have already been referred to, it reverses the general law of the country with regard to the railways. It reverses law which was the general law, and not provisions included in a private Act—in one case in the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and, in the other, in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889. Both those Acts are basic railway law—if I might put it that way—Acts on which a great deal of the work of the legal departments of the railways has in the past been based.
Clause 30 of this Bill varies the provisions of Sections 110 and 111 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has already referred to its provisions, in which, in effect, it does away with the necessity of exhibiting by-laws painted on boards or printed on paper and pasted on boards in a conspicuous place at a railway station before any penalty imposed by the by-laws can be recovered. That provision will not, in future, apply to the Transport Commission. Instead, it will be sufficient if printed by-laws are placed somewhere—it does not say where—which the passenger can read if he so wishes.
I want to place it on record that, being responsible for the prosecution of, I was going to say, hundreds of people for by-law offences, I always found it a most unsatisfactory form of prosecution To begin with, while on the one hand, a lay bench was very inclined to treat a bylaw offence in a light and perfunctory manner, as if it were some sort of imposition imposed upon the public by a private Act, not to be treated very seriously, on the other the unfortunate defendant very often felt he had a grievance; because he was being prevented from doing on the railways something for which he would not be prosecuted anywhere else.
I do not know whether many hon. Members have looked at the railway bylaws. They include a remarkable number of offences. There are all sorts of things for which a person can be fined, and there have been many cases in which, to my knowledge, the defendant clearly felt a sense of grievance, when he was fined merely because he had, perhaps, taken explosives into a railway carriage, or insisted on taking his dog into the passenger compartment instead of putting it in the guard's van, or perhaps even because he spat on the floor. It is now to be made more difficult for people to find out what the by-laws are. I gather that the reason is said to be that this is more modern. I do not know what is more modern about making things a little more uncomfortable for the railway passenger—unless we are to conclude that that is the natural and inevitable result of nationalisation. Seriously though, I do suggest that that is the wrong attitude to adopt towards the railway passenger.
We all know—at least, anyone who has ever been a law student knows—that the very basic principle of English law is that justice should not only be done but should appear to be done, and that if the railway passenger already feels himself under a grievance when he is hauled up and fined because he has failed to read a notice somewhere on the railway station, how much more will he feel himself under a grievance if he is now to be hauled before the bench and fined for breaking a by-law which he probably does not know exists, which is secreted somewhere in the station master's drawer or under the booking clerk's counter, and which he cannot find unless he goes and asks for it. I suggest that that is a thoroughly retrograde step.
If we want to take a more modern view of this matter it would be much better to adopt the principle of modern advertising and assume that the customer is always right. After all, that is what all businesses do and the railways are a business. Instead of multiplying offences, and making them more difficult to understand and know about, I suggest that we should limit the number of offences and make it less likely that members of the public will be hauled up for petty offences and fined.
Mr. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this Bill necessarily multiplies the offences that the passenger on the railway may commit?
Mr. Wilson: Perhaps I have been misunderstood. I intended to convey that it makes it more difficult for the passenger to find out what are the offences and, therefore, he will be more likely to feel himself under a grievance when he is prosecuted. I might perhaps commend to the Minister and to the British Transport Commission the example of Toc H, which when they wanted to do away with certain practices which are also offences under the by-laws, put up a notice, "If you spit on the carpet at home, please do it here."
With regard to Clause 31—increase of penalties—as already pointed out, that is an increase of penalties principally under Section 5 (1) and Section 5 (3) of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889 and also under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1936 and the Tramways Act, 1870. It is increase in the fine from £2 to £5, in the first and third Acts, and provides for a uniform fine of £20 for a second offence in the second Act. I gather that the reason given is the altered value of money and also to iron out inequalities, presumably on the principle that even in fines we should have fair shares for all.
With regard to the question of the increase in prosecutions since the war, some figures have been given for London transport. There are other figures available which relate to the four main line companies compiled by the Railway Executive. I understand that in 1938 the number of prosecutions for such offences was 2,575, and that in 1948 the figure was 8,361. There was a decrease in 1949 to 7,078. Whether the decrease had anything to do with the fact that I ceased to be responsible for prosecutions in one of the regions in the interval, I do not know, but I gather that it has been suggested that there are fewer passengers travelling and that this accounted for the decrease in 1948–49.
With regard to the general overall increase since before the war, there seems to be some suggestion that this is due to increased supervision. That is not my impression. I had to deal with these cases over a period of 10 years before the war,
1386
and, after an interval, for two years after the war. My impression was that there was a considerably increased tendency among the public to commit these offences. I did not find any difference in the efficiency in the railway police. I have always found the railway police a very efficient body, as were the ticket collectors and particularly the travelling ticket collectors—often called the "snappers." They were a keen body of men who did not neglect their duty before the war. I think that it is unfortunate that it should be suggested that the increase in prosecutions was due to some increase in efficiency.
I think that the increase is due to the psychological effect of present conditions. On one occasion someone suggested that the real reason for the increase was because so many people regarded the railways as fair game. That is true. People who would not dream of stealing an apple from a costermonger's barrow do not hesitate to attempt to defraud the railway companies. I think that it is a psychological effect because they feel frustrated and are a bit "fed up" with the number of rules and regulations; they take a chance and they get caught out. It seems to have nothing to do with their station in life or their income.
One illustration has been given already, and I can remember another one which happened many years ago. I mention it, not in order to stir up old mud, but as an illustration. It happened years ago, when I was responsible for the prosecution of a lady who claimed to be a relation of a philosopher well known to many hon. Members opposite. She alleged that she was a relation of Karl Marx. I do not know whether that was true or not but it is true that she was the wife of an hon. Member of this House at the time of the offence, though not at the time of the prosecution. As, unfortunately, he was concerned in that offence, the incident brought to an end a political career which might have led to very great things. The increase of fine from £2 to £5 would not stop that sort of thing happening. I suggest that it was the psychological effect of having too many rules and regulations, and that if we could have a greater degree of friendship between the passenger and the railway company an improvement might result. It is quite possible to do so because London Passenger Transport

1387
managed to achieve that result before the war by brightening up their stations and by advertisements and so on, instead of the rather grim—
Mr. Manuel: The decrease in the number of prosecutions between 1948 and 1949, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, was partly due to the falling-off of passenger traffic. Would he not agree that the increase from 1938–1948 was in some measure due to the proportionate increase in passengers? There were more people travelling.
Mr. Wilson: I should not have thought that there would be an increase to that extent—it was an increase from 2,575 to 8,361, which is a very big increase. I do not know whether this increase in the fine will have the desired effect. It may be that perhaps the Minister and the Commission will consider whether there are other means by which they can bring to an end, or, at any rate, greatly diminish, because they will never bring to an end, the cases of fraud on the railways. I suggest that they might consider linking the punishment with the crime. Instead of having an increase in fine they might possibly make the defrauding passenger pay a certain proportion of the fare which he has defrauded—say four times the fare he has defrauded or something like that—which might have the effect of connecting up in his mind the offence which he has committed with what it actually is—the taking of money from the railway company.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. John Grimston: I want to draw the attention of the House for a short time to one of the powers which would be given to the Commission under this Bill. Unfortunately, some of the actions of the right hon. Gentleman have cut across my particular hobby horses from time to time, and one of them is the question of watercress. Under this Bill powers are given to the Commission to pump any water which they may find in the construction of any works into any available stream or watercourse or any sewer or drain of any local authority. It is a perfectly reasonable provision, because in the course of foundation work, and so on, it is 10 to I that water will be encountered and so must be allowed
1388
to run away. However I, and we on this side of the House do not necessarily take the view expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) that because a thing has been done for 100 years it is necessarily right in the present circumstances.
A very important fact in this case is that in the Fifth Schedule the powers of the Commission extend to certain parts of my constituency, such as Sandridge and Welwyn, which are in the watercress growing areas of Hertfordshire.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): There is nothing in the Bill about watercress.
Mr. Grimston: I am finding it a little difficult to connect watercress with the case I want to make in regard to keeping the water clean. However, I will try and keep off watercress.
The Commission have power under this Bill to put water into local rivers. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the water is not only free from gravel, soil, or other substance, but is also free from oil. I do not know whether oil is considered in the Bill as a solid substance or whether it is in suspension, but it is certainly fatal to the crops I have in mind. There is a further point, and that is the regularity of the discharge. If the water is pumped out at an even rate daily throughout the seven days of the week, no harm results, but if it is pumped out five days a week only, great harm is done. I hope that the Minister will look again at these words and see whether they can be altered if they are common form.
8.13 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) is asking me to take more powers than I am entitled to take. It is not the Minister who is responsible for this Bill, but the British Transport Commission. Therefore, if his hobbies are being interfered with on this occasion, I hope he will relieve me of that responsibility.
I intervene to answer some of the points which have been submitted with a view to assisting the House to come to a decision. I understand that Mr. Speaker has agreed that I can give the total cost of these works. The total cost is £306,000, which does not represent a substantial

1389
outlay of capital, taking the responsibilities of the British Transport Commission into account and the need to meet the industrial and other developments that are taking place from time to time throughout the country. The money will come from the capital resources of the Commission, and the figure indicates that this will not be much of a strain.
Before I come to the main problem that appears to occupy the minds of Members, I should like to deal with the question put to me in regard to the town and country planning Clause. I am able to give the House the full assurance that this is not a Clause which in any way gives favourable consideration to the British Transport Commission. It is a standard Clause which the Minister of Town and Country Planning has himself required to be inserted. When the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) asked me whether there was any value in the Clause, I confess that that particular point had not occurred to me. However, I have since possessed myself of the necessary information, and I think the hon. Member will find it very reassuring.
Sir Herbert Williams: Can the Minister tell us what it does?
Mr. Barnes: Under Section 118 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the Minister has power to vary the provisions of a Private Act passed before 1948. A Clause on the lines of Clause 37 is the procedure whereby we ensure that the Minister can vary, by order, the provisions of Private Acts, where necessary on planning grounds. The hon. Member will appreciate that without this Clause the Minister would not be able to vary the works for which this Bill makes provision even if they were objectionable on planning grounds. I hope this explanation will allay any concern that might exist. Clearly, it gives no preferential treatment to the British Transport Commission, which is liable, like any other undertaking, to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, including any development charge for works undertaken.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made great play with Clause 30. I do not consider there is much substance in the criticism of the Committee for agreeing to variation
1390
to the 1845 provisions. Since then, a great number of Acts of Parliament have been passed in which there has been laid down a common procedure in regard to local authorities and statutory undertakings in the matter of their by-laws. I cannot help drawing the conclusion that the hon. Member is showing very clearly his attitude to the British Transport Commission when he wants to tie them down to conditions that were laid down in 1845, since when there has been a change in a variety of directions. Statutory corporations have become a recognised part of our economic life, and new systems of regulations and laws governing them have grown up on a much more modern basis than prevailed when the railway companies first began to develop. It is only right, therefore, that the British Transport Commission should use the normal procedure of the House and adjust themselves to common practice.
Mr. G. Wilson: Is the Minister referring to statutory undertakings which have places where by-laws can be exhibited, such as railway stations in the case of the British Transport Commission?
Mr. Barnes: It does not matter whether the undertaking has the facility or not. In the case of railway companies and undertakings, they have the same facilities. In fact, greater facilities have been available under this old procedure than is the case with the other statutory corporations, because the copy of the bylaws will be somewhere in the station or in some other place to be determined. Therefore, the average traveller or user of a railway can have the same facility as when the old method was in operation.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman said that because of changed circumstances this method can be adopted, but can he say what objection has been found in the last 105 years to this practice, and whether the result of this change is not to change the position in which the by-laws can be seen every hour of the 24 to a position in which they cannot be seen at any rate during many of those hours?
Mr. Barnes: There may be differences of opinion as to what procedure is best, but I suggest that it is not the vital issue which hon. Gentlemen wish to make out. One of the reasons for the change, as I understand it, is that the Lord Chairman

1391
of the Committee on the Bill last year drew the attention of the British Transport Commission to the fact that many of the by-laws were now obsolete and it was very desirable that they should reexamine them and bring them more into line with modern and common procedure.
Sir H. Williams: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but can he tell us whether bringing the by-laws up to date has anything to do with their publication? We are dealing solely with the form of publication, and whether they should be stuck on the walls so that every traveller waiting for a train can read them.
Mr. Barnes: As I say, there may be different points of view on this, but there is very little difference as far as the facilities of the public are concerned, because they will be available, like all other bylaws of local authorities, water companies, electricity corporations and so on, so that any person can read through them on the stations. Any person who wishes to have a copy of the by-laws will be able to obtain them for a shilling.
Mr. Renton Mr. Renton rose—
Mr. Barnes: I am speaking under considerable difficulties tonight. There may be differences of opinion on this matter, and probably nothing that I say will alter the views of hon. Members. I am emphasising that this issue has been exaggerated out of all proportion to the Bill that the House is asked to approve here tonight. It has gone through the procedure laid down by this House. Four Members of the House of Commons have considered it in Committee, and have come to the conclusion that this is a justifiable alteration. I myself, having listened to the arguments of hon. Members, do not consider that it represents such a substantial change as hon. Members have said this evening.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman told us that one of the reasons for this was an indication by the Lord Chairman in another place that the Transport Commission should review their bylaws. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how that observation is relevant to this change, which is a change not in the by-laws but in the statutory provision for the display of by-laws?
Mr. Barnes: I do not propose for a moment to exaggerate that general remark of the Lord Chairman of the Committee, and I cannot interpret this in every detail, but what I do say is that one of the things that led to the examination of the whole of the by-laws and penalties was the comment of the Lord Chairman of Committees. That does not justify every particular change—
Sir H. Williams: Did he suggest this change?
Mr. Barnes: I did not say he did but, on the other hand, he did not condemn this change. This change emerges both as a result of the Second Reading of the Bill in this House and the examination through the Private Bill procedure. I hope the House will approve of it by agreeing to the Third Reading of the Bill.
With regard to the penalties that Clause 31 imposes, there are a whole series of modem Acts of Parliament to Which I wish to make reference. I want to name a few of them. They include the Land Drainage Act, 1930, the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the Local Government Act, 1933, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. These and others represent a series of Acts of Parliament that have been approved by the House of Commons in recent years, and which deal with the types of practices similar to those that are involved here in the railway by-laws. As a general rule, Parliament has fixed this scale of penalties for that type of offence, and here again I think that the British Transport Commission cannot be condemned if they seek, particularly in their Private Bill, to bring their scale of penalties more into line with what is the common practice in this country. I trust that after this full and complete examination of these three issues, the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: The Minister's answer was very disappointing. We make no apology at all for having had some discussion upon the Third Reading of this Bill, and all I want to do now is to deal with one or two of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House. I am not going to go through all the minutes of the Committee upstairs. As a matter of fact, I could not get a copy

1393
of the minutes upstairs. If this Commission asks for a Bill to be passed through this House, at least it might make some of the documents available to hon. Members. It would then be so much easier for everybody.
We have to deal with these things on Third Reading because we can never raise them at any other stage. The questions which I am going to raise tonight will afford me the last opportunity of referring to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered. It is quite impossible to put down any Question under the Rules of Order of this House, and so I want to take this opportunity of saying something to him which will be of further assistance on this Bill, which has got to go through another place. The Transport Commission, while that is going on, can ponder carefully the speeches which have been made this evening, and I hope, having pondered them, they will embody in the Bill the gist of what has been said. This is not the last stage by any manner of means.
Let me dispense with two points. What the right hon. Gentleman said on the town and country planning question was satisfactory. It was right that we should raise it, and I am quite satisfied with the answer which he gave. On the question of total costs, it is clearly right that we should not pass a Bill of this kind without inquiring how much it is going to cost. It is one of the functions of people who are examining Measures of this kind to find out something about the cost of them. A sum of £306,000 is not as insignificant as the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make out. It sounded a rather large sum of money, but in the general concept of the Transport Commission's financies, which we cannot discuss here, it is probably against that background not an unreasonable capital expenditure.
On the two other grounds, which are matters of general public importance, the question of the by-laws and the question of the penalties, it seemed to me that the answers the right hon. Gentleman gave were wholly inadequate. After all, it was a pretty astonishing proposition with which he came to the House—that he was going to quadruple the penalties and conceal the by-laws. He could not expect to get away with that without someone asking a few questions about the matter.
1394
I will take the by-laws first. I understand that the case that has been made by the British Transport Commission is that it is much easier and simpler—I think that is the term they generally use—not to publish the by-laws but to keep them in the drawer. Of course, it is much easier and simpler, but that is scarcely an argument which can commend itself to a democratic assembly. It may be a big presumption these days, but people are presumed to know the law. Do not let us make it even more difficult for them.
Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about modern practice. What is this modern practice that one should not publish to the world the laws one expects people to keep? The only modern thing about it is that it happens to be introduced this evening in a Bill the Third Reading of which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman. What we have to discuss is not its modernity, but whether it is right or wrong. To tell the truth, I have a shrewd suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is quite wrong. In these Debates we have come to know pretty well when it is obvious that an hon. or right hon. Member is putting forward an argument which he thinks is pretty thin. The right hon. Gentleman was searching around desperately for something which he could put in, and all he could think of was an ex cathedra statement made by the Lord Chairman in another place on another subject.
It may well be that the Lord Chairman was right on the subject he was talking about and that many of these bylaws are out-of-date and ought to be amended. Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the British Transport Commission on that matter? It is not a matter we can discuss tonight on the Third Reading of the Bill, because it has nothing to do with the Bill. We are not in the least concerned this evening about the merits of the by-laws. We are concerned that people should be able to see them, and it really is no good saying they will be somewhere in the station.
Mr. Bowen: Will the hon. Gentleman ask that they should not only be published, but that they should be published in Welsh, as well as in English?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. By all means they should be published in any language that is spoken in any part of the British Isles. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying they will be somewhere in the station. How comforting to anyone who goes to Euston to know that they are somewhere in the station. Does the right hon. Gentleman really imagine that if one asks a porter at Euston Station whether one can see a copy of the by-laws, he will lead on to the place where they are put up in a little cabinet for inquisitive passengers to go and see. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the argument he was putting forward was complete nonsense from start to finish. Will he invite the British Transport Commission to read the speeches made in this Debate, including his own, and to reconsider this matter and see whether something can be done in another place?
I wish to say a word on the amount of the penalties. I could not understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He said something about it being the sort of scale of penalties provided in the Food and Drugs Act or the Local Government Act, but what has that to do with it?
Sir H. Williams: Nothing.
Mr. Thorneycroft: It has nothing whatever to do with it. Why a penalty which might be appropriate for selling drugs below the appropriate standards should also be the appropriate penalty for travelling without a ticket, I really am a little at a loss to understand. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) said that there were only 39 people prosecuted for fraud upon the buses. "But," he said, "of course you can only prosecute the ones you catch." Of course we can only prosecute the ones we catch, and how will the quadrupling of the penalties help to catch any more? I should have thought it would have made it a great deal more difficult.
I am not going to detain the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can, quite easily, but I have never heard a greater travesty of an argument by anyone than that addressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the House this evening. I hope that another opportunity will be taken to put something very different in this Bill before it reaches its final stage.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. David Ronton: It is not very often that I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), but I cannot share his satisfaction with the Minister's explanation so far as it affected the town and country planning practice with which this Bill is concerned. Although the British Transport Commission are very rarely brought fully within the terms of the procedure laid down under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, nevertheless the Commission have been given access to the Minister's office by means of the backstairs.
As evidence of that, I draw the attention of the House to the somewhat sordid arrangement which has been made between the Commission and the Minister of Town and Country Planning which has, or will have, the effect of spoiling the "green belt" to the advantage of the Transport Commission in a way that no private enterprise concern would have been allowed to do. If hon. Members look at Clause 23 and the Fourth Schedule, and the evidence which has been given in relation to Ickenham, where already the Commission possess 38 acres, much of which is undeveloped, I feel that they will find themselves bound to agree with the allegation which I am quite deliberately making.
Mr. Barnes: I do not like to interrupt the hon. Member, but that statement is absolutely incorrect. The British Transport Commission, or rather the London Transport Executive, were compelled to search considerably and extensively to meet the requirements of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. It was only after very exhaustive consideration that it was discovered that this was the only available site. In view of the enormous increase which is taking place in the fleet of London Transport, which in a few years will grow to something like 11,000 buses, no more delay could possibly take place if we did not want very serious inconvenience.
Mr. Renton: Would the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on whether the local planning authority were consulted, and, if so, what they had to say about it? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much of these 38 acres was undeveloped, and to

1397
what extent it does create—as it is admitted in the proceedings to be—an infringement of the principle that the "green belt" should be sacrosanct? Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
Mr. Barnes: I cannot answer all the details in that connection. All I am refuting is that there has been any sordid arrangement between the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Transport. That is the allegation which I am repudiating very strongly.
Mr. Renton: We are greatly handicapped by not being able to refer to the evidence given before the Select Committee. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman and myself trying to bandy denials across the Floor of the House. I will merely invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to examine the matter, and I shall be very surprised if the majority of them do not come to the same view as the one which I have formed. I think, quite candidly, if I may use a vernacular word, that it "stinks."
There is a further matter in regard to town and country planning and the British Transport Commission which appears to me to be very strange, and about which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will have any denial to make. The combined effect of Clause 36 of this Bill and Section 13 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is that the Minister of Town and Country Planning may entirely exclude or, if he wishes, modify the provisions of this very Bill to which we are now being asked to give a Third Reading. This is a most strange situation. The Government implore us to give a Third Reading to this Bill, to act as legislators in regard to it, and we find, when we penetrate a little bit below the surface, that what we are being asked to do may be undone by a stroke of the pen by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. That situation may be inevitable but, if it is becoming the common form, the House should know about it and should be on its guard against it. The House should watch very carefully for any act of the Minister of Town and Country Planning which will have the effect of upsetting the decisions which we are invited to take.
A very strong point has been made about Clause 30 and the publication of
1398
by-laws. This is a matter which in itself should cause this House not to accept the Bill, even on Third Reading. It will always be to the convenience of passengers to be able to have ready access to the railway by-laws. If this Clause becomes part of the law of the land, as it will do, passengers will be completely in the dark. In the first place, who are they to ask for a copy of the by-laws? We have not been told. Have they the right to ask the humble porter, and has he the duty to provide a copy? Have they the right to seek out the station master and has he, however exhalted a station master he may be, the duty to come down to the platform and supply a copy personally? All these important matters are left vague.
How will it come to be proved in a court of law that a copy was available? If a copy is kept under the cushion of the seat where the ticket collector sits, is that enough, or is there a specified place where it must be kept? We do not know. The reason I say it is important that a copy should always be available is that sometimes passengers, especially if they are carrying valuable articles when travelling, want to know what is the liability of the railway company for accidents and loss of baggage. They may wish to know the liability of the railway company in regard to personal injuries. Those hon. Members who know anything at all, and all hon. Members do know something—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the hon. Gentleman proposes to discuss all the by-laws, we shall be here for a very long time.
Mr. Renton: I am pointing out that, in order that passengers may ascertain their rights for compensation, it is necessary that they should be allowed to see the bylaws, because they frequently contain some of the conditions of carriage which apply to passengers. There is the further point that we find in line 38, on page 23, that the copy of the by-laws is to be deposited at every passenger station. Why should it be limited to passenger stations? I know of several stations—there is at least one in my constituency—which were once used for pasengers but which are now used for goods only.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member appreciates that we cannot amend the Bill? This is a Debate on Third Reading.
Mr. Renton: I am criticising the limitation of the words, "every passenger station." I am criticising the fact that the position is strictly confined.
My last point is this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, hon. Gentlemen have been very patient in listening, but we have been very disappointed that we have not had the value of their contributions, except for that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), who made such a very surprising speech. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Select Committee, and one of the longest Clauses in the Bill is Clause 28, which is for the protection of Nottingham Corporation, and which was added on the Committee stage. I presume that the hon. Gentleman did have something to say about it then, and I should have thought that, instead of making the very bewildering statement that he could not understand the Opposition, he would have been on his feet welcoming the fact that the Opposition had given the fullest possible opportunity for this Bill to be considered and amended by the House, an opportunity which he very rightly seized for putting in a very long Clause running into four and half pages for the protection of his own constituents.
I want to say that we are here amending the criminal law of the land in a Private Bill, and that I feel is wrong in principle. It is especially wrong when we find that it is a criminal law which, on the figures given, is being invoked more and more as every month passes. We all deplore in any form the defrauding of the railways, and we have to protect the railways, whether nationalised or not. With that I fully agree, but when Parliament is imposing penalties and altering the criminal law of the land, this is not the medium by which it should be done.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL

  Clause 91.—(SMOKELESS ZONES.)
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. lain MacLeod: I beg to move, in page 57, line 8, after "be" to insert "(a)."
  I propose, if it is in order, to refer to this and the two following Amendments standing in my own name and those of my hon. Friends, with the exception of the last line of the second Amendment, the reason for which will no doubt become apparent shortly. Those Amendments are in page 57, lines 10 and 19. What I am trying to achieve is this: Clause 91 gives Wolverhampton Corporation powers to establish smokeless zones within their boundaries, and subsection (14), which I seek to leave out, gives an automatic exemption to the Electricity Authority and the Gas Board from the provision of that smokeless zone. I offer an alternative, which I will discuss in a moment or two, in the second Amendment and I take it that we may refer to all three Amendments, which raise entirely the same point, in this discussion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Yes, and the House will divide on them separately if necessary.
  Mr. MacLeod: The origin of these Amendments was that, on Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends drew attention to this Clause and said that it was without precedent in the exemption which it gave. In fact, they were wrong in saying it was without precedent, but the precedents are confusing and conflicting. These speeches drew a sympathetic echo from the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who said there seemed to be something in the point.
  We do not seek to amend subsection (12). In Committee, we had an amiable and friendly discussion on this matter, but the more carefully we looked into the matter the more obvious it became that Private Bill legislation on this subject is not the best method at all, and so it was right to ask the House to declare its point of view on this important matter tonight. Let me make it quite clear that I am not tilting, or attempting to tilt, at

  1401
  the nationalised industries or undertakings as such; I am only objecting because they claim an exemption from what will become the private law in so far as it affects Wolverhampton.
  I know that I need not bother tonight to argue the case for the smokeless zones; I am sure that that is common ground for everybody here. But it is worth noticing that there are areas in this country—this Chamber is in one of them—in which over 125 tons per square mile of smoke pollution are deposited annually. In Wolverhampton, the figure is between 75 and 100 tons, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research estimated that the cost of damage to buildings per year was of the order of £30 million. That takes no account of the damage done to life, health, vegetation, or amenities. Wolverhampton's share of that is about £100,000, or a 2s. rate.
  I will, if I may, briefly indicate what are the precedents for this sort of legislation, because it is of comparatively recent date that it has come in any form before the House. I wish, first, to refer to the report which the Minister of Fuel and Power put in on this Bill. Obviously, with one eye cocked on what had been said on Second Reading, he said this—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is this not going beyond the three Amendments?
  Mr. MacLeod: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should have thought not. This report was put in by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and in the Minutes reported to the House it states why the Bill should stand in its present form. I am seeking to show why the view then held by the Minister is wrong. The report says that this is not a question of granting protection to nationalised industries, but of safeguarding the supply of electricity and gas with which the Minister must have been equally concerned had the Electricity Act. of 1947 and the Gas Act of 1948 not been passed.
  I can only suggest that we take that report with a considerable pinch of salt. I am seeking in some cases to upset that precedent tonight, which is why I must refer to them, and I take it that it is in order so to do. In 1946, Manchester had the first Bill referring to smokeless zones. No exemption was made for generating stations. In 1948 the Electricity Act was passed. The stations
  1402
  were under the control of the Electricity Authority, but in 1948 the three Acts of Coventry, Salford and Rochdale made no exemption whatever for the nationalised industries. Therefore, if the report submitted by the Minister means anything, it amounts to a claim that he would have been more vigilant than were his predecessors.
  In 1949, we come to the main precedent which is the basis for this Clause as it now stands. It is interesting to note that in the Bolton Corporation Bill, 1949, the learned counsel arguing the case for Bolton and against the Electricity Authority's petition was the hon. and learned Member for Islington, North (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) who, at that time was enjoying, or enduring—perhaps that is the better word—a temporary absence from this House. The precedent established in Bolton has been followed ever since, and it is that precedent that I seek to upset tonight. When the Bolton case came before the Committee, the Ministry of Fuel and Power first of all took up the most surprising attitude that they objected altogether to the powers sought to form a smokeless zone. They submitted that the powers sought were unnecessary.
  It is fair to say that they retreated quickly from what was clearly an untenable position, and based their case on the main ground that they objected to a local authority having power to veto a development of national importance. I agree with them there. I do not think it right that any corporation in this country should have a right to over-rule a national decision as to whether a generating station is to be set up. I have attempted to cover that point in the Amendments we are now discussing.
  There is this difficulty. I would move my second Amendment without line 11, because I understand that it is possible that I might get a more sympathetic answer if I did so. I should like to say, in all fairness, that this Amendment was drawn up by myself and my hon. Friends, with the exception of one line—line 11. That line was inserted to meet the requests of the representatives of the Ministry of Health, before both the Bolton and the Wolverhampton Committees. Therefore, I find it a little Surprising to be asked to withdraw the one line which is foreign to my Amendment;

  1403
  but, if it will help the case, I will gladly do so.
  The suggestion I am offering as an alternative is that these bodies—the Electricity Authority and the Gas Board—should be able to go to the Minister of Health, that they should have an Order made and that that Order would be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. I suggest that they should have a special, but not a privileged, position in being able to go to the Minister of Health over the heads, if necessary, of Wolverhampton, for such an Order to be made.
  Mr. Nally: On a point of order. Some of my colleagues on this side, and I am certain that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite must be quite clear what is the scope of this discussion. If we are to argue tonight—and I would be glad to have your Ruling, Sir Charles—as to what are the relationships of a gas or electricity board to a given local authority, what it can recommend and what sort of procedure ought to be adopted to apply those recommendations, can we argue that in some detail, as the hon. Gentleman has already argued? Will we be entitled to go ahead on that basis?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would not like to try to answer that. I understand these three Amendments hang together, and that the hon. Gentleman is seeking a reason why they should be accepted. I would not like to answer the question until the point actually arises.
  Mr. Iain MacLeod: I am trying to explain the reasons why the method I offer is superior to the one at present in the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) will understand that that, of course, necessarily involves an explanation of the procedure here put forward as an alternative. I have tried to put before this House, as far as I know them, all the important facts relating to the history and the background of this matter. I have tried to put them before the House whether they tell in favour of my Amendments or against them.
  May I say, quite briefly, why I think my alternative is very much superior to the one at present in the Bill? First.
  1404
  let us be quite clear on this point. At the moment, the Minister of Health does not come into this decision on the smokeless zone at all. If my Amendments are not accepted, the Minister of Fuel and Power has the right, with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, to overrule a local authority.
  I suggest that it is quite wrong that the Minister of Health should not have a say in these most important matters. It is clear that the omission of the Minister of Health from this position is deliberate. It was argued on the Bolton Bill in these words, "The difficulty is that the argument is before the Minister of Health, and one assumes that he will consult the Minister of Fuel and Power, but he might go off on a frolic of his own." I am sure it is not in order to argue whether or not the Minister of Health is likely to go off on a frolic of his own, but it is at least clear that there is no responsibility on the Minister of Health in this matter, and I submit that that is wrong.
  There are great considerations involved. It is true that it is difficult to find a site for a generating station. It is true that there must be a certain subsoil, that the ground must be level and that there must be access to road, rail and water. But if those matters conflict with the demands of public health, then they are entirely unimportant. If there is to be an argument between the national need in the sense of the siting of the station, and public health, if there is to be a conflict between the Minister of Health and Minister of Fuel and Power—" pull devil, pull Noel-Baker"—then, in this matter, I am the devil's advocate.
  I believe it is wrong that these authorities and undertakings should claim, as they are claiming, to be outwith the law. They must make their case in the ordinary way as ordinary industries and undertakings have to do. It is of the first importance that we make quite clear that these undertakings are subject to ordinary control. I mentioned earlier that the hon. and learned Member for Islington, North, was counsel in the principal precedent. I should like to end by quoting what he said on this matter:
  "I do not see any reason on earth why any particular body, be it nationalised or not, should have the right to break what will then have been established as the general law governing that piece of territory. The whole

  1405
  object of it is to exclude smoke. I must have the right automatically to generate smoke, smoke including grit. I say no body, nationalised or not, ought to have that right, and I say, being nationalised, they ought not to ask for it. They ought to be ready to cooperate."
  That is the case that the hon. and learned Member for Islington, North, put before the Bolton Committee. It is exactly the same case that I am putting before the House tonight.
  Mr. Alport: In rising to second the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) I wish to make it clear, as he did, that I am not motivated in any way against the nationalised industries as such in this matter. Perhaps I should be fair in saying that I am not motivated any more than I would be against any great vested interest which attempts to appropriate to itself particular powers and privileges. We make that point because it has been noticeable for some time past that when any question affecting the nationalised industries arises, the party opposite assume the somewhat irrational demeanour of a dog which suspects someone of trying to steal a favourite bone. Their hackles are up, they bare their teeth and emit menacing growls and, although the performance is always interesting, it does not often result in a cool and rational discussion of the problems which might happen to be before us at the time. What we are concerned to establish in this Amendment is a point which we believe to be important—that, in principle, a nationalised corporation or board should not be empowered by law to do something which, if it were done by a private body, would be illegal or anti-social.
  Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I must rise again on this point. I am sorry to take up your time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the time of the House, but we must have this clear—not because we resent the comments, for, on the contrary, I think there is something in what the hon. Member has said. We must have this clear—
  Sir Herbert Williams: Get on with it.
  Mr. Nally: I do not want any impertinence from you.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not impertinent.
  Mr. Nally: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I may say, through you, that I will not have any impertinence from the hon. Member opposite.
  Sir H. Williams rose—
  Mr. Nally: I am on a point of order and, therefore, the hon. Member cannot rise.
  Sir H. Williams: I have been described as impertinent.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we need to pursue this. Let us get on with the business.
  Sir H. Williams: I have been described as impertinent, but the only remark was that I thought the hon. Member was wasting an extraordinary amount of time in putting his point of order. I merely said, "Get on with it," which seemed to me a sensible piece of advice which he did not take.
  Mr. Nally: I withdraw the comment "impertinent" and substitute "juvenile." We should like some guidance, irrespective of party politics, as to whether or not, in our discussions tonight, we are entitled to argue the relationships of a given city corporation, irrespective of its political complexion, with a nationalised board or a regional board or what have you. I should be very glad if you could tell us, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether we are entitled, in the discussion which will ensue, to argue a general case about the relationships of municipalities to regional boards or national corporations. While arguing this Bill, are we entitled to argue the general principle involved, as has previously been done?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, hon. Members are not, but I cannot understand why this Debate is going on so long. I understand that the Amendment is to be accepted and I do not know why there should be these long speeches.
  Mr. Alport: Naturally, my hon. Friends and I are delighted to hear this news, because, quite clearly, it is a victory for those who are concerned to ensure that, in a matter of this sort, a point of principle is maintained regardless of any prejudices which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might have had in the past. If, in fact, the Amendment is to be accepted, then, as I say, we are very grateful to hear the news.

  1407
  We also hope that in that event the Amendment will form a precedent for future relations between the nationalised industries and the law of this country, because it is vital that we should not allow the nationalised industries to grow up into being what we have known in history, overmighty subjects who try to abrogate for themselves a position vis-á-vis the law which is not allowed to persons or private corporations. If the information which you, Sir, have courteously given with regard to this Amendment is true, then no one will welcome it more than ourselves. We welcome it as another example of the importannce in this House of maintaining a vigilant and active opposition to ensure that the previous customs of hon. Members opposite are not pursued—for instance, when they were accustomed, as we have seen in precedents mentioned by my hon. Friend, to try and obtain for their particular organisations a specially privileged position vis-á-vis the rest of the community. I will not waste the time of the House in pursuing the point which, I understand, is about to result in a surrender by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Baird: I feel that we have been shadow boxing for the last half hour. As one of the Members for Wolverhampton I was tempted to intervene in the first five minutes of the speech of the hon. Member because that so far as the corporation are concerned agreement has been reached with the Government to accept what he proposes. I think the House might well get on with other business without going into a long critical argument.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): As the Minister responsible for answering for the gas and electricity industry, I would say that there is no difference between us in the case which was made by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) in moving his Amendment, which we are very glad to accept.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am glad to gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that subsection (14) of this Clause as it stands is to disappear and be replaced by the
  1408
  machinery which has been proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) and Colchester (Mr. Alport). I will not detain the House for more than two minutes in saying why, as one of the Wolverhampton Members, I am particularly glad this is the case. As was pointed out in Committee, subsection (14) of the existing Clause does afford considerable protection in the case of new installations of the gas and electricity authorities in so far as town and country planning permission is required by them as by any other developers. The great evil was that it afforded no protection in the case of existing installations of those authorities.
  During the Second Reading Debate on this Bill I ventured to point out that an existing installation of the British Electricity Authority in Wolverhampton—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are now dealing with a very simple Amendment, and the hon. Member is going beyond it.
  Mr. Powell: I was endeavouring to show why the machinery which we are now substituting, which gives much greater control over existing installations than does the present Clause, is particularly desirable in the case of a Wolverhampton Bill. I was doing so by drawing attention to the fact that it is an existing installation of the electricity authority which is responsible in Wolverhampton for a grave menace both to public health and road safety.
  Having drawn attention to this state of affairs two and a half months ago, I am glad to have learned in the last few days that the British Electricity Authority are engaged in taking steps to remedy this state of affairs. I believe that in the case of Wolverhampton they are shortly to invite tenders for preventive measures, which tends to show that pressure of the kind which has been brought to bear in this House, both on Second Reading of this Bill and tonight by my hon. Friends, is useful and bears fruit.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Surely we can come to a decision.
  Mr. Nally: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), on the fact that the case he intended to put, about which I was rather doubtful in any event, has

  1409
  been put so much more adequately by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). The plain fact of the matter is simply this, that this particular Amendment is not a matter of controversy at all, but has been used, certainly within the limits of order, as a rather shabby, shop-soiled attempt to make out a case which should be put on bigger issues than this Bill with which we are dealing.
  9.15 p.m.
  Sir H. Williams: We have had an announcement on the Government's attitude to this Bill, but we have not had one about the attitude of the promoters.
  Mr. Baird: On a point of order. I said just now that the Wolverhampton Corporation are quite neutral about it. They could not care less.
  Sir H. Williams: We have had an announcement from the Government Front Bench that the Government accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Robens: With great respect, if I said that I was wrong to do so. What I intended to say, even if I did not, was that the Government recommended the House to accept it.
  Sir H. Williams: I am much obliged. I wanted to get it on record. The Debate is of greater importance than many hon. Members realise. I have examined probably every Private Bill that has been promoted in the last 20 years.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Do not we know it!
  Sir H. Williams: The trouble is that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), does not trouble to do the same. On studying these Bills we find savings for various interests. Sometimes the interest is the Postmaster-General's. I think he is—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Surely this is going far beyond the Amendment before the House?
  Sir H. Williams: The Amendment before the House is entirely a saving in the interest of two specific corporate bodies, namely, the British Electricity Authority, which, though not a State property, is an extension of the power of
  1410
  the Crown, and the Gas Council. Therefore, the principle affects them all. I remember when a similar Bill—perhaps not quite similar—was before Parliament, providing for the construction of Batter-sea power station. The most stringent conditions were imposed, quite rightly, on the London Power Company as a result of the pressure of the citizens of Westminster, Chelsea, Lambeth and Battersea, to make sure that from those great chimney stacks there should not be a great deal of grit and smoke, and the rest of it, emitted. They spent, I believe, £500,000 on research to achieve the desired results—quite apart from the other costs. It is most important that there should be proposals designed to protect the public and citizens. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, is constantly telling us about the evil conditions that prevail in his constituency. In our attitude here we are supporting his case.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: It is very refreshing to hear that, because I cannot forget that a number of hon. Members, including the Government of the day, fortified themselves against Stake's proposals to municipalise the transport of that area.
  Sir H. Williams: What connection is there between the municipalisation of the North Staffordshire tramways and the preventing of North Staffordshire from being deluged with smoke, I do not understand, but I think the trouble was that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, left for Manchester, where they are always under umbrellas.
  Quite seriously, my hon. Friends have been trying to do something in the interests of public health, and to protect the public against these new monopolies, and it is right that the public should be protected against these monopolies. The two monopolies to which I refer are the British Electricity Authority and the Gas Council. I rejoice that the House of Commons is unanimous on this matter.
  Sir John Mellor: Although I have been tempted by the observations of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) to speak at great length, I wish only to say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) is to be congratulated upon having moved what is, I think, a very helpful Amendment, and I hope that the support which we have had for it

  1411
  from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power will not deter the House from accepting it. This, after all, is a House of Commons matter, and on this side of the House we can only commend the Amendment, as, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary has done. This Amendment has a very valuable element of principle in it—that these powerful bodies and nationalised boards shall not be permitted to have automatic exemption from the laws which affect other people—and I hope that it will be accepted by the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 57, line 10 at end, add:
  "or (b) varied by an order made by the Minister on the application of the Electricity Authority or the Gas Board:
  Provided that in relation to an order under paragraph (b) of this subsection—

  (i) before making application to the Minister for such order the Electricity Authority or the Gas Board (as the case may be) shall give notice to the Corporation of their intention so to apply stating the general effect of the proposed order to which the application relates; and

  (ii) before making such order the Minister shall consider any representations which may be made by the Corporation and shall give the Corporation an opportunity of being heard thereon;"

  In line 19, leave out subsection (14).—[Mr. Iain MacLeod.]
  Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. Snow: I wish to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, lock, stock and barrel. This is one of a series of Bills which, I suspect, will come before the House as time goes on, and which are perfect demonstrations of "empire building" by county boroughs, town clerks and these county borough buccaneers who wish to subordinate the interests of the countryside to the interests of the big cities.
  Before I continue with my remarks, I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friends the fact that they need have no false sense of party loyalty if they
  1412
  deem fit to support myself and those of my hon. Friends who intend to oppose this Bill, in the Division Lobby if necessary. I have taken advice on this point, and, should the Government express the view that they are in favour of this Bill, there is no need for my hon. Friends to support the Government view in the Division Lobby. In other words, they are perfectly free morally to come in with us.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): And at any other time.
  Mr. Snow: I talk with a little knowledge, as a former Government Whip, and they can take that as coming from the horse's mouth.
  I hope also to carry with me into the Division Lobby, if necessary, some hon. Members opposite. I see the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) in his place, and I feel sure that I need not impress upon him the general effect of this sort of Bill on his sort of division and divisional interests. It is not just a question of the existing interests of county boroughs. This is just the thin end of the wedge; this is just the way in which boroughs will so enlarge themselves that they can claim county borough status; gradually, we shall see the amenities of our countryside whittled away in the interests of people who care not in the least for the retention of those amenities of our English countryside. I see the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) sitting there. What will the effect of this sort of Bill be on her very beautiful constituency? I have no intimate knowledge of her division; what knowledge I have is of many years ago; but I have a suspicion that she has in her constituency boroughs which would like to become county boroughs and so enlarge themselves as to despoil the countryside.
  I am no scholar, but I think it was Cobbett who referred to London as the "Great Wen." That is an expression which can be applied to any number of these Midland cities, such as Wolverhampton and others. This rash of wens in the Midlands is a threat which we have got to resist. Already, we have that ghastly phrase "conurbation of towns," and this Bill will merely enlarge that same conurbation.
  I should like to get down to more specific detail about this very unpleasant Bill. In so far as it imposes boundary

  1413
  extensions there are two particular parishes referred to—the urban district of Tettenhall and the parish of Lower Penn. I draw the attention of hon. Members who represent rural constituencies to what this Bill really means. In spite of the plans which have been prepared by such authorities as Sir Patrick Aber-crombie, and in spite of the support of the Ministry of Health for development which will not affect the amenities of the countryside, here we have a town clerk sitting in a county borough riding against the wishes of the Ministries and securing the support of members of the constituency who feel it to be a matter of local loyalty—
  Mr. Baird: Can my hon. Friend tell me with which Ministry he disagrees?
  Mr. Snow: I was going to enlarge upon that. The County of Staffordshire, about which I am talking in particular, has in it six county boroughs. If this Bill goes through each of these county boroughs, and, I suspect, other local authorities as well, will all be nibbling away and gradually encroaching on the countryside.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must speak of Wolverhampton and nothing else. He must not deal with the county borough of Staffordshire.
  Mr. Snow: I was trying to explain that if this Bill goes through, it will be followed by other Bills of the same sort. I understand that the Minister of Health has said that he does not object to considering boundary extensions when these extensions are needed for additional houses. What is the position under this Bill? In point of fact, the councils of the districts involved were getting on with the job very well. One cannot divorce the record of housing of the Wolverhampton Corporation from the record of housing of these rural or urban districts, because the Government's policy is such that the housing record of any housing authority is dependent upon the allocations allotted by the Ministry of Health. In a county borough like Wolverhampton we get large allocations for a large number of houses. The small rural districts receive smaller allocations and their record does not appear to be so big. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member
  1414
  for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), will not try and put that one across the House on the basis of trying to prove that his particular housing authority has a particularly good housing record.
  In this matter it is the town versus the countryside. We must not base our arguments on false loyalties when it is a question of trying to retain the amenities of the countryside. Let us take the case of the Parish of Tettenhall. It was admitted by the Wolverhampton Corporation, in Committee, that the progress of housing would not be affected by this particular boundary extension, and, if that is so, I do not know why the Minister should support this particular boundary extension, if that is the policy, which I understand to be the case.
  Take the case of Lower Penn. I hope that I may be permitted these observations, because this is a very interesting case. I am not sure whether Lower Penn has any connection with the Quaker family of Penn. Has the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), anything to say about that?
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Nothing at all.
  Mr. Snow: In the 18th century, there was a grand dispute by the great Quaker family of Penn with the Government of Massachusetts, where the Penn family were residing, over the payment of taxes needed for the defence of that State. We have an historical corollary here since the county council rates which I am relating to the taxation in the State of Massa-chusettes are very much lower than the urban rates at Wolverhampton. I might say, in parenthesis, that Members here who represent rural constituencies should bear in mind that if their constituents are so unfortunate as to be cannibalised by these county boroughs, they will perforce be obliged to pay much higher rates.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a Second Reading point. The discussion between the country and the town was decided on Second Reading. Therefore, it is out of order on Third Reading.
  Mr. Snow: If I might continue on a more specific point included in the Bill, this development in Lower Penn will have one very peculiar effect, that is, if this great county borough of Wolverhampton

  1415
  succeeds in pushing through the Bill. The effect will be that its housing proposals will be sited in the centre of the corporation's sewage works. That seems to me, even in these days of opposition by these county boroughs to the planning of great authorities like Sir Patrick Abercrombie, hardly to be a desirable development of urban sprawl.
  If this Bill is to go through, I should like to ask the Minister whether he has consulted the Ministry of Agriculture, because this land at Lower Penn is classified as first-class agricultural land. It seems very peculiar indeed that at this time when so many provisions are made, through the medium of the Provincial Land Commissioners, to prevent first-class agricultural land being absorbed in this way we are solemnly considering a Bill to take over a large slice of very valuable agricultural land.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is not the hon. Member aware that it is always first-class agricultural land the Minister of Agriculture surrenders to other authorities?
  Mr. Snow: That may or may not be the case, but I understand that in this case it is not disputed that it is first-class agricultural land. Since the hon. Member has intervened, I ask him seriously to consider what will be the effect in the beautiful valleys of his constituency. What will be the effect in the case of the borough of Dolgelly, or Machynlleth to the valley of the Dyssini, where I have fished for sea trout without success.
  Mr. Speaker: Let us stick to Wolverhampton.
  Mr. Snow: I will not pursue that any further, but I was subjected to an intervention.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts Mr. Emrys Roberts rose—
  Mr. Speaker: We must keep to Wolverhamption, and not discuss Merioneth.
  Mr. Snow: I realise that I have provoked a certain amount of merriment, but I am making the point that this is an argument of town versus country. We passed legislation in the last Parliament about National Parks, and this is just a
  1416
  way of avoiding the provisions for planning our countryside so that our people may retain in the future the amenities and pleasures to be derived from the countryside.
  I hope that Members who have at heart the interests of the country will, if it comes to a Division, follow my little gang into the Lobby and not support this dangerous little Bill. It is little, but it is only one of a series. It will be followed by a Bill in the case of Walsall, and I think that there is a Bill in connection with South Shields, when exactly the same position will arise. Exactly the same issue arises there. This is "empire building" by town clerks and people who really ought to know better.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I do not want in any way to delay the proceedings of this House, but I might point out that I and my colleagues, had we desired, might have appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We could have raised the issue, as mentioned on page 196 of the Manual of Procedure, about Private Bills not passing through two stages on the same day without special leave of the House. We were good enough not to do that and thus delay the business of the House. Consequently, we are now entitled to have a reasonable amount of time to state our case in view of the fact that we were so magnanimous with regard to another part of the procedure.
  We object to the Third Reading of this Bill, because in Clause 8 there are 20 words which read:
  "The added areas shall be separated from the existing electoral divisions of the county of which they respectively form a part."
  They are cold, callous words, marshalled together with 26 soldiers of lead, as someone once described them. What does the connotation of those words imply? We believe that from time to time on the Floor of this House we are going to have this vulgar spectacle of powerful authorities coming here with cash and influence to promote Bills of this sort, so that the entire structure of local government in the future, whatever party may ultimately be in power, will be destroyed. We are asking that a stop be put to this piecemeal approach by powerful—
  Mr. Speaker: That is a general argument. We must confine ourselves to Wolverhampton and the Bill and nothing else.
  Mr. Davies: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. We are therefore asking Wolverhampton to co-operate with the most intelligent local authorities in the country to bring pressure on the Government to bring into being a re-orientation of the structure of local government. The Wolverhampton Bill will take from the County of Staffordshire quite important territory if it passes through this House. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has emphasised the importance of the loss of agricultural land to the country. I want to emphasise one other point. If I thought that Wolverhampton would be prevented from building one house by stopping this Bill at this present moment, I would not support the Bill. It has been admitted in Committee that this will not interfere with the building programme in Wolverhampton, nor with the structure of one house. Therefore, I have no qualms whatsoever in opposing this Bill, especially as I know that the Staffordshire County Council offered a constructive and reasonable approach to the Wolverhampton authority. I believe that both of those authorities could have got together had not Wolverhampton been so imperialistically minded, and we would not in this House tonight be troubled with this Debate.
  Lastly, while Wolverhampton are doing this, it may encourage the City of Stoke-on-Trent and ultimately we may find the City of Stoke-on-Trent, encouraged by Wolverhampton, spreading out into Leek and Newcastle and other areas and the entire concept of the county council will disappear. This is the point which we must remember. Do we want the county council system of government to exist, or do we want to whittle away the powers county councils have? It is the duty of this Government, or some Government in the very near future, to put forward a constructive system of local government so that the county council system can be maintained and authorities like Wolverhampton can have their legitimate rights and also Staffordshire may have their rights.
  The Abercrombie Plan in Wolverhampton and district would be nullified if we
  1418
  allowed this Private Bill to pass. I object to this Bill on these principles: (1) it will make the pattern of local government more heterogeneous than it is already; (2) it will make it more and more difficult for any Government in the future to reconstruct local government decently and (3) this kind of powerful pushing of authority by influential boroughs like Wolverhampton and others is a bad thing to encourage. We do not wish to inculcate that kind of pattern of imperialism in government. Remembering that in this House we may feel very dignified but that democracy in Britain did not start with the Mother of Parliaments but with local democracy, I want to see local democracy kept alive. This kind of thing destroys local democracy and local patriotism. With all the force at my disposal I shall oppose this Third Reading.
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In support of the Bill, promoted by the borough of which I have the honour to represent one half, I will make only one brief statement to the House. It is that the procedure of Private Bill legislation, which is part of the custom and law of Parliament, is designed to secure that on the Second Reading of a Private Bill, this House has the opportunity to consider not only the principle enshrined in the Bill itself, but also the repercussions of that Bill by way of precedent or otherwise. Having given a Private Bill a Second Reading, as happened without opposition in the case of this Bill, it goes to a Committee, which judicially considers all the objections from parties concerned, whether corporations or individuals—objections of the kind which have been mentioned by the hon. Members for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) and Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). It then returns to this House with the recommendation of that Committee. This Bill has gone through those stages and I submit that it would be quite wrong at this stage to throw out this Bill—
  Mr. Snow: Thank you, that is a challenge.
  Mr. Powell:—upon general considerations and considerations of precedent such as have been raised. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading, for that reason if for no other, without dividing.
  9.44 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I think it would be desirable if I intervened for one moment to express the view of the Government on this Private Bill, because it is clear from the special pleading we have heard that there are some quite acute differences of opinion upon it. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, this Bill has had a Second Reading, and has been upstairs in Committee, where it had very full and thorough consideration. All the Government Departments in any way affected have considered this Bill and have made reports upon it. So far as the Government are concerned, we advise the House, and we can do no more than advise the House, that in view of the very careful consideration it has had, it should be given its Third Reading.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Baird: I hope the House will give this Bill a Third Reading for various reasons. Before dealing with the general argument raised there is one point I wish to speak upon which was raised earlier on Report stage. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) mentioned the question of water coolers and I would like to answer the point. Wolverhampton is a very progressive town even though at the present time we have a small Conservative majority on the local authority. For a long while now the Labour Party have been pressing for control of those coolers, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, has come round to our point of view.
  It is with regard to the proposed extension that I wish to speak. I think that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) was a little hot and bothered about it. I also think he dealt with a serious question in rather a frivolous manner. This is a very small and moderate Bill—
  Mr. Snow: No.
  Mr. Baird: The Wolverhampton Corporation, in the first instance, were rather ambitious with their boundary proposals for housing purposes. It was only after consultation with the Ministry of Health that a compromise was arrived at,
  1420
  and the Ministry agree that extension as necessary for urgent and immediate housing needs.
  Mr. Snow: It is quite true that the demands of Wolverhampton were modified in Committee, but I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether it is a fact that Wolverhampton has no intention in the future of demanding a further extension?
  Mr. Baird: The House is not tonight discussing what Wolverhampton may demand in the future. It is discussing the Third Reading of a very moderate and modest Bill. I think it entirely wrong for anyone to suggest that this Bill is evidence of a battle between the town and the country. It is no such thing. Until we get new general proposals regarding local government, Wolverhampton has to build houses for its people. Since the war, Wolverhampton Corporation has had one of the best records in the country in house building. It has one of the most enlightened direct labour building departments and is building houses cheaper than anywhere else I know of. We have used all our available land for building houses. The only land available now is derelict land and this has to be levelled and drained; and now we want a very small area outside the boundary to be brought in for building use.
  The county council suggest that the building of these houses should be left to the small urban councils around. They suggest that Wednesfield Urban Council should build 3,000 houses; that the Tettenhall Urban Council should build 5,000 houses and that Wellenhall Urban Council should build 2,000 houses.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot find anything to do with building houses in the Bill.
  Mr. Baird: The reason we are asking for this extension is because of urgent housing needs.
  Mr. Speaker: That was decided on Second Reading, and need not be argued now.
  Mr. Baird: But, Mr. Speaker, the whole reason for this extension is the urgent housing needs of Wolverhampton.
  Mr. Speaker: Which, of course, was decided on Second Reading. Housing is something we need not discuss now.
  Mr. Baird: This subject has been mentioned in the Debate more than once tonight, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: It was my fault for allowing it.
  Mr. Baird: I just want to suggest that these local authorities have only built a few hundred houses between them during the last five years and now are expected to build thousands each to satisfy the housing needs of Wolverhampton. This is a modest Bill.
  Mr. Snow: No.
  Mr. Baird: I hope that the House will not consider this matter as a struggle between the town and the country. Until we get some reorganisation of local government, towns like Wolverhampton have the right to ask for extensions. It is also right, however, that the Ministry of Health and this House should examine the proposals. The Ministry and a Committee of this House have examined and approved them. They have been accepted as being modest, and, therefore, the House should give a Third Reading to this Bill tonight.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I want to argue to the same conclusions as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), but I want to dissociate myself completely from his denigration of the town of Wolverhampton as it stands. Of course, he has only recently been adopted by that part of the Midlands. I have lived for the whole of my life in Wolverhampton and district. I find it a very satisfactory place indeed. It has an excellent shopping centre, it is well governed from every point of view and its public buildings and general atmosphere form an oasis in the middle of that part of the Black Country.
  I want to discuss Clause 5, but I wished first, in my own interests, to dissociate myself from what I consider to be the rather unfortunate remarks of the hon. Member of Lichfield and Tamworth. I doubt whether the Bill as it is now should have the support of people who live in Wolverhampton. I have in mind, in particular, that part of Clause 5 under which it is intended to take Lower Penn within Wolverhampton's boundaries. The inclusion of Lower Penn would be a striking example of very bad development which
  1422
  I am sure would be in conflict with all planning proposals previously considered by any authority in that part of the country.
  As has been said, we have had the assistance of such eminent authorities as Professor Abercrombie; we have had the assistance of the joint planning section of the committee of the council and of the local planning authority. All have said, without exception, that this section of Lower Penn should be retained in agriculture as part of a green belt round that part of the West Midlands. If any part of England is in need of its green belt, it is this section of South Staffordshire. I think that suggestion will be accepted in all parts of the House.
  Such development as is envisaged by the taking over of this land would not be in the best interests of the people of Wolverhampton. It would push the countryside much further away from the centre of the town. It would form a dormitory suburb which would be an outstanding example of undesirable urban sprawl. Apart from being contrary to sound planning, it would push the citizens so far away from the civic centre that they would find it difficult to develop that civic sense and loyalty which is important and which should be extended.
  From the evidence taken before the Committee, it appears that the Land Commissioners and the Ministry of Agriculture have intimated that, even if this Bill is approved, they will not be prepared to release this agricultural land for any other purpose than its present use. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mr. Baird) has said that it is wanted for housing. Even if the Bill is approved, the Ministry of Agriculture would not be prepared to release the land for that purpose. They recognise that its value to agriculture is so great that they would not be prepared to release it.
  The last point I want to make is in reference to a previous speech in the House by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, as reported in the "Labour Gazette," the organ of the Cannock Division Labour Party. He is reported to have said:
  "The question I am asking this afternoon is: What is going to be done to implement that Report and what is to be done to make the Black Country green? "

  1423
  I am quite certain that we are not going to make the Black Country green by turning certain parts of it black, which I am quite certain will be the only effect of the Bill as it stands at present. It has been said that the Government have stood out and not given any direct guidance about it. I believe that they ought to have taken a very active part, because I believe that if the Government had taken this Bill as a Government Measure and had examined it in consultation with all the Departments, with the Ministry of Agriculture—
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was reading or was asleep or something, but I thought that hon. Members generally appreciated that I did intervene to put the view of the Government on this Bill.
  Mr. Nicholls: The point I was making was that if it is believed that this Bill is a good one, they should have taken it over as a Government Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] They should have given clearer guidance about it, because the argument that I want to make—
  Mr. Speaker: This is a Private Bill carried under private legislation procedure, and it cannot be suggested that it should be a Government Bill.
  Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps my criticism then is a criticism of procedure in the House of Commons, but as there are so many other points, I do not think we should pursue that one.
  The real point is that I am convinced that the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Town and Country Planning have divergent views about this Bill and how it will be operated, but I cannot see how this Bill will be implemented because they will not get the necessary releases from other Departments of the Government. I believe that this Bill should be delayed until the House can be assured that the full meaning behind it can be given effect by all the Government Departments concerned, by their showing unanimity and a decision to support it. Then we shall be discussing a reality and not a sham.
  Mr. Nally: I am heartbroken to find myself on the side of the hon.
  1424
  Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) and in opposition to my hon. Friend close to me who has just spoken. I look upon the hon. Member opposite as a brother and a friend, the sort of brother and friend who, in the literature which I used to read as a child, used to be sent to New South Wales with the instruction that he should never come home. Still, he was a brother. I am sorry to find myself in opposition to my colleague here.
  You were quite right, Mr. Speaker, in drawing our attention to the fact that we ought to discuss the Wolverhampton Bill. I am trying to talk seriously about it, and the proposal, quite simply, is this: although the Wolverhampton Corporation could tomorrow night arrive at an agreement with the Staffordshire County Council as to the number of houses it would build on a particular acreage of land, the Wolverhampton Corporation prefers to adopt the method, not of arriving at an agreement tomorrow—I am not exaggerating; I say that quite deliberately, and there are people in the Gallery who would confirm it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] That is not out of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]
  There are people who can confirm that the Wolverhampton Corporation could negotiate tomorrow, with Conservative and Socialist members of the Staffordshire County Council and members of urban district councils in the area, an agreement under which certain acreages of land which are embodied in this Bill could, by a co-operative enterprise, become available for the housing of people from Wolverhampton's overspill population. I am bound to say that I am a big city man. I love big cities. Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, London, those are the places I know. My father has the honour to be the leader of the Manchester City Council. He is a big city man. But my father has taken the view, and I take it from him, that this cannibalism—
  It being Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business—whereupon The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 37.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Hannan, W.

  Orbach, M.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Padley, W. E.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Hargreaves, A

  Paling, Rt. Hn. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Harrison, J.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Balfour, A.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Pannell, T. C.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Bartley, P.

  Herbison, Miss M

  Parker, J.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pearson, A.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Holman, P.

  Peart, T. F.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

  Popplewell, E.

  Boardman, H.

  Hopkinson, H.

  Proctor, W. T

  Booth, A.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pryde, D. J.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Hubbard, T.

  Rees, Mrs. D

  Bowden, H. W.

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

  Reeves, J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Reid, W. (Camlachie)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Richards, R.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Robens, A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Janner, B.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Burke, W. A.

  Jeger, G. (Goole)

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

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

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

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Carmichael, James

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Royle, C.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Johnson, J. (Rugby)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Champion, A. J.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Clunie, J.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

  Slater, J.

  Collick, P.

  Keenan, W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Collindridge, F.

  Kenyon, C.

  Snow, J. W.

  Cook, T. F.

  King, H. M.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

  Cooper, J (Deptford)

  Kinley, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peekham)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Steele, T.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R- R.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Logan D. G.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Longden, F. (Small Heath)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  McAllister, G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McGovern, J.

  Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)

  Deer, G.

  Mclnnes, J.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Mack, J. D

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Donnelly, D.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Timmons, J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mckay, R. W. G. (Reading, N)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  McLeavy, F.

  Tomney, F.

  Ewart, R.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Viant, S. P.

  Finch, H. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Wallace, H. W.

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

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Follick, M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Forman, J. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  West, D. G

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Glanville, J. E, (Consett)

  Messer, F.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

  Moeran, E. W

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Monslow, W.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Grenfell, D. R

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Morley, R.

  Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mort, D. L.

  Woods, Rev. G. S.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

  Moyle, A.

  Yates, V. F.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Hale, J. (Rochdale)

  Murray, J. D

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Nally, W.

  Mr. Baird and

  Hall, J (Gateshead, W.)

  Neal, H.

  Mr. J. Enoch Powell.

  NOES

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Black, C. W.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

  Bowen, R.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

  Braine, B.

  1426

  1427

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Hirst. Geoffrey

  Raikes, H. V.

  Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss. P.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Horsbrugh, Miss F.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

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

  Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Hudson, Sir A. U. M. (Lewisham, N.)

  Roper, Sir H.

  Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)

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

  Russell, R. S.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

  Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

  Hutchinson, G (Ilford, N.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Davies, Nigel (Epping)

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  de Chair, S.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Jennings, R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Donner, P. W.

  Kaberry, D.

  Storey, S.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Drewe, C.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond')

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Summers, G. S.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Linstead, H. N.

  Taylor, W. J (Bradford, N.)

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

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)

  Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Fort, R.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Marples, A. E.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W (St. Marylebone)

  Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  George, Lady M. Lloyd

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Wheatley, Major M J. (Poole)

  Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Nicholls, H.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)

  Heald, L. F.

  Odey, G. W.

  Wills, G.

  Heath, Colonel E. G. R.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Wilson, G. (Truro)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Peto, Brig, C. H. M

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Pickthorn, K.

  York, C.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and Mr. Bell.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 40.

  Division No. 38.]

  AYES

  [10.10 p.m

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

  Gordon. Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Cooper, J. (Deptford)

  Grey, C. F.

  Awbery, S S.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peekham)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Bartley, P.

  Davies, Nigel (Epping)

  Hale, J. (Rochdale)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  de Chair, S.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

  de Freilas, Geoffrey

  Hall, J. (Gateshead, W)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Deer, G.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Black, C. W.

  De argy, H. J.

  Hannan, W

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Boardman, H.

  Drayson, G. B

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Booth, A.

  Drewe, C.

  Hargreaves, A

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)

  Harrison, J.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Harvey, Air-Codre A. V (Macclesfield)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

  Heath, Col. E. R

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Ewart, R.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W

  Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hill Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Finch, H. J.

  Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

  Hobson, C. R.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Foot, M. M.

  Hopkinson, H. L. D' A.

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

  Forman, J. C.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss. P.

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

  Fort, R.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Hubbard, T.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

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

  Clunie, J.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

  Coldrick, W.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Collick, P.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Collindridge, F.

  Gilzean, A.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Cook, T. F.

  Gooch, E. G.

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

  1428

  1429

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sparks, J. A

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Moeran, E. W.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)

  Hynd, J. B, (Attercliffe)

  Monslow, W.

  Steele, T.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Greco

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Stewart, Michael (Fulhan E.)

  Janner, B.

  Morley, R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Mormon, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Storey, S.

  Jeger, G. (Goole)

  Mort, D. L.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

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

  Moyle, A.

  Stross, Dr. B

  Jenkins, R. H

  Mulley, F. W

  Studholme, H. G.

  Jennings, R.

  Murray, J. D.

  Summers, G. S.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Neal, H

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

  Odey, G. W.

  Taylor, W. J (Bradford, N.)

  Kaberry, D.

  Orbach, M.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Padley, W. E.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Keenan, W

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

  Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)

  Kenyan, C.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  King, H. M

  Pannell, T. C.

  Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)

  Kinley, J.

  Parker, J

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Pearson, A.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Pearl, T. F.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Perkins, W. R. D

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Tomney, F.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Popplewell, E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Porter, G.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Logan, D. G.

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Viant, S. P.

  Longden, F. (Small Heath)

  Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Wallace, H. W.

  McAllister, G

  Proctor, W. T

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  McCallum, Maj. D

  Pryde, D. J

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  MacColl, J. E.

  Rayner, Brig R

  Weitzman, D.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Reeves, J.

  West, D. G.

  Mclnnes, J.

  Reid, W. (Camlachie)

  Wheatley, Major M J. (Poole)

  Mack, J. D.

  Richards, R.

  While, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Robens, A.

  White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

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

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

  McLeavy, F.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Royle, C.

  Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E).

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Russell, R. S.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Wills, G.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham C.)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfiled. E.)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Winterbottom, R E. (Brightside)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wise, Major F. J

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wood, Hon R.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Slater, J.

  Woods, Rev. G. S.

  Marples, A. E.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Mr. Baird and Mr. Iain MacLeod.

  Messer, F.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

  NOES

  Ashton, H (Chelmsford)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Roberls, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Balfour, A.

  Holman, P.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Bowen, R.

  Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

  Roper, Sir H.

  Braine, B.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Ryder, Capt R. E. D

  Brockway, A. Fennel

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

  Champion, A. J

  Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)

  McGovern, J

  Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

  Cove, W. G.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughlon)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Follicle, M.

  Nally, W.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

  Nicholls, H

  York, C.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Harold Davies.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

KINGSTON VICTORIA HOSPITAL
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewells]
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I desire to bring the House back from the contentious, if comparatively smoke-free, environs of Wolverhampton to the more agreeable surroundings of the Thames Valley. I desire to pursue one stage further with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, whom I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench, a longstanding matter affecting a small hospital located in my constituency. Being near the boundary of that constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), it is also of considerable interest to him and to his constituents.
The hospital is the Kingston Victoria Hospital, which is one of those small hospitals of the cottage hospital type having about 50 beds. The issue which I desire to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary is whether or not that hospital is to be permitted to continue as a separate entity in the future or whether it is to be merged, perhaps I should say submerged, as the maternity wing of a larger hospital.
I appreciate that there are types of complaints for which specialist treatment is necessary, and specialist treatment on the whole predicates a large hospital; but there are also other types of complaints in respect of which the patient desires, and is right to desire, treatment in a small hospital into which it is administratively possible for the general practitioner, who has had general care of him for years past, to follow him and treat him there. This hospital is a hospital of that kind which has acquired a considerable reputation, perhaps I may be allowed to say affection, in the neighbourhood for the excellent work it has done.
The story begins last year, when the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, with the intention of dealing with the real need to increase maternity hospital accommodation, prepared a scheme in which the Kingston Victoria Hospital would become simply a maternity
1432
wing of the county hospital and its separate existence as a cottage hospital of the general practitioner type would end. The Group Management Committee who, as the House is aware, are the body immediately charged with local administration of the hospitals under the Metropolitan Board, opposed that, and there was a considerable—and I regret to say acrimonious—dispute on that subject.
That dispute was resolved by the somewhat Draconian method of the Regional Board using, or in my view abusing, its power of appointment and removing from the Group Management Committee the chairman and three members of that committee who had taken a view different from that of the Regional Board on the subject of this hospital. I raised that matter in this House, as the Parliamentary Secretary will recall, some little time ago, and although it would be a gross exaggeration to say that I was satisfied on that occasion with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, if I may so describe it, I do not propose to go into that issue now. It will have to be resolved at another time and perhaps by other means.
The issue now is whether the object of the Regional Board of eliminating this small cottage hospital, is or is not to be achieved. The matter is a little bit complicated, and I do not desire to bother the House with undue details; but after considerable discussions, of which the Minister was courteous enough to notify me, the Minister, by letter dated 10th May, 1950, wrote to me as follows:
"The Regional Board now propose, and the Kingston Hospital Management Committee have agreed, that the Surbiton hospital annex"—
which is a totally different institution, which comes into the picture now for the first time—
"would provide a reasonable general practitioner unit, and all general practitioners who have previously had access to the Kingston Victoria Hospital will be allowed facilities …"
and so. On the face of it, that looked like a compromise; but I am afraid that, on analysis, it turned out to be no compromise, but rather a proposal to turn the immediate and sudden death of the Kingston Victoria Hospital into a lingering departure, because unfortunately—and I am supported here by all the medical opinion concerned—that annex

1433
has neither room nor medical facilities to provide adequate cottage hospital treatment.
Now, the issue has aroused great public interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon will bear out. The Mayor of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and, I understand, the Mayor of the adjacent Borough of Maiden and Coombe, have both, on behalf of their respective boroughs, protested in public. Public opinion is all but unanimous, and medical opinion entirely unanimous, on the issue that the Kingston Victoria Hospital should continue as a small general practitioner unit. In those circumstances I put a Question a little time ago to the Minister of Health, asking him whether he would take steps to secure the continued existence of this hospital. The right hon. Gentleman, with no waste of words, answered that Question with the monosyllabic answer, "No," and that left no option but to seek this as the last possible opportunity of attempting to save a hospital which has a well-merited reputation for fine work, and whose extinction would be nothing less than a catastrophe for a certain part of the Thames Valley.
Those who oppose the extinction of the Kingston Victoria Hospital have not indulged in simple blank opposition. They have sought to meet the legitimate concern of the Regional Board, and have themselves suggested another compromise proposal under which the annex of the Victoria itself would be used as the maternity wing. That has been inspected by all the competent people, and, perhaps what is most significant, I am told that the very distinguished gynaecologist who would be in charge of the maternity unit has indicated that, in his view, those premises would be satisfactory.
In view of that, it is surely right to press for a solution which would provide what the gynaecologist in charge regards as a suitable alternative, while fully preserving, in its present premises, this much loved hospital, and I do not think it is unreasonable, all other methods having failed, to seek to elicit the action of the Minister to overrule the Regional Board in this respect. I do not want to bandy personalities, but in view of the way the Regional Board have sought to bulldoze this particular project through during these last few months, one cannot have an excessive confidence in their fair consideration of this alternative scheme, and
1434
that is why it seems to me right to ask the Minister to exercise his supreme and reserve authority, and to preserve this hospital.
It does raise an issue, which, as I say, has aroused opinion in the division which I have the honour to represent, but it also raises a general issue of not a little importance. Throughout the country these cottage hospitals exist, most of them, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, doing excellent work. In the nature of things, perhaps, their present existence does not appeal unduly to the planners of the Regional Boards. They mar a little the perfect symmetry of the system. I am afraid that many of us have found that since the National Health Service came into being the separate life and existence of these hospitals has been menaced. From this example and from others of which I have heard, it looks as if there is an unfortunate tendency for the Regional Boards to eliminate from their schemes, and from existence, cottage hospitals of this kind. That is a matter which, when fully understood, I think will be resented by large sections of public opinion. I think it does the National Health Service no good if, in the process of much-needed extension of the service, there is perpetrated the destruction of one of the more useful and valuable parts of the old system.
It is in the light of that, not only as an individual case—though it is naturally as an individual case that I and my constituents are most concerned about it—but also very much from the point of view of the general issues involved, that I beg the right hon. Gentleman, through his representative the Parliamentary Secretary, at least to consider fairly on their own the facts of this case, and to consider the proposal put forward by the Victoria Hospital itself. The head of this hospital's medical advisory board is a physician of great distinction; he is well known in the counsels of the British Medical Association, and on occasion has enjoyed the dangerous honour of personal negotiations with the Minister. If responsible people of that sort put forward such a scheme, it is at least the duty of the Minister fully and fairly to consider it on the highest level and to see that action is taken accordingly, without consideration of anything else.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Black: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has outlined this matter with the admirable clarity which one always expects from him, and I have no desire to occupy the time of the House by dealing further with those aspects of the matter which he has explained; but he has told the House of the indignation which is felt in the constituency which he represents about the proposal to change the character and the status of this hospital, and I should like to make it quite clear that that indignation is equally felt by a substantial part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
As my hon. Friend has made clear to the House, this hospital, although situated just inside the boundary of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, is within a very short distance of the Borough of Maiden and Coombe, which forms part of my constituency. For rather more than 50 years, this cottage hospital has served the needs of the people of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and the people of the Borough of Maiden and Coombe with, I believe, complete satisfaction to the two districts concerned. Indeed, I would like to make clear that the full title of the hospital is "The Kingston and Maiden Victoria Hospital." That, I think, will make quite clear the point which I seek to bring to the notice of the House, namely, that historically and at present this hospital does serve equally the two boroughs.
I should like to say a word or two before concluding about the position within the Borough of Maiden. This proposed change in the character and status of this hospital has been considered on at least two occasions at meetings of the Borough Council of Maiden. On 17th October and on 23rd November, 1949, these meetings were held, and on both occasions the members of the Borough Council of Maiden, of whatever shade of political opinion they might be, were united in recording their opposition to this proposal; and they have consistently, and throughout, done everything possible to dissuade those responsible from proceeding with the proposed change in the character and status of this hospital.
I have taken some trouble to ascertain what is the view of medical opinion in
1436
the Borough of Maiden, and I do not believe that I shall be over-stating the case if I say that medical opinion is almost, if not quite, unanimous against the change. Many local organisations have also expressed their opposition, and I think that if a poll were taken of the Borough of Maiden, it would reveal a literally overwhelming volume of opinion against any change in the character and status of this greatly esteemed cottage hospital. It is also the fact, so I am informed, that the British Medical Association itself has expressed its opposition to the Board's proposal.
If the future destiny of this hospital were in the hands of any board or council or body which consisted of popularly-elected members, it is quite certain that the proposal would not have reached even the point which it has reached now. That the proposal has been carried so far is solely due to the fact that the controlling body is an appointed body and not one which has been elected, and it is not, therefore, responsible to public opinion as an elected body would be.
I associate myself most strongly with the appeal which my hon. Friend has made that even at this comparatively late hour regard should be had to the feelings and opinions which have been made so manifestly clear and which are also so strongly held by people in the neighbourhood, and that this proposal should not be proceeded with any further.
10.39 p.m.
Dr. Hill: If I may detain the House for one minute, I shall not, of course, cover the detailed ground, which has in any case been so admirably covered. I want to stress the underlying principle. Everyone realises the Minister's responsibility for specialist services, but it is in the public interest that there should be an ample provision of general practitioner beds—not places where specialist work is undertaken by general practitioners, but places where general practitioners can, in the interests of those patients whose domestic and housing conditions make it necessary, treat their own patients within their proper scope in hospital surroundings. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to express his approval of that principle of general practitioner provision and to try equally to apply that principle in this case as in other cases.
10.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): To deal first with the short comment of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), as I think he knows and the British Medical Association know, my right hon. Friend has expressed quite clearly in circulars to the Regional Hospital Boards his desire that there should not be exclusion of general practitioners from small hospitals. Indeed, we are very glad that the compromise proposals that have been put forward—amended proposals by the Regional Hospital Board—do take into account that very point. As I think will be appreciated by the hon. Gentlemen who have raised this matter, the original proposals of the Board meant almost the complete exclusion of general practitioners from this hospital.
As I think is generally known, there were discussions about it lasting over a fairly considerable period of time, but in cases of this kind not only the Ministry but clearly the Board, which is the planning authority in the area, have to bear in mind above all the needs of the public, which are both specialist and general practitioner needs. There are bound to arise differences of opinion in a particular area when one has an authority like a Regional Hospital Board attempting to secure the best possible use of the accommodation available. It is inevitable that there will be some clashes of opinion about the use of specified hospitals. This is obviously not the only occasion when we have had conflicts of this sort. Regional Hospital Boards do attempt to reach reasonable conclusions.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was using rather unusual and inappropriate language when he talked about the death and extinction of this hospital, when in fact it is to be turned into a gynaecological unit. No one would regard that as the death of a hospital. I should regard it as new life.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary regard it as a transmigration of souls?
Mr. Blenkinsop: That brings to my mind rather unfortunate results.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is exactly what I claimed.
Mr. Blenkinsop: The proposal for this hospital is for a most vital purpose. There is no doubt that in this area there is an urgent need for additional maternity accommodation, and this proposal as a whole will affect quite a number of hospitals within the group. It is not merely a change in one or two hospitals; it involves a series of changes which will result in a total increase in the number of beds available. For maternity cases it means, for the group as a whole, an increase from 81 to 96 beds which are urgently needed. I am not saying it is sufficient, but it is a valuable step which had to be taken. It also means a small increase in gynaecological beds from 37 to 40, while chronic sick beds remain at the same figure and there is only a reduction of two beds for general patients. That is, I think, a perfectly reasonable proposal to put forward.
When the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames says that the Board have bulldozed through the proposals, he should recognise, and pay a compliment to the Board for the revised proposals they have submitted. Not only have they suggested the use of the Surbiton annexe for general medical cases which will be open to general practitioners, but also the suggestion has been made that, as far as practicable, there will be posts offered as clinical assistants. This is a development we surely want to encourage for suitable general practitioners on the staff of the Kingston Victoria Hospital. We certainly would not wish to give any guarantee that every single practitioner who at present has access to the Kingston Victoria should automatically, by virtue of that, be able to secure a clinical assistantship. What is desired is that, within what is regarded as the proper clinical needs of the area, the general practitioner should not be cut off from hospital work. It seems to us that these modified proposals adequately cover that point.
I have tried to explain that we are conscious of the principle lying at the back of these, as of other, proposals, and I have stressed the fact that my right hon. Friend is concerned to see that the general guidance he gave in a circular sent to Regional Hospital Boards should be given effect to. It is for that reason that we have welcomed these new proposals. I understand that the alternative suggestion

1439
mentioned by the hon. Member has only been put forward very recently. It is a proposal that a wooden hut in the grounds of the Kingston Victoria Hospital should be used for gynaecological cases. I cannot say whether this is a useful proposal or not. I gather that it is regarded as extremely doubtful whether it would be a satisfactory alternative to the Kingston Victoria itself, but it is, I am sure, one that would be considered by the Regional Hospital Board, who are now at one with the Management Committee concerned in approving the revised proposals put forward.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is in fact being now considered?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I understand that this is a new proposal, and I cannot say anything about it. I know nothing of it other than that it concerns a wooden hut in the grounds. Whether that would be regarded as adequate or not, I cannot say. It seems to me on the face of it that it is highly unlikely, but whether it would be
1440
is a matter for the Regional Hospital Board and the Management Committee to decide.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that he will consider the matter, and that the matter will not be regarded as irrevocably settled?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I have no news about this proposal. It was put forward only a few days ago, and I am certainly not going to commit anyone as to their reaction to it, or say that it must hold up a decision which must be taken after the long consideration of all the proposals that have been made and the reasonable attitude now shown by the Regional Hospital Board. We are most anxious that this important accommodation for the needs of the people as a whole in the area should now be proceeded with.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

TANGANYIKA
  Ranching
  Ranching
  Land Settlement
  Land Settlement
  PORT OF BEIRA (CONVENTION)
  PORT OF BEIRA (CONVENTION)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Sugar Ration
  Sugar Ration
  Breakfast Foods
  Breakfast Foods
ROYAL NAVY
  Court Martial Procedure (Report)
  Court Martial Procedure (Report)
  Personal Case (Correspondence)
  Personal Case (Correspondence)
  TELEVISION SERVICE (CENTRAL WALES)
  TELEVISION SERVICE (CENTRAL WALES)
POST OFFICE
  Collections and Deliveries
  Collections and Deliveries
  Night Counter Service, Manchester
  Night Counter Service, Manchester
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Applications
  Applications
  Kiosk, Sizewell
  Kiosk, Sizewell
  AIRMET SERVICE
  AIRMET SERVICE
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Technical Posts (Age Limit)
  Technical Posts (Age Limit)
  Wireless Stations, Kent (Accommodation)
  Wireless Stations, Kent (Accommodation)
  Dilutees (Agreement)
  Dilutees (Agreement)
  Weather Forecasts
  Weather Forecasts
  Flying Clubs (Cadets)
  Flying Clubs (Cadets)
  Meteorological Office (Senior Posts)
  Meteorological Office (Senior Posts)
  Housing (Meteorological Staff)
  Housing (Meteorological Staff)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Helicopter Service, Liverpool-Cardiff
  Helicopter Service, Liverpool-Cardiff
  Service, Southampton- South Africa
  Service, Southampton- South Africa
  American Aircraft (Purchases)
  American Aircraft (Purchases)
  Corporations (Aircraft)
  Corporations (Aircraft)
  Northolt (Landing Permission)
  Northolt (Landing Permission)
  Department's Trading Accounts
  Department's Trading Accounts
  Service Personnel (Transport)
  Service Personnel (Transport)
  POULTRY PRICES
  POULTRY PRICES
BRITISH ARMY
  Ex-Prisoners of War, Far East
  Ex-Prisoners of War, Far East
  Salaries and Housing, Singapore
  Salaries and Housing, Singapore
  GLIDERS (CONTRACT)
  GLIDERS (CONTRACT)
  PURCHASE TAX
  PURCHASE TAX
  PETROL RATION BOOKS (COST)
  PETROL RATION BOOKS (COST)
SCOTLAND
  National Registration
  National Registration
  Non-Traditional Houses
  Non-Traditional Houses
  Secondary Education (Report)
  Secondary Education (Report)
  Ballinaby Farm, Islay
  Ballinaby Farm, Islay
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord Aberconway—Took the Oath.
The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley—Affirmed.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL
2.35 p.m.
Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1949, and certain other enactments relating to housing in Scotland; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

PROPOSED OPENCAST MINING IN WORCESTERSHIRE
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to proceed with opencast coal mining operations in Western Worcestershire, which is an area of rich agricultural value and outstanding natural beauty (vide the Abercrombie Report, 1945); and whether they will hold an immediate public inquiry to allay the widespread alarm these proposals have engendered.]
THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, as part of the programme of coal production announced by the Minister of Fuel and Power in January, 1950, for obtaining 45,000,000 tons of opencast coal during the period 1950–53, the Ministry propose to prospect in Western Worcestershire with the object of ascertaining the value of the outcrop resources of coal. Until boring has taken place it is not possible to say whether working proposals in any particular area will result. If such proposals are made, there will be full opportunity for any objections to be considered by the authorities concerned, including the Ministries of Town and Country Planning and Agriculture. His Majesty's Government do not consider that this aspect of the matter can be dealt with appropriately at a public inquiry.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he personally knows this area and, if he does, whether he will agree with me when I suggest that it is par excellence the garden area of England; and whether he is aware that the mere making of such a proposal conflicts greatly with the Report, which is already in possession of the Government, made by Sir Patrick Abercrombie in 1945? I have the Report here and can quote him passages from it. Is the noble Lord aware that the whole of this area constitutes a great market garden-cumfruit farm and that the whole drainage of the area would probably be upset by any opencast coal mining operations? May I ask him whether, in order to allay possible anxiety, His Majesty's Government will give some assurance to the people of the area—and, in fact, to the people of the whole of the British Isles—that no proposal to turn this area of England into a desert will be entertained for one moment?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl's supplementary question, may I say that whilst I am not acquainted with the area so well as he is, as a result of his Question I have read the Abercrombie Report and agree with what he has said concerning the beauty of this area? We understand that there is a possibility of finding outcrop coal there. We intend to investigate that possibility, and if we are satisfied that the

873
outcrop is such that we ought to exploit it there will then be an opportunity for the noble Earl and all his friends to make their objections. If the objections are as strong as he says they are, it may be that, although we think that the coal there ought to be exploited, we shall reconsider our decision.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, as a native of that distressed and very anxious county, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are aware of the consternation—because no other word would fit—which is being caused throughout the whole county by these proposals; whether they are aware that no fewer than twelve areas have been marked for spoliation in this way, most of them good agricultural land, and one of them, so I am informed, part of the Wyre Forest, which is one of the finest natural wild life sancturies in the Kingdom; whether they will work wholeheartedly with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning with regard to preserving this area for future generations; and whether they consider that the spoliation of the country in this way really fulfils any useful object? As a short-term policy no doubt it is convenient to get coal in this way, but if we look at it from a long-term aspect it seems to create the greatest hardship on those immediately concerned. It is a dangerous threat to agriculture and a dangerous threat also to the future amenities of our countryside.
EARL BOWE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I would ask him whether lie is acquainted with this passage in the Abercrombie Report in which it says, first of all, that this land is:
"…really good farmland of a quality far above the national average,"
and secondly, that,
"With the great need for home production of food, this land is extremely precious and any inroads into it for industry and housing must be considered with fir greater care in relation to the national picture than would be the case in many English counties."
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am acquainted with that passage—indeed, I
874
have it before me now. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, may I thank him for giving me prior notice of his supplementary questions, but say that I regret that I am unable to add anything to what I have already said?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I understand from the noble Lord's answer that the only proposition at present before us is that certain boring operations should take place to find out whether there is any coal in this area. May I ask for an assurance that, when the operations have taken place, the report upon them will be presented to Parliament, and that active coal-getting operations will not be started until Parliament is in possession of the report and has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I believe the noble Viscount is aware that there is a settled procedure on how to deal with opencast coal mining. All I can promise is that that procedure will be followed, and it will allow the objections suggested by the noble Earl and the noble Lord to be taken.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps I ought to be aware of the procedure, but I am not. It may be that there is some sort of inquiry. However, the important matter in these cases is not the opinion of an inquiry set up by a Minister, but the opinion of Parliament. All I am asking is that in this (as it appears to be) exceptional case, which I do not want to prejudge, Parliament should be given the opportunity of expressing an opinion.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I do not think anybody knows better than the noble Viscount that for us to accept that Parliament should be the judge of every piece of opencast mining would be entirely wrong. We could not allow development of opencast mining on those lines. I can assure noble Lords that every opportunity of making representations will be given to those in the locality and to the interested parties.

THE GOWERS REPORT
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had given notice that he would ask the following question:
[To ask His Majesty's Government what action, if any, they propose to take on the Gowers Report to support the findings of the Committee on English country houses classed as buildings of historic interest and scheduled as ancient monuments.]
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I understand that His Majesty's Government are prepared to make a statement on the Gowers Report to-morrow afternoon. Therefore I do not propose to ask my Question to-day.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
BOROUGH OF ACCRINGTON ORDER
URBAN DISTRICT OF UTTOXETER ORDER
RURAL RISTRICT OF GODSTONE ORDER
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd (we regret his absence owing to illness, although I am glad to say that he is much improved this week), I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, that the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said Areas, be approved.—(Lord Darwen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE HOUSING SITUATION
2.45 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN rose to call attention to the Housing Situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose there are few people in the country, and none in your Lordships' House, who are wholly satisfied with the present situation of housing. That is why I feel that we do well, not having done so for some time, to spend an afternoon discussing the matter. The only person satisfied with the present situation seems to be the Minister of Health. He has made so many speeches over the last five years saying that the housing position is satisfactory that I
876
begin to believe that he has even convinced himself that it is. However, I do not think that is the opinion held up and down the country. Recently three Reports have been issued by His Majesty's Government—namely, the Working Party Report on Building, the Report of the Productivity Team which went out to the United States to compare their building methods with our own, and the Second Girdwood Report on the cost of house building. I shall refer to each of those Reports during the course of my speech, but at this stage I should like to refer to paragraph 49 of the Working Party Report, to which I think it is right to draw your Lordships' attention. It reads as follows:
"Immediately after the war a vast programme of building work was launched without adequate pre-planning. The Government's estimate of the load of work that the industry could sustain was over-optimistic and the programme fostered by official encouragement or direction made excessive demands on the available resources of labour, management, materials and professional services. The result was that these resources were very thinly spread, and the quantity of work started was only distantly related to the supply of building materials and labour then available. Hence building schemes were unable to proceed with the regularity which is essential to efficient operation. Subsequent efforts to adjust the building programme in accordance with the supply of materials and the size of the labour force were unsuccessful; and the drastic revision of the national investment programme led to still further disequilibrium in the industry. The uncertainty for which these changes were responsible gave rise to feelings of frustration both among contractors and workers. The campaign to 'finish the houses', and the capital cuts in 1948, both introduced with little or no warning, affected also the producers of building materials, who found that their assessment of the demand for their goods was liable to be upset by sudden changes of policy which they could not possibly foresee."
That Committee reported on January 11 of this year, and yet, I regret to say, the Government still seem to be altering this programme. Your Lordships will remember that the statement on devaluation cuts announced by the Prime Minister on October 24 last included a cut of £25,000,000 in house building. That was elaborated later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that it meant 175,000 houses instead of 200,000 houses in 1950. On March 13 of this year the Minister of Health said that there would be no cut in 1950, but that if our programme was adjusted to capital investments, it would mean somewhere between

877
175,000 and 180,000 houses in 1951. That is again different from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. A few days later we had the Government's Economic Survey for 1950, which said:
"…the level of housing constructed will be reduced"—
that is in the year 1950—
"from the figure of approximately 200,000 at the beginning of the year to a figure of approximately 185,000."
Finally, in his Budget speech, Sir Stafford Cripps said that the Government had decided that the programme would run at 200,000 houses for the next three years. This chopping and changing in a policy such as housing cannot be to the good, and I hope that the Government will make up their minds not to chop and change. All the quotations I have made are from members of the Cabinet or from the Government Economic Survey—they are all Government sources. There is therefore no excuse for the Government saying that it is an outside body butting in—the National Executive of the Labour Party, for example—because in this case they are all different Ministers talking and saying different things within the period of five or six months. I hope the Government will take to heart this recommendation of their Working Party and stick to a programme, although I must say that I hope we shall induce them to set their target rather higher than 200,000.
I could never see why—except for a possible increase in the price of imported raw materials which, after all, was very likely when we devalued—we had to alter our housing programme because of the devaluation crisis. If your Lordships recollect, when that announcement was made to this House by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and housing was mentioned as a cut, I exclaimed with real surprise, "Surely not housing." After all, it is one of the last things upon which expenditure ought to be cut at the present time in this country. Look at the crying need we have in all parts for more houses, and look at the largo replacement which, through no fault of the Government, they have to make up owing to the damage done during the war, and the lack of building during the war years. Indeed, an authority upon this subject has written these words:
878
"Let us look at a few facts before we find out what the Tories propose to do about them. Remember that during the past five years "—
this was written in 1944—
"We have been building practically no new houses. I do not complain. Our hands were full dealing with the Nazis. Even before the war we needed a replacement programme of 200,000 houses a year. In addition to the cessation of building, the enemy has destroyed or seriously damaged more than a million houses. That estimate was made before the fly-bomb attacks. The position has become worse since then. Even to climb back to the housing position we had reached before the war started—and you know how far from satisfactory that was—we require a minimum of four million new houses."
However unsatisfactory the position was before the war, the fact is that 363,000 new houses were built in 1936, 358,000 in 1937 and 367,000 in 1938. 1939 was not a full year, so I am not quoting that.
The authority I am quoting is no less a man than the present Minister of Health, who said that 200,000 houses were not even enough to make up the replacement and the ordinary wastage before the war, and yet for the three years ahead this Government seem to be quite satisfied if they build 200,000 houses a year. For myself, I am not satisfied that sufficient drive is being put into this housing problem at the present time. We seem to be just drifting along, as though the present rate of building was adequate for our needs—which it certainly is not. On that I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Aneurin Bevan said in 1944. During this afternoon I hope that between us we: shall try and make some suggestions as to what can be done about it.
The first thing which gives me grave concern—and I hope that on this I am wrong—is the present softwood timber supply position. Our pre-war average of imports of softwoods was 2,250,000 standards a year. In 1948 we brought in 1,044,000 standards, and in 1949 1,080,000 standards. The Keith Price Report on the timber and plywood position reported in 1949 that our annual requirements, even on an austerity level basis, were 1,500,000 standards of softwood imports every year—excluding sleepers and crossings which require another 102,000 standards. So far, for this year, according to my information—and I gave the noble Viscount notice that I

879
should raise this point, so perhaps he will give us the figures if mine are wrong—we have made purchases for only a little over 700,000 standards, as against the 1,500,000 which, according to the Keith Price Report, are our minimum import requirements.
It is true that we are getting timber from practically all over the world. Our imports from the United States and Canada are down to 160,000 standards. We have ordered about 130,000 standards from Yugoslavia, but I think we shall be lucky if we get all that. From Finland we have ordered 103,000 standards, and other countries are sending a small amount. Sweden is sending 31,000 standards. Russia, I understand, under the bargain now made is to send 153,000 standards—although it was hoped before the Timber Controller went out there that we might get 250,000 standards from that country. At any rate, the totals that I have amount only to 715,000 standards purchased; and this year we are getting nothing from Germany. Your Lordships may remember that I have pressed, during recent years, that we should get softwood out of Germany; and we did get rather more, partly, perhaps, as a result of my pressure. I said that if anybody ought to provide us with timber to help rebuild our houses, Germany ought; it ought to come from the Black Forest and other afforested areas in Germany.
Why is it, then, that we have purchased so little? The position, perhaps, is best shown by what has been happening in regard to Sweden. The Government made a trade agreement with Sweden that during the year 1950 they would let us have—that is to say, they would give us export licences for—250,000 standards. Our Government, for its part, said we were prepared to bring that amount in. It was not a purchase: it was an overall plan or an overall trade agreement which had to be followed up by purchases; and the purchases had, under present conditions, to be effected by the Timber Control.
Buying usually starts in September or, at the latest, in October. Did the Timber Control people start to buy in September or October? They did not. And the other people in the timber trade became more and more anxious to open discussions with the Timber Control. Finally,
880
at a meeting with the Timber Controller Oil January 10 they stirred up the Timber Control to do something. But it was not until six weeks later, so I am told, that the delegation left for Sweden. I believe that when they left they had their price agreed with the Treasury: they could buy at January prices. But that was no good, because prices were rising all the time, and, as a result, of the 250,000 standards that we ought to have received, I am told that we have at present made purchases of only 31,000 standards of Swedish softwood, and that probably the most we can get now is another 50,000 standards. Meanwhile, the South Africans, the Dutch, I believe to a certain extent the Belgians, and I know the Germans (which is the "most unkindest cut of all") have been operating in Sweden through their private buyers and have bought up this timber, which ought to have come to this country. That, in my view, is all because under this state-buying policy, things are too slow. By the time Treasury consent and the consent of other Government Departments have been obtained, and the Timber Control have been chasing a rising market, they are a month or two late all the time.
It is not as though we had a good stock in this country at the present time. Our pre-war average stock at the end of June was, I am told, about 750,000 standards. It is now estimated by those in the know in the timber business to be down to something less than 150,000 standards. Although less is being used in the ordinary-sized house, the same number of distribution points have to be kept stocked up, and the minimum we ought to keep nowadays is, I understand, some 400,000 standards; otherwise builders are unable to get their stock sizes, and the very difficulty arises which is mentioned in paragraph 59 of this Working Party's Report. It says:
"One point we wish to stress particularly in this connection is that in allocating total supplies of materials and labour among the various users those responsible for the programme should make provision for reserves, since these are necessary to meet the inevitable defects of distribution; if, for instance, the allocations of timber are precisely equated to estimated supplies, a considerable number of schemes must go short because the necessary quantity to the right specification will not be available at the right place sit the right time. In the absence of reserves or stocks, local shortages are bound to appear."

881
I am told that that is happening at the present time. Builders cannot get delivery of the sizes they want; and not only do they have in many cases to cut off lengths, but they have to cut down the widths as well—cutting down 2×7, or something like that, to 2×5 to meet their specifications. This means an appalling waste of timber, leaving many odd pieces which, I suppose, for the most part go on to the watchman's fire. The right course is to get sufficient stocks, and that is the duty of the Timber Control, so long as we have one. I believe I am right in saying that no other country in the world still retains a Timber Control, although a large number had one during the war. I think the time has come to put the buying of timber requirements back into the hands of the trade, and the sooner we do that the better supplied this country will be with the timber that it so sorely needs.
If the figures I have given are wrong, I hope the noble Lord will correct them, because, of course, he has the Government figures. I hope he will not say that it is not in the public interest to say what the figures are: I may tell the noble Lord that the timber trade, both in this country and throughout the world, has fairly accurate knowledge of what timber we possess, what we are buying, and where we are buying it. If the Government were to say that, therefore, they would be denying the information only to Parliament and the people. I hope, in fact, that these figures are wrong—or, if not, that the Treasury have squeezed out some dollars. At one time, I believe, they were thinking of trying to buy, even at so late a stage, some Canadian timber, so that our housing programme could go on uninterrupted. I believe that, unless something of that sort is done, we are liable to have a further breakdown of that programme.
I should now like to pass to a brief glance at the three Reports which I have mentioned. The first is this extremely interesting Productivity Team Report on the results of the investigations of these people, drawn from every section of the building industry, during their tour in the United States. The American house-building industry itself had difficulties just after the war. There, the ordinary sized house (and I gather that they are referring to a house of a similar size to that in
882
which we have to house our weekly wage-earners) was taking eight to nine months to build. By December, 1947, the period was down to six months, and it is now back to the pre-war time level of between three and a half and four months. If those of your Lordships who have this Report will look at it, you will find that on page 15 it says:
"the output per man-hour on similar site operations is approximately 50 per cent. higher in America than it is in Britain."
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Which paragraph is that?
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is paragraph 30, in the dark print. There is one other paragraph to which I should like to refer your Lordships. It is to be found on page 65. It is paragraph 11. There it is said:
"In regard to housing by private enterprise both for sale and for letting, the results achieved in the United States since 1945 confirm pre-war experience in Britain that the highly competitive nature of the market for such houses results in high productivity and continually lower costs. Freed from all controls, the American housebuilding industry can provide houses for a large proportion of the population at prices commensurate with their average annual family incomes."
That is a thing which we are increasingly failing to do in this country, because the price of house building, as those of your Lordships who have studied the Gird-wood Report will know, is still going up. Indeed, in paragraph 125 of that Report the Committee say:
"We think it improbable that under present conditions there can be any substantial reduction in the general level of house-building costs in the near future and, as far as we can judge on present information, the indications are that it may be difficult to avoid a further increase."
I very much hope that the Government will take every step they can to avoid further increases in the cost of houses. There are now a number of families who are refusing the larger council houses because they feel that they have not the means with which to pay the rent for them. One of the ways in which we can well cut down the cost is pointed out by the Girdwood Committee, in paragraph 113 of their Report:
"Considerable experience of operating incentive schemes has now been gained and, with the co-operation of both sides of the industry in all parts of the country, incentive schemes could he more generally applied and play an

883
important part in securing further reductions in man-hours with some consequent reduction in cost."
The Report of the Working Party points out, in paragraph 41:
"The conclusion which we draw is that during 1946 and 1947 productive efficiency in the building industry generally was about two-thirds of its pre-war level."
If your Lordships will look at the last sentence of that paragraph, you will see:
"The London County Council have claimed that on certain of their Value Cost Contract sites where incentive schemes are operating, they have regained their 1939 level of productivity, but this experience is still exceptional."
I think it is up to the Government to try to make that experience not exceptional but general over the whole country, so that we shall get back to faster and cheaper building, and much nearer to the rate of productivity at which the industry was working in the days just before the war. It has, after all, had sufficient time now in which to settle down.
Finally, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to one other matter. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw a paragraph in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, headed "Overtime Ban Appeal by Builder". In the paragraph three cases were cited. One was that of a Mr. Billings, at Grays, Essex, who is building seventy-eight houses for the Thurrock Urban District Council. His firm have done the terrible thing of starting, with the consent of their employees and everybody else, working in this lovely summer weather forty-nine hours a week, instead of forty-four hours, on a building site. They have been stopped by the National Arbitration Tribunal, and told that they cannot do anything of the sort. That means that seventy-eight working-class houses are set back by that amount. I am not the kind of person who wants everybody to slave right through from one week's end to another, or anything like that, but in the building industry in this country advantage has always been taken of good summer weather such as we are enjoying this June. That is just the time when, if the work-people agree as well, you can well work an extra five hours overtime a week.
Again, there is a Mr. Barden who is doing, or trying to do (I believe he is still doing it), much the same thing at Maidstone; but he has been warned that he must stop his overtime scheme.
884
Another case, of which I think the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, may know something, is where 350 houses are being erected for the British Overseas Airways Corporation staff at Bristol. The builders made an application to the appropriate body to be allowed to work overtime, and this was supported by the Bristol Housing Committee. It has been turned down by the Joint Overtime Committee of Bristol, and so they are not allowed to work those four or five hours overtime that were quite normal in the days before the war. It is no burden upon a person to work that amount of time for a few favourable weeks in the summer; and surely in these days of good building weather and with this dreadful shortage of houses, this kind of obstruction is complete madness.
My Lords, I do ask what the Government are going to do about it. Surely this indicates that official circles, especially those circles in the Ministry of Labour which govern this kind of body, are not really alive to the urgency of the housing problem in this country. I ask myself what would have happened ten years ago if we who were then at the Ministry of Aircraft Production, had sat back and been content to have factories working only forty-four hours a week, if we had not driven on everywhere where materials, components, engines and aircraft frames were being made, or where they were being assembled together. The answer is that we should not have had enough fighters to win the Battle of Britain. Surely at the present time we must apply a similar drive to this urgent housing problem, so that we can win an equally essential battle for Britain—a battle for better health, for greater happiness, and for the higher moral welfare of our people. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this subject of housing before us once again. He has a thorough and inexhaustive knowledge of the subject, not only of the broad details but of the more technical details. I am not proposing to follow him in his speech because I am anxious to dwell upon one aspect of the problem which, though implicit in his speech, he did not actually mention—namely, the magnitude of the problem concerning the slums. My argument is that the present

885
policy of the Government is not reducing the population in the slums, and that year by year the slums are gradually increasing, both in number and in horror. I am not a critic of the Government's main policy in connection with housing. I think it was a very remarkable achievement to have built or made habitable over 1,000,000 houses, and I am sure that the Minister of Health was right in first building houses mainly to let rather than to sell. But my criticism, if it is a criticism at all, is that the time has come when we need some new departure in the housing policy of the Government which will bring influence directly to bear upon the slums, for until the people have been removed from the slums it is, of course, quite impossible to destroy any houses.
In this respect the position before the war was very hopeful. Then we had two great Ministers of Health. I look upon them as the greatest Ministers of Health we had between the wars. Mr. Wheatley, whose premature death was a great loss to all concerned with social reform, and Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who had the most remarkable mastery over all matters concerned with housing, laid down policies for housing which meant the gradual emptying of the slums and the reduction of the number of houses which were overcrowded. Their programme and policies were bearing valuable fruit, and I have no doubt at all that had the war not come we should at the present time probably have had no slums and a comparatively small amount of overcrowding.
That campaign, of course, was gravely interrupted by the war. When war broke out this policy of destroying the slums and reducing overcrowding had by no means been carried out to full realisation. There were then in existence a large number of slums in most of our towns, and a very great deal of overcrowding. The first effect of the war was to destroy some of the worst slums, through the bombardment from the air. But almost immediately new slums came into existence, for the people driven out of their houses had to find refuge in houses and tenements which were already overcrowded. The result was that when the war came to an end overcrowding was intensified. A number of houses and tenements which in the past could not have been described as slums had become not only over-
886
crowded but insanitary, and, through lack of necessary repairs, a large number of other building were gradually deteriorating. In my opinion the position to-day is extremely grave. I doubt whether there has been any time in the last hundred years when overcrowding has been so grave and when the slums have been so disastrous as they are at the present time.
I could quote to your Lordships a number of cases illustrating what I mean. I propose to give you only three or four. The expert who was investigating the position at West Hartlepool reports that out of 19,000 dwellings, 2,700 are badly blighted and 5,300 are below standard. In another large town, Salford, the medical officer of health says that there are 20,000 slum houses which ought to be swept away. We must not imagine that slum houses are to be found only in the North or in the Midlands. I am told that in Brighton there are a number of families, five in the family, living in one-room apartments ten feet by ten feet, and that there are many houses thee which have no lighting or water laid on. To mention another set of figures, in Portsmouth in 1943 there were 7,513 families, not individuals, applying for houses. In 1949 that figure went up to 9,636, and this year the figure has gone up to 10,445. I think those figures by themselves are sufficient to show how grave is the present problem.
Of course, the housing problem affects almost every kind of social problem which is causing us anxiety. Quite obviously, it affects the health of the people. We are greatly concerned about the increase in tuberculosis. I am told that the greatest increase has taken place in many of these congested areas. We are trying to improve the education of the country, but a number of teachers and others to whom I have spoken tell me that the children from the overcrowded or slum districts are intellectually behind the children who come from elsewhere. In crowded homes, they have no proper opportunities of doing their home lessons, and often at night they are disturbed. They go to school listless, tired and unable to make full use of the education which is there given to them.
Juvenile delinquency—another matter which is causing us great concern—is closely connected with this problem of overcrowding. When a family which in-

887
cludes a number of children have to live in only one or two rooms, the children are bound to spend their evenings in the streets. I was greatly interested to read the other day the Report by a Committee on juveniles and the cinema. They made a number of useful recommendations. Among other things, they recommended that children under a certain age should not be allowed to go to a cinema more than a certain number of times in a week. That is an admirable recommendation, but one which it is impossible to carry out in these days, when so many homes are so overcrowded that parents must send their children somewhere. Children go on to the streets, and very easily drop into some gang, out of sheer restlessness and the desire for distraction and amusement. Then some delinquency is committed, and so they start on the downward path.
Take another problem, that of broken homes and unhappy marriages. A very large number of the unhappy homes and marriages which have come to the notice of those who have special knowledge of the subject are due either to the long wait for a house, to overcrowding or—and this is very frequently the case—to the fact that young married people, in the country as well as in the towns, have to live with their fathers-in-law and their mothers-inlaw—an arrangement which does not always prove satisfactory. Let me give your Lordships one figure in connection with this matter. An investigation was undertaken—by amateurs it is true—in Liverpool into some of these unhappy marriages. Inquiries were made into 2,000 cases, and it was found that out of that total approximately 900 could be attributed to bad and overcrowded housing conditions. At the time of the first evacuation in the last war the country was horrified, and rightly horrified, at the large number of children sent out from the great towns who were unsatisfactory, both in cleanliness and in their habits. A great cry or horror was raised about that. If there was an evacuation tomorrow, we should find that the children from many of our towns were in a similar state. We cannot blame the parents. In most cases the parents are doing their best. We cannot blame the children. We have to blame the conditions under which, in so many instances, these
888
children are forced to live. The continued existence of the slums is thus a problem of the first magnitude. Most of our social reforms will be adversely affected by it.
I go on to ask the question: Why is it that the people have not moved from the slums and overcrowded houses to those houses which are springing up in various parts of the country? A variety of answers can be given to that question. One is that a number of these people cannot afford to move far away from their work. Some would answer quite simply that they do not want to leave their familiar surroundings, yet I believe that most of those people would be thankful if they could move to a new kind of home and would use to the utmost the opportunities thus given to them. The real difficulty is that people living in these overcrowded conditions belong to the lower scale of wage-earners and, having large families, cannot possibly afford the rents of these new houses. I know that it is useless to ask the Government—and I am not doing so—to increase the subsidies which year by year are set apart for housing. It is impracticable to make such a request at the present time. But I believe there are many living in some of these subsidised houses who could afford to pay a higher rent, and that the subsidy could be gradually and carefully shifted over to help those unable to pay the present rents.
There was an interesting article on this matter in an issue of the Economist earlier this year. I do not find myself in agreement with all the proposals contained in that article, but the facts and figures which are given are of great value. The Economist stated that the increase of wages in the last ten years works out at something like 80 per cent. The increase of rents has been only 12 per cent., but it would, of course, have been very much greater but for the effect of the subsidies. Then the Economist went on to say:
"The State pays large sums to subsidise big new houses for some families and smaller sums, or no subsidy at all, in respect of smaller and older houses inhabited by no less meritorious families. The very poorest often get less help than those who are better off than themselves."
I believe that is true, and while I commend the Government for their policy in building this very large number of

889
new houses—ofter in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, connected with the organisation of labour—I feel that the time has come when the Government should hake specially in their minds those living in the slums and in these overcrowded conditions.
I would therefore ask the noble Lords who are to reply for the Government—I do not know whether it will be possible for them to give an answer to-day—to state whether the Government have some policy to deal with those people living in the slums. Before the war, we frequently had to press successive Governments for their policy in this connection. It is not unreasonable for us, without embarking upon Party politics, to ask the Government to let us know how they propose to deal with this terrible and pressing problem of the slums. I sometimes fear that we may regard the problem as so complicated and so difficult that a sense of frustration sets in, and that in our hearts we come to the conclusion that very little can be done. That was the kind of feeling which I think overwhelmed many of us between the wars in connection with the problem of unemployment in the depressed areas. The nation as a whole deplored it, but there was a widespread feeling that the problem was so complicated and so difficult that nothing could be done. We look back with shame en those days. I am sometimes afraid that we may, almost out of despair, acquiesce in the existence of these slums and this overcrowding. So long as we have the slums and this overcrowding there is a terrible blot on our national life. I know that the Minister of Health has dynamic energy, and I hope that he will divert that dynamic energy to dealing with this problem of the slums. If he does that, I am certain that he will have the support of all Parties and all people of good will in this country.
3.39 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I must in advance make an apology for what may he rather a long speech. Your Lordships will have realised by now that I am one of those who, like most of your Lordships, prefer short speeches. But on this occasion I must crave the indulgence of the House to deal with the many matters which have been raised and the many
890
aspects of this housing problem. I could not help calling to mind as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was speaking, that it is just twenty-one Nears this month since he and I first entered Parliament. We both signed the book in another place on the same day. At the same time I thought of the many debates on housing we had listened to, and of the remarkable similarity of those debates. The most reverend Primate referred to the two men he thought were the best Ministers of Health of modern times. I think he is right. I think that the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain's brightest hour in Parliamentary history was when he was Minister of Health, not when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister. The main similarity of these debates consists in the reading of statistics at great length, sometimes the same figures being quoted from different sides in order to draw different conclusions. I have looked up these debates for many years back, and I find that throughout there is a general agreement on many aspects of the housing question and I think it is worth while emphasising the points on which we agree, because I sometimes feel that we over-emphasise the points on which we differ.
We all agree that it is lamentable that there should be so many millions of our fellow countrymen without a house. All of us agree that whoever is responsible for housing—no matter who they may be, the Government, the local authorities, the employers, or the operatives—would be guilty of a criminal offence if they did not do all they could to provide more houses. We all agree that the long list we have under every local authority, large or small, of people who have need of a house—many of whom have been married many years and still live in the apartments of relatives—is deplorable. On all these aspects there is general agreement. We differ, and we are obliged to differ, as to the best way of handling this question. To-day the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has put forward few constructive suggestions. At one part of his speech I hoped he was going to give us his constructive ideas, but I have jotted down what he said and I find he made only two suggestions—to remove bulk buying and to deal with the problem of overtime. These are suggestions worth examining and I shall have something to say on them before I sit down. But I

891
expected a greater number of suggestions from the noble Lord, and I hope that other noble Lords who intervene in the debate will have many more, and that they will be anxious to get houses and not to score Party points. That is very easy. It is easy to tell us that before the war, in a different set of circumstances, so many more houses were being built than are being built to-day, but statements of that kind get us nowhere.
With his usual courtesy, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, sent me a fairly long letter on the various points he was going to raise. I think that when he wrote that letter he was in a more critical mood than when he spoke to-day, because some of the points he mentioned in the letter were omitted from his speech—possibly in consideration of myself, or for some other reason. However, I have looked at the various points he has raised and, frankly, I think they are very good points. I think there are very good replies to them, too, and I hope the replies will be satisfactory to some, if not all, of your Lordships. I was pleased that the noble Lord kept off Party politics. He did not see an Election round the corner and try to get more votes for his Party than for my Party.
I heard a good comment on the Election question last week-end, after the all-night sittings in another place. It was to the effect that, having stood up to ten or a dozen Divisions in one Sitting, we can stand up to anything and there is no reason why this Parliament should not go on until 1955. Maybe it would be deplorable, in some ways, to think that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, at eighty-five would still be Leader of your Lordships' House, and to think that in his eightieth year, Mr. Winston Churchill would be leading the Conservative Party and still doing his best to become an elected Prime Minister. There was also reference to the Liberal Party, to the fact that we shall have the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his eighty-fifth year, still leading what remains of the Liberal Party. That comment warns us to be a little sober-minded about an Election round the corner. If it is to be in 1955, we have plenty of time to get ready for the Election. In the meantime, we have this housing problem to deal with.
892
The noble Lord who introduced this Motion made reference to the Working Party Report, to the Anglo-American Report on Productivity and to a number of other reports. It is an advantage to have lots of reports before you, because you can delve into one section which suits you and make no reference to the rest, though, of course, your opponent can refer to other sections which suit him and not to those you have in mind.
LORD LLEWELLIN: But you cannot read out the whole report.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: From what I shall quote, what has been quoted and what others will quote, those noble Lords who have not yet perused them will have the Reports read for them in this House, and, of course, our quotations will appear fully in the OFFICIAL REPORT later. These are good reports, which deal with every question of any importance in the building of houses. The "Big Three"—men, materials, and money—are raised many times. We are told that, as is the case with most industries, whether nationalised or not nationalised, what we need is a well-organised industry, well manned, well supervised and well paid. Sometimes we hear the objection raised to these reports that they are elementary. I agree; but as I become older I become more satisfied that the elementary is often the fundamental, and we cannot afford to ignore what is referred to as elementary.
I have jotted down a number of questions. Is the building industry responsible for house building as well organised as it might be? Is the industry as well manned, both as regards quality and quantity—and I would emphasise quality—as is required? Is it well supervised and are those who are responsible for supervision of the best type available? Is it well paid? Here I want to refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin: Is it organised so as to get the best out of those engaged in the industry? I would emphasise a further question raised, and rightly raised, by the noble Lord. Are essential materials in good supply and readily available to the men on the spot? I think that was the gravamen of his whole speech, apart from the reference to timber supplies, especially of Swedish timber, with which I will deal later on. All these questions are dealt

893
with in these Reports. But it would be difficult to refer to all of them in detail. The Reports are lengthy. The conclusions alone take several pages, and I have no intention of going into them all; but there are certain aspects which I think we need to look at. They divide themselves naturally into three divisions—the conclusions and recommendations with which the Government would deal; the conclusions and recommendations with which the Government along with those engaged in the industry would deal, and those with which only the industry itself could deal. In these divisions, those who are responsible for housing will find helpful suggestions.
But there are paragraphs to which I want to refer, as well as the noble Lord. In particular, I want to mention paragraph 3 of the summary of the Working Party Report, which refers to full employment. It there says:
"Full employment means the absence of the large reserve of unemployed labour previously available; the industry must adjust itself to this."
I see nothing objectionable in that sentence, although the actual adjusting will be a difficult task. For myself, If feel that the Working Party deal with it in a most practical manner in paragraph 56 of their Report. This is a quotation well worth making:
"'Full employment' as an objective of economic policy is not to be gainsaid;"—
I hope your Lordships will accept that statement—
"but special measures will he necessary to provide substitutes for the harsh pressures which were once exerted by heavy unemployment."
I should like to underline those words, because I have had personal experience of it.
"One way of providing such a substitute is by linking increased wages to increased output by means of incentive schemes."
I agree with that. The Report continues:
"Greater interchangeability between crafts should be promoted by training in more than one craft. Arrangements to curtail the period of unemployment of operatives moving from one job to another are worthy of study.…It is important above all to re-establish the spirit of responsibility for good output which is traditional in the industry. Success in this direction "—
here we shall get unanimity in your Lordships House—
894
"depends fundamentally on the recognition by the operative that his real interests and, not least, the maintenance of the state of full employment, which we all desire depend on maintaining a high level of efficiency in the industry, and that his wholehearted co-operation is necessary for this purpose."
I have nothing to add to that quotation; I accept it in its entirety. However, I think it is necessary to remind your Lordships, and many people outside this House who are inclined to criticise the attitude of the worker on full employment, that the worker sometimes remembers how some employers—not all employers by any means, and not all employers in the building industry—were prone to use unemployment as a whip or scourge on those in employment. Speaking from my personal experience, I may say that it is not surprising to me if there are some workers who are inclined to feel that full employment gives them the whip hand, and who at times want to use it as unemployment was used by the employers. I believe it is to the credit it of the workers of this country that only a small minority adopt such an unwise and unpatriotic attitude.
There are references in the Report to another matter in which I am interested—namely, joint production committees, for which I am sorry to notice there is not much enthusiasm in this Report. The Working Party seem to find excuses, and not to give reasons, for not going forward with joint production committees. I know that industries differ. It was my responsibility for a number of years on leaving the other place, to deal with this very question in the coal industry. We met a similar attitude there to that which I find in this Report. It was said: "You must remember that it is difficult to make these universal. These are small collieries employing only a handful of men. One is not needed here." In the same way we are told that there are builders with only a handful of operatives, and they do not need joint production committees. However, I feel that the building industry, and building itself, would benefit immensely if the operatives were taken more into the confidence of the employers. We must appreciate, in this year 1950, that the man who has given twenty, thirty or forty years to the industry can, with his skill, mean much more to the industry than some of the men in charge who have learnt merely the theory. I hope that employers in industry will be more

895
anxious to have these joint committees than this Report suggests.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, dealt with the question of timber at great length. It is right that he should do so, because timber supplies will determine—not entirely but very largely—how many houses will be built in 1950, 1951 or any other year. There will be no difference of opinion in this House as regards the importance of building materials. It is necessary that they should be in good supply at the right time, in the right place. Let me say frankly that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health appreciates as much as anyone that we cannot build houses without having the materials available. There may be some points on which he may want convincing, but that is certainly not one of them. He and his colleagues, the Minister of Works and the President of the Board of Trade, have been scouring the whole world, particularly outside the dollar area, to get the requisite timber and, in particular, softwood. But let us be quite clear on this point: there are other materials needed to maintain the standard of life in this country, many of which are to be found in the dollar area. Any Government will have to decide its policy on these lines: Which is it better to take from the dollar area in the interests of the country? It is quite true that we have not been getting the quantity of wood we should like from the dollar area, and have had to concentrate on other areas outside.
We anticipated what would be said in regard to figures. The noble Lord is quite right, but my reply is that it is not in the public interest that I should give the figures for which he asks. That is not because they are not known to some people in this country—they are known to many. No embarrassment is occasioned us from the fact that the figures are known to the people by whom they are known; but, as the noble Lord suggested, we are daily compelled to carry on negotiations with various countries regarding supplies of timber, and, as he is aware, it would be most unwise and embarrassing were we to disclose day by day, week by week and month by month how the position stood in this country. That is the only reason why we do not want to give the figures. We do not say it is not in the public interest in the sense that no-
896
body in this country should know, but in the sense that it would embarrass us in the almost daily negotiations which are carried on in regard to timber supplies, and particularly softwood supplies. There has been a tendency in some places—I am sorry to notice it—to refer to the recent contract with Russia a little cynically. I can understand the political mind behind those references.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not think that applies to me.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Not at all. I am sure the noble Lord would be the last to do such a thing. However, there is such a tendency, and I can only regret it. That is a firm contract for 150,000 standards, with the possibility of a further 50,000 standards, which will be nearly twice as much as we obtained from Russia last year. We should have liked to see a much bigger contract, but that is no reason for not appreciating this contract. Other countries were mentioned by the noble Lord. We have a firm commitment from the Finnish Sawmillers' Association to provide softwood in accordance with the Trade Agreement with Finland for 1950. The Agreement will be carried out in its entirety, and the figures are substantially higher than the figures given by the noble Lord. With regard to Sweden, we have brought certain quantities and negotiations are continuing, though somewhat protracted, but it is not possible to say with any certainty what the outcome will be. I hesitate to go into this subject in too much detail, because while negotiations are proceeding it is a little delicate, but I think in fairness to the noble Lord in particular, and to the House in general, one ought to give a little more information regarding the Swedish position. It is a very unfortunate position and it is not for me to apportion blame at all. However, let me make a statement on this issue.
This is the advice which I have been given. The answer to the point about Sweden is that the timber-buying season has not yet finished and we cannot, therefore, say how much timber we shall get from Sweden this year. It has been alleged that there was excessive delay in coming to terms with the Swedes. The noble Lord was good enough to mention this, and therefore I brought it to the attention of those who advised me. The

897
facts are that informal contact was made with the agents of Swedish sellers last Autumn and continued thereafter. The prices asked by the Swedes were higher than we considered justifiable, and higher than we have subsequently paid for comparable timber in Finland, Russia or anywhere else in Europe. Certain Swedish sellers have appreciated this fact, and have concluded contracts with us on a more reasonable basis. It is not yet possible to say how far this process will extend. I think I leave the position with regard to Sweden there, and if the noble Lord has any further questions to ask at the end of the debate I will have them looked into. It will be some consolation to noble Lords to know that substantial purchases have been made from Yugoslavia, Finland, Poland, France and Russia, and considerable quantities have been and are being bought from North America. With regard to the question of unsuitability for building purposes of the timber from Russia, I should like to say to the critics that my information is that they have been very badly informed indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was anxious to know—and I was not surprised—whether the Government think that 200,000 houses will he built this year. Prophesying is always a risky business, and never more so than when dealing with activities of an industry dependent upon so many factors. But the Government hold the view that, provided the difficulties are not exaggerated—and that is very important—that licensing departments, timber merchants, builders and operatives all co-operate, and care is exercised in using available stocks, the target of 200,000 houses can be reached.
The noble Lord said that housing is entitled to he given as big a share of the national resources as any other industry. I would say that if the Government have done anything they have tried to do that. I do not think the noble Lord was referring to it slightingly, but he referred perhaps a little critically to the fact that one day we said 175,000 houses, and on another day we said 200,000 houses, and he suggested that we were playing about with these figures. I agree that violent fluctuations of that kind are not good for the industry. Then why did that happen? The only reason for the fluctua-
898
tion was the fluctuation in the national resources. There was an honest fear that things were not going as well as the Government expected, and therefore they very wisely put in the lower figure. They found out later that things had altered and they put the higher figure back. Should they not have done so? I agree with the noble Lord that the share going to houses should be a big share, but the total is bound to vary. That is the only reason, and I expected a little more gratitude for the fact that we are at the moment at the higher figure of 200,000. The noble Lord can rest assured that, from that aspect, the Government will always see to it that as much as can be made available from national resources for housing will be made available.
The noble Lord made one point in his letter which he did not underline quite so much to-day—that was with regard to the local authorities and private enterprise. I thought it was well worthy of inquiry, and I had it looked into as carefully as possible. This matter is raised in every housing debate, and it is proper that should be. It is a good question to ask: whether the Government policy that the majority of houses shall be built by, or for, local authorities, and also that they should have the power to grant licences for the building of other houses, is the best policy. Now the primary reason for that is that the Government consider that the local authorities are the people best informed as to the needs in their specific areas. There is no ether reason. The local authorities have been asked by the Minister of Health to consider the numbers and the needs of those who have applied for a council house and those who would prefer houses built under licence. The local authorities are given discretion to issue licences up to a maximum of one-fifth of their allocations, which I consider a generous allowance. The Minister of Health has gone further, and local authorities have been informed that applications for permission to exceed the figure of one-fifth will be considered if it can be shown that this course is necessary. These arrangements will apply to 1951 allocations.
May I add that, in order to help to secure the highest distribution of licences, provision is also made, for cases where an applicant who lives in one area wishes to build a house in another area? In such

899
cases, local authorities may, by mutual agreement, arrange that a licence shall be issued by the authority for the area in which the house is to be built, but shall count against the total number of licences which can be issued by the authority for the area in which the applicant at present lives.
The noble Lord emphasised another matter—namely, the standard of houses. There has been much discussion as to whether it would not be better, in view of the circumstances and in order to get a larger number of houses, to lower the standards, and instead of building three-bedroomed houses to build two-bedroomed houses. I doubt whether that would save the proportionate quantity of material, although I agree that in that way we may get more houses. I am not so sure that it is sound policy. There may be some arguments that it would be a good short-term policy, but I doubt it. It can be a good short-term policy only in so far as it is fitted into a sound long-term policy, and I hope that all of us interested in houses would hesitate before we brought forward this suggestion of lowering the standard. I can speak for the present Government. They have no intention at this moment of lowering, the standards.
I was told that some noble Lords might raise a question after I sat down, and I promised to speak to it now. It was the question of rural housing. I have not given many figures so far, but may I give a few in this respect? Particulars of permanent houses, including war destroyed houses re-built, in the rural areas are as follows: Number of houses completed up to March 31,1950—council houses 94,145; private enterprise, 31,329; total 125,474. Number of houses under construction: Council houses 26,768, private enterprise 5,338; total 32,106. Houses on tenders approved but not started: Council houses 9,806, private enterprise, no figure given. Number of dwellings on licences issued (private enterprise) but not yet started 1,977. Number of permanent council houses let to agricultural workers: 22,102; private enterprise not known, but likely to be a large proportion of the 31,000 built under licence. Your Lordships will notice that the record of rural district councils compares very favourably with that of other types of authority.
900
By March 31, 1950, 21.2 per cent. of postwar permanent houses had been built in rural districts, which contain only 18.6 of the population. Up to March 31, 1950, 22,102 houses have been allocated to agricultural workers. This represents one in every 4.25 of the council houses completed in rural districts up to that date. In many areas the need for houses for agricultural workers has been substantially met, but priority will still be given in districts where there is a large outstanding demand from agricultural workers without a separate home, or where there is a need for a substantial increase in the local agricultural labour force and houses are required for new recruits or transferees from other disticts.
As your Lordships are no doubt aware, a special subsidy is payable in respect of houses let to members of the agricultural population—£25 10s. from the Exchequer, as against £16 10s. for other houses—with a corresponding reduction in the contribution required to be made from the local authorities rate fund. This is intended to help local rates, as well as agricultural rents. It will no doubt interest many of your Lordships to learn that as regards rural water supplies—a subject which concerns many members of your Lordships' House—schemes to the value of £14,000,000 have been started, and further schemes to the value of another £38,000,000 are at various stages of planning.
On the question of slum clearance, I am sorry that there is not much I can say of an encouraging nature to the most reverend Primate. I had an intimation that he would be raising this question, and I asked for a considered statement. I need hardly say that I am most sympathetic, but it will be agreed that slum clearance must be considered in relationship to the general housing problem. Housing authorities are advised that while there is a shortage of houses they should not embark on the demolition of existing properties unless these constitute an immediate danger to life and limb or to the health of the occupants, and that before taking action in any particular case they should also satisfy themselves that the necessary rehousing accommodation can be provided out of their housing programme and that the work of demolition can be undertaken without serious diversion of building labour from new housing. No statistics

901
are available of the number of demolition orders made on individual houses, as this is a matter for the local authority. I feel sure that, though we all feel very keenly on this question of the slums, this is in present circumstances the wise policy.
I now turn to the question of bulk buying, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I had a little difficulty in obtaining a reply ready for the noble Lord in time for this debate. But here again I pressed, because I am one of those who believe that when a noble Lord has been courteous enough to inform the Minister of his intention to raise a certain matter it is for the Minister to obtain as full a reply as is possible. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade has frequently stated that he has constantly under review the question of handing over the buying of timber to private traders. It is quite certain that over the years since the war centralised buying of softwood through Timber Control has kept down timber prices, not only for this country but throughout Europe. The result has been to make available to the building industry, and other users of softwood, timber at a lower price than would have been possible in any other way. The timber trade have explained to the President that under private buying it would he impossible for the selling price of softwood to be controlled by any statutory means. This fact, coupled with the rising trend of world prices since devaluation, has caused the President to inform the trade that he is not prepared at present to take a decision about the reversion of softwood to private importers. It has been claimed that the experience of Government buying in 1950 shows that it is not adapted to present-day conditions. There is no knowing what our situation would have been if private traders had been responsible for this year's buying. But from the observation of the operations of private trade in 1950 in other European countries, it is clear that in them at least, though the size of their imports has increased, the prices paid have been very much above those at which this country has bought.
I do not think, my Lords, that I have left out any points which the noble Lord raised. I agree with the most reverend Primate that housing is the most important part of the social policy of this country. Many of my best friends are
902
still living in the industrial areas. Some of their children have married since I left the area, and many of these children are unable to get houses. They come to me and say "What earthly good is your full employment if we cannot get a house to live in? The only value of full employment surely is if it enables a man to live a full and complete life; and how can anyone live a full, and complete life if he has not a house in which to live with his family?" I agree with what these people say; I think it is a very realistic attitude. I would add—though this belief may not be accepted by noble Lords opposite—that it is that realistic attitude to housing which is the basis of the policy of the present Government.
4.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor need not apologise for having made what he calls a long speech. It was a very important speech, and my regret is that it was not a little longer, so that he might have told us a little at least of what the Government intend to do to cope with what is admittedly a very serious situation. I think everybody in your Lordships' House, and certainly everybody who is speaking in this debate, including Lord Macdonald himself, will agree that the housing problem is a very serious one indeed. In fact, it is probably the greatest social evil in this country at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin quoted the present Minister of Health as having said in 1944 that 200,000 homes were required every year to replace wastage. The Government's programme, therefore, if those figures are correct—and I see no reason to quarrel with them—is a static programme, simply to till the wastage that is going on over housing to-day, without improvement of conditions and without regard to the fact that the population is still rising and that families are rather smaller and that therefore more houses are required—that is to say, that more homes are required to accommodate the same number of people. In addition, we have had from the most reverend Primate a moving appeal with regard to the slums. So far as rural conditions are concerned, a great deal of improvement is certainly required in order to bring housing in many rural areas up to anything like modern standards. The Government's programme of 200,000

903
houses a year over the next three years apparently does not take into account that need. One of the things that I regret very much is that there has crept into the housing controversy an appalling phrase. Instead of talking about "houses" or "homes." there is a habit of talking about "accommodation units." I hope that somebody will in due course tell us exactly what is the definition of an accommodation unit. I am very much afraid that, in order to make the figures look a little brighter, it may well include those awful "accommodation units" which have been taken over by some members of the public—those people we know as "squatters," living in ex-Army camps in conditions which ought not to be allowed in a civilised country. They are mostly Nissen huts or wooden army huts, and they will not last very long as possible places for human beings to live in.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, drew attention to various matters which are causing difficulty so far as housing is concerned. In general, they were shortages disguised largely under the headings of the national situation, the shortages of dollars, the shortage of timber (about which we know something) and difficulties of that sort. On Saturday evening, I happened to listen in to a Party political broadcast by Mr. Morgan Phillips, who was speaking for the Socialist Party. I took from that broadcast a phrase which he used, and I do not think I am misusing it in quoting it here. He said that "the best way of dealing with shortages is to end them." That will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, as being one of those elementary things which he rather likes! Obviously of course, that is the way to deal with shortages. I think that Mr. Morgan Phillips rather prided himself upon the fact that a good many shortages had been ended by the present Government. We have had no hint as yet from the noble Lord as to the way in which the various shortages connected with housing are to be ended, including the shortage of houses themselves—which is another elementary fact which will appeal to the noble Lord. I hope that possibly subsequent speakers from that side of the House will give us some hint of what it is proposed to do, because undoubtedly it is a problem which must be dealt with
904
if a great many other problems such as those mentioned by the most reverend Primate are in due course to be satisfactorily solved.
My real purpose in intervening in this debate is to say a word or two more particularly upon the subject of rural housing, of which I have a little experience and in regard to which I think the Government are not fully advised on the problem. Like all Governments, not only Socialist Governments, they are rather urban-minded and inclined to think in terms of towns rather than of country. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, gave us a number of figures with regard to rural housing which were impressive in themselves, but in fact they do not really touch the problem of rural housing as we understand it in the countryside. I do not want to enter upon the controversial question of tied houses if I can avoid it, although inevitably it remains in the background whenever you discuss rural housing and the housing of agricultural workers. But what I do want His Majesty's Government to realise is that it is not tied houses or untied houses, houses to let or houses to sell, that matter; it is houses which will be homes, whether they are to let, whether they are to sell, whether they are tied or whether they are free. We want houses and, even if we do increase the number of, say, tied houses, they are still houses and no doubt they release other accommodation which can be occupied in the form which possibly political theory regards as more suitable.
When we consider the problem of rural housing, we have to consider it in connection with the employment of the people concerned, and with the conditions of that employment. It is all very well to build houses in rural villages for the occupation of agricultural workers. The noble Lord gave us figures and I think he said that one in four of houses built in rural areas—
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Council houses.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: That one in four of council houses built in rural areas was occupied by an agricultural worker. I do not know how far the definition of "agricultural worker" is stretched with regard to these houses. I can give your Lordships an instance in my own village

905
of four council houses, very nice houses, that have been built. I think they are let at about £1 a week. Not one of them is occupied by a true agricultural worker—that is to say, not one of them is occupied by a man working on the land, though I cannot say whether or not the men count as agricultural workers.
I do not believe, however, that the shortage of houses rural areas is nearly so great as is often thought, provided that those who do not work in the rural areas do not like in the houses which were meant originally for those who do work in the rural areas. Let me give your Lordships another case, again a local one, in a very remote village, where it was proposed that four houses should be built. The district council said that they did not want the houses (I am taking this entirely from what I read in the local paper), and they promptly received the reply: "You have got to have the houses." And those houses are being built. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said that the licensing of houses was in the hands of the local authority because the local authority were the people who really knew the needs of the district. Here was a county authority turning round to a district authority and telling them that either the district council or the Ministry of Health—I do not know which—did not know their business, and that they had got to have the houses whether they wanted them or not. Those houses will no doubt be built, and equally, no doubt will be occupied by people other than agricultural workers.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I take it that the noble Earl agrees with me that local authorities do know the needs of their own areas?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: They should know the needs of their own areas, but sometimes they are overruled.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: But they do know them.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The problem is a more difficult one than that. As we know, the cost of houses has risen, and to get an economic rent for a house means charging something of the order of, shall we say, £1 a week. Even when subsidies are taken into account, the ordinary farmer or land, owner is limited as to the
906
rent that he can charge to his men, and the ordinary farm worker is limited as to the amount that he can afford to pay in rent out of his wages.
This is the point that I want to make. Considerable concessions are now in force to assist and to encourage land owners and farmers to spend money on improving conditions both for human beings and for animals on their farms. There are a great many ordinary land owners who are willing to build houses, which almost certainly will be tied houses when they are built. They are prepared to build those houses, and, very often, to let them at an uneconomic rent in order to get them. When they have obtained control of those houses, it is worth their while to accept an uneconomic rent, because it enables the farmer to get the labour he requires in order to farm the land properly. On the other hand, even if he could get a house, he is not prepared to pay the high rent for a council house over which he has no control, because the man who took the tenancy of the house as an agricultural worker may get a better offer and go elsewhere, which means that the farmer has to start all over again. I hone the noble Lord understands the point I am trying to make.
LORD MACDONALD OP GWAENYSGOR: Certainly.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It comes to this: that the Government ought to give to the private owner greater freedom to build than is necessary perhaps in the towns, in order to put right any housing shortage there may be in the rural areas.
My Lords, I turn to another aspect of the question. Suppose one wants to build houses. I speak now from personal experience. Five years ago I wanted to build a block of four cottages to go with a large farm which very much needed them. One way and another, it has taken quite a long time to get them built. In point of fact, two of the four are not yet finished; that is after five years. It took me a long time to get a licence. The plan was before the local authority for a complete block of four—rot two pairs, mind you; four cottages all together. After, I think, eighteen months or two years, I obtained a licence to build two of them, which was rather a difficult operation. However, as the

907
local authority informed me that they were permitted to licence only four in the whole of their district, I could not complain about receiving 50 per cent. of their allowance. I went ahead and I built those two houses leaving the two at either end to be built subsequently. Of course, it has cost me a good deal more money than it would have done had I been able to build the four cottages straight off. However, I built the two and the other two are going up. But after five years I still have not got my four cottages, although I hope that by this Autumn I shall have all four.
It is that kind of difficulty which takes the heart out of those who want to improve accommodation in the rural districts and house their people properly. I may say—and I think a great many noble Lords know this—that in order to get the right type of man upon our land (and, if the Government are to be believed, it is essential that we should continue full production on the land), we have to offer him good and up-to-date accommodation, so far as lies in our power; otherwise he will leave the land and take another job. As I have tried to point out in the estimates I have given, we feel and are frustrated in almost every way.
I should like to give one other instance of a conversation on re-conditioning. There was a pair of fairly old cottages which obviously needed re-conditioning—they were wrong in every respect. The rooms that should face South were facing North, and vice versa, and the windows were low and small. In fact, those cottages needed a good deal of money spent on them—the estimate for re-conditioning was£1.000 for each. The decision was reached that it would be much better to build a new pair than to spend £2,000 on re-conditioning the two old cottages, which would still be old cottages even after that money had been spent on them. But the agent concerned said, "I think you might as well ask for the moon as to ask for two new cottages. It is much easier to get a licence to re-condition than it is to get a licence to build new cottages." My Lords, there is in that something which, in the present situation, I feel is wrong. If those two cottages are re-conditioned they will be occupied by the same number of people, it is true in greater comfort than at present; but if
908
two new cottages were built the occupiers of the existing cottages could be moved into them and there would still be the two old cottages which would at least make accommodation units—I agree of a sub-standard nature, but probably better than some of the accommodation units now occupied. Thus the number of houses available for people to live in would be increased. In due course, when the housing situation is in hand, those old houses could be demolished.
I have given some idea of the difficulties that confront us in the country districts. There is only one other matter about which I want to speak and which has come recently, and very forcibly, to my knowledge, and that is in regard to houses of rather a better class in country districts. There are a number of people, more particularly in Government employ, for whom there is no housing provision. I am thinking of Forestry Commission employees, and I believe it applies also to people employed in the Inland Revenue Departments who are moved every two years, and those classes of people who are liable in the course of their duties or because of promotion to be moved from one country district to another. It is almost impossible for them to get houses. In many cases it means a long separation from their wives, with consequent trouble. In many other cases which have come to my notice these people have had to purchase houses at a figure far beyond their means in order to get a home of some sort. They have taken a gamble—because it is a gamble if you spend £3,000 upon a house which you know to be worth only £2,000, and when the probability is that if you have to move you will get only £2,000. No provision seems to be made in any housing plan for persons of that class, and yet they are suffering all the trouble, all the difficulties and all the social discomforts, with their consequent troubles, which are besetting all the ordinary working class people who are suffering from housing shortage.
The only suggestion I have to make, so far as the rural areas are concerned, is that we should be given much greater freedom to build our own houses and so solve our own problems, rather than be tied down to a limited ratio, a rigid rule, and not build what we want. May I conclude by giving one more quotation from Mr. Morgan Phillips' broadcast which I think is peculiarly apt to this debate—

909
though somewhat political, which is, perhaps, to be deprecated? He said in the broadcast:
"We want to see more houses and schools, and we knew where we are going."
My Lords, I am clear in my own mind as to where I should like the present Government to go, but I do not think the general public are in the least anxious to know whew the Socialist Government are going. They want to know where they are going to live.
4.41 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, as it is such a long time since I spoke in your Lordships' House, I venture to crave your indulgence for the few minutes of your time which I shall occupy this afternoon. I have listened to the whole of this debate so far, and I have been anxiously waiting to hear someone tell those of us who have spent our lives in the building industry how we are going to increase the number of houses and by what means. Not one word that provides the answer have I heard from any quarter of the House. I think the Minister was very well advised in qualifying his promise and saying that the aim was for 200,000 houses, but I very much doubt whether that target will be reached. I suggest that it will not be reached because of certain very important factors which in my view will have great effect. Among those factors is the extension in many parts of the country of steel works, power stations and other establishments of that character. Those extensions are using up thousands of standards of timber. It is all very well to keep calling for houses, but I sometimes try to pacify those who pester me about this problem by saying: "There is this timber which could be used for houses, but a wise Government is one that will look to the future and will say: 'Employment is important as well as housing. Therefore we must provide timber and encourage the extension of steel works, power stations and the like. By so doing we shall be assisting in the development of industry and maintaining full employment in the country.'"
I listened to previous debates in this House, and I recall that one of my noble friends said that the building trade was badly organised and that building costs were very high. I think we should all subscribe to the latter contention, and
910
agree that it is true. But it seems to me that there is an implied suggestion that these very high building costs are due largely to the poor builder and to the men engaged in the building trade. I have had some little experience of this, and I have taken the trouble to get out some figures from actual invoices of materials from the year 1946–47 up to Saturday last. It was surprising to me to find that nearly all the increases in the cost of house building are due to increases in the cost of materials. I say that for this reason. Incentives (and I shall have a word or two to say about them in a few minutes) have resulted in such an increase in output that they have negatived the increase that was granted in wages on the last occasion. In short, increases in wages have had no effect whatever on the price of houses.
In the year 1946–47 facing bricks were 138s. per thousand. They are now 148s. per thousand. I have made inquiries from the manufacturers as to the reason for that increase, because the raw material of the bricks is there, and assuming that the plants are up to date, I could not see why there should be any great increase in prices. The answer I received from the manufacturers was that the rise in price was due to the increased cost of coal and transport. And my own experience in the building trade, so far as it goes, bears out that the cost of transport is responsible for no small part of the increase in building costs. Only a fortnight ago, I received notification from the biggest brick manufacturing combine in this country that an increase of 5s. per thousand in the price of bricks was due entirely to the increase in the cost of petrol and oil which had raised their transport charges. The price for common bricks was 103s. 3d. per thousand; it has gone up to 110s. 9d. And may I point out that the builder has no say in this matter? We have nothing to do with fixing prices; all we do is pay them. Some department of the Government have the responsibility for dealing with and regulating prices and then we have to pay them. There is no question of competition involved in this. We pay the prices and ultimately, I suppose, a level is found in the final account if the contract is an up-and-down one.
Now take timber. In 1946–47 the price of good building timber was £45 per standard. It is now £69 per standard.

911
Taking the average amount of timber used in a house as one and a half standards—as a matter of fact it is a little over that—this means that the increased price of timber has raised the price of a house by £36. Your Lordships may well ask: Why are houses costing more? Who put up the price of timber? I should have thought—though perhaps this is due to my ignorance—that after the war, with insurance rates being considerably reduced because there were no longer the war risks, the tendency would have been for the price of timber to come down. That was our experience after the 1914–18 war. But this time the price of timber has gone the other way; there has been a big increase. When you tackle the suppliers about this increase they say: "We have nothing whatever to do with it. We are simply the agents of the Board of Trade in this matter." They say, further, that the importers' remuneration and profit is fixed and that all they (the suppliers) do is to invoice it to the builders. It does not matter where you get your timber, the story is the same and you have to pay the same price. There is no competition whatever in timber.
Cement has gone up 5s. 6d. per ton. I interviewed the man mainly responsible for cement to ascertain why there was this increase. It is not due to anything over which which we have control. Two factors only are responsible for this increase—coal and transport. The same thing has happened to the prices of gravel and sand, steel windows and metal, and of everything else needed for the building of houses. They are controlled by the Ministry of Supply and their prices have fluctuated so much that without a saving clause in the conditions of contract no contractor would know where he was, or would contract at all in the circumstances. Anyone who knows the building trade, or has any part or lot in it, knows that the trade is merely the servant—or, shall I say, the slave—of the rings, of price fixing, either by the Government or by organisations. We are handed the materials at fixed prices, and the only difference between one man's price and the other is the speed and efficiency with which he can put them together and erect a house. All the costs have been fixed. Labour also has the law behind it. I think it should, but there
912
also the price is fixed. So the building trade as a trade should bear very little of the responsibility for this increase.
I do not know what noble Lords think of the Working Party Report but I should like someone to point out anything in it amounting to a practical suggestion for the building of more houses or cheaper houses. There is nothing, which I can see in it, and I have looked very carefully. The Report points out facts which are well known to everybody in the trade. It says that machinery should be used to the maximum. But, what machinery can you use on a pair of houses? You can have a mortar mixer, a concrete mixer and perhaps a little circular saw to help the joiners—and that constitutes the machinery. I know that many builders put these machines on the site to cut the labour costs and get on with the job, but that is all that can be done. The Report makes a big point about costing. What the Working Party suggest is not practical for the great majority of builders: they already have enough forms to fill in, enough work of an unremunerative character without adding much to it.
I believe there is a simpler way, and what I suggest is practical because it has been done. If a man is to build 76 houses, he should open a bank account for £2,000 and mark it No. 2 or No. 3 account, pay everything into it from that contract and pay out of it for all the material and labour. What was left at the end would be the amount of profit, and there he would have both the cost and the profit and a proper balance sheet for that contract. I should have thought that a simpler way of doing it. At any rate that is the way we do it. I know it is a simple way of finding what the costs have been for a particular job and giving the necessary information for pricing a job. I know plenty of poor chaps in the building trade, hard-working fellows, and I am not criticising them, who cannot understand this business of quantities. It is just a waste of time to expect them to fill them in. They are not accustomed to this and do not want it. Give them a plan, and a specification and they will price it out and build a house; but all these pages of quantities frighten them. In some cases they have sent the quantities back because they were no use to them. I am not complaining about it, because they are perfectly right. One local authority solved

913
that difficulty by getting a firm which could tender for between 100 and 120 houses to send in quantities. They fixed the price and then let the small men have contracts for houses at the same price. That was a very sensible way of harnessing the whole building industry in that town to provide houses.
It is difficult to solve the housing problem while the authorities spend (40,000,000 on the erection of steel works and power plants over several years. These projects cannot do without building labour, and the consequence is that there are at present hundreds of unskilled men, and scores of skilled men, engaged in the extension of industrial undertakings. When those undertakings are completed, this labour will he released to increase the labour force in the building trade and enable local authorities to build faster—that is, if we can get the timber. But when the extensions to these great works are finished, that will also free timber they are now using. The amount of timber required for shuttering concrete in a mill may be a quarter of a mile long. An enormous amount of timber is being consumed in these works. Of course not only is housing required; we also require the extension of the great industrial concerns to give them a greater competitive value in the world's markets which we shall want before long, and to provide work for many men.
The Working Party Report talks of incentives. I do not need this publication to convince me of the value of incentives. I established a scheme of incentives in 1946–47 and I have continued it ever since. My firm has never had the slightest trouble in fixing a price which has satisfied the workman and the employer and has kept the building costs down. The men are laying between 800 and 1,000 bricks per day. It is the bricklayer who generally comes in for the greatest part of the criticism levelled against the slowness of building. This is a mistake. I am satisfied that the bricklayer is doing a great job of work. I have been a member of the Building Workers' Union for fifty years, and have a free card and medal. And two of my friends have now signed this Report. They say that incentive payments are essential if output is to be adequately increased. I entirely agree. When you fix a price and a man earns a good wage you must continue to give it to him; do not start cheeseparing,
914
but encourage him to give a better day's work. The Report also mentions adequate costing. I think I have dealt with that, at any rate in my own way, because it is not practical unless it is done by a very large contracting firm, of which there are only a small number.
One of the things that costs a considerable amount of money is the contribution employers have to make to the Welfare State. I do not know whether noble Lords have sat clown and pencilled out every item that has to be covered for the employment of a man. There are the contributions to national health and unemployment, the holidays with pay and Bank Holidays, the payment of wet time and a guaranteed week, and so on and so forth. I have all those details, and it amounts to nearer El than 15s. a week per man. A man employing between 124 and 130 men has to find £100 a week, in one way or another, before a brick is laid. That has to come out of the other industries. One of the reasons why it has to be paid is that it must come in the price level.
Whatever may be said about the inefficiency of our industry, for a moment or two I intend to draw attention to a department of Government that can by no means be accused of being efficient. My noble friend who preceded me knows very well that I have consistently opposed the Ministry of Works' building our houses. They give a lot of advice here, but when I have finished your Lordships will be able to place your own estimate on the value of that advice. The prices that they first submitted were so high as to stagger us—indeed, I wondered whether they had made a mistake, and instead of one house meant two, because they work —or are supposed to work—on a nonprofit basis. I will quote some of these figures. At Grizedale the cost of a house was £3,496—which is getting up a bit. They taught me a lesson, anyhow, on how to make out a bill, though whether it would be met by the employer I do not know.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is that for a forester's house?
LORD QUIBELL: Yes, for the Forestry Commission. At Hardknott the cost per house was £2,857. At Thetford, Santon Downham, it was £3,030 per house—and in this case there were forty-one houses,

915
and it could not by any means be called a scattered or small contract. At Lyminge, Sole Street, it was £2,736 per house. At Dartmoor—and I will refer to that in a minute—it was £3,110. On top of that there is a sort of establishment charge—I suppose for coming to see that we are not going wrong in these forests —of 12½ per cent., which is not called a profit. I suppose that comes first. I have never heard a story like it. We have tried to get it altered. It is not the fault of the English Committee, I can assure you: I have registered my vote against the Ministry building a single house for us.
We had a report on this matter, and I will tell your Lordships about it. The chairman of the English Forestry Committee went down to have a look at these houses, and he was so impressed—depressed is perhaps a more suitable word —that he and others thought that I should go and look at them. So I went down to Bristol. Coming from Bristol, on my way to Exeter. I called to see some Woolaways houses that have been built for us at £1,750 or £1,760—they exceeded the original estimate of just under £1,500 per house. The following day I went to look at these houses at a place they called Believer—though you can take it from me that they will not be there for ever. There were ten of these houses. I had an architect with me, and the conservancy officer, who had frequently visited the houses and drawn attention to the deficiencies while they were being built. They were not in a very out-of-the-way place. There was a fairly good road leading to the houses—true, it is not a stone road like the main roads, but it was by no means a bad road, and the houses were easily approachable. The first thing I found was that there was a passage running right into the middle of them from the back. When we went it had been raining—I expect that was turned on for my benefit!—and the water had penetrated through the back door right to the fireplace in the front room.
We had a letter from one of the tenants (my noble friend can confirm this) complaining about the water supply. In this letter she stated that there was more water coming in through the windows than there was through the pipes for the water supply. When I arrived I found that there was more than an element of truth in her statement. The first tenant
916
took us upstairs to look at the bed. The wall was sodden for three feet down, and they had to move the bed and put the head up against the fireplace; so they could not have a fire in that bedroom. I think the cause was that the frames had been lying out in the bad weather without being properly primed, had swollen and then been primed. The consequence was that when the weather improved the sashes had sunk and the water went through almost, as the woman said, like a tide. In the next house there was a bricklayer to find a flue that the tenants had lost. He had a staff of men in the kitchen and was cutting a hole out of the wall. I got up on the scaffolding to have a look, but could not tell where it led to—from what I could see it might have led to the drains. Whether the flue was found or not I cannot say, but if that is not an indictment of the inspection or supervision for which we pay 12½ per cent., I do not know what is. We have architects of our own on the job who know what is being done.
My grievance is this. I, and everyone of the Forestry Commission, are willing to pay a proper price for our people to have proper houses, and have them properly equipped and up-to-date. But the main purpose of Parliament in granting us money is to buy land and rehabilitate the forests of our country. We have demanded that these houses I have mentioned should be repainted, but do you know what the arrangement is? It is a wonderful arrangement. After making all the condemnations and writing out a whole list of work which should be done, the answer we receive is: "We will do it for you, but we shall charge it up to you and charge 12½ per cent. because of our shortcomings." An ordinary contractor takes on a job, and when that job is finished a list of deficiencies is given to him which he has to make good at his own expense. That is the regular method of dealing with it. A price is based on quantities, but in no single instance have they ever been checked with the quantities when the job is finished. The architect told me that a week ago to-day.
I wanted to get that matter "off my chest." I think it is the most scandalous arrangement that I have ever known—and it is not a laughing matter. It is our duty to build houses, and we want something like 2,000 at something like a

917
reasonable price. In some areas the Ministry of Health are insisting on the price being about £1,300, yet you get some of these houses costing us over £3,000. The architect thinks that it is so hopeless to do anything with these that he has said: "We will finish with the system, and build the houses ourselves, instead of paying the Ministry of Works 12— per cent. "That will not be popular in many places but it is a fact, because all the figures have been got out by the Ministry of Works. I would not mind so much the price if it were not for the workmanship, and where the numbers of deficiencies are as great as they a7e at Believer. When you pay a big price and get a had article everybody has a right to complain, if you get a good article and are charged a good price you can say: "He has done a good job for me." But if it costs a very big price and it is a bad job, a job you all feel ashamed of, then I think it is time that steps were taken at Ministerial level. It is the worst arrangement that I have known, and the sooner it is brought to an end the better.
5.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it was only after I came to the House this afternoon that I learned that one of my noble friends, Lord Amulree, who was to have taken part in this debate, had been prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond his control. Feeling, as I do, that some voice should be raised from these Benches in support of the action of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in bringing this subject before the House, and in support also of his argument, I venture to address your Lordships, though without the preparation which I usually seek to give before occupying your Lordships' time. Indeed, I feel able to sympathise with the young curate, very nervous and new to the parish, who found himself suddenly called upon to preach owing to the illness of his vicar. Having explained the circumstances to the congregation, he added: "Therefore I can only offer you to-clay whatever words God may place in my mouth; but on another occasion I shall hope to give you something much more worthy of your attention."
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to whom I listened with close attention, spoke on this problem, but to my mind did not really touch the point and did not
918
explain away the evident failure of the Government, the building industry, the local authorities—whichever it may be to whom the present housing situation is due. He mentioned that he and.the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, had both been twenty-one years in Parliament and had all the time heard of the housing problem. My own political memory in these buildings goes back over nearly fifty years, and I can testify to the fact that the housing problem has always been before the nation, but not always with so much intensity as now. It is largely a question of the sheer numbers of the houses and flats and cottages that are available. Probably all of us have known very distressing individual cases of poor people, or people not so poor, who go from place to place and street to street, struggling to find accommodation for themselves and their families, and failing to do so because the accommodation does not exist. The overcrowding is great and the slums continue. The most reverend Primate has pointed out the disastrous effects of those conditions upon the whole social life of the nation. The home should he the central consideration of our policy. Where the home is the nation is; and family life, as we all know, is one of the main factors in the welfare or lack of welfare of a people.
But even the best father and mother cannot make a satisfactory home in a hut or a slum. As we all know, there is continual deterioration going on; as fast as old slums are pulled down and superseded by better houses, new slums appear through lack of sufficient repair and maintenance. There is also the question of housing in the rural districts, to which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has drawn special attention, aid which we all know is a matter of acute difficulty in many places. The public opinion of the nation is well aware of this. Gallup Polls have shown themselves extremely accurate in the forecasts of elections and in gauging the trend of public opinion. Soon after the General Election a question was put to the "samples" from which they inquired, on this question: What is the most urgent problem facing the new Government? More people said "Housing" than mentioned any other question. The second

919
greatest problem facing the new Government was given as "Staying in office." Only afterwards did we come to "Reduction in prices" and "The dollar gap."
As I have said, during the whole of the period of my own long political memory this question of housing has persisted. Almost all the great social evils which pervaded the land in the days of my youth have now been solved, or very nearly solved, owing to the movement of social reform and the general rise in the standard of living: sweated wages, excessive hours, frequent unemployment, illiteracy, destitution, drunkenness—conditions in regard to all these have greatly improved, but the evil of the housing problem persists; and, as Lord Radnor has said, it is indeed a great social evil that remains in our time.
The outstanding facts are very simple, and it is a mistake to allow ourselves to be fogged in a cloud of statistics. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, was informing. It gave us a great many facts and it gave us a point of view; but it did not touch the central facts of the situation. We have to judge by results—and the results are that the people are not sufficiently housed, and you cannot get away from that. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, said that there were many causes. He mentioned timber imports. He said that the fault was that, instead of the timber being used for housing, it was being used for all kinds of things, such as building factories and steelworks and other similar constructions. But what are the facts, the crude simple facts? They are given in the last Housing Return for England and Wales, published a few weeks ago. That Return says clearly that, comparing last year with pre-war, imports of timber from abroad have been halved. This is a monthly return, and the average monthly figure for 1935 to 1938 was 186,000 standards. Last year it was 92,000 standards. No allocating of timber to factories or other particular objects can counterbalance that grave situation.
Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor took credit for the fact that he hoped that this year the imports from Russia would be twice what they were last year. But the imports from the U.S.S.R. and the Baltic States for last year were 7,500 standards a month, whereas before the war they
920
were 46,000 standards—six times as much. Even if the imports from Russia were doubled, we should still have only one-third of the amount of timber we used to get from there. As regards Sweden, last year the figure was 19,000 standards, whereas before the war it was 35,000 standards. There is the reason for the hold up of building arising from the lack of imports of soft timber. I do not suggest, of course, that purchases of timber should have no regard at all to price. Those who purchase must struggle to get the timber at a reasonable price. But it seems clear that the present system of bulk purchase by the Government is not so successful as might have been a system of purchase left in the hands of the trade merchants who have understood the business all their lives.
Then, with regard to costs, the Reports that we have are most informing. The Report of the Working Party, which represents employers, operatives and the associated trades and professions, is extremely important. Here is the salient paragraph: it is the first paragraph in their summary of conclusions. We do not want masses of statistics, but perhaps I may mention that the central fact is that during 1946 and 1947 productive efficiency in the building industry was about two-thirds of its pre-war level. The Report goes on:
"by the end of 1948 it was about three-quarters there are indications of a further improvement."
Even if there were a further improvement, even if productivity were down by only one-eighth, that means a 12½ per cent. reduction in productive efficiency. The Report continues:
"The combined effect of lower productivity, higher wage rates and higher cost of materials was that building costs generally throughout 1948 and 1949 were about two and a half times those of 1939."
Two and half times! Consider what that means, my Lords, not only for housing but for industry and all other purposes. It represents an increase from 100 to 250. There is the central fact on which we must concentrate our attention. And these costs are still going up.
We have had two Reports from the Girdwood Committee. The first gave us a number of factors which might be brought to bear in order to lower the cost of building. The second Report says that

921
in spite of these efforts the cost of building has gone up even higher than it was when they made their first Report. They also say this:
"The average total cost of a traditional three-bedroom house completed in October, 1949, was £1,515, including the cost of land, roads and services and professional fees."
The net subsidised weekly rent of such a house was 16s. 5d. and, of that, 8s. 5d. came from the taxes and rates in subsidy. One-half of the whole cost had to be met from the taxpayer's pocket or the ratepayer's pocket in order that the rents should he such as to be within the range at all of the people for whom the houses were intended. On those houses the local rate charges that the tenants had to pay were between 3s. and 8s. 6d. That is a very heavy charge for a wage-earner.
The Committee go on to say—and this is the most serious point of all from the point of view of the present debate:
"We think it improbable that under present conditions there can be any substantial reduction in the general level of house-building costs in the near future and, as far as we can judge on present information, the indications are that it may be difficult to avoid a further increase."
That is the latest Report published this year. It was issued in February, 1950, and it shows that all these somewhat optimistic forecasts made by the Government when they are defending their case are ill-founded. In the opinion of this authoritative Committee it is more likely that the cost of puddings will be even more than two-and-a-half times what it was pre-war rather than that it will show any diminution.
Those are the few facts to which I would briefly draw your Lordships' attention. This House must judge by results. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, told us that he had been listening to the debate and was waiting to hear some practical suggestion by which the number of houses can be increased and the costs reduced. But it is not the business of this House to make those practical suggestions. It is for these Committees who were appointed. Three of them have been dealing with the matter; they have taken evidence. They include technical men. It is for them to make suggestions, and they have done so.
LORD QUIBELL: Many of them.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Why does the noble Lord want more from this House? They are the proper and right people to make suggestions, and, they have done so. The responsibility does not rest upon this House. It is the duty of this House to express to the Government and to the country what it believes to be the facts relating to a grave injury and to express the voice of the people, so far as it can do so, as to the situation and the urgent need for a remedy.
The upshot of the whole matter is that the situation is a discreditable one. It casts discredit upon tie building industry as a whole for not having adopted long since the right methods of organisation, wage-paying and removal of restrictions. It casts discredit noon our methods of importing timber, since they have failed to achieve their object. It casts discredit upon the Government, who have indeed rendered many services to the nation in improving social conditions during the five years they have been in office for which the country and the people are rightly grateful. But in this matter of housing the Government must hear the blame for a failure which is evident, which is proved beyond doubt and which indicts the greatest injury upon the people.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I raise this point at once? The noble Viscount told us that he was speaking for the Liberal Party on this matter. I wonder why he differs so much from the spokesmen of the Liberal Party in another place on this issue. When Members were comparing the production of houses before and after the war a leader of the Liberal Party in another place used these words:
"Are the circumstances comparable? Then there was no shortage of materials; there was plenty of labour available and there were none of the scarcities or economic conditions which always prevail in post-war periods. At that time the cost of housing was one-quarter of what it is now and, may I add, there was no acute dollar problem then."
It would be interesting to find out who speaks for the Liberal Party.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: This is a mere evasion of the whole problem. We are not comparing the rate of production of houses now with what it may have been immediately before the war. We are dealing with the present housing shortage of the people. Great destruction has been

923
caused by the war, and it has to be made good. We have to make an intense effort to overcome it. Do I understand the noble Lord to say that, because the rate of building or the rate of production is comparable with that of pre-war, therefore there is no grievance at all?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Then what does he say?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am appealing to the noble Viscount to recognise the facts, which he has not done in his speech.
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said that from the Reports one can draw a great many different lessons. Personally, I rather regret that he did not appear to draw any. I suppose I could not very well have expected him to mention the competitive spirit in the American industry which was so favourably referred to in the Report. And I could not have expected him to recall to us that at the present time the American industry, which was so greatly admired in the Report, was still building at a slower speed per head of the population than the building industry was in this country before the war. That fact is to be found at page 59. I am, however, rather surprised that he made no reference to the opening passage of paragraph 65 in the Working Party Report, where it says:
"We have been told that the time taken in obtaining permission from the various authorities is excessive, and that the intending building owner is kept in a state of uncertainty and often growing exasperation."
That is directly the responsibility, to a great extent, of His Majesty's Government.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: If I may interrupt the noble Earl for a moment, I would point out !that later speakers from this side will deal with some of the later paragraphs. I think the paragraph now referred to will be dealt with by one of those speakers.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am delighted to hear it. I hope that it will be dealt with successfully. All I wish to say is this: that we have to-day had an
924
extremely impressive speech from the most reverend Primate and also from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who has stated that this is the greatest social evil of our present time. The most reverend Primate says that it requires a new departure. I must say that I think that future historians will look with dismay on this generation, who are not only competent aviators, who are not only moving from radio to television, who are on the very verge of the atomic age, but who cannot provide themselves with reasonable houses. That is a reflection upon our capacity and ability to run this country.
Before dealing with that point of the new departure, I wish to make one or two references to the special position of Scotland. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, feels that I have no right to speak about Scotland in this debate, but if he can indicate to me any material point in which His Majesty's Government's policy on housing in Scotland differs from that for England, I will never take part in such a debate again.
LORD MORRISON: I take it that what the noble Earl is referring, to is my feeling that the Scottish position was so important that we were entitled to a debate of our own, and not merely to a part of an English debate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is all very well in theory, but the noble Lord knows what happens to Scottish debates in this House. The point I make is that the position in Scotland is, and has been, very much more serious than it is in England. In fact, every time an assessment has been made of houses required in Scotland the number has increased. In 1945, the figure was given as 518,000 houses. I do not think the noble Lord would suggest that there is one fewer to-day. In fact, I would go further and say that we have found it difficult to keep pace with the run-down of houses existing at present. I do not know what figure is given for Scotland generally, but I think it is between 12,000 and 20,000 a year, compared with the 200,000 mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for Great Britain. At the present time there are nearly 100,000 applicants for houses in Glasgow alone. The present rate of building is about 4,000. That means to say that if anyone marries tomorrow and goes on the Glasgow housing

925
list, the probability is that he will get a house in twenty-five years. As was mentioned yesterday by a supporter of the Government in another place, at the present time in Glasgow 380 houses have been completed and 440 have been condemned, which seems to indicate that the list is likely to continue growing and will not get shorter.
This situation must be viewed against the background of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in the Budget speech giving housing
"a special and preferential place in our capital investment programme."
He then limited house building in the investment programme to 200,000 houses a year. I should like to ask—and I think someone must reply to this question—what that figure means. Does it mean that builders are not allowed to go beyond it? if so, it is indeed a very powerful disincentive for people carrying on at the present time. Does it mean that if the price of houses falls, no more than 200,000 may be built; or does it mean that, whatever the availability of materials, not more than 200,000 houses can be erected? I consider the figure is ridiculous. I do not think we should try to limit to any number the houses to he built. The cost of those houses is about half what is spent in this country on gambling alone and probably one-sixth of what is spent or tobacco and alcohol; yet we are told officially that in a planned State we cannot Invest more than that amount of money in the housing programme at the present time. With respect, I think we are entitled to an explanation as to exactly what force that limit of 200,000 houses has.
Now I am going to accept absolutely that there must he a new departure in certain features if we are to 'meet the situation at present existing. I have given certain examples which refer to Scotland, but I believe they have many similar applications to other parts of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that he would like simple and fundamental things. I think there are two things necessary to put this right. The first is that the taxation on housing is much too heavy and must be reduced; the second is that the building of house; must be made as easy as possible. I am quite aware that this is a long-term policy and cannot be reached
926
immediately, but in about five years some of the temporary houses built just after the war will start coming down.
May I say, with regard to housing, that I believe the effect of rating is much more serious in Scotland than it is in England? I would not attempt to explain the complexity of the system of rating in Scotland. I will say only that in the West of Scotland, where rating is fairly high, the tax on houses is somewhere of the order of 100 to 150 per cent. of the economic annual value. That is an immense tax to put on what is a prime necessity to the country. We put purchase tax of only 100 per cent. on luxuries of a special nature, such as jewellery. Even on Rolls Royce cars the purchase tax has recently been reduced from 661 to 33⅓ per cent. because they were being driven completely off the export marker; and there has been considerable opposition to the imposition of a 33⅓ per cent. purchase tax on commercial vehicles, The retention of a tax of this character on houses will continue to act as a bar to their development and proper maintenance.
My Lords, I know the Government are not interested in this subject. They have had before them a Report which, while I cannot say it would resolve this problem, would help; and it is in fact cowardly of them to have failed to carry out or examine closely the recommendations which are there put forward. I believe the difficulties have been brought clearly forward by the development of East Kilbride, where, for the first time, the Government, who are the housing proprietors, have came to realise what the implications of the rating system in Scotland mean. I should like to appeal to the Government to look at this and provide a non-Party solution. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, mentioned this point earlier on. The subject of rating on housing is extremely delicate; it is political dynamite, avid it is quite useless for any Party to attempt to carry this except by agreement. I ask that on this matter, which everyone who has examined knows perfectly well is a vital issue, we should try and reach agreement.
The second course I should like to suggest is to simplify the building of houses. I doubt if anyone who has not built a house realises the amazing com-

927
plexity which exists in doing so at present. If I may put it very bluntly, the position is that the contractor builds the house for profit. The easiest way is to make a firm contract for price and date. To-day that method practically does not exist. The contract has always a sliding scale in some particular, generally referring to wages or to materials, or it may be it has no reference to date of completion whatsoever. In many cases the result is that we are slipping back to the system of cost plus, because it is actually cheaper than that type of contract. I am sure that that is contrary to the interests of the building industry as a whole, and we must get back to a firm contract basis for housing. Furthermore, I would point out that the operative (that is the building operative) is in the business as a life profession, and naturally he wants to see it carried on. The standard form of remuneration is on a time rate. We all know that it should really be on the production and quality of the work; that is an essential element in building simpler houses. The noble Lord did not deal with the question of the Overtime Committee. I believe the Ministry of Works is appointing a Committee to examine productivity. May we have explained what are the functions of the Overtime Committee? What are the regulations by which they operate? Personally I am against overtime. I think overtime is a bad thing, and the American Report points out that normally a man works hard up to a full week and there it ends. I think that working a full week is much the better way. There may, however, be times when overtime is necessary and should not be too extensively curtailed.
My third point is that the Government wish to build houses to their specification, for the class of tenants which they themselves select. All the different parties concerned are no doubt perfectly laudably engaged in what they are doing, but I say that collectively they present almost an insuperable barrier against rapid, efficient and cheaper production. I suggest that instead of seeking to reduce control, we should start from the other end and decide what are the essential controls which should he maintained, and abolish the remainder. I suggest there are really only
928
three things and it does not matter to society where or how a man lives except in regard to those things. The first is the siting of a house—it is undoubtedly right that every local authority should have proper control over that—secondly, the provision of healthy and sanitary conditions, and thirdly, the standard of building. There is no doubt that at the present time the variety of specifications is greatly in excess of what is required. The matter is referred to specifically in the Productivity Report. The continuance of obsolete by-laws is a serious restriction.
I am going to add only this, if I may: that I am certain that a fundamental approach to this subject is required, and I would say that it is of great importance to the Government and to the country that the Government should convince everyone that they are serious about housing. I say, with respect, that there are many in the building industry to-day who question that. I was myself asked the other day whether or not they were serious. I am going to suggest one or two points which I think would bring out or emphasise what they are doing. In the first place, why cannot we get the cement position cleared up now? While we are exporting a great deal of cement, Glasgow has had to import cement and pay an extra £3 10s. per ton for bringing it all the way from Germany. The story is that the cement is being diverted to the extensive operations which are in progress on the south bank of the Thames in London. I do not know if that is true, but that is the story. Seeing that we have a considerable export surplus in cement, I should certainly like to know why Glasgow is having to import it. The second question I should like to put is this: Are we really short of wood? I take it that the general answer is that we are.
LORD MORRISON: Softwoods.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is a shortage of softwoods. It is true that the Secretary of State said on May 11:
"I do not think it is fair to say that timber is in short supply."
I take it he was not correct in making that statement. Personally, I think it is the fact that timber is being used for purposes other than housing. It is being used, for instance, in the construction of railway carriages and buses. I think a

929
considerable amount of this timber could more suitably be diverted to housing. I should also like to make a plea in support of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor with regard to rural housing. We have felt in Scotland that the repeal of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was an act of betrayal. The Government still refuse to enable the, improvements to be made in rural housing which are essential. So long as the Government hold to a political theory, rather than concern themselves absolutely with the provision of adequate houses, people will continue to ask this question—Are the Government really serious about housing? If I may, I will briefly summarise what I have said. I am certain that in the long run the sacrifice of pet theories must be made if the Government are to convince the country that they consider housing to be a matter of prime importance. Secondly, I say that building must be made as easy as possible. So far as I am aware, there has not been any suggestion yet for making it easier. Thirdly, the taxes on houses must be brought down if provision is to be increased and existing houses are to be properly maintained.
5.53 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I consider it a great privilege and an honour that I should he allowed to add my contribution to this most important debate. I do so because I still feel extremely perturbed about the present housing situation. I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Llewellin for initiating this debate. It has been well said by several previous speakers that housing is one of the most important social problems with which we have to deal to-day. It has also been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that the business of this House is to examine results. It is not for us here to say how things should be done; that is the business of His Majesty's Government. Reference has already been made to three most interesting reports—the Second Report on Building Costs of the Gird-wood Committee, the Report of the Productivity Team of the Anglo-American Council on Productivity and the Report of the Working Party. I was greatly interested in all three of those Reports, and I have studied them most carefully. I have also visited many building sites and have talked to as, many contractors, archi-
930
tects and quantity surveyors as I could. I do not profess to be in any way an expert on these matters, but I am extremely interested in them and I think this is a question which is of vital importance to the country.
In the Anglo-American Council's Report, paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 deal with applications for permits. Those concerned with, the Report were unanimous on this matter and they are very outspoken upon it. I take it that the Minister is well acquainted with paragraph 27 of the Report. In this it is stated:
"The importance attached in America to the complete pre-planning of every detail of the construction before work begins on the site has already been stressed. In Britain the operation of the licensing system adds to the difficulties of pre-planning in this sense."
In the last part of the paragraph, which is a very important one, we find this:
"Thus in this respect, if in no others, over-planning by Government makes nonsense of the calls for better planning by industry which are frequently made horn high quarters."
I read with great care the speech by the Minister of Works in another place. He said that in these Reports there was the basis for a lot of work by the Government and a lot of work by the in-dusty. It certainly seems to me that there is a great deal for the Government to do. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said, it takes months nowadays to get permits. If you cannot put through your application and, get your permit speedily, how can you properly pre-plan? An architect has to get out his plans and to work out prices. Those plans have to be detailed, and if they have all to be altered because it is necessary for them to go through three or four different departments a client is not going to pay for the working drawings until the last possible moment. It has been known to take as much as from six to nine months to get permits through, and under present arrangements with the Ministry a job has to be started within two or three months or you lose your licence. I saw it stated in the Press recently that this may be altered, and that may well be so. I think that the paragraph in the Productivity Team's Report dealing with applications for permits is ore of the most important in the whole Report. It is a very weighty Report. I suggest that it needs to be studied with

931
great care and that every effort should be made to see whether we cannot get some of its recommendations put into immediate operation.
I would especially draw attention to a passage in which it is stated that:
"The great speed of American constructional jobs and their low cost—in relation to the average rate of wages—must make an extremely strong impression on any observer."
The team then make a number of recommendations, and I should like to ask His Majesty's Government if they are intending to implement any of those parts of the Report. Some three weeks or a month has elapsed since the Minister of Works said in another place that he was looking into the matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will be able to give us some information upon this. I think it is most important for the industry. We cannot blame the industry entirely for the present state of affairs, if it is not possible for those in it to do their work efficiently.
The next point with which I should like to deal very briefly is one on which other speakers have already touched. I was extremely depressed about the apparent ceiling of 200,000 houses. We are now told, as I understand it, that all we can afford to invest on housing, including repairs, is £475,000,000 a year. This is the amount of expenditure which is to produce 200,000 houses with a labour force of 230,000 men working on new houses and a force of 251,600 working on repairs and conversions. We have therefore reached a position in which there are 1,000,000 in the whole of the building and civil engineering industry of whom only about 500,000 are engaged in the house-building section. Some five years have elapsed since the war ended, and, as we know, there has been a great accumulation of building jobs to be done —repairing bomb damage, conversion, making up arrears of maintenance work and so on. But surely a few more of the 251,600 men to whom I have just referred could be diverted to new house construction. If we can afford to spend £9,000,000 to £10,000,000 on the Festival of Britain, is it too much to suggest that we can afford to spend more on housing?
Look at the present position in some of the big cities. In Birmingham there is a waiting list of 56,000 people. Manchester
932
has a waiting list of 27,000, and Glasgow, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has pointed out, has 94,000. With an estimated waiting list for the whole country of nearly 2,000,000 people, at the present rate of building, 200,000 houses a year, it will take us nearly ten years to clear this off. Some areas—Glasgow, for instance—are worse than others. I was up in Glasgow last year on a Joint Committee and took the opportunity of looking at some of the houses; and there is no doubt, as the most reverend Primate said, that the slums are very bad. Glasgow has a tremendous job not only of building, but also of slum clearance. In setting the limit at 200,000 houses a year, I doubt whether the position will ever right itself. It is a position which worries me tremendously.
When we look at this question we are always confronted with the problem of how to finance it, both from the external point of view of dollars and from the internal point of view. My noble friend Lord Llewellin has dealt fully with the timber position, and I would add that I entirely agree with him. I feel that if softwood timber were handed back to the trade and they were allowed to buy it with a limit of dollars set by the Treasury, and if the system was worked by the trade, we should get on a great deal better than we do now. I understand that the Government's negotiations broke down because they could not control timber at the other end. If building is controlled and there is a very small black market for timber, I cannot see how we get to that position. I should like to see control completely taken off building up to, say, a house of 1,200 square feet. I should like to see all agencies allowed to build as many houses up to that size as they can. Everybody agrees that there should be some control in the size of houses; it was even included in our Party programme at the last election. I suggest, for my own part, a maximum of 1,200 square feet. On that basis I cannot see why we could not let the timber trade go back to the industry. I think that should be done, because they can do it much better and more economically.
We have another great problem in labour. If the private builder had a better ratio than one in five, or the ratio were taken off altogether, we should find

933
many more people who are doing unnecessary jobs going in for building small houses. My experience, and I think this has been the general experience of local authorities, has been that the small builder to-day is under-employed. The local authorities building fifty or a hundred houses do not me the small builder capable of building five or six houses. His organisation is nor, big enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, said, and he does not understand costs; but he does know how to build two, four or six houses if he is given a chance. To-day, he is not liven a chance, and he has not been for the last two years. I was much perturbed, when this ratio was altered from one in ten to one in five, to see that this Ns, as not to start until next year, because local authorities have already planned their contracts for this year.
In connection with labour on the sites, I have taken a good deal of trouble to find out the figures. I am not certain that they are accurate, but I think they are. The position is approximately this. The Working Party Report, in Chapter 1. paragraph 22, on page 7, says that in July, 1948, there were 110,370 insured bricklayers out of the total building and civil engineering operatives of 1,128,000—or approximately 11.6 per cent. As bricklaying in house building represents something in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent., a percentage of 11.6 bricklayers in the industry is too low. If we look at painters and carpenters, we find they are 14.5 per cent. I went a little farther in my investigations and found that on March 31 there were applications for nearly 10,000 bricklayers in Great Britain, with only between 500 and 600 unemployed. On the other hand, there were between 5,000 and 6,000 painters unemployed on the same date, and 2,000 vacancies. That is the reverse. The point I am trying to make is that it is necessary for the Ministry of Works and the Government, through the schools, to try to encourage more young men to go in for bricklaying. It is a job as well paid as any other, and it is a vital one. If nearly 42 per cent. of the labour on house building consists of bricklayers there will be for some years to come a definite lack of bricklayers. As the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, said, there are many big power stations and steel works going up but that is no reason why we should not try to balance the industry better.
934
There is no reason why we should not go in for more prefabricated permanent concrete houses. I have seen very good models the Airey house, the Easiform and others, some of them of poured concrete and some of pre-cast concrete, but all well designed. All have passed the necessary tests. I notice that the programme of production of these houses of 110,000 is on the decline. For some reason local authorities do not like them. I agree that they do not look so nice as the traditional brick house; but they are houses, good houses, and can be erected to a large extent on sites by semi-skilled artisans under the supervision of skilled labour. I hope the Government will look into this aspect because the position is far from satisfactory. We are building only two-thirds of the number of houses we built before the war. It is a gloomy prospect to me that in the next few years we can deal with this frightful waiting list only at the rate of 200,000 a year because we are told that this great country of ours cannot afford any more. I hope the Government will give early attention to this question. It is one of vital importance to the future welfare of the country.
6.10 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I have listened to this debate since the first word was spoken, and it has been very interesting. I do not know whether it is a coincidence that the debate should have been chosen for what is usually called the longest day of the year, but it looks as if we had chosen the longest debate of the year for to-day. The debate has been much less political than I expected it to be. I came here this afternon thinking it was going to be just a general onslaught on the Government. The reason why I thought that was that the Party of the noble Lords opposite have lately not been going too well on this issue in another place—or on any other issue for that matter. I thought that perhaps they had sent out a signal of distress, calling upon the noble Lords opposite to see what they could do to help them out of their temporary difficulty. But, much to my pleasure, there has been very little Party politics in this debate. We are all agreed that this is a great problem, and that we should do our best to see what can be done about it.

935
The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, has made some interesting suggestions. Several of them, to use an expression popular nowadays, I "could not agree with more." On the question of the small builder being given a chance, however, I feel that one of the suggestions made by Lord Quibell was quite interesting—it is one that I have heard in other quarters—that where a large contract has to be given out, although the large contractor will get the bulk of it the small man might be offered the job of building a few houses, providing he is able to put them up at the same price. One thing the noble Lord said I could not follow. First, I gathered that he said the Reports were outspoken. Of course they are outspoken. Judging by some newspaper articles one would think the Reports were simply a condemnation of the Government. They are not. They are very constructive and valuable Reports.
LORD WOLVERTON: I did not intend to say that. I say they are very critical of the Government in certain parts, and especially on the question of the permit. I feel that the industry has much to learn. I have been privileged to go to the United States and see what they have done since the war. However, they are not doing better than we were doing before the war, and we can do as well again if we are given the chance.
LORD MORRISON: The only point I want to make is this. If at any time the noble Lord's Party comes into power and a committee of this sort is set up, I am sure he would not want the terms of reference to stipulate that the committee must not criticise the Government which appointed them. We rejoice in the fact that this committee has been outspoken, and we hope that all committees similarly appointed will be the same. I should like to have one further tilt, if I may, at the noble Lord who has just sat down. He thought that 150,000 men could have been diverted into the building industry. Later on he said that there is a tremendous shortage of bricklayers. I do not know what he means in using the word "diverted." I always understood that his Party were in favour of "setting the people free" and not ordering them into different types of work. The Ministry of Works, to which the noble Lord referred,
936
are doing all they possibly can. If the noble Lord knows of anything more that can be done to get the building trade into a more balanced position, so that we have enough craftsmen in each section of the industry, I shall be glad to hear it.
LORD WOLVERTON: I said that if more licences were given for small builders to work, you would have more men from the jobbing and repair side assisting in the construction of new houses. We still have 250,000 men on the repair side.
LORD MORRISON: I will not put the noble Lord to the trouble of rising any more. I will now pass to the interesting speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. We always know when he gets up that he will make a thoughtful and interesting speech, and to-day was no exception. The noble Earl dealt with the tremendous over-crowding in Glasgow. I suppose he can go back about twenty to thirty years —I can go back much longer. The overcrowding in Glasgow was even worse fifty or sixty years ago; certainly the housing conditions were worse, and the people were more badly clad in Glasgow than they are to-day. I mention that because it seems to me that one of the things we forget is that it is no good singling out a place like Glasgow. The housing position is bad not only in Glasgow, but in London, Paris, Dublin, New York, Washington and all the large industrial cities of the countries of the world. The last time I was in Washington, after five days in a hotel I received a not too polite note from the manager asking me if I would go somewhere else. When I went to the office and asked for an explanation, I was told that the shortage of housing was so acute in Washington that an arrangement had been made by hotel keepers that they would not allow anybody to spend more than five days in a hotel, because they were pestered with families squatting in the hotels and making it difficult to carry on business. This problem is not confined to one country.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Was the noble Lord's experience with that hotel in 1943?
LORD MORRISON: No, later than that: it was in 1946, just after the war finished.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Surely the noble Lord does not suggest that there

937
has been a waiting list for twenty-five years in Washington. That was what I was saying about Glasgow, although I did not claim that Glasgow was unique.
LORD MORRISON: In the first part of the noble Earl's speech he used the words that this is a "long-term problem." We all agree with that. If we start from the basis that it is a long-term problem, let us see where we get. I suppose there are roughly 1,000,000 in Glasgow. The French people have a proverb that goes something like this:
"What one always sees, one never sees."
Perhaps noble Lords who live most of their time in Scotland do not see so much as I, who go there only occasionally. The housing problem in Scotland, as I see it, is partly due to the fact that in the county of Lanarkshire the population is something like 1,600 to the square mile, and in the Highland counties it is seven to the square mile. Therefore, on the long-term policy—l: am sure the noble Earl will agree—successive Governments go out to support vast hydro-electric schemes, in order to bring power and light to those sparsely populated areas, in the hope that, having done so, industry will follow, with the result that people will also follow, the de-population of the Highland counties will come to an end, gradually the people will be brought back there and a better re-distribution of the population will be brought about That, is the position, as I understand it.
What are the Government doing about this long-term policy to which the noble Earl referred? They have not only set up the hydro-electric schemes to which I have referred, but have started on new towns; they are endeavouring to bring about a better distribution of industry, to improve road construction (an announcement was made only some ten days ago of a further sum of money to be spent on new roads in the Highlands) and transport—all in an endeavour to check the de-population of the Highlands and to secure improvement in the distribution of population. Following this long-term policy, or even short-term policy, it is almost inevitable that we shall sometimes run into temporary shortages. It has caused a certain amount of slowing up of building and under-employment, but, despite certain sensational Press reports, se, far as my information goes
938
there has not been any unemployment at all in Scotland from this cause.
The noble Earl mentioned cement. The pre-war delivery of cement in Great Britain was approximately 7,000,000 tons per annum. By the end of this year it is expected to reach 10,000,000 tons. In another place yesterday, a Scottish Member suggested in a Question that Scotland was not getting its fair share of supplies of cement. Well, we hear a great deal about Home Rule for Scotland, and Scotland being in a position to be entirely independent and stand on its own legs. So far as cement is concerned, the total output from Scottish cement works is 4,700 tons per week, while the consumption of cement in Scotland is running at the rate of 18,000 tons per week. Delivery has been at the rate of 17,300 tons per week, and within the last few days has been stepped up to 18,000 tons. I think that is creditable to all concerned.
With regard to bricks, the production of bricks of all kind; for the first five months of last year was 2,025,000,000. For the first five months of this year it was 2,380,000,000, an increase in brick production of 355,000,000 bricks. With regard to the deliveries of bricks, the figures are somewhat smaller. They show an increase of 238,000,000. Despite these encouraging figures, I am bound to point out that the monthly production of bricks is still approximately 200,000,000 less than pre-war. I could go into the reasons for that. Many of these brickfields are in isolated places, and it is difficult to get labour to work there. Before the war it was one of the worst. paid industries in the country, and I am perfectly sure that no political Party represented in any part of this House would be in favour of some system of compelling people to go and work in brickworks.
The noble Earl asked me what the figure of 200,000 houses meant. My answer would be that that is a figure which has been fixed taking into consideration the difficult position of the country and the fact that our available resources must be distributed to the best advantage. As the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, said, vast industrial undertakings are being built and fitted up. The whole question of how we are going to secure the well-being of the population of these Islands is at stake and has to be con-

939
sidered as a whole. The noble Earl also asked me a question about a Committee on Overtime, and I am sorry that I cannot answer that. I have been unable to find any trace of such a Committee.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is not the point. Apparently there are local overtime committees which decide whether overtime can be worked. I do not think we have them in Scotland, but my noble friend Lord Llewellin made reference to Grays and Bristol.
LORD MORRISON: I think they are joint committees of the industry.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Both sides.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Probably working under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour.
LORD MORRISON: Yes, certainly, and we are doing all we possibly can to encourage these joint production committees. I hope to show that we are going to extend that to the recommendations of the two Reports which have been under discussion this afternoon. It has been pointed out that the recommendations can be broken down into three—the first which the Government should implement; the second which the Government and the industry should implement, and the third for which the industry alone should take responsibility. I am coming to that in a moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, suggests a simplification of building procedure. Many controls instituted in the period of shortage of materials have already been eliminated. He mentioned that some timber is being used for railway carriages and bus bodies. I have inquired about that, and I find that the greater part of the timber used for that purpose is not of the specification required for housing.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, but it has to be bought with dollars.
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Earl will find that most is hardwood, about which there is not the same difficulty. In the field of simplification, I may say that local authorities can now acquire housing sites and adapt layout plans and designs for new houses without submitting their designs to the Department for approval. The number of statistical returns has also been
940
reduced. The noble Earl mentioned the Sorn Report. I do not think the fact that the Government have not given effect to the recommendations of that Report has in any considerable way affected the provision of houses by local authorities. I am sure that the noble Earl does not desire to return to the bad old days of small, jerry-built, over-crowded houses, but to keep up the standard of building. With a view to the production of still more houses without increasing capital expenditure, local authorities have been asked to introduce economies by increasing the number of three-apartment houses in their schemes to 50 per cent. as against a former maximum of 25 per cent. and to save £50 per house by any other means which would not lower standards.
The noble Earl then went on to refer to the restoration of rural houses. I think he had in mind the absence of grants to owners for what are called tied cottages. This matter was debated during the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1949, when it was urged strongly from the other side of the House that grants should be made available for this purpose. The position is this—I explained it before, and I repeat it. The Scottish Farm Servants' Union held equally strong views in the opposite sense. They objected strongly to public money being spent on tied cottages. In those circumstances, Parliament decided that grants should be paid only if the cottages were untied. I can assure the noble Earl that if both sides can come forward with an agreed scheme, His Majesty's Government will give it their careful consideration. Finally, I am sure the noble Earl will be pleased to know that 26,000 houses were completed in Scotland in 1949. It is hoped to improve upon those figures in 1951 and 1952. It compares not unfavourably with the years 1912 to 1930, when the figures ranged from 8,000 to 20,000 per annum.
It is unfortunate that my noble friend Lord Quibell, having delivered one of his brilliantly refreshing and invigorating speeches, is missing, because I wanted to endeavour to make some reply to him. I should like now to carry out the promise I made when I commenced speaking. I said that the House would like to know what the Government suggestions were for dealing with the recommendations in the Reports which have been discussed. I will cover them very briefly, because I know that noble Lords would not desire

941
me to continue for too long. A new general development order, providing for certain relaxations of the controls under the Town and Country Planning Act, was laid before the House on May 9. With regard to building research, the recommendation that research should be conducted in the main by organisations of primarily scientific character has already been achieved by the transfer, as from April 1, 1950, of responsibility for sociological and economic research in building from the Ministry of Works to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. A standard form of contract for Government contracts has been in use since 1941. For local authorities further steps will be taken to secure the wider use of standard forms of contract. For other contracts, the matter will need to be taken up by the R.I.B.A. and the employers' organisations. Then there are the recommendations and by-laws for standardisation and codes of practice. The Government will continue to develop the existing machinery for reviewing existing standards and initiating fresh standards in building. As final codes are produced, the Ministry is developing publicity for them.
With regard to professional training, these recommendations are mainly for the attention of the architectural institutions. In the matter of higher training for management, the part played by the universities and technical schools in improving managerial standards in building is under the closest examination of those concerned. As regards the indenturing of apprentices, these recommendations require the co-operation of all sections of the trade— and, I might add, and I know Lord Wolverton will agree with me, also of the parents. It is very awkward, when you have sufficient boys and have given them a choice, to find that most of them want to be carpenters and very few want to he plasterers. In Scotland there is at present a great shortage of plasterers. We shall be very glad of any suggestion to help in this matter.
LORD WOLVERTON: The schools teach carpentry but none of these other trades. Perhaps more could be done in the way of evening classes and the like.
LORD MORRISON: Handicraft training is not given to teach boys to become carpenters; it is a form of education to teach people to think by doing.
LORD LLEWELLIN: But it does lead them to think of becoming carpenters.
LORD MORRISON: I quite agree. As regards increased flexibility in craft training, greater interchange between adult craftsmen is a matter for the industry to consider, as is the present lack of balance in the building labour force. The shortage, especially in certain districts, of particular trades, is a point we have been trying to cover. The employers' and employees' organisations and the parents can, make a contribution to this question. With regard to the qualitative registration of building employers, the Ministry accept the recommendation of the Working Party that the present registration should continue for the purpose of securing statistical information only. There are some recommendations about safety and welfare and the Ministry consider that these are largely for the industry. As far as pre-planning is concerned, responsibility rests primarily upon the architect. The question of management of building operations for reducing the amount of wasted time is again a matter for the industry. As regards costing systems, the Ministry of Works have already published booklets and arranged exhibitions and lectures to deal with them.
The question of incentives is now under review. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, has paid considerable attention to this, matter. Briefly, the Minister of Works, although he appears to have no great confidence in this, will welcome any extension of the system of incentives. The present position is that the large contractors have found it fairly easy to adopt a system for reasons which the noble Lord knows better than I do, but the smaller men have found it much more difficult to get a model scheme to work. That is because such a system varies so much among the smaller firms, whereas the large contractors employing thousands of men have a much better system. At any rate, I know that the noble Lord would not blame the trade union or the workmen. They passed a resolution at their Annual Conference in 1947 in favour of incentives. They may have been against: it before that time, but they have now—owing, no doubt, to the propaganda of the noble Lord—agreed to the making of incentive pay-merits. Discussions are going on, and the Minister of Works is giving all the assistance he can; but it is largely a question for the industry.

943
That brings me to a point on which I am not so ready to agree with Lord Quibell, and that is the way in which I thought he pooh-poohed the idea of mechanical aids. The Ministry of Works have taken a very active part in this matter. Not only have they published literature, made experiments, obtained models from the United States, and engaged in other activities of that sort, but they are running exhibitions of mechanical aids. I have opened several myself and am going to open another on Warwick Racecourse next Monday. If the noble Lord cares to take a day off from the House of Lords to go there with me and see the mechanical aids, I shall be very glad to see him. He will see demonstrations of mechanical aids which I believe will change his mind in this matter. These mechanical aids are very useful, at the expenditure of no great capital cost. Moreover, the exhibition which I opened in Edinburgh was so successful that people even paid for admission, and a profit was made out of it.
With regard to new materials and techniques, again I should be surprised if anyone suggested that the Ministry of Works had been inactive in this matter. I may say that there is a recommendation on the subject of the building industry overseas, and the Ministry will be glad to co-operate with the industry in helping all they can. So far as joint production committees are concerned, the Ministry will be glad of any proposals for joint consultation, locally or on the site. One of the most important paragraphs, and one that impressed me most, is a report of the delegation to America about morale and the question of reestablishing the spirit of responsibility for Rood output which is traditional in the industry.
As the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, has now returned, he will, no doubt, expect me to say something about his onslaught upon the Ministry of Works Mobile Labour Department. Before I do so, perhaps I may say that comparisons that have been made on the cost of building show that the level of costs in building has, since the war, been moving broadly in line with that of other industries. The hourly wage rates of building operatives, which are related to the cost of living index, are between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. above pre-war, and weekly earn-
944
ings have risen steadily. I should like to reinforce a point that Lord Quibell made: neither wage rates nor average earnings reflect fully the increased cost of labour; there are, in addition, elements such as holidays with pay, more liberal travelling expenses and allowances for travelling time, lodging and subsistence allowances, a higher standard of welfare, and higher National Insurance payments. I believe the noble Lord quoted something like £1 a week.
LORD QUIBELL: Yes.
LORD MORRISON: I can only say in regard to that that the Girdwood Committee estimate them at 14 per cent. and the Laidlaw Committee at 12 per cent. of current labour costs. If the noble Lord will allow me, for the purposes of the record, to go back to the question of incentives, I should like to confirm what I have said. In 1947, the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives arranged through its affiliated trade unions to take a ballot vote of its membership on the question of the adoption of a system of incentive payments. The result of the ballot showed a large majority in favour of the introduction of incentives. Most of the large contractors are successfully operating bonus schemes. Smaller contractors are finding greater difficulty. The national agreement provides for the operation of bonus schemes on individual sites for an experimental period. It was clearly the desire of the industry that the experiment should be carried out in an atmosphere as free and unrestricted as possible. The Ministry of Works have, therefore, respected this attitude, and do not interfere over much. Successful schemes are being operated, and they are on the increase. The results that we have so far been able to ascertain are highly satisfactory.
I come next to the part upon which, to use the noble Lord's own expression, he "let himself go," and he said he felt better after having got it "off his chest." I am handicapped in this sense: that I have no first-hand knowledge of the cases he cited. The cost of the houses which the Ministry of Works are building for the Forestry Commission is admittedly higher than that of local authority houses. Local authorities generally build houses in some numbers—
LORD QUIBELL: If the noble Lord will excuse me for interrupting, that

945
could not apply to the two cases I mentioned. One is at Santon Downham, where forty-odd houses are being built, and the other case that I mentioned was Believer. Santon Downham, in particular, is a case in which no such explanation is justified.
LORD MORRISON: The answer to that is the same answer that I was going to give to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, hut as he has left the Chamber perhaps the noble Lord, Lard Quibell, will pass this on to him; it is that it is always difficult to deal with specific cases when one is not given any previous notice of them. If the noble Lord had mentioned these cases to me in advance, I should have had inquiries made or probably gone to see for myself. I can only say now that these sites are generally in very remote positions, for purposes of proximity to forests, and labour has to be transported considerable distances daily. Generally no services of any sort are available, and water and sewerage have to be specially provided. Proximity to the forests again often means difficult hillside sites. All these factors drive up costs. I do not know whether that statement applies to the instances which the noble Lord gave.
LORD QUIBELL: No.
LORD MORRISON: All I can say there is that, in relation to the cases he has cited, I will make closer investigation and perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to communicate with him when I have done so.
LORD QUIBELL: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD MORRISON: As there are a number of other speakers to follow, perhaps I may be allowed to make this brief summary. We are all agreed that there is no quick solution to the problem of finding 'adequate housing accommodation for all in need of it. At the same time, neither this Government nor, I venture to say, any other Government are in my opinion likely to treat housing in a spirit of complacency. Public opinion will see to that. Noble Lords opposite are impatient at the slow progress. So are we. I live in a highly industrial area, and the nearest member of your Lordships' House lives miles away; and I know at first
946
hand how acute the housing difficulty is. As I left my house this morning, one of my neighbours said to me: "I see the House of Lords is going to debate housing to-day." I said: "Yes." I was on my guard and awaited his next question. He said: "I suppose they will hand out the usual stuff?" I said: "What usual stuff?" He said: "You know—blame the building industry for bad working, blame the Government, blame anybody but not propose anything for improving the position." I said: "What is wrong will that?" He said: "If you are going to speak, tell them: 'Let us have suggestions. It is houses we want, not politics.'"
LORD LLEWELLIN: If the Minister of Health would follow that advice, we should get very many more houses.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is not the question of tied cottages purely a political one?
LORD MORRISON: I am attempting to get noble Lords on to my side. This is a problem in which we are all concerned. I am sure there is no noble Lord on that side of the House who could lay his hand on his heart and say that, if by any fortune of the ballot his Party came into power, they would he able to solve the housing problem within the lifetime of the youngest member present. The older ones have experience of what happened before. Some of the younger ones might make such a claim, but not the older ones.
We are all impatient at the slow progress and we welcome your impatience. Somebody—I forget who it was—once said "Impatience solves more problems than patience." Whether or not that be so, we welcome this debate. Every constructive suggestion made to-day, and others that I hope will be made from now on, will be examined again—as lawyers say, "without prejudice." Both the Reports are being closely examined, point by point, by each section of the industry —singly by each section and in co-operation with the whole industry, employers and workmen sitting together. I think that steady progress will be made. I am not throwing out any prophecies of sensational progress, but I think steady progress will be made, not so fast perhaps as impatient noble Lords including myself would wish, but rapid enough to gain the confidence of reasonable people.
6.49 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I have felt very gloomy about this subject from time to time, but when the noble Lord who has just sat down suggested that only some of the youngest and most temerous of noble Lords would suggest that a solution could come in their lifetime he filled me with still further gloom. Frankly, I do not believe that at all. I believe that the matter can be revolutionised within five years. His Majesty's Government are a Government of planners and, therefore, when the plans go wrong they must be prepared to stand up to criticism and to be told that they are not delivering the goods. It is not really an adequate defence to come and say: "Well, will you tell us your ideas of how to do it?" They are at the wheel; they are the masters of the plan, and it is their job to deliver the goods. In my opinion, they know they are very vulnerable on this subject because they have put up three of their biggest charmers tonight to deal with the opposition, and when they do that you must know that they are vulnerable.
I was going to take up one point of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, because it is one of which I have some personal experience. I wish that Ministers who listen to advice in favour of what is colloquially called bulk buying but which I call State buying would go and talk to people who have done this sort of thing. In my experience, State buying must ultimately mean Treasury control, and on a rising market it is quite impossible to buy when you have to refer everything to somebody in London. That is a very good thing on a falling market, when one can say "I must refer back," and the market goes back as you are doing so. But in a rising market you must have the power to close on the spot for the price which you think is the best you can get. His 'Majesty's Government have "missed the bus" time and time again through the non-acceptance of that principle. In 1945 they took an entirely wrong view of the course of international commodity prices, and that was ultimately reflected in the very low imports of raw materials during the first half of 1946. As a result, industry was caught seriously short. I think the same thing has happened over devaluation. His Majesty's Government accepted advice which may or may not have been bad. But at any rate they took the view that commodity prices were
948
going to rise a great deal less than in fact they have, which I think accounts for the fact that they have "missed the bus" in timber. The only place where there is timber now is on the west coast of Canada where it is to be obtained in quantity.
In all these great enterprises such as housing and so on the factors of the spirit come in, as well as the factors of the flesh—the drive, the imagination and so on, on the one hand, and the men, the materials and the money on the other. Of course, housing must be a great enterprise. We have our long waiting lists, and the moving speech of the most reverend Primate drew attention to the tragedies which those lists represent in the way of slums, broken marriages, broken homes and so on. Once upon a time His Majesty's Government had the drive. We heard about 4,000.000 houses in ten years, and so on and so forth. That was the right spirit. That was the spirit on which to set off on a crusade—which this was. But now that seems to have evaporated into a sort of groove, from which we may expect something under 200,000 houses to be put into the clan, with the Opposition prodding the Government up to 200,000 or thereabouts. The steam has gone out of the drive, and all we are left with is the rampageous speeches of the Minister of Health, which can seldom stand the cold light of reason. In fact, they rather remind me of a circus. When the lights are up, there is the glitter of the spangles, but when the lights are turned down there is nothing but a tawdry emptiness. So much for the things of the spirit.
Then there are the material things. We have a planned economy, and the planners put first things first. Surely, houses ought to be first. Let us see, in fact, where they have been put. In the Economic Survey one sees that roughly one-sixth of our resources are being devoted to so-called fixed investments. A fixed investment is a "mixed bag," which contains everything from atomic plant, through cowsheds to painting one's own front door. Of this one-sixth, approximately one-fifth is devoted to the building, repairs and maintenance of houses. That means that one-thirtieth of the national resources are devoted to the building, repair and maintenance of houses. The Economic Survey is shy

949
about breaking up these things into the component parts that are worth while knowing—namely, new construction, repair and maintenance—so we have to turn to other calculations. We know that a programme of 200,000 houses a year would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £300,000,000, and we know that that figure approximates to about 2½ per cent. of our total national resources.
My Lords, I submit that that is not enough. To devote 2½ per cent. of the national resources to the righting of this terrible social evil is not sufficient. One might ask: Does 2½ per cent. of our total national resources seriously tax the capacity of the budding industry? For an answer to that we have to turn to the Report of the Working Party, and we find that in 1948, the last year they gave (it was a good year, for over 200,000 houses were completed), only 31 per cent. of the building and civil engineering resources of the country was devoted to new housing. So we find that the building and civil engineering industry accounts for about 7½ per cent. of our total national resources, but only about one third of that is devoted to new housing.
It is difficult to get a really correct comparison with pre-war figures, but that same Working Party Report points out that before the war 48 per cent. of the resources of this industry were devoted to new housing. Knowing the figures of houses completed and so on, I have not the slightest doubt that a much larger proportion of that industry was on new housing before the war than it is to-day. Of course, if left to nature there is no doubt that building resources would flow into the most profitable channels. But these things are not left to nature. We are living in a planned economy and the Minister directs, by controls and so on, where these resources are to be employed. Of course, he has to do this; otherwise how can we expect the private individual who wants a small house to be able to afford it? The level of his purse cannot possibly compete with that of a Government Department, with a nationalised industry or with trade and industry itself, which has much more money in the bank. So the Minister redresses the balance. He it is who directs the resources of our
950
building industry, and therefore it is his will that only one-third of these resources should be devoted to new housing.
What is the explanation of this? Can it be that materials exist for the 31 per cent. of the industry devoted to new housing, but that there is no surplus to allow of a larger percentage being turned on to new housing? So far as home-produced materials are concerned, we have had a planned economy for five years. It is inconceivable that there cannot be enough of our home-produced materials to increase this percentage. The only imported raw material used in any quantity is, of course, timber. His Majesty's Government do not plan the growth of timber, but they do conduct its buying. So, what we arrive at is this: either His Majesty's Government think that 2½ per cent. of our national resources is the right amount to devote to housing or they have made such a mess of timber buying that they cannot devote more than 2½ per cent. to housing—or, of course, the whole of this planning and so on is a complete myth. What is it to be? In view of these facts, one might infer that the present situation has been brought, about by callousness as to the size of the problem, incompetence in producing timber or the Government's credulity in believing in the efficiency of their planning of the national resources.. Surely it must be one of those three things. But whichever it is, it is a matter of very small satisfaction to those unfortunate people whose names are on housing lists and are likely to remain there for years.
Mr. Herbert Morrison is alleged the other day to have produced a definition of Socialism as being an assertion of social responsibility for the things which are properly of social concern. That was obviously intended to be read "as you like it" by different people. I read it as meaning that His Majesty's Government have a duty to provide houses, and they had better get on with the job.
[The Sitting was suspended at four minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I feel it would be more suitable at this time to be telling after dinner stories, but as I fear I should be ruled out of order before I was half-way

951
through my first story, I think I had better get on with the subject of housing. I admit that I am no expert on housing, but I venture to come and speak to your Lordships to-night because I feel I have some information about a certain type of building which would be of interest to your Lordships and to all those who are concerned with the relief of the housing shortage. We have been asked by the Government to be constructive and I am going to be constructive, though I should like to say that one of the most destructive speeches I have ever heard came from the Government Benches this afternoon. However, all Parties want to do what they can to help in this question.
One of the explanations that always crops up when it is necessary to excuse the failure to keep promises on housing is the shortage of timber and of bricks and the restrictions on skilled labour. Recently I heard of a building operation which was going on at Orpington, in Kent, where houses were being built without the use of bricks, with very little timber and without any skilled labour. I was so interested that I went down to see. The firm concerned have contracted with the London County Council to build 100 houses in 100 days with only forty-five people working. Your Lordships will excuse me if I go into details, but I feel I should tell you about this work. The houses are built of cement blocks made of a mixture of shingle, sand and cement. They are made in moulds of any size that is needed to build a house, and the rate of making of these blocks by one man in one day is the equivalent of 2,000 bricks, if not more. I think that compares favourably with the trade union rate of bricklaying, which I believe is one-third of that figure. What is more, it takes only three weeks to train a man to use one of these moulds. These facts are so amazing that I thought it was worth while going down to Orpington. I was greatly impressed. It was an exhilarating experience to see these houses at various stages of construction being built by people who were untrained, and I felt that here was something which could be considered by the Government. These mould operators are paid bricklayers' wages.
In regard to timber, I may say that there is in fact no need to use timber at all in these houses, because the floors can
952
be made by using these moulded blocks; but the houses which I saw had timber used on them because of the London County Council's specification. If no timber were used, there would be a saving per house of a standard of timber, which costs about £80, and a saving to the country in hard currency, I should have thought, of a good deal more. A further point about these houses is that they are cheaper to build than the normal prefabricated house: they cost round about £1,200 to £1,300. A further point is that when they are built they cost much less in maintenance than practically any other house that is built. Lately we have heard many complaints about the enormous sums that have been spent in excess of the estimates on maintaining prefabricated houses: in fact, the estimate for prefabricated houses is £260,000,000, and that has already been overspent by £31,000,000. In another case I heard of a block of 3,900-odd houses where £900,000 had already' been spent on repairs and remedial measures in the first two years. These houses at Orpington conform completely to the by-laws, which is more than can be said for the prefabricated houses.
I want to ask the Government this afternoon why it is that these houses have not received more encouragement and have not been more widely used. The prefabricated type of house has been put up all over the country, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that some are most unsatisfactory. Here is a house—to go over its advantages again—which is cheaper, quicker to build and four times as strong as a brick house when built. Why is it that it has not received more encouragement from the Government? This house seems to be the answer to all the shortages which are so troublesome in these times. The Minister of Works in another place said on May 25 last that he would like to encourage the use of machine aids for building. A firm wrote to him and asked whether he could elaborate his statement. He wrote back and said that he was very interested, but he had to leave the promotion of all such schemes to the sponsors. That was not very encouraging. I feel that the Minister "smelt a rat," and that "rat" was private enterprise.
Ever since this system started in 1945 the promoters have found great difficulty in getting contracts from the various

953
councils. I should have thought that the least the Minister of Health could do would be to inform councils of this system of building, so that they could use it if they wished. I am not asking for any sort of aid to be given to this sort of building as is given to prefabricated houses. What I ask is, first of all, why this system has not received more encouragement; and secondly, why it is that prefabricated houses, which have State aid, are so unsatisfactory and cost so much in maintenance. I am not trying to push a certain house but merely trying to extend a system which can build anything from a two-bedroomed 850 cubic feet house up to a factory in the most satisfactory way; and that house is stronger (if one is talking about bombing) than any other house that is built at the present time. I hope your Lordships will forgive my going into detail, but I felt it was well worth while, as this is something which I feel sure merits further encouragement and investigation by the Government.
8.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the debate this afternoon has covered a very with: range, but there is one specific aspect of the housing problem which I think has not been referred to—namely the special problem of London. I ask your Lordships to allow me to take up your time for a few minutes with specific reference to the housing problem in London. London is the greatest city in the world, the capital of a great Empire and one of the greatest ports, if not the greatest, in the world; and the size of London's housing problems is commensurate with her greatness in every other respect. The greatness of London has been made a subject of reproach for a very long time. Much more than a hundred years ago, William Cobbett spoke of London as "the great wen" I suppose that was a term of abuse. We have invented an even more opprobrious term of abuse in modern days. Whether it was the 'invention of the gentleman already referred to who invented the term an "accommodation unit" I do not know, but it is fashionable now to call London a "conurbation." It is a dreadful word, but it means a dreadful thing. London has become a conurbation because of its tremendous pull on people from all over these islands. London is a tremendous market, both for
954
labour and for goods, and the more people who come to work in London, the more services are required to look after them. And so the snowball gathers, and the great aggregation increases with its own momentum.
I wish to make it quite clear to your Lordships that I fully realise the force of the pull. It is this terrific pull of attraction of population into London which is the fundamental cause of the difficulty of dealing with the London problem. I am happy to think that it is now common around that even pre-war London was too large, and I should like: to pause for a moment to consider the grave social consequences of this vast: urban aggregation. Ninety per cent. of the people who want to be re-housed ask for a cottage and a garden. If they go into flats it is because they are forced to, because of their need to live near their work and their inability to get what they really want. I would remind your Lordships of what the most reverend Primate said about the social perils of the slums. Flats in London lead to children in London. I do not believe that children have the same chance if they are brought up in London flats as they are brought up in the country. I do not believe that the consequences of urbanisation of the population have ever been properly estimated. The children have to play in the streets, with no contact with the country, and after a generation or two the children are little "townies"—and, on occasions, they are lost souls.
I desire to speak not only with great respect for London but with great affection of London. To many of us, London is our second home. It does not have the same claim on our affections as our Scottish home, or whatever it may be, but nevertheless those of us who spend our working lives in London have a great affection for the Capital. But London is an octopus, and London has us in its _rip, which it will not readily relax. This pressure is bound to meat more and more flats. Before the war, 1: used to describe flats as a necessary evil. I still think they are a necessary evil, but I am prepared now to amend the phrase and say that these great blocks of flats in London are a terrible second best.
That is the best I can do for them. I believe that all this is common ground, common ground too, I believe, is the

955
correctness of the policy of dispersal. I wish to give full credit to the Government for their good intentions in the matter of dispersal. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning was set up, I believe, by common consent, and I do not think anybody will dispute the advisabiliy, from the national and social point of view, of a policy of dispersal. There is the fear of a diminished agriculture. On balance I am quite certain that proper town and country planning could solve that problem, and that planned dispersal is infinitely preferable to this cramming of people into London.
I regret to have to say that the Government's policy of dispersal is not succeeding. May we just look at what is happening? The 1946 Act established the terms of subsidy, and there was a sliding scale for flats on expensive land. Many of us had misgivings then, and I am going to give your Lordships one very short quotation from the Second Reading debate in 1946. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House said this:
"My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh quite rightly expressed his misgivings as to the effect of the subsidy for flats on very costly land, and we all sympathise with those fears. The temptation will be to build more flats than we should like to see, and I am sure we all realise that is a danger which has to be guarded against."
I read that passage now, my Lords, to make it clear that I am sure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is at one with all of us in his appreciation of the danger. He allayed our misgivings on the Second Reading of the 1946 Act by telling us that there would be an overriding density of thirty-five flats to the acre—I am not suggesting that the noble Viscount gave a pledge that there would be a regulation or anything of that sort. And he made it clear that there must be exceptional densities for exceptional cases. His sympathy with our misgivings was proved by the fact that he was good enough to accept an Amendment which I moved, which dealt with the technical language of the Act—which I thought indicated a definite preference for flats. I was assured that there was no such preference, and the noble Viscount omitted the provision. But the fact remains that the 1946 scale was framed on the basis of the erection of flats at a density of thirty-five to the acre; and the
956
subsidies were supposed to be such as to enable the dwellings to be let at rents which the tenants could afford to pay. The target of rent was 10s. for houses, and 12s. for flats—exclusive, of course, of rates. The higher density was to be exceptional. But these hopes have been falsified by events. What was to be exceptional has become the common practice. Everywhere these great blocks of flats are going up because the local authorities are under this tremendous pressure to cram everybody in that they can possibly find room for.
I desire to express my fullest sympathy both with the Government and with the local authorities. The responsibility for housing is divided. The Government provide three-quarters of the money, while the local authorities undertake the housing and find a quarter of the money. Local authorities are the people who feel the pressure. It is to the housing offices of the local authorities that people go with stories, only too well founded, of frightful hardship. They cannot find anywhere to live, and as a result of their pathetic stories the local authorities feel that they must cram people in, even if it means unlimited ten-storey blocks of fiats. Consequently, if I appear critical —and I am going to be critical of the Government—I hope they will realise that I do understand the difficulty. I am critical only because I want to try to be helpful. I am certain that we are going wrong and I think it is important, believing as I do that we are heading straight for disaster, that I should utter a word of warning. The basic fact with which we have to deal—and this ought to be trumpeted from the house-tops—is that more people want to live in London than is possible without a gross overcrowding That is fundamental.
What is happening? Look at what is actually happening under the 1946 Act. I will give your Lordships an example of what is happening in Holborn. The Holborn Borough Council built on land which cost £60,000 an acre—they had two acres which cost £120,000. On this site they put flats at a density of eighty flats to the acre. I am going to give your Lordships the actual costs because I think they are really startling and shocking. The actual cost at £60,000 an acre and eighty flats to the acre is £740 per flat for the site. Building costs, in addition, £2,440. The actual cost of those flats in

957
Holborn is £3,180 per flat. The subsidy payable under the 1946 scale is: Exchequer, £78 5s.; local authority, £27 5s.; total £125 10s. for sixty years. Capitalised at 3 per cent., this is equal to £2,919 per flat. Your Lordships will understand that I am not giving you the amount of money that is to be spent, because by multiplying £125 10s. by eighty for the flats and by sixty for the years, you arrive at something over £500,000. I can give your Lordships the capitalised cost at 3 per cent., which is much smaller: it is £2,919 per flat. Even so, multiplied by eighty it works out at £233,000, the capital value of the subsidy' of public money on that one block of flats. In addition, of course, there is another concealed subsidy because the Government are lending money to local authorities at 3 per cent. which they are having now to raise at 3½per cent. So there is ½ per cent. concealed subsidy in addition to this downright subsidy from public money.
Your Lordships may like to know the rents which are payable for those flats. The average rent in this block of flats is 15s. 5d., and the rates for 1949–50 were 9s. So rent plus rates is 24s. 3d. En addition there is a charge for heating and water which works out at 7s. 8d., so the total that the perhaps fortunate tenants pay for these flats in Holborn, including heating and water, is 32s. 1d. a week. That scale was amended by the 1949 Act. A clause was specifically introduced because the density was higher than the Government intended and it was recognised that the thing had gone wrong—in other words, that the misgivings which some of us had expressed had turned out to be right. The 1949 scale reduces subsidies for flats of a density of more than forty to the acre; increases subsidies for flats at densities of under thirty-five to the acre and gives increased subsidies for houses on expensive sites. Holborn, or anyone else, can still get—or rather not "get" because they pay some of it themselves, but still erect flats in London on land at £60,000 an acre with a subsidy capitalized at £2,919, but only if the flats are at forty to the acre. If they go up to eighty to the acre, the subsidy goes down to about £2,100. It is still, in my view, far too high, and I am quite sure that the new scale still unduly favours
958
flats as against houses and therefore militates against dispersal.
For comparison, take the case of the subsidy for a normal house which is to be put up in the country, and more of which will be put up to make dispersal effective. The normal house has 1,000 square feet, which is half as big again as the flat that I am talking about. The building costs about £1,400, land and sewers £200, totalling £1,600. The subsidy is: Exchequer, £16 10s. Od; local authority, £5 10s. Od; total £22 Capitalised et 3 per cent., that is £594. My Lords, 10,000 dwellings house somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 people, and on land at £60,000 an acre it costs in subsidy £30,000,000. If you say that is exceptional, what shall we take in London—£30,000 an acre? At £30,000 an acre, 10,000 dwellings cost in subsidy £20,000,000. At £10,000 an acre (which is a very common price for London boroughs to have to pay), it will be £16,000,000. That compares with the country town at £6,000,000. It shows the fallacy of the argument that houses in the country are more expensive because of development charges, rents and sewers and so on. There are ample millions available to look after that without the country building becoming anything like as expensive as the town.
My Lords, the comparison of the two scales is, I recognise, perhaps a matter for discussion between experts round the conference table, and I am not going to bother your Lordships with more figures. I repeat my assertion that the new scale is still pushing local authorities unduly into building flats rather than houses on medium priced land. There is the question of the Ministry of Health ceiling for approval. Every local authority scheme has to get the approval of the Ministry of Health, and as an average flat costs about £450 more than an average house, the ceiling has to be fixed higher for the flat scheme than for the house scheme. Therefore, you can get an excellent: scheme for houses a little bit over the ceiling for houses, which is miles under the ceiling for flats, but the local authority will not be allowed to put up houses, and will be forced to put up flats, possibly in spite of an inclination to the contrary. I am quite convinced that on marginal lands local authorities are being unnecessarily pushed into flats, swayed, of course,

959
by their sympathy with all the hard cases which come to their notice and this pressure to re-house everybody that they can.
My Lords, I say that the 1949 scale retains the extravagance of the 1946 scale. The exceptional is becoming the normal. Economic and social considerations are abandoned. The sole defence of this scheme is the pressure to cram people into London to the greatest possible extent. It is interesting to recall that formerly, before subsidy days, the distribution of houses or flats depended upon the cost of the land, and no doubt social considerations were sometimes overcome by financial considerations. Now economic and social considerations point the same way, But both are being disregarded because of the pressure to cram people into London. Moreover, as my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, said this afternoon, this subsidy scale is not producing dwellings at rents that people can pay. It is only tolerable because the local authority has the power to equate the rents of the old and new houses.
So, my Lords, that dispersal policy is failing, and if your Lordships doubt that, may I give you some figures recently published by what was the London Passenger Transport Board? There is a pamphlet called Social Aspects of Travel. This shows that passenger-miles are up 45 per cent. compared with the pre-war record. The Londoner now makes 510 journeys a year, compared with 436 in 1937; and the journeys are longer. The average journey to work costs 4s. 1d. a week, and takes forty-two minutes from door to door each way. Two and one-third millions of people make their daily work journey by public vehicle, and the cost of that is £24,000,000 a year. I know there is no such thing as the average man, but these are formidable figures. These work journeys use up 800,000,000 man-hours a year. That is worth, if you take average pay as 4s. an hour, £160,000,000 a year. That is a lot of money to pay for getting accommodation in London which, socially, is nothing like so good as accommodation dispersed throughout the country.
I believe that there are four reasons for the failure of the dispersal policy. First, there is the scale, as I have explained. In the second place, I do not
960
think that there has been enough push behind the new towns policy. At Welwyn Garden City, for example, very little building has been done in the last five years. Of course new towns have great difficulty in that they have fewer pre-war houses to equate with the post-war ones, and consequently their rents are very high. Thirdly, I think there has been failure to check the tendency to come into London. I do not know what has been done about industry, but I cannot help thinking that there should have been a policy whereby when some light industry, some factory or business, came to an end, other industry could have been prevented from going into that place. The Government have immense powers in the matter of allocation of industry and planning, and I think that perhaps those powers should have been used in that connection.
Fourthly—and perhaps most important of all—there is the general inflationary policy which the Government have followed. In 1945—these are official figures—the purchasing power of £1 was 20s. In 1950 it is 16s. 1d. That means that the cost of living is up to that extent, and that has a double effect on the housing situation—it both increases the demand for houses and renders them much more difficult to erect at rents which people can afford to pay. I feel that these high subsidies on expensive sites are themselves extremely inflationary. It is that spiral operation which is going on now and which makes me so anxious. I believe that it is rapidly leading to a serious financial position—I would almost say to financial ruin—though I agree that it is entirely contrary to the Government's intention that that is what is happening. Proof of how contrary it is to the Government's intentions I can give to your Lordships in the form of two very short quotations from the speeches of Ministers.
A few years ago Mr. Key, who I think was then Minister of Works and Building, said:
"Costs must come down; high subsidies must not be an incentive to maintaining high costs, and since we are determined that high costs shall be temporary high subsidies must be temporary too."
Lord Henderson, speaking in your Lordships' House in a Second Reading, debate, said:
"I stated earlier that the Exchequer subsidies provided in the Bill are very high, that

961
this is intended to be temporary and that the subsidies will be reviewed as soon as building costs begin to come down …. It is the Government's intention that both Exchequer subsidies and rate contribution shall be reduced at the earliest possible moment."
That makes very sad reading when we see that the purchasing power of the pound has fallen by 20 per cent., and rents and costs are going up each year.
What are we to do about it? Lord Macdonald, speaking earlier to-day, urged us to be constructive. Consequently I am going to do m best to indicate to your Lordships what I think is the only possible way of dealing with this really terrible situation. In the first place, the dispersal policy should be pursued with greater vigour. Surely the right thing to do is to cut to the root of the trouble by reducing the great pull of Landon. Is it not possible to have less centralisation in London of Government Departments with enormous likes and enormous staffs, and to take rower to prevent new industries coming into London? I do not know how many there are, but I am sure there are a great many new light industries in London. More important than anything perhaps is to reduce inflation. That means spending less. Do we mean to spend less on houses? Well, I am an enthusiast about housing and I do not like to spend less on it, but it is for the Government who are responsible for financial policy to tackle the priorities. I think it is clear that the Government, with the best will in the world, have been trying to do too much. It is clear that at the present time increased subsidies would do more harm than good. If that is agreed, it would be a wonderful thing if the Government could convince their own supporters of the fact that higher subsidies would do 'farm and not good. That would be the first step to the education of a large part of the electorate, and would perhaps convince them that the way to easier living is not by increasing expenditure but by reducing it. Surely the decrease in the purchasing power of the pound since 1945 is extraordinarily eloquent. I never knew of any medicine or any treatment which was intended to cure a disease which was not either nasty, in the case of the medicine, or painful in the case of the treatment. I do not know how many of your Lordships have had manipulative treatment. As we get older many of u; do and we go through a
962
great deal of pain and discomfort in order to get our joints made supple. We shall be flattering ourselves if we think that we can get out of our complicated condition without having to endure a great deal of discomfort and even pain. I fear that fact is not adequately realised.
If we cannot afford a greater investment in housing we must make the most adequate use of the three M's: men, money and materials. If we have only so much, it is folly to spend more than we need on these terribly expensive flats—a quarter of a million for one two-acre housing scheme in Holborn, for instance —when we could build five times the number of dwellings, better houses which people want more, oat in the country towns. I think the London borough councils, with whom I have a great sympathy, might be authorised by some central body to close their application lists. It is foolish to go on receiving new applications for houses. I understand that the real reason is that each London borough receives a small allocation of houses from the London County Council and that they have been told, by what power I know not, that if they close their application lists they will not be given an allocation of L.C.C. houses. I suggest that that is a minor point into which the Government might look.
I have one final suggestion to make which I venture to press on the Government. It has to do with rent restriction and subsidies. We are getting into a frightful tangle of rent: restriction. When rent restriction began, the position was that the better-off people were helping to subsidise the less well off, by the restriction on increases in rents. The same thing applies to subsidies. When subsidies began they came largely out of the pockets of the better-to-do for the benefit of the less well-to-do. The re-distribution of the national wealth has gone a long way since then and has made great changes. There are now immense anomalies covered by the Rent Act. The cost of building varied largely during two wars; and, more important than all perhaps, the Government, quite rightly, have now abandoned the principle that local authorities are to build only what they call working-class houses. Local authorities are now allowed.aid encouraged to build houses to make balanced communi-

963
ties. It means, taking one thing with another, that one large section of the public is privileged and sitting in subsidised houses which are paid for by another large section of the public, without any regard to which section has most money. People I know a good deal about, the black-coated workers—the sort of people who work in banks—are terribly hard pressed at the present time. They are having to pay out of their meagre margin large amounts for subsidies for people who in many cases are better off than they are.
A local authority can build a house up to 1,500 square feet in size, costing £2,500, and it will be subsidised, and a middle-income person renting such a house is subsidised. But the man who builds or buys his own house is not subsidised. I am fully aware of the value of houses to let. I know the importance of mobility of labour and I have never ceased to advocate that a large number of houses should be owned by local authorities and let at low rents in order to enable labour to move about. But, surely, ownership is important, too. It must be important to have a man with a pride in his own house. The one is not exclusive of the other but if the present system continues house ownership will be killed. At the present time, if you are a house-owner and your houses are let under the Rent Restrictions Act, you can sell those houses only at the investment value. If the occupier can succeed in buying his house he can at once make a large profit by selling it with vacant possession. Moreover, private rents are more or less pegged at values which reflect pre-1914–18 war building costs.
The point I want to press on the Government is that the time has now come when a very strong, high-powered Royal Commission should he appointed to go into the incidence of the benefit of subsidies and the whole question of rents and rent control. Every Party agrees as to what we want in housing: we know that the aim of policy is a decent home for every family at a rent they can afford to pay. It would be a tremendous advance if we ceased to bicker about it from a Party point of view and really settled on a policy which would give us some hope of achieving that. The most reverend Primate came very near to what I am
964
suggesting when he said that perhaps we ought to have a shift of subsidies. He referred to anomalies which had been quoted in the Economist. Two tremendously important new factors point in that direction. One is the fact that we are not building now at a cost which will allow current wages to pay the rents. That cannot go on, and it is possible only because the rents can be equated. Some day we will have to get down to bedrock and build houses at rents which the people can afford to pay. The other tremendous new factor is the Government's wise decision not to limit local authorities to building working-class houses. Surely there is room for a new high-powered examination of this question, under some wise chairman, possibly a great Judge who is accustomed to hear evidence, and an endeavour to put on record a new policy upon which all could agree and which will give some hope of release from the terrible difficulties with which we labour.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House always winds up our debates with great urbanity and courtesy. I hope he will forgive me if I say that sometimes I think he does fall a little into complacency. I am sure he is not complacent about the housing situation, but I am a little afraid that he may not take as seriously as I do the dangers of this scale of high subsidies and the dangers of inflation. I have some experience of two things, and one is London housing. I have been watching London housing for thirty years, and I think it is tragic that after all the effort that has been made and the money that has been spent we should be further off than ever from our objective. The other thing I know a little about is finance, and I beg the Government not to be so carried away with the easy benefits of inflation that they neglect the terrible dangers which are lurking in the background and which I am convinced, unless they are checked, will lead us soon to ruin.
9.17 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I intervene to refer to two speeches made this afternoon. My first intervention is to let the noble Lord who opened this debate know that there is some person other than the Minister of Health ready to say a good word for the Minister of Health.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am glad to hear that.
LORD CROOK: And my second is to try to follow some of the points made by the most reverend Primate the are bishop of York. I share his great interest in the slums and the slum problem. Indeed, my entry into the Labour Party as a youth of eighteen arose out of church work, in the course of which I saw many tragedies in, the slums of Lambeth and Kennington which left a deep and lasting impression on my mind. At that useful age I went into houses and found whole families crammed into each room, with a communal lavatory for all the families in the house. I saw a situation which called for practical Christianity and for Government intervention of high priority.
I went also to Scotland. I took tea in Scotland in a one-roomed house, and only those of your Lordships who have been into a one-roomed house in Scotland can know the horror of it. I took tea there, and I hated taking it. First of all, I had seen my hostess go to fill the kettle at the little place on the landing where six families shared the only lavatory and the only tap. To take my tea I sat at the table underneath the bed, and when tea was over we moved the table and the chairs, in order that, by turning the handle on the wail, the bed could he wound down to the floor and the family might sleep.
My memories of thirty years are very relevant, because those same places still exist and it would be wrong for us to forget that. They exist, not merely after five years of Government action, but after thirty years of Government opportunities to deal with those matters. I went to other places in Scotland where there were no lavatories inside the buildings; the only lavatory accommodation was the communal lavatory across a yard, where one went and queued. Those places are still there to-day after thirty years of Government opportunity to deal with them. I have been to Wales and seen the miners' cottages. They are still there to-day. I have been to Liverpool, to Cardiff, and to places all over the country to see what it was that Governments had to do. I took part for years in the agitation to get Government action to deal with houses through the roofs of which dripped water, houses which had never known a bath
966
and do not know one to this day. They are still there.
The most reverend Primate suggested that the problems of the slums and of overcrowded properties were well in hand when war came in 1939. I am sorry to disagree with the most reverend Primate, but when war came we had hardly started to tackle the majority of these problems. In order that my memory might he refreshed and that I might give authoritative information, I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the last main pre-war debate on housing in the other place in July, 1938, when it was admitted that old houses were still occupied and that large-scale rebuilding: and replanning of great industrial centres had not commenced. Mr. Walter Elliot, the Minister of Health of the day, admitted that building progress had been mainly concentrated on getting rid of unfit houses in a five-year programme. He said that the tackling of the problem of overcrowding had not yet been started—and I would remind your Lordships what overcrowding means. It is a technical definition, and not what Your Lordships would call overcrowding. It is not counting the number of rooms in which people could sleep; it is counting every room including kitchen and scullery. Any definition of overcrowding that your Lordships would offer would be a much heavier one. Mr. Elliot said:
"The programme is not within sight of completion."
He went on to say that he hoped that there would be a progress report within the next four years; so that by 1942, if we had not had a war, we might have had a progress report. In that debate also it was admitted in regard to agricultural housing—I quote the exact words:
"The lack of these houses is a potent factor in the difficulties of agriculture."
The Minister went on to remind the House that they could not expect too much; after all, this great National Government had only got the Act through in March, 1938. He added:
"I cannot point to visible results hut progress in actual building will follow."
Hopes—not completion, as the most reverend Primate thought.
If we go on to read the debate, we find that the L.C.C. Labour representatives sitting in the other place were very clear

967
what the problem in London was. It is no new problem to which the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has referred. They pointed out that many working-class families in London shared a house in 1939. Two out of three, I believe was the number. It was common for four or five families to be in a house where there was need to go through someone else's scullery or kitchen whenever one wanted to get water or to proceed to the lavatory. There were no facilities for food storage, or for cooking, except the gas stove on the landing. There were 50.000 underground illegally occupied rooms in London. That was the kind of situation which was still in existence in 1939—when the most reverend Primate thought that great progress had been made.
On the Minister's admission, that was a shortage which, at the existing rate of building, and if there had been no war, it would have taken anyone sixteen to seventeen years to overcome. How right the right reverend Primate was when he went on to say that there is deterioration in slum conditions! It was said in that debate by the representative of the London County Council that it was reckoned that, without anybody taking any action at all, 3,000 further houses a year would fall within the definition of slums in every year by the natural process of things.
When I looked a little further in the OFFICIAL REPORT and came to November 8, 1938, the date of the last King's Speech before the war, I saw the words:
"My Government will press forward with better housing.…"
The Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, dealt with this in the course of his speech. The better to inform your Lordships, I took a note of the words:
"The work of clearing the slums will go on."
said the Prime Minister:
"but it is not to be expected that we can at one and the same time embark upon an enormous armaments programme and vast projects of social improvements."
Your Lordships see the great difficulties of embarking at one and the same time upon housing and other great projects. May I ask myself: What was the position at that time? In just over twenty years there had been built 4,334,000
968
houses—let us say, roughly, 200,000 a year. It is in the light of the historic picture which I have tried to offer your Lordships that I must judge whether the Minister of Health can offer an explanation of his stewardship which I, as a Socialist, can find acceptable.
What are the criteria on which I must judge it? First of all, what were the facts of the position in 1945? What obstacles, if any, were there? There had been no repair or maintenance for five years. Houses destroyed or substantially damaged by enemy action numbered over 1,000,000. Of those, 210,000 had entirely disappeared and 250,000 more were completely uninhabitable. There had been during the war 2,500,000 marriages—2,500,000 additional couples entitled to look for new homes. Whatever noble Lords may think about the short supply of goods to-day, they will not deny that in 1945 timber, steel and bricks were it very short supply. Nor will they deny—because many noble Lords on both side of the House, including the noble Lord who moved the Motion, whose valuable services during the war we all recognise played important parts in the war effort —that the labour force of this country was re-deployed and that in 1945 less than one-third of the labour force of the building trades was there available.
There were factories to be rebuilt; there was the demand, the quite proper demand, that there should be an export trade, and factories were wanted for that. The Government, in dealing with housing, had to overcome all those difficulties. No man and no Government can perform miracles, but only a miracle can surmount the aftermath of the war and can cure in one period of five years the neglect of twenty-five years—indeed, fifty years before the war, longer than I have lived. If my criterion of judgment is by comparison with things abroad we have nothing to be ashamed of. America has not come so well out of the picture. America has had to abandon private enterprise in order to get on with some housing. Mr. Truman last year had to deliver a message on this. I see the noble Lord stretching for the report, but let me tell him that the message can be read by him in the Library. Mr. Truman in his message had to say that there had been a failure on the part of private enterprise to play its due part in housing,

969
and that subsidies must be provided to help municipalities to provide houses.
It has been said by Australia that if only there had been such effort to rehabilitate in housing in Australia—where with one small exception there had been no war damage—as there had been in the Mother Country, of which they were proud, they would not have had so many difficulties as they have had to face. The United Nations Economic Survey shows that Sweden alone, which has not known a war for 130 years, is a country which has beaten Great Britain in the production of houses since the war. So I say to myself: Am I, as a critical Socialist, satisfied? My answer is, of course: No, I cannot he satisfied until every family has its own house in this country. But on the criteria I have indicated, which I suggest are reasonable, I am more than satisfied with the results of the first four years at which I look in regard to the slum and housing problem.
The four years after the First Great War saw 220,000 houses built. In the first four years of the Government which I have been happy to support in recent years 550,000 have been built, to say nothing of the adaptation, conversion, repairs to war damage, and erection of temporary houses. Of course I am not content. I cannot be fully content until this country is completely conscious that the whole of the fabric of this nation's existence revolves around housing. How right the most reverend 'Primate was when he said that other things are mixed up with housing! Of course they are. There is our education, our health programme, the size of the police force we want to cope with the growth of juvenile delinquency. There are the problems relating to people who are driven into the streets became that is a better place for them, compared to the slums in which they have had to live for years, or who are driven to the pictures for warmth or comfort. Those things, I know, create additional problems which must be tackled firmly by all of us.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Population, showing us, as it does, the new longevity of the population owing to its better health, presupposes yet additional burdens to be thrown upon those responsible for housing the com-
970
mutiny of this country. The greater prosperity of the workers, many of them now knowing full life for the first time in fifteen years, means that they believe that they have a right to that which prosperity should bring them—namely, a better home than the one room in which they have been packed foe so many years of unemployment. These things bring new demands.
I should delude not only your Lordships but myself if I suggested that there were not grave and difficult problems to solve. While I do not agree with much that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh said, there is no doubt about the difficulty of London, and no doubt about the difficulty of finding land on which to put houses or flats in some parts of London. There is the problem of the mobility of the people; there is the problem of moving industry and all that that means into the newer areas. My Lords, the Minister of Health and the Government of the day have nothing of which to be ashamed in the record that they can offer to the 'public, and I, as a critical Socialist who does not agree on a large number of occasions with the Minister of Health, am ready to say that I think the account of.the stewardship that can be given to me is one that I can accept. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for initiating, this debate. I am grateful, if only because it has given me the chance to show him that the Minister of Health is not quite alone.
9.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in a prolonged debate in your Lordships' House, the last speaker before the Government reply, which I understand is to be given by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, must necessarily be short. I do not intend to detain your Lordships for any length of time, but as one who can very seldom attend the debates in your Lordships' House, owing to the calls of administrative local Government work in the North of England, I feel that I can make some contribution to this debate on housing., and particularly in regard to housing in the rural areas.
In view of the provisions of the Housing Act of 1949, as your Lordships know, a study of conditions in rural areas is appropriate to any district—except perhaps those to which my noble friend

971
Lord Balfour of Burleigh referred, the Metropolitan area, the large industrial areas and our great cities. Except in those areas, all housing authorities have now been vested with the functions that were previously, under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, the exclusive province of the rural housing authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, has given us a personal account of his knowledge of the housing conditions which have existed during this century. I could give your Lordships similar information, for I started work in social service as a probation officer, and to-day I have close contacts with members of that profession. Moreover, as one who deals with many of the mental hospitals and institutions of this country, I can fully and thoroughly support what he has said. I also support what the most reverend Primate has said by way of indictment of some of the conditions which exist to-day, and of the Government's inability to provide enough houses. Looking at this matter from a non-Party angle, as one who is engaged in social work, I would remind Lord Crook that in the last twenty-five years there has been slow but steady progress. In the case of those areas which can best be described as rural, it was the present Government who repealed the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, an action which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has rightly described as a betrayal of trust to many agricultural workers, who at that time were suffering from similar conditions to the slum conditions which are unfortunately only too well known in some of our larger towns.
I want to-night to use the time available to me in a manner which I hope may be regarded as constructive. We all know that since 1944 the emphasis in relation to housing has been upon new houses. There has been a lapse of some ten years in which, owing to the lack of major repair work, a gradual and inevitable deterioration has occurred in the structure of property. This period, after all, is a good slice out of the life of any house. I am informed that the latest figures available for rural England and Wales—omitting those houses built in rural areas in 1944—show that there were more than 1,500,000 people living in rural houses which were built more than thirty years ago. Therefore, that figure taken with
972
the figure that has been mentioned to your Lordships of an overall building of 200,000 a year, must necessarily be significant. I would remind your Lordships that as long ago as 1944 the Third Report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Hobhouse, made some important recommendations. I am not going through these recommendations, except to say that one of them initiated the plan subsequently adopted by the Minister of Health, that every county should make a further and comprehensive survey of housing conditions on a long-term basis.
That survey has been completed by the greater number of county authorities in the country. Your Lordships must be aware of the terms on which the survey was made and of the classification of houses. Category I covered houses satisfactory in all respects; category 2 houses which had only minor defects; category 3 houses requiring repair, structural alteration or improvement: and category 4 houses appropriate for reconditioning. The last category covered houses unsatisfactory for habitation and beyond repair at a reasonable expense. Thirty-four counties have now completed that survey. What do they find? They find that out of the total number of 1,268,000 houses to be surveyed, of which already 777,000 have been surveyed, 421,000 or 54 per cent., fall within categories I and 2, requiring minor repairs and suffering from minor defects. Categories 3 and 4 (houses requiring structural alterations and houses suitable for reconditioning) number 33 per cent., and those unsuitable for habitation are 11 per cent.
There are provisions in Part II of the 1949 Act which enable local authorities not only to obtain but to grant to a private owner improvement grants for the reconditioning of houses. I have reason to think that so far as the northern region is concerned very little advantage has been taken of that provision since the 1949 Act found itself on the Statute Book. I should be glad if the noble Viscount would give me some indication of the number of authorities that have permitted private owners to make application for grants under this provision. The figures represent a simple picture. I submit that unless major repair work is executed in

973
order to arrest further deterioration many houses now classified as requiring structural alteration will soon be relegated to the unfit category. If that is permitted to happen, instead of having 11–14 per cent. of the total number of houses in rural areas issued with demolition orders or closed as unfit for habitation, the proportion will be very much higher.
That leads me to say that the problem facing a rural local authority is not merely the deficiency in the quota of new houses. Even if the quota were increased by, say, 25 per cent, as my noble friend Lord Llewellin and other noble Lords have strongly urged—and they have substantiated by sound argument that it is possible to do it by improving the supply of labour and materials, in particular softwoods from abroad—there would still be a great number of persons in the lower income groups unable to pay the rents, which average 19s. to 20s.
Your Lordships will be aware that in many country areas and market towns there are Agricultural workers, and others engaged in kindred industries, who are at present paying from 6s. to 7s. a week for their cottages, as opposed to 19s. or 20s. I found in my own area that the average rental of my cottage property is 6s. a week, or £14 a year. The average rental of property owned by the local authority of which I am chairman is now £29 10s. 0d. a year. In my case the average rateable value is in the neighbourhood of £6 a year, and in the case of the council houses £14 a year. The consequence is that, although I have not been permitted by Statute to do the repairs that otherwise I would do, and my houses cannot he compared favourably with the modern council house, I have as many applicants on my private estate list as are on the council's list, if not more, because the houses are cheaper. Moreover, often in those structually well-built houses, which are deficient in bathrooms and sanitation, there is an outside shed which 'permits one from the country-side to keep chickens or pigs. So the problem is not one merely of raising the quota of new houses, but also of reconditioning old houses in rural areas.
The section of the Act relating to this point stipulates that not less than £100 and not more than £600 can be expended on such a dwelling. The average cost of putting in a bath-
974
room with sanitation is approximately £200. Many houses of the type for which one wishes to take advantage of this section also require some other improvement; or if not improvement, they require repair. But the Act lays down that the total overall cost of improvements must not exceed the ceiling limit of £600, which includes the cost of any repairs that may be necessary to the roof, the architect's fees and the development charge. The result, in my experience is that time after time the local authority do not receive the assistance of private owners who are willing, and often anxious, to take advantage of this Act, simply because the sixteen points required to bring the house up to a standard required by the Act are such that it cannot be done within the £600 ceiling. If this reconditioning is to be complementary to tie new housing, as noble Lords have emphasised it should be surely it would be a sound economy for His Majesty's Government to consider at an early date raising that ceiling for subsidy. That would enable more effective improvements to be made at a time when, if they are not made, the houses will fall into the lowest category of being "unfit." That is the main point I wish to make to your Lordships on 111.s occasion. The others I will not press at this time, because your Lordships will be waiting for the Leader of the House to reply.
9.52 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I think this is the fourth time that I have been called upon to reply to a debate on housing. That speaks for itself. But that is by no means comprehensive so far as my own painful experience of this problem is concerned. It is more than thirty years ago since I embarked on this enterprise. This debate does reveal, I think, the changing character and the extent of the problem, and I will refer to some of those features in a few minutes. There are really two questions before us. The first is the magnitude of the problem and the various devices which may be required for dealing with it. The second question is whether the Government have done as much as they could in this respect. Now that is quite a different question. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has addressed himself manly to the second question, but you cannot deal with the

975
second question without having some recognition of the first. I remember that in the year 1919, before I became accustomed to derision on this subject (because foolish people expected that houses would grow up like mushrooms in a night) I incurred much derision in the House of Commons one day when some Member, not of the noble Lord's mind but of his Party, asked me when I thought I should get the slum problem cleared up, or words to that effect, and I replied: "If we have made a good start in twenty years, I shall be gratified." In their various ways different Governments have been doing something or other—some of them more than others. Some have left it largely to private enterprise, and some have done more themselves. Yet we are still here, thirty years after, with all these stories before us—and they are true stories.
But it is not quite the same problem; it has changed its character. I will come to that in a moment. I want to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said. He is not quite correct in his review or summary of the position in London. I was Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch in 1910; and in 1907, 1903 and 1909 I had been engaged with some others in ascertaining the housing conditions of the people in that district. A report was published. It was an appalling document. It revealed that in many streets of large numbers of houses there was an average of six families per house. Bad as it is in Holborn, it is not as bad as that—nothing like so bad. I am not in the least minimising the matter; but I believe that the density per acre in these London boroughs has been much reduced in the last thirty years. But in one sense that does not affect the point raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He said, and quite rightly, that there is a demand by people to live in London. Partly, of course, that demand is intensified by the expense of living out of London if their work is here. But living in London has its attraction, unfortunate as it may be and though Cobbett wrote of it as he did. For all that, however, the population of inner London, as we know, has very much declined.
But what I was interested in—and I am not saying this in the least in any Party
976
spirit—was that the noble Lord wanted to know what the Government can do to, shall we say, inhibit the development of minor industries in particular, in districts such as Holborn. Well, my Lords, we have done a great deal by encouraging financially, at great cost, the building of factories in development areas all over the country—inhibiting expenditure even on bombed areas because of the necessity of using building labour in other ways. I should like noble Lords opposite to bear this in mind: that if they want the Government to prevent industries, great or small, coming into centres of population such as London, they cannot ask us to do that one day and then complain of controls the next. That simply will not do. You cannot achieve that object unless you are prepared to exercise very drastic controls. I am not drawing any conclusion: I am stating a fact.
But we have done a great deal, I think, in this connection, though it has not gone very far yet. The noble Lord did not think that the dispersal programme was making as good progress as it ought. I am not prepared to contradict him, because I do not know the facts; but the New Towns Act was passed only in 1946. You cannot start a new town, survey it, plan it, make the roads, and all the rest of it, quickly—though some no doubt get on more quickly than others. But it is not a question of a year or two; it is going to be a question of a considerable number of years, at the best, before this process of encouraging new towns can have a material effect upon our great centres of population. I am not in the least denying what the noble Lord said. Very likely the programme is not making as rapid progress as he or we would like. Perhaps not—I do not know. In any case, however, it will take a considerable time.
Then I turn to what he said about rent restriction and subsidies, and his important and valuable suggestion upon that subject to which I know he will not expect me to reply now. But I will say that we will certainly look into it carefully. I want to make one or two remarks regarding a point which has been dragged into this debate—namely, that the pound has declined in value to 16s. The dollar has gone down more than the pound and, so far as the franc is concerned, that coin has just sky-rocketed; and good-

977
ness knows where the lira is! Do let us be fair, even to a Socialist Government. We are entitled to some measure of fairness. When we find that the purchasing power of the dollar has diminished even more than the purchasing power of the pound, I am entitled to point out these facts. At all events, so far as this particular debate is concerned, I suggest that that matter has very little relevance.
I will now come closer to the subject. We have had some rather interesting statements. I believe, though I am not quite sure, that it was the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, who accused us of complacency. Then somebody else said that we could have a revolution in method in five years. It was also said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that a change of attitude was required. Those are disconcerting phrases, but I wonder what on earth they mean. What is this change of attitude? I will come to the facts in a minute. This kind of statement does not take us forward at all. I am quite sure that if the noble Earl opposite had been on this Bench he would not have beer able to do any more. I am absolutely certain of that. Only a small contribution is being made to the solution of this immense task. I know it will take many years to complete it at this rate of progress, or even at a little faster rate. It is no good burking the facts. That is true. I will never blame any Government for not solving the housing problem in a year or two. If this present rate of progress continues at 200,000 houses a year for the next generation, then we shall really have begun to make a considerable impression upon the problem. That is the kind of problem it is. Do not let us take too narrow and small a view of it. You cannot blame this Government or any other Government because they have not solved this problem in a year or two. Let us look at the facts for a minute. The general case of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was—and he knows that I am the last person to try to misrepresent him—that we had not put enough energy into solving this problem.
LORD LL EWELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: And that we were displaying complacency about it. Let us have a look at the facts. The figures have been given me since this afternoon, and I find that, up to April 30 of this year, there were 231,000 building
978
workers with 22,000 others—engineers and others, associated therewith—employed in building houses. That is, there were about 253,000 employed in building houses. In August last year there were 252,000 employed on repairing houses. Does the noble Lord want us to take any of those people off the repair work? The figure given to us was that a million houses had been destroyed or very badly damaged, and, I believe, nearly 500,000 completely destroyed during the war. One has only to go along any street in London to see what is required in repair work. Everywhere you go you will see scaffolding and painters, or workmen of one kind, and, looking at any rate at'. He outside, I must say it is marvellous how they transform the appearance of some of these places which have not had a touch of paint for Um years or more.
Large numbers of these houses are damaged. If noble Lords want us to devote more labour to building new houses, I want to know whether they wish is to take away labour from repairing and making good damaged and neglected houses? My Lords, the answer to that is silence; of course they do not. They would not dare to suggest it. These poor people have been wanting for years and years to get their houses touched up and repaired, and we are at last making some progress. As we know, there is much more to be done; miles of streets have still to be repaired. We have 252,000 workers employed in that sort of work.
What else is being Cone? There is the building of new factories, new power stations, schools, hospitals and all kinds of other work. Last year the capital investment programme of this country was £2,200,000,000. What are noble Lords going to chop off? Are they going to have fewer power stations and more houses? Are they going to have fewer factories to make goods for export to the United States? Are they going to build fewer factories in the development areas? What are they going to do? I am entitled to ask that question, because we are accused that we are not doing the job properly. I contend that the noble Lord himself will not dare to suggest that any of these power stations are superfluous. He will not suggest that we do not need these new factories improve our methods of production. He will not suggest that we do not need new plant in

979
the mines, and all the rest of it. He will not do that, because he knows perfectly well that these things are all required. Houses, too, are required. They are all required as a result of a long war; and, if I may say so sotto voce, one reason why we require some of these factories is because we had twenty years of Tory government before the war. That is another of the reasons why all these things are required.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is just what we did not have. The noble Viscount often forgets that the Labour Government were in power for three of those years before the war.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I was in the House of Commons and I knew who ruled this country from 1923, except for two short hiatuses. It was for more than twenty years. Perhaps I ought not to pursue that subject. It was just a little friendly gesture, and I know the noble Lord will not take it amiss. As a matter of fact, we should not now have to do all this work at the mines, the power stations and other places if an enlightened policy had been followed in these matters during past years. These things are required now—that we shall all agree. There are these bodies of building labour to which reference has been made—253,000 men, more or less, employed on building houses of one sort or another, 252,000 employed in repairing, and the rest working on the building of factories, and so on. I ask noble Lords opposite which of the latter two forces they would reduce in order to put more workers on to new housing. I am entitled to ask that question, but I am perfectly certain there will he no reply to it. All these men are required for their jobs. That is the reason why there cannot be a diversion. It will take us years and years to catch up. I would not blame any Government just because they did not catch up quickly. After all, in one way or another, taking into account new houses, prefabricated dwellings of different kinds,' and so on, more than a million new homes, I am informed, have been provided since the war. That is a substantial contribution to the solution of the problem.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That figure includes Nissen huts, I take it?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: About 170,000 homes are included in that figure which are called temporary. The figure does not include Nissen huts unless they are in permanent use as dwellings.
LORD WOLVERTON: It does include Service camps, does it not?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If noble Lords want the figures I have them here. The figure for new houses in England and Wales is 612,859, and for Scotland it is 73,160. Then the balance—various other kinds of houses—is made up by 165.000 in England and 29,000 in Scotland. So your Lordships will see that there is a very substantial number of pre-fabricated or temporary houses. This represents a great effort of new house building. That is the number of homes of one kind or another which are being provided, but I want to say at once that it is nothing like enough.
I come now to the point I was going to make. There has been a remarkable change in the demand. What would have satisfied the demand fifty years ago will not satisfy it to-day. What would have satisfied the demand twenty years ago will not satisfy it to-day. Those people who used to Eve six families in a house in Hoxton will not be satisfied with such conditions to-day—of course they will not, and we do not expect them to be satisfied. We should be ashamed of ourselves if we did. Young men and young women who get married to-day do not like to live with their "in-laws." If they can afford it they like to have a place of their own. But these new standards of life have completely altered the character of the demand. That is why an estimate made several years ago, of, say, a million houses required, is now clearly seen to be out of focus. The demand has grown even more quickly than the supply, and I think it will continue to do so for some considerable time.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, raised a question about prejudicing some new method of building houses. I should think that the fact that the London County Council appear to have given a contract for a hundred dwellings of this sort is very encouraging. I would tell the noble Lord frankly that I myself have had rather painful experience more than once of these exceedingly promising methods of fabricating houses. On the whole, they have not been as satisfactory

981
as we should like. I think that is what lies behind the question the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, put just now, but he knows as well as I that people do not like these houses so well as they like a permanent house, although that is no reason why any method should not he looked into and given every facility it justifies.
LORD MONTAGU on BEAULIEU: My Lords it is a completely permanent house that is being built. This system has been in operation for the last five years and the London County Council have just begun to realise it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not wish to decry these houses but I exhort the noble Lord not to.3e too sanguine. If they are as good as he says, I sincerely hope they will be encouraged. I do not think that a case has been made that the Government have been neglectful. We are spending an unprecedented amount of money on housing. I wish we did not have to spend so much. I think that high costs are the worst feature of die problem—I frankly admit it. If we could devise anything to reduce costs, that would be the greatest contribution to the solution of the housing problem. Everybody wants to deal with it. I have listened to all that has been said and undertake that any suggestion made will be carefully considered.
Taking one thing with another, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has made a strong case about the neglect of the Government. Considering where we started from in 1945, I think that on the whole a very great effort has been made. Any suggestion he or 'anybody else ea make for improving or expediting our progress will be gladly welcomed. In the meantime, I am not in an apologetic frame of mind.
10.18 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we have had one of those typical "windups" from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. He finished by saying that he is not in an apologetic frame of mind. So far as I can understand his speech, he expects this rate of 200.000 houses a year to go on for a generation—and no more. That absolutely appals me.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say "and no more." I said that it will go on at least for a generation. I did not say "and no more." That remains to be seen.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lori said neither "at least" nor "and no more." I want to put things in their right perspective, and I put those words into the noble Viscount's mouth to draw from him whether he contemplated 200,000 or more than that. I am delighted to get from him this last admission that he will not be content with a rate of 200,000 houses a year going on for thirty years and that he has ambitions to get more. The only difference between us is that I want more now; I do not wart to wait for ten, fifteen, or thirty years to get above that 200,000 target.
I was not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, rose to speak to-day. It was clear that, having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, the Government had to get someone else up from that side of the House.
LORD CROOK: The noble Lord will be aware that my name was on the list of speakers as long ago as yesterday.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Yes. But I knew before then that the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, was to speak, and I have no doubt that the noble Lords who are Lords in Waiting were equally well informed. I am sure that they were delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, was in his place. He seemed to be quite content with the present rate of progress, and I presume that he still is. Yet he got up and described himself (if I may so call it) as tie "Lord Critical Crook." I must say that after his speech I was more inclined to entitle him the "Lord Conforming and Complacent Crook." At any rate, the noble Lord, made a good speech from his point of view.
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison., has challenged me as to what I would de away with. He mentioned, somewhat. extraneously, if I may say so, mining; machinery improvements. That subject. does not seem to me to have a great deal to do with house building. However, I will tell the noble Viscount that one of the main difficulties about some of the improvements to the coal mines (the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, knows this well) was that of persuading a large number of mineworkers to have the machinery in the mines. That is at any rate one of the matters with which, I am glad to say, we are keeping pace. The noble Viscount then talked about electric power stations.

983
We had all the electric power we wanted before the war, and it is only because greater uses have been made of power since the war that we need this additional programme. However, I am not saying that we ought to cease building these electric power stations. The noble Viscount did challenge me as to what I would cut out, and said that he did not expect to get an answer. He will get one here and now. I say that we should cut out the large bureaucratic buildings, the vast Government offices that are going up near Earl's Court and near Guildford, and elsewhere over the countryside, to house officials to look after forms. I say that the people building them would be far better occupied building houses for the people of this country.
I hope that as a result of this debate full inquiry will be made by the Government into the softwood timber position. I am certain that if something is not done we shall run into trouble in that respect.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I was given a note which I should have read in relation to the noble Lord's inquiry. It is to the effect that the timber stocks were given in the last number of the Housing Return of March 31.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Viscount has anticipated me. I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, could not remain, and he asked me, if I intended to be critical of him, to say what I had to say. I said that there was one thing about which I was going to be very critical, and I asked for certain figures. The noble Lord said that it would be against public interest to give the figures for which I asked. I was then completely unaware that the figures of our timber stocks, and the amounts we get from each country, are given every quarter in the Housing Return, and that it would be only three weeks after the end of June before we had the quarterly figures down to the end of June, on which I was asking for advance information to-day. I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to take this quite seriously. Too often the quick answer is given that the figures cannot be given because it would not be in the public interest. I was not asking for anything which is outside the public interest, be-
984
cause they are given every quarter, and in a month's time we shall get the very figures for which I asked. I should like an inquiry made as to why the noble Lord was advised to give that answer to me to-day, when I think I was entitled to the figures.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly inquire.
LORD LLEWELLIN: With a departmental brief it is too easy to give that answer. In some cases it is perfectly right, but in a case like this I submit it is completely wrong. I hope that a searching inquiry will be made by the President of the Board of Trade, under whom the Timber Control comes, as to how they are getting on. I believe that the only way may be to spend some extra Canadian dollars—it would not be many —so that we may be able to see our way through.
It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, prides himself that the Timber Control bought more cheaply than the foreign buyers buying against them. I want to see the timber bought as cheaply as possible, but I am told by the timber trade that the timber is sold in lots, and that the lots with the better sizes go for more money. In many cases I believe that is what the foreign buyers have bought, and we have come in for the tail-end lots. As this is so vital to our housing problem, I hope that a Minister will inquire what the Timber Control have bought, because I am pretty certain that we have not bought enough this year. I hope that somebody else will look into the question of whether the Forestry Commission ought not to be allowed to seek free tender between the Ministry of Works and some outside firm when building their houses, in order to keep a better check than appears to be done on the Ministry of Works mobile labour force.
LORD MORRISON: To the best of my information, the mobile labour force of the Ministry of Works has built houses for the Forestry Commission only when no other contractor, either local or national, could be found to put in a tender.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I may be wrong, but I understood that it was by Ministerial decision.
LORD MORRISON: The point which my noble friend Lord Quibell took was that he thought the: Forestry Commission ought to have its own housing department to built its own houses.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I see. If his figures were right—,and I have not the slightest doubt they were—it seems that that mobile force is not setting a very good example of cheap building to the ordinary,builders of the country. Perhaps the noble Lord who is at the Ministry of Works will take an acute, and, if I may say so, a Scottish look, into that particular problem.
The other thing that I hope will be followed up as a result of this debate is the question why these employers and employees who want to work overtime are being stopped by some national or local body. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said that he wanted the greatest amount of consultation between the employers and the employees. I am all for that myself. But in the case that I raised in fact the employees were consulted, because they were interested in the subject and they wanted to work this extra time an the site I mentioned. Now they are saying, "What is the use of these consultations if, when w have gone through them and agreed, someone from above damps it all down?" That is the kind of thing that the Government, if they are really in
986
earnest about pushing forward this programme, should see is properly dealt with by means of the influence that they can bring to bear—and a very strong influence it is—through the Ministry of Labour and others.
One thing at least think we have done to-day has been to make noble Lords opposite, even if they will not go into a white sheet (although I never asked for that), deny the imputation that they are lacking in energy, or are in any way complacent about this housing problem. I think we have given much food for thought to noble Loris opposite, and I hope that they will bring these things home to their colleagues who are in charge of the Departments concerned. If they do that, we shall have achieved something by our debate to-day. And if I, for my part, have achieved something, I am content now to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CARDIFF EXTENSION BILL TOWYN TREWAN COMMON BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eleven o'clock.